Thursday, February 15, 2018

How Increased Representation of Asians in Elite Institutions Might be Useful for White National Liberationists

Here is a 4D chess move idea.

It might be advantageous for the Alt Right and White National Liberators to push for ending anti-Asian ‘affirmative action’ policies in elite colleges. Greater Asian representation in upper echelons of privilege might aid the cause of White Racial Emancipation from Globalist Supremacism IF more Asians took over the commanding heights of power and privilege.

Why?

As John Derbyshire once explained, the Jewish takeover of elite institutions went almost unnoticed because Jews are a subgroup of the White Race. Though distinct in ethnicity and religion, most Jews are largely European and even their Semitic side is Caucasian. Steve Jobs, half-European-American and half Lebanese-Caucasian, hardly looked different from other whites. Jewish mixture of European blood and Semitic blood is similar to that of Steve Jobs. So, Jews could play it both ways. They could pose as white and non-white. Their white side mingled and assimilated with white gentiles, especially in elite institutions where their intellect was admired. Also elite social domains are more manner-centric, and as such, even whites who didn’t like Jews couldn’t just blurt out epithets and make a scene, like working class ‘Polacks’, ‘dagos’, or ‘schvartzes’ might belittle lowly Jews in the mean streets.
Also, Jewishness gained a cachet of holiness with the elevation of the Holocaust Narrative to a secular religion. So, not only could Jews pass as whites but their ascendancy could hardly be blocked once the Holocaust narrative became sacrosanct in American consciousness. Saying NO to Jews might be like attaching yellow stars on Jews in Nazi-occupied territories.

In contrast, Asians will always be seen as Asian even if they work hard, succeed, and rise to the top. Asians won't be able to pass as whites. When whites(and blacks and Mesos) see so many Asians on top, they will be less likely to submit to the Globalist Plan. Globalism led by Jews is almost untouchable because Jews, as a Holy People, are untouchable. Anything associated with Jews is protected by a Taboo Shield. However, with more Asians visible in elite circles of power, Globalism will not only seem more alien to most Americans but will be open to more criticism for being associated with Ming the Merciless and Fu Manchu. If the Jew Taboo forbids criticism or condemnation of Jewish power and agenda, no such Taboo protects Asians and whatever their favored agendas may be. Indeed, given the amount of resentment and contempt that Americans feel toward Asians, anything associated with Asians might automatically be discredited. Asian elites may reach out to other minorities, but blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans will resent the fact that ASIANS have gained far more power and privilege than them. Despite anti-white animus among non-whites, it’s usually the case that blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims would rather see whites than Asians on top. At the very least, they are used to the idea of white man as overlord. It is a source of resentment but also assurance of continuity and stability, like sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Also, whites-on-top is useful as a perennial excuse for their own failures. White Privilege! But if Asians rise to the top, it means blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims can no longer blame whites as the source of their problems. After all, if Asians can make it in America, why can't they? (Btw, Asians are universally resented by all Americans because they lack the Cool Factor but got the School Factor. Celebrity-obsessed-America can accept handsome whites, tough blacks, funny Jews, and stylish homos as worthy winners because of their ‘popular’ appeal, but they have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that uncool, boring, dull, droopy, and lame Asians rise so high in elite institutions. It goes against the Law of Charismatics in the American Mind. Asians, a people so devoid of fabulous winner-qualities, don't deserve to win in life. Asian success violates the rule of celebrity.)

Also, while Jews are protected by the Shoah Cult, there isn’t much to feel guilty about when it comes to Asians. Sure, Chinese-Americans can mention the opium trade, but that was British and Jewish doing than American(even though the Roosevelt clan did make some big money). Filipinos can bitch about the American-Philippines War, but Filipinos hardly know their own history. Most Filos are clowns or whores. Besides, Filipinos tend to lag behind other Asians in rising to elite positions. As for Japanese-Americans, they’ve interbred so much with other Americans that they hardly exist as an Asian-American community. And even though there was the ‘internment’ thing during WWII, it wasn’t exactly the Shoah, and besides, the reticent Japanese-Americans haven’t been very savvy or forceful in pushing their own tragic narrative. There was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the Narrative says Japan attacked first, was allied with Nazi Germany, and did horrible things in China, so that evens it all out. Koreans in America may bring up the Korean War, but the consensus among dog-like Koreans is that the noble US bailed them out and saved them from communism(even though it had been US machinations that divided Korea and handed over half to Stalin). The Korean Left is now mostly into Diversity and Homomania.
Chinese-Americans may mention the hardship of railroad workers in the 19th century, but even after the KUNG FU series, Americans could hardly make themselves care about the boring and scrawny yellows. Asians just don’t inspire much guilt because yellow cake is even more boring than ‘white bread’. Americans like to feel guilty about special people. They like their guilt gilded.

So, White National Liberationists don’t have to worry much about Asians guilt-tripping them as pushy Jews and nasty blacks have done. Therefore, nationalist whites(and other non-Asians) will likely freely speak truth to Asian power. Notice how even Jewish-run media love to play Yellow Peril tropes. So, if Asians become prominent in elite circles, Americans can declare Open Season on elite power.

Also, Asians as new elites will be confused and bewildered because they are incapable of coming up with new paradigms. When Jews gained power over Wasps, they had the vision and daring to rewrite the narrative, change the rules of the game, replace the idols, and alter the themes. This Jewish remaking of American culture and ideas happened across the ideological spectrum, from the ‘right’(Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman) to the ‘left’(Noam Chomsky and Norman Mailer). And Jews produced prophetic figures like Bob Dylan.

In contrast, most of the new Asian elites will be dull yellow dogs of PC, able to follow up the ladder of success but overcome with paralysis upon reaching the top. After all, Asian drones never had an original or independent thought in their lives. They may be higher in IQ but are low in PQ or personality quotient.
As long as Asians follow the lead of Jews, homos, white cucks, and blacks, they have something to parrot and imitate in idea or style. But in the role of elites, they will be confused and lost without a will, vision, or agency of their own. It’s like Japanese investment in America in the 1980s turned into a total disaster as Japanese weren’t adept at operating outside their cultural milieu.

As for the Hindus, most Americans may find them amusing as Apu on THE SIMPSONS, but no one wants to live in Planet of the Apu. Pushy Jews are bad enough. The last thing Americans want is another pushy people insulting them and telling them what to do. So, if Hindus-as-elites push against whites, whites will be far more likely to push back hard. Also, as there is no Hindu Taboo and no Hindu counterpart of ADL, whites have an easier time with Apu than with the likes of Apatow.

With too many Yellows and Hindus in the upper echelons of power, it will be much easier for White National Liberationists to wage war on the Globalist Elite project.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Why Jews Turned Diversity into a Hate Cult & Why the Jew Taboo Preempts European Resistance to the Real Power behind Diversity


Jews, whites, and Diversity. A conundrum.

Jews use the Diversity Card to secure their Tribal Supremacist Power. Jews have elite power but are weak in numbers. As only 2% of the population, they feel vulnerable against the 98% that is gentile. So, Jewish rely on growing Diversity to create divisions among gentiles and to use non-whites against the diminishing white majority.

But there is a problem. Jews have a hard time making Diversity(masses of non-whites) love Jews. Mexicans and Asians are indifferent to Jews. Blacks tend to be hostile. Muslims even more so. Hindus will play every which way.
So, Diversity cannot side with Jews on the basis of love. Many non-whites see Jews as too rich, too powerful, or too corrupt. Many see the GOP as the bigger Israel First party.

So, if Jews can’t get Diversity on-board the Jewish train on the basis of love for Jews, the only option is on the basis of hatred toward whites. So, notice how PC made Nancy Pelosi’s grandchild feel ashamed of his whiteness. He wants to be of another race. Whites are made to hate their own kind, and non-whites are made to envy, resent, and hate whites, even as they want to be with whites and get stuff from whites.

Diversity is a Hate Cult. If Jews could have made non-whites love Jews, it might have been a sunnier cult. But Jews have failed to make most non-whites care much about Jews. If anything, plenty of non-whites just see Jews as the richest whites. Also, growing numbers of non-whites favor BDS over ADL.

So, the only way Diversity can be an effective tool of Jews is by making it into a hate campaign against whites. Unite non-whites under the banner of hatred against whites if it's impossible to unite them under the banner of love for Jews.

Anyone who knows anything should know that Jews use Diversity as a weapon against whites.
That being the case, the most natural thing for whites would be to call out on Jews for their anti-white hostility.
But, whites can’t because there’s this thing called the Jew Taboo.
The Jew Taboo decrees that Jews can never be accused or judged because Jews can never do wrong(and even if they do wrong, they are still right because they are above the law like God over man). The Jew Taboo assumes that Jews are a perfect people, always so wise, angelic, or tragic(as innocent victims of ‘rabid’ and ‘virulent’ ‘anti-Semites’).

So, given the pervasive, omnipresent power of the Jew Taboo, whites cannot call out on Jewish hostility toward whites. The Jew Taboo says Jews are incapable of doing anything vile, ugly, hateful, or evil. So, if whites feel that Jews are being hostile, the problem is in the minds of whites, and it is their obligation to purge their ‘paranoid’ minds of ‘nazi’-like suspicions. And if on occasion Jews do admit to their hostility, whites fully deserve the animus because whites are still the primary source of all the problems that plague the world. So, most times when Jews spit in the faces of whites, whites must make believe that Jews didn’t do it because accusing Jews of such dastardly deed would be ‘antisemitic’. And in the few cases when Jews do admit to spitting on white people’s faces, they were well-deserved because white people still have so much to atone for.

Since Jews are deemed holy and untouchable, whites can only say and do things that are complimentary of and beneficial to Jews. So, if Jews use Diversity — massive colonization of the West by non-whites who are taught to hate whites the moment they get off the boat — to undermine white power, pride, property, & heritage AND if whites are alarmed about the radical transformation of their lands, whites must never blame Jews and instead frame their complaint in such a way as to exonerate Jews. So, even when Jews are the main culprits and whites feel compelled to vent their anger, whites must always be mindful that Jews cannot be named as the villain.
Imagine if a Jew punches you in the nose, and you are allowed to blame anything in the room except the Jew. So, you hurl your rage at chairs, tables, walls, various objects, and etc. as the reason why you have a bloody nose when, in fact, it was the Jew who smashed your nose. But the Jew Taboo prohibits you from naming the Jew. Doing so would be ‘antisemitic’, and then, you’d be a ‘nazi’. So, you try to convince yourself that you will be safer if you replace or dispose of the various objects in the room. But then, even after the room is transformed, you are punched in the nose again by the Jew, but again, you can’t name the Jew, so you once again repeat the cycle of blaming the anything in the room but the Jew. Or if indeed the Jew admits he punched you, it was surely your fault for standing in the way, in which case you most richly deserved it.

Since whites cannot blame Jews for the Diversity that is leading to Eurocalypse, what can whites do about the mounting threat to their race, culture, and lands?
The most that whites can do is argue against Diversity on grounds that it may harm or endanger Jews. Since the Jew Taboo says Jews are holy, the primary concern of whites must be the well-being of Jews. Whites must put Jewish interests and well-being before their own. It’s like Jews bitching about why white people weren’t so eager to sacrifice their own kids to save Jewish kids during WWII. Now, if a bunch of gentiles were being butchered by Nazis who, hypothetically speaking, had decided to leave Jews alone, does anyone think Jews would have been willing to sacrifice their own children to save the children of goyim? Did American Jews volunteer to save Ukrainians being slaughtered by the Bolshevik killing machine? If anything, a whole bunch of Jews were pro-communist and supported the oppression and mass killing of Christian Slavs. Jews don’t care about gentile lives, but Jews milked ‘Holocaust Guilt’ to make whites feel that they mainly exist as cattle to serve Jews, protect Jews, and even sacrifice themselves and their children for Jews. So, the relationship between whites and Jews is as follows: Jews have a right to put Jewish identity & interests first and foremost, and Jews are right to expect that gentiles will always be mindful to watch out for Jewish needs and wants, BUT whites have no right to put white identity & interests first, and if anything, they must be ready and willing to serve and even sacrifice themselves for Jews and on demand. This is why, even when Jews use Diversity against whites, whites can only oppose Diversity on the basis of protecting Jews from non-whites who may be less sympathetic to Jews and even ‘antisemitic’. And since it’s now well-known that Jews are wild about Homomania or Queertianity(as replacement for Christianity), whites must frame their anti-Diversity argument on the basis that non-whites, especially Muslims, may do harm not only to Jews but to homos. Never mind that Jews and Homos dominate the political power that calls for More Diversity.

Now, it may well be that certain elements of Diversity do indeed harm and even, on occasion, murder Jews. After all, there have been outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence in parts of France.
But overall, Jews see Diversity as a net advantage because it divides the gentile masses into warring factions, all the easier to manipulate and control the goyim via divide-and-rule. All said and done, most Jews came to the conclusion that Diversity is indispensable as a weapon to undermine white power so as to permanently secure Jewish supremacism in the West.

Because of the Jew Taboo, this obvious truth cannot be spelled out. The most that white people can do is try to justify their anti-Diversity position on the basis of working desperately to save Jews from non-white ‘anti-Semites’ who might bring upon the New Holocaust. Of course, Jews are laughing at the stupid, pathetic white goyim.

To better illustrate the point above, imagine a Jewish guy grabbing a mallet and clobbering a white guy in the head. The most obvious thing would be for the white guy to call foul on the Jewish guy hitting him on the head. But that simply isn’t an option because the Jew Taboo says Jews are always holy and innocent. So, the only recourse for the white guy is to condemn the mallet on grounds that it may sprain the Jew’s precious wrist. Never mind his own aching skull from being hit on the head by the Jewish guy. Never mind the Jewish guy hit him with malice and contempt. Never mind the Jewish guy sadistically gloats over the harm done to the white guy. Despite the virulent hatred felt by the Jewish guy toward the white guy, the latter’s main concern must be for the well-being of the Jew because, of course, Jews are so holy. So, instead of accusing the Jew, the white guy condemns the mallet, and not so much for the harm it did to his head but the harm it might do to the Jewish guy’s wrist(in hitting him many more times). Of course, the white guy gets hit harder and harder by the Jewish guy because no one, especially a vicious Jew, respects a cowardly craven stupid servile cuck.

Monday, February 5, 2018

Why We Need to be Vigilant of the Power of the TEMPLATE


Some on the Patriotic Right fret about the corrosive effects of Cult of White Guilt, but it’s actually a secondary problem flowing from a much bigger one, namely the power of the TEMPLATE.

The Template decides who are approved & who can accuse as opposed to who are accused & who must atone.

But once the Template is smashed, it doesn’t matter what people believe as individuals. The personal consciences of individuals matter only in relation to the condemnation or consecration by the Template held by the Power. Why does one’s personal views and feelings about Jews matter in America but one’s views and feelings about Buddhists don’t? It’s because the Template protects and favors Jews but is utterly indifferent about Buddhists. So, a person can love or hate Buddhists, and it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. Neither loving nor hating Buddhists is either an advantage or a disadvantage. The Template just doesn’t care. But if one’s feelings about Jews were made known, it’d have serious consequences on the social, economic, and political level because Jews are so central to the Template.

Take communism in East Germany. As long as the System was in place, the Template was “Marxism-Leninism is the eternal truth, and good communists are on the side of angels, and it is their right and duty to accuse and expose anti-communist heretics.”
Under the System, the pro-communists could accuse and condemn anyone deemed anti-communist. They didn’t need to explain or justify their feelings and actions. The System ensured its supporters to take for granted the infallibility of Marxism-Leninism. All they had to do was point fingers and accuse. Destroy the enemy and feel justified as good comrades. As for the accused, they had to either deny the charges of anti-communism or defy the system with all the courage they could muster(and almost invariably pay a heavy price). The System enforced the Marxist-Leninist Template. Even if we were to suppose everyone in East Germany, communist and anti-communist alike, was motivated by the purest ideals and principles, what ultimately decided their fate was not their individual consciences but the Template that had the power to choose winners and losers.

But once the System came tumbling down in East Germany, it no longer mattered if there remained hardline communists or Marxist true believers. The System no longer existed to protect and favor them. Whether few or many, they were now all alone to make their case without the System enforcing the Template in their favor.

Also, their accusations no longer carried any weight. They suddenly lacked the power to affect the lives of others because the Template no longer existed to lend them support against others. If anything, there was the sudden realization that their power had been illusory. Because they could destroy other lives under communism, they’d been lulled into believing that their personal sense of righteousness, in and of itself, had the force of history. But in fact, it had been the systemic wind behind their backs that had created the impression of having agency in history.
It’s like Christians in a Christian Order may feel empowered by Faith alone. After all, the Christian Faithful feel blessed in a Christian system that favors their kind. One could easily overlook the crucial role of the system and believe in God as the source of one’s blessed position in society. But one’s favored status really owes to the power of the Church that endorses and ensures the privilege of the true believers. If the power of the Church were to fade, their faith alone wouldn’t amount to a plate of beans. Today, American Christians have begun to realize this. Because core institutions of America are now effectively post-Christian(and even anti-Christian), what with the Template consecrating Jews-Negroes-Homos above all others, being a Christian today has little resonance within the domains of power. If anything, it could be a liability in many key areas.

Anyway, the fall of East German communism meant that anti-communists no longer needed to fear informers or cower before their accusers. They no longer needed to deny their anti-communism. They no longer needed to defend or justify their anti-Leninism. They could freely express their disdain for communism.
And as long as the New Template favored those who called out against communists of the prior regime, their anti-communism had value as a token of power. But once the New Template lost interest in making an example of former communists, even anti-communism came to mean nothing. In time, neither having served communism nor having resisted communism carried any water in the New Order where the Template was devised and enforced by globalists.

Same logic applies to the cult of ‘white guilt’. It’s not the feeling itself that is most worrisome. Same goes for the cult of Diversity and Homomania. Before Diversity and Homomania were promoted as part of the Official Template, it didn’t matter if one espoused nationalism or anti-homo sentiments. One could openly question or mock Diversity or the Homo agenda prior to their consecration into the Template. And it didn’t matter if some people were pro-homo-agenda or pro-mass-invasion. They lacked the backing of the Template and could therefore be pushed back because they stood alone with their own convictions.

But once Diversity was canonized into the Template, its advocates had the blessings of the System. And its opponents were effectively excommunicated by the System. If an idea isn’t yet canonical, opposing it cannot be heretical. Thus, while opposing it may lead to heated arguments with its advocates, one cannot be destroyed by the System for harboring such views because the System has yet to canonize the idea that would render such views heretical.

Once elite institutions canonized the tenets of PC, opposing views were no longer regarded as mere disagreements or dissent but as heresies of ‘hate’. So, with the full spectrum of elite opinion from left to right chanting the sacred mantra of ‘Diversity is our strength, the message was loud and clear that Diversity now has the full blessing of the Template. It was no longer a position among other possible positions but The Position, the Only Position.

So, the key issue isn’t White Guilt per se. Such sentiments always exist because any society(even non-white ones) will have its share of self-loathing types who love to make a spectacle of their higher virtue via atonement and redemption.
What gave Self-Loathing Whites or SLW’s the moral and political advantage is that the Globalist elites used their immense power to push the Iron Template of Diversity and Homomania. So, SLW’s are now favored in the way that communist zealots, communist toadies, and communist hacks were favored in Stasi-dominated East Germany. But notice how the commies in all walks of life lost their advantage overnight when the System came down. Being communist in a system tailored to Marxism-Leninism was like having an anti-gravity belt. But once the system’s power was shut down, those hovering in the air all came crashing down. Tragicomically, while they were up in the air, they thought their power of levitation emanated from within their own souls. They learned the truth the hard way when the system no longer supplied power to their belts. It's like a soldier has the power to kill other people as long as he is consecrated as a 'hero' by the System. But back in civilian life, he realizes his 'power' of 'heroism' totally depended on the System.

So, the problem isn’t so much the existence of SLW’s, annoyingly unbearable as they may be. Rather, it’s that they are blessed by the System that calls for Open Season on White Heretics, aka the Patriots. Once the Template is smashed, the Patriots can fight back with the full force of facts, logic, and passion, and then, SLW’s will have to stand on their own legs in the fight that they will inevitably lose. After all, those who hate their own kind will lose to those who love their own kind. Also, the support of the Template made the SLW’s spoiled and lazy. Their reliance on anti-gravity belts powered by the Template made their bones weak.

We must smash the Template, or the Tabernacle.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Mass Immigration by Foreign Elements Is Imperialism, Pure and Simple


US should have severely restricted non-white immigrants like the Founders intended.

We hear all this whining about ‘hate’, but ‘hate’ is appropriate to cases where a people aggressively attack and invade other peoples, not when they defend their turf from outsiders who are different in race and culture.
Were Algerians and Vietnamese ‘haters’ against the French in their resistance struggles? No, they only hated French aggression and imperialism. They had no hostility against the French nation per se. They were only trying to reclaim their beloved homelands from foreign occupiers.

Japan doesn’t want to be invaded and colonized by Muslims. Is that ‘hate’?
Must a people invite demographic invasion to be on the side of angels? No, a people who invite invasion are HATE their own kind. Self-hate is the worst kind of crime.

Donald Trump deserves a lot of criticism from all sides, but on the plus side, he has allowed Russia and Iran to finish off the psychopathic ISIS in Syria. He also condemned the Iraq War and Libyan War during the Presidential campaign. If anything, it was the ‘progressives’ who were tight-lipped about all the War Crimes committed against Libya, Ukraine, and Syria during the Obama-Hillary years. Notice that those who now claim to love Muslims did nothing to protest the invasions and destruction of Muslim nations prior to Trump’s victory.

Now, if Trump’s stupid talk about Iran turns into real escalation, he’s be just another pezzonovante of the Jews. I suspect he has no personal animus against Iran. He’s just sucking up to Zionists because Jews are the real masters of America no matter which way you turn. Paradoxically, one has to be more pro-Zionist if hated by most Jews. Because Jew Worship is mandatory and because ‘antisemitism’ is a cardinal sin, one has to go the extra step to prove one’s pro-Jewish credentials when attacked by Jews themselves. Since Jews say Trump is hitler, Trump must do heavy-lifting to demonstrate he’s the best friend of Jews and the ultimate shill for Israel. Even so, there’s no guarantee that he will opt for war with Iran. He could be using heated rhetoric against Iran to keeps the Jews at bay.

Concerning the ‘refugees’, the solution is for the US to stop meddling in the Middle East. Then chances of war will greatly diminish, and then, there will be no more refugees. Muslims can stay in their own nations. If Muslims want to flee their own nations even in peacetime, it means they hate their own kind and prefer to live with whites. They would be the self-haters. Why should the West welcome self-hating Muslims who don’t even want to live with their own kind?

Anyway, no nation can survive by allowing massive foreign invasion-immigration. Mass immigration of foreigners IS invasion. Mass arrival of Jews led to destruction of Palestine. Mass arrival of Spanish led to demise of native peoples in Meso-America. Hawaiians are a minority in their own homeland because of white and yellow mass immigration. The only kind of immigration that works on a large scale is one that lets in the same kind of people. This is why Israeli immigration is Jewish Only. More Jews arriving in the Jewish State means Replenishment, not Replacement. But if Israel allowed tons of non-Jewish immigrants, Jews will face Replacement, and then, the Israel as Jewish State is lost forever.

Anyone who pushes mass immigration by foreigners is an imperialist.

People like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Theresa May, John McCain, Joe Biden, the Bush clan, and etc no longer have any concern for their own race, culture, and people. They identify with power and privilege(mostly dominated by Jews). If it’s globalism they must serve to keep their positions and privilege, they will do so.

The difference between past imperialism and current imperialism is the former was about one people colonizing another people’s land whereas the latter is about ALL nations being demographically colonized by all peoples as the elites around the world collude to favor their own aggrandizement and privilege above all other considerations. Of course, Israel gets pass-over rights in being exempted from obligation to welcome foreign invaders.
But then, which people control globalism? Only Jews are allowed an arrangement where elites identify with and protect their ethnic kin. Among gentiles, elites are to despise and abandon their own national folks in favor of the company of ‘cosmopolitan’ People of Privilege, all of whom must serve the higher power of Jewish Globalist Supremacism.

Of course, these immigrant-invaders play the passive/aggressive game. They aggressively colonize other nations but then play ‘victims’ of ‘hateful bigoted natives’ who won’t let more of them in. Just look at those Hindus. They seek to take over Anglo-made worlds with massive colonization, but they harp as ‘victims’ of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’. Invading other nations is now a ‘human right’ according to globo-dominated UN. Mass invasion by boat, foot, or by plane is hailed as some god-given right. So, the US is expected to offer ‘sanctuary’ to illegals sacralized as ‘dreamers’. EU must absorb all those who invade by boat or boot.

Natives are supposed to be in self-hate mode and gain love points only by welcoming invaders.

How did the world become this stupid?

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Fascist-Democracies are the Best Bet for the Future

Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History was not marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profound changes in its forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.

Does this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’ and 'liberal', supposedly the quintessential attributes of the West?
Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And huge swaths of what had been Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. If a people-and-culture are defined by a set of ideas, are they no longer that people-and-culture if the ideas were to change? If we say the samurai system and ethos are the indispensable essence of what it means to be Japanese, then are we to assume that the Japanese stopped being Japanese once they abandoned the samurai order and embarked on the path of Westernization? While it is true that samurai culture and mindset left a huge imprint on Japanese history, isn't the core essence of Japanese-ness the story of Japanese people in their homeland? Likewise, while it's true that political democracy & individualism originated and came to fruition in the West, the core essence of the West goes far deeper than any philosophy or set of ideals. More than anything, it's about the people, the land, and their sense of history REGARDLESS of whatever ideas or values they may have espoused. Thus, barbarian Vikings were no less a part of the West than Republican Romans. And Spanish living under autocratic Franco were no less part of the West than Swedes living under Social-Democracy. France was just as much a part of West under monarchy as under revolutionary populist ideals. So, the notion of distilling the entirety of the Western Experience into a bottle of 'democracy' is rather glib and shallow.

Also, there is no need to fetishize democracy. The historical lesson of democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, has often led to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.

For democracy to thrive and ensure survival of the civilization it serves, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that are now prone to spouting such sentiments such as “there is no such thing as French Culture” or “Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’.” In Iran, Israel, and Turkey, the democratic institutions serve, respectively, Iran-ness, Jewishness, and Turkishness. Democracy serves than dissolves nationalism. (A fascist-democracy allows liberal freedoms and free elections BUT enshrines the core fascist themes into the Constitution whose primary function is to secure the survival and well-being of a particular ethnos on a specific territory justified by a certain narrative. The danger of autocracies is the power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few that grow increasingly paternalistic and corrupt. The danger of democracies is the people become fractured into atomized individuals succumbing to appetites and alienation, thus allowing cynical elites to gain plutocratic power behind the scenes. In contrast, a fascist-democracy provides direction & meaning to freedoms that ultimately go to preserving the ethnos and mythos. Thus, people do enjoy freedoms and choices as individuals but are inculcated from cradle to find meaning as organic members of a larger community of blood-and-soil. Too many people tend to see politics in terms of right-wing aristocracy vs left-wing democracy, but democracy can be made to serve nationalism via fascism, which also allows for compromise between capitalism and socialism.)

America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom bound to powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. A democracy without fascist themes to keep it loyal to a people & culture will eventually dissipate because an idea serving an idea(instead of something specific and tangible) will grow weak and decadent. In time, the people are made to value the idea more than the realness of their own existence as ethnos and culture upon a territory. Thus, French people no longer believe their political system exists to defend and preserve the French nation. Instead, the French people and nation now exist to serve the Idea that, in a state of abstraction, becomes universal and is no longer specifically bound to the national interests of France as blood-and-soil. (While the cosmopolitan ideal of the French Enlightenment is not a new one, its corrosive impact had been tempered in the past by nationalism, traditionalism, and chauvinism that favored the French over their colonial subjects who, furthermore, had little chance of moving to France. Today, it's so easy for millions of non-whites to invade white nations every year. What had been the privilege of the affluent has become the tangible dream of countless mobs in the Third World. The practice of cosmopolitan universalism went from rich & educated white Europeans traveling to exotic places to millions of Africans and Muslims arriving in France and UK to shake their booties to rap and shake down whitey for free gibs.)

Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a proud Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ for all of humanity that may want to migrate to Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is “poorer folks move to richer folks”, Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.

That is precisely what is happening in the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if current trends are left unchecked, the future of Europe will be doom and demise.

A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people & culture of a nation.

A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population that has been demoralized and deracinated by PC. If some native people do remain idealistic and passionate in a decadent-democracy, it's only in welcoming racial and national suicide in the name of serving the ideas of 'democracy' and 'openness'... and 'diversity', another essential 'Western Value' recently discovered or invented by PC. It goes to show that 'Western Values' are really dictated by whomever wields the power to control the narrative. Deracinators or 'Deracists' are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.

Nations Can Survive Decadence & Dementia But Cannot Survive 'Demodence' and 'Demomise'

Nations can survive Decadence as all civilizations have cycles of rise and fall. The fall of the old dynasties in Turkey, Iran, and China didn’t end those civilizations as people and culture.
But current Decadence in the West is accompanied with 'Demodence' and 'Demomise', or demise of native populations. There is NO recovery from such disaster. If France becomes Africanized, it is no longer France and will never regain its true identity and heritage. It will forever be neo-savage land of Africans speaking French and colonizing white wombs(infected with jungle fever) to create more black babies who grow up to be ravenous savages. If Australia is repopulated with Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, and Africans, it will no longer be Anglo-Australia, the real Australia.

A nation or community can survive bad(even horrible) ideas or trends. Russia survived communism, even after losing millions of lives. China survived cultural decay, wars, and communism(and other disasters) too. Nevertheless, Russia remained Russian and China remained Chinese throughout the disasters, and they were able to re-emerge on the world stage as sovereign nations.

Globalism is more dangerous than bad ideologies or trends of the past because it uses decadence to weaken the pride and will of a people and then drives a stake through the nation’s weakened heart with demographic invasion and replacement.
To undermine national solidarity based on morality and values, globalism pushes a kind of sacro-decadence that conflates diversionary fun with divine faith. Decadence is no longer something to be tolerated and enjoyed(with guilty pleasure) but the very foundation of New Spirituality. Notice homomania is no longer just street celebrations & colorful parades but the new holy symbols in churches and the new sacred text in schools & libraries. Even the National Church in Washington D.C. hoisted the 'rainbow' flag.

If this madness were just a case of bad ideology or trend, it will blow away in due time. But in the age of globalism where countless peoples are on the move all over the world to invade & plunder wealthier nations, sacro-decadence weakens a people's pride & power to defend their domain and instead strengthens their passion for racial/national suicide as the highest expression of virtue. With debased values, weakened wills, and/or corrupted passions, the native/established peoples increasingly lack the courage and confidence to say NO to the invasion and push back. Worse, their moral vigor, as such may still exist, welcome the invasion and replacement as a spiritual prerogative.

When falsehood is the 'new truth', the most positive & affirmative emotions will honor and serve what is self-destructive while reviling what is most self-protective.

While it would be nice if positive emotions were always on the side of sanity, health, and truth, the problem is emotions always follow the programming of minds & senses. Through indoctrination and iconography, people's minds and senses can be made to affirm the false and insane. And then, their positive emotions flow toward revering those ideas and icons. People have wondered why so many seemingly sane people had positive passions for psychopaths like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Obama. Are so many people evil or insane? How could they have felt so positive about figures who were so demented?
It was because emotions follow the programming. It's like the positive affections of a dog can go to serve and love the most demented person. Emotions are blind. If a dog is made to believe that such-and-such person is the rightful master, its affections will flow toward that person. Likewise, if the people are made to believe in the 'greatness' or 'holiness' of a certain figure via manipulation of ideas and icons, their emotions will flow that way.
Emotions are 'innocent', earnest, and childlike. So, positive emotions don't automatically choose what is objectively or morally positive, and negative emotions don't automatically reject what is objectively or morally negative. As with dogs(that can be made to love bad people and hate good people), people can be made to associate their positive emotions to what is negative and their negative emotions to what is positive.

Demented ideology of PC and decadent iconography of Pop Culture have brainwashed so many white minds to revile white identity, interests, security, & survival as ugly and pathological while welcoming non-white invasion, moral degeneration, and homomania as the paragons of virtue and redemption.

So, what Western nations face today isn’t just decadence. It is decadence that leads to defenselessness against massive invasion, leading to'demomise' or demographic demise and 'demodence', the decay of an entire people as identity and culture.

In the UK, the BBC now regularly feature blacks and non-whites as British historical figures in movies and series. These aren't just bad ideas and icons but weapons to facilitate the massive invasion of UK by blacks and other non-whites who will turn Great Britain into European Africa, Pakistan, and Arabia.

Without Immigration as Meal Ticket, the Jewish-Homo Alliance with Non-Whites Will Weaken

Would Jews support mass non-white immigration IF the general will of non-whites were to direct US policy at the top? Suppose non-whites do become the majority of America and suppose their combined general will came to define American foreign policy and socio-economic policy. How would Jews feel about this? I don't think they would like it.

Jews value non-white immigration because most non-whites have no chance of reaching the top. Blacks have long remained on the bottom. Browns remain as helots, laborers, and servants. Asians to reach higher, but they lack agency and just go along with the prevailing power and official narrative. Since Jews rule, Asians just follow or marry into Jews. As for white Hispanics, they go along with Jews too. Feeling resentment for Anglos who bettered them in America, white Hispanics will gladly side with Jews for bigger slice of the globalist pie.
Muslim numbers are rising, and Muslims will eventually outnumber Jews. But not many Muslims make it to the top. For every Muslim who reaches elite level, a thousand Jews do.

Some say that non-white immigration is dangerous to Jews because non-whites are more hostile to Jews or indifferent to Zionism(that has passionate support only among whites apart from Jews). But non-whites won't rise to elite power and influence. They will remain on the bottom. And Asians who do reach higher are malleable and servile to the Top Power.

So,for Jews, non-white masses are useful for their electoral numbers(and as cheap labor). Even as non-white numbers swell, they will never dictate policy since only those at the top have that opportunity. As for non-white tokens who are allowed into the elite realm, they become servile to Jews because Jewish money and support favored them. Obama and Nikki Haley are both total servants of Zionists. Jews don't depend on black or non-white wealth, but blacks and non-whites often rely on Jewish favors to reach the top.

As far as Jews are concerned, rising numbers of non-whites just provide more body and muscle for the Jewish mind. Jews play the role of the Mind while non-whites serve as muscle to wrestle and defeat the white body.

This is why we have a strange phenom in both US and EU. All these non-white arrivals aren't socio-culturally 'progressive' or into homo stuff. In many cases, they are more conservative or resistant to 'progressive' values and Western decadence favored by Liberals. And yet, their swelling numbers can be instrumental in increasing the power of the globalist elites who push decadent values. All those Somalis in Minnesota don't care about homo stuff. Many Mexicans in California and many non-whites in NY are not into 'progressive' values or homo stuff. But they don't have elite power. All they can do is vote, but their votes go to elect 'progressive' leaders who take donations and cues from globalist Jews.

So, we have growing numbers of non-whites who don't care for homo stuff voting for politicians who push more homo stuff. How can this be? How can so many anti-homo people be voting for politicians who push more homo stuff? Because while non-whites can only supply votes, it's the Jews who, with vast wealth and connections, get to choose the candidates and script the agenda.
It's like ANIMAL FARM. Most animals provided the labor; it was the pigs that got to decide what was done with the fruits of that labor. It's like a ship's destiny is decided not by the entire crew but by the person with his hands on the steering. So, 1000 crew members may want to Place A, but if the person with control of steering wants to go to Place B, the ship will go to Place B.

Jews know that in a white nation, there is a good chance that conservative whites will prevail over liberal ones. A conservative white society will be more about majority power than minority privilege. Jews, as a minority elite, obviously dislike white conservatives for this reason. Time may favor white conservatives because conservatives generally outbreed liberals. So, in order for Jews to keep pushing their agenda, they need New People who will combine their votes with diminishing number of White Liberals. These New People may dislike Jews or be offended by cultural decadence and 'progressivism'. But most of them are not intellectual or concerned about issues and ideas. Their main concern is a Better Life, and they know they can have it in the West via immigration. So, their #1 priority is access to the West. To have that for themselves, their relatives, and others of their kind, they will make a bargain with the devil. So, even Muslims will vote for the pro-homo party if it lets more of them in. And even though these non-whites may be anti-Jewish and anti-homo, they vote for the Jewish-and-Homo party because it offers greater assurance of more immigration.

Now, Jews would think differently about immigrants IF the new arrivals were super-smart, super-ambitious, and hostile to Jewish interests and agenda. Suppose Muslim arrivals have an average IQ of 130 and are bursting with ambition. Suppose in a couple of generations, they can dominate elite circles and shape The Agenda of the party. And suppose these Muslims favor Palestinians and Iran over Israel. Jews would certainly not want that kind of immigration. Fortunately for Jews, such Muslims don't exist. Even the supposedly smart Asians are mostly servile and keep their heads low and take orders than show agency. So, Jews prize more non-white immigration as more muscle for the Democratic Party. The mind of the party remains with Jewish power. Immigration is steroids for Jews. It bulks up the muscle that is to be controlled by the Jewish mind. Without immigration, conservative white muscle can beat liberal white muscle. Trump would have won by a landslide if US were all-white. But he barely won because non-white votes were overwhelmingly Democratic.

Anyway, if non-whites disagree with Jews and homos on so many issues, why do they vote for the Jewish-Homo party? Why would non-whites, whose moral and cultural values are closer to white conservatives, vote for the party that offends their moral or cultural sensibilities? There is one answer. The bribery of the Ticket to the West. Jews fooled conservatives into believing that culture trumps material interest among immigrants, i.e. immigrants are 'natural conservatives' because they are culturally more conservative than average Americans. But Jews knew that immigrants would favor material interest over cultural values. If the Liberal party offers them more material goods via immigration and government services, non-whites will cast their votes that way. Also, in our globalized world, even non-whites around the world have become pretty Americanized and degenerate. Even their conservatism is suspect.

This is why Jews are so obsessed about immigration. Jews need non-whites as muscle against whites. And the ONLY reason why non-whites will vote for the Jewish-Homo party is if Jews can offer them something of material value. And that is the Ticket to the West. Without that access, there is no reason for non-whites to vote for the Jewish-Homo party that pushes social and cultural agendas that many non-whites don't care for. Same in Canada. Why would Muslims vote for a homo-crazy nut like Justin Trudeau? He hands out Free Tickets.

If Jews can't offer non-whites the Ticket, non-whites may stop voting for the Jewish-Homo party. It's the Deal and the Seal.
Suppose all immigration were to end in US and Canada. Suppose non-whites can't bring over more of their relatives and must try to assimilate. In time, many of them will likely gravitate to the conservative party since it seems saner and sounder than the Liberal Party whose agenda is dictated by neurotic Jews and ridiculous homos.

Even among white ethnics, many of them turned conservative and Republican when mass immigration came to a halt in the 1920s. Unable to bring more of their own kind and having to settle in American society, they found the Conservatives saner, more sober, and more appealing that the Liberals who got sillier and crazier. This is when many Italian-Americans went from Democratic Party to Republican Party.

Democracy. From People-Replacing-Bad-Elites to Elites-Replacing-'Bad'-People.

Most Western democracies are now oligarchies controlled by Jewish globalists and their cuck-collaborators.

If American Democracy had truly been responsive to the people, it wouldn't have allowed massive invasions from the Third World. To be sure, if white Americans in the 60s had been more mindful of elite agendas than so resigned to complacency and leisure, they might have read the writings on the wall and taken steps to prevent their ethno-demographic demise.

As it happens, politicians rely on money from big donors. So, even though they’re elected by votes of many little fishes, they do the bidding of few globalist whales. Furthermore, the little fishes can only choose from candidates handpicked by the whales.

When leaders and elites are bad, they should be removed by democratic process. That’s how true democracy should work.
But in the Current West, the opposite has been happening under the New Democracy.
Whore-politicians and entrenched deep state managerial class, in coordination with media and academia run by shills of globalism, work to replace the masses with New People, the invasive immigrant-colonizers. Replacism is the name of the game. As whiteness has been associated with evil and wickedness, white majority in European and white-made nations are seen as 'bad' or 'deplorable'. The only good white people are those who welcome replacement by non-whites. White people who want to keep white nations white are 'bad'. Anti-white whites are 'good', pro-white whites are 'bad'. So, if in the past, American democracy was about white people replacing bad leaders with good ones, today it's about 'good' globalist 'progressives' working to replace 'bad' white people with good non-whites.

Just ponder the full implication of this madness. Democracy is supposed to be about the people replacing bad leaders, but now it's about the entrenched elites replacing entire peoples. In a sane world, the people should replace elites than elites replace people. After all, the former is so much easier and more elegant to pull off. In contrast, replacing entire populations with new ones is a massive undertaking that turns the world upside down.
Wouldn't it be better(and so much easier) for Germans to replace Merkel & her ilk than for the latter to replace Germans with masses of 'New Germans'?
'Demo' in 'democracy' means the people. So, Democracy means rule by the people. But New Democracy is a demo-clashy where the existing people are made to clash with new ones who eventually take over. Jewish globalist elites use the demo-dialectics to bring about the synthesis of 'New Americans' who, having no clear identity and roots in America, can easily be manipulated and controlled by fashions of the Current Year. Diversity will turn whites into cucks indoctrinated with 'white guilt'. They will regard most of White History as tainted and redeemable only by Diversity and cuckery. And non-white hordes as 'New Americans' will feel no allegiance or appreciation of White American Heritage.

As inequality grows and more power/wealth amasses at the top, the elites now have the power to replace the people than the people have the power to replace the elites.

Worst of all, because virtually everyone is educated and entertained by media and schools controlled by globalist agenda, even the white masses have come to welcome their replacement as the greatest goal of freedom, democracy, and 'western values'. Consider all those white people who voted for globalism with sincere conviction that the Great Replacement is a moral imperative of the white race.

The Core Coding of the System Will Determine Its Future. The West Is Dying Because Its Central Coding has been Altered

Rule of Narrative changes the Rule of Law.

When the New Narrative is made sacrosanct, the Law succumbs to it because… it’s a ‘dream’, and who wants to defer a dream?

The gloomy fate of America and Europe too is due to the fundamental change in the premise of the New Narrative that was pushed by Jews who gained total control of media and academia.

If whites had insisted that US and Europe are white lands and belong to white people BUT white people are nice enough to take in some non-whites, the new arrivals would have come with a sense of gratitude, appreciation, and respect. After all, they were magnanimously allowed in as guests in another people’s homeland.

So, the new arrivals always feel owed to the native people. They feel that the native folks, out of the kindness of their hearts, did something they didn’t have to do. They were nice enough to let in non-whites who have a chance of a better life.

But suppose the premise of white nations are changed. The new narrative is “white lands were always nations-of-immigrants” on the basis that there had been earlier invasion of peoples in prehistoric times. Also, suppose premise says that Diversity is magic and More Diversity is wonderful for a nation. And fundamental Change is what a nation should be all about.
Then, the corollary is homogeneity and continuity are bad things. Homogeneity must be replaced with magical Diversity, and continuity must be severed by ‘reinventing’ the nation in the spirit of Change.
So, the primary destiny of white nations comes to about increasing endless Diversity and to welcoming total Change.

Under reigning ideology of PC, not only are white people inculcated with such value system but non-whites in white lands no longer feel appreciative as lucky guests but as rightful owners of white nations. After all, the New Premise says Diversity and Change must take precedence over Homogeneity and Continuity(that are deemed ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘extreme’, and ‘far right’).
Thus, foreigners who arrive in white lands don’t come with gratitude but with moral and ideological arrogance. They come to make demands to let more of their kind into white nations and for white institutions & industries to favor non-whites in high positions to make things more ‘just’ because, after all, white nations no longer belong to white people but to the World in the spirit of Diversity and Change.

Core ideas are that important. Changing the central idea of a nation is like changing the code of a computer. If a computer code is programmed to favor red dots and eliminate blue dots, red dots will be favored. Over time, there could be 1000 red dots and only 10 blue dots remaining. But suppose the code is changed to favor blue dots over red dots. Red dots may not worry since they greatly outnumber blue dots. I mean, how much harm could 10 blue dots do to 1000 red dots? But the altered code will mean that blue dots will gain with every passing hour until they will greatly outnumber the red dots. While red dots are eliminated one by one, the program allows blue dots to multiply.

When the Western code was altered, most white people didn’t react with alarm since they looked all around and saw white people and white power. So what if the New Laws & Values favored Diversity and Change? What could possibly happen?
Well, look around the big cities of Europe. It led to the invasion by tons of non-whites who cannot be expelled because the core code of the West now say they are what the West and its ‘values’ are all about.

Why do these Usurpers act with such arrogance and contempt for White America? Because the new code favors them. They no longer feel grateful and appreciative. They no longer plead for favors. No, they just make demands and act like the West is theirs to pilfer and plunder. All the great things created by Anglo whites and other whites exist to be claimed and taken by non-whites… or so the New Code says.

If you have title to your house, it’s your house. Now, suppose there’s a homeless person and you let him in. It’s still your house because you hold the title. The title encodes the house as yours. So, your act of kindness to the homeless person is your decision. It’s your decision to let him stay or to tell him to leave.
But suppose you decide that you’re gonna share the title with him. You tell him, “my house is your house”, and you expect the guy to be grateful and kiss your pinky. But instead, the guy feels that since he owns the title to the house just as much as you do, he will do whatever suits his fancy in the house. Also, he has friends and families who have much to gain by coming to the house. So, he calls them over. You protest, but the law no longer favors you since you shared the title with the guy. You find your house, which is no longer yours alone, filling up with more ‘new owners’ invited by the homeless guy(who is now co-owner of the house). In time, the house has a 100 people, and all those people don’t see themselves as guests but as co-owners. So, you went from owning the house to being 1/100th owner of the house. Boy, wasn’t that dumb?

Whites in the West have only ONE way to save itself. Take back the Title to their National Property. In Europe, this is totally justified since Europe is the ancient homeland of whites. Denounce Diversity and Change as the cult of neo-imperialism and colonization. Tell non-whites to return.
The change in the code was fatal to Europe. As Europe is so much richer than the Third World, what was likely to happen if the Code were changed? Naturally, the poor masses were gonna flock to the West for better material lives. And they were gonna call more of their kinds to share in the loot. If you feed animals, what do they do? They send out signals and more of them come. And if they initially came with gratitude and appreciation, they later come making demands for more and more and get angry if you don’t feed them.

Nothing can be saved without the Change in the Code. Sure, they will accuse the rise of nationalism as ‘racist’, but if nationalism was good enough for the Third World in driving out white/European colonists and imperialists, it’s good enough for white people to kick out Third World mobs of usurpers. White people must reclaim the Title to their lands. And if it means war and violence to topple the vile elites and kick out foreigners, so be it. Viet Cong didn’t just hold up signs. They fought. So did the Algerians resistance fighters to drive out the French.

The re-coding of the West to favor Diversity and Change over Solidarity and Continuity was the fatal flaw. Every society is a system, like a computer is a system. And just like a computer follows its codes, a social system functions in accordance to its legal coding and narrative drives. As long as the Code favors Diversity and Change, we can kiss the West goodbye. Diversity and Change must be properly identified and diagnosed as virus and cancer embedded into the Western DNA by vile globalist elites. They must be treated like disease that must eradicated from the core DNA of the West. Diversity and Change are like HIV. They are meant to weaken and destroy the Immune system of the West by brainwashing whites into thinking that any thought and action for self-preservation is Evil. Nationalism is an immune system to defend and conserve the social system of a people. When nationalism is attacked by globalist cancer, the immune system fails because the people are made to believe that there is nothing more evil than their desire for solidarity and continuity as a people and culture.

White folks must rise up and attack Diversity as Demise and Change as Extinction. A great people don’t need to be replaced and ‘reinvented’. Diversity-and-Change was a case of fixing something that was not broken. The idea of ‘fixing’ the rich and stable West with dysfunctional Third World morons who wrecked or degraded their own nations was too funny, but no one got the joke because white people were ‘guilt-baited’ with Shoah and made to feel that Nationalism was the root of all evil in WWI and WWII when, in fact, both wars were the result of imperialism that violated the national sovereignty of weaker peoples.
The real reason for the rapid recovery of the West and Japan owed to restoration of nationalism. Nazi and Japanese imperialism was defeated, and nations could be free and sovereign again.
The new danger was that the Cold War gave rise to Soviet and American empires. But then, with the fall of communism, it seemed as though every nation in Europe would be sovereign and free. Then, there would be peace and prosperity predicated on security and stability. But then, there was globalism that led to EU neo-hegemony and expansion of US as the hyper-power that treats other nations as vassals, but then, US itself is the vassal state of a bigger power of globalist networks dominated by Zionists.

It is because Zionists want to control the entire world that they push Diversity and Change on all nations(except Israel). With Diversity and Change as the elite mantra in every nation, nationalism will weaken as native elites will not defend their nations but serve the globalist elites who offer them lots of money and prizes if they go along. And then, every nation can be infiltrated and taken over by foreign capital and New Cosmopolitanism whose only truths are Homo Worship and Rap music.

Contradictions of Universalism and Particularism among Ancient Greek, Jews, and Anglo-Americans

Greeks and Jews came to face the same conundrum. How to reconcile the universal resound of their ideas with the tribal ethno-centrism.

Greeks were awful proud and developed complex forms of science and governance. They conceived of political systems like democracy. It had universal implications, but Greeks had no intention of sharing the idea with barbarians. It was for Greek city-states only. But the idea eventually caught onto other civilizations.

Jews were awful proud and developed the idea of the one and only God. It had universal implications, but Jews wanted to own it for themselves. So, they came up with the Covenant that would bind God of all things to the Jewish tribe.

These two contradictions would come to shape much of Western History. West developed science and technology of universal import but sought to keep it to itself to gain power over others. West developed ideas of universal human rights but sought to restrict those rights to Western peoples.

Just as Greeks saw democracy as a Greek thing and Jews saw God as a Jewish thing, America’s Founding was also marked by a similar contradiction. It was, in a sense, a universal republic committed to principles transcending tribes and nations. And yet, it was also a nation of Anglo-Germanic stock where Christianity and English were the defacto official religion and language. It was both about big OURS encompassing all humanity and a small ours serving a specific ethnos. Thus, Anglo-Germanics would have a special place in the American experience. This was most obvious to Indians, blacks, and non-whites but even, to a lesser extent, to certain ethnic groups from Southern or Eastern Europe.

Universalism wasn’t the intention of the Greeks when they devised ideas of democracy and individuality. Similarly, Jews instinctively feared the consequences of monotheism as an abstraction. Abstractions, having been distilled from a particular reality, can pass to any people, culture, or nation. It’s like every fruit has its own sugars. So, apple sugars belong to the apple, peach sugars belong to the peach, and watermelon sugars belong to the watermelon. But when sugars are extracted from those fruits, they lose their unique attachments and just become ‘universal’ sugar that can be used to sweeten anything. It’s like when piles of wood are turned into charcoal, it no longer matters which tree they came from; they just exist to burn and provide heat.

Thus, to own and keep their own concept of God, Jews entwined the idea with the Covenant between God and Jews as the Chosen People. Thus, the Jewish God had features of a universal idea but was contractually bound to The Tribe. God was the Lord of all things, all peoples, and all everything; however, He’d chosen the Jewish People to keep the torch of greatness(like Zeus gave Athena the Aegis for safekeeping; it was her responsibility and privilege).

A similar kind of contractualism informed the founding of America as both a Republic premised on universal principles of human rights AND a Christian nation mainly of Anglo-Germanic stock.

But such contractualism — combination of universalism and particularism — tends to be unstable in the long run, especially if a people rub up against diverse groups of people either through imperialism or mass migration. Historically, Jews were never alone in their world like the Swedes in Sweden, Japanese in Japan, Hawaiian natives in Hawaii, and etc. They were always invading or being invaded by other peoples, always trading with other peoples, always bickering with other peoples, always hating and co-existing with other peoples. Thus, the potent bottle of Jewish nitroglycerin got shaken left and right, hither and thither, and the formula finally exploded into a truly universalized idea of God for all peoples of the Earth.

As for Anglo-Americans, their importation of large numbers of black Africans to toil as slaves and then huge numbers of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants — especially the feisty and pushy Jews — led to increasing pressures to transform America into a ‘proposition’. As long as America was overwhelmingly(and proudly) of Northern European stock, it could maintain both the ‘radicalism’ of the Revolution and the ‘racialism’ of the original Northern European stock.
But as America filled up with growing numbers of blacks(with high birthrate) and ethnic white Americans(who strove for the same rights and privileges as the Wasps), America lurched more toward abstract universal principles(though, for some reason, it also favors three groups for special praise and recognition: All Americans must support Israel, all Americans must worship Homomania or Queertianity as the new religion, all of Anglosphere must celebrate blackness for an entire month). Thus, even though the founding ideas of the American republic/democracy had once been almost synonymous with the Anglo-American people, their eventual universalization undermined Wasp power and then white power in general, with the exception of Jewish power.

But then, Jews didn’t so much destroy the Founding Contradiction/Hypocrisy as filch it for themselves. It’s like the pigs in ANIMAL FARM didn’t so much distribute human goodies equally among the animals as keep the choicest portions for themselves. The Founding Contradiction continues in altered form in favoring Jews as the quintessential Americans. After all, we are told that America is about both universal commitment to ‘tolerance’ & ‘diversity' AND total support of Israel as the ‘closest ally’ and 'best friend' of America. Thus, the core of Americanism continues to be about universalism + tribalism, i.e. Jews are ‘more equally’ American than other Americans. The crucial factor is that that tribalist element of Americanism passed from Wasps to Jews.

Consider that all Americans are NOT forced to praise or support Iran, Russia, China, Germany, Mexico, Egypt, and etc.(even though Americans come from those nations), but all Americans are forced to have their taxpayer money support Israel.

That has been the great Jewish Globalist Swindle. Jewish globalists would have us believe that Bad Old America betrayed its universal principles by favoring the Anglo-American Tribe, but thankfully, such favoritism is no longer viable in Good New America where no group is favored over others and where supremacism has no place.
But any cursory observation of American reality makes it plainly obvious that the system is rigged in favor of Jewish tribalism. American Universalism now means ALL Americans must support Israel and obey Jewish globalists.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Is a Nation(such as America) Just-an-Idea? Is a Person Just-an-Idea?

It’s a common practice(even habit) among politicians and thinkers(mostly official scribes) to reiterate that America is an Idea or even ‘just an idea’. But is a nation just an idea? Can a nation be just an idea? And if a nation is just an idea, is it no longer a nation if those ideas fade and are replaced by new ones?

Let’s compare a nation with a person. Just like nations have an official ideology, identity, and/or narrative, every person has set of values and beliefs. So, the person is shaped by those ideas. Therefore, does it follow that the person is those ideas? Of course not. Rather, isn’t he a holder of those ideas or ideals? Isn’t he a believer in certain tenets and principles than the very embodiment of those ideas? If he is those ideas, is he not himself when sleeping and not thinking of those ideas? Even in waking state, is he himself only when he espouses those ideas?

While ideas and beliefs are very important, a person is primarily his core biological and biographical being. He was himself even before he espoused those ideas, he is himself with those ideas, and he will still be himself even after he has rejected those ideas and moved onto a different creed. Suppose a person claims to be a libertarian or communist. That makes him a person who espouses libertarian principles or communist dogma. So, is he the person = set of ideas? No, he is a person who follows or upholds those ideas. To conflate him-as-core-being with him-as-believer-of-ideas is utterly foolish. If we define people that way, a person is nothing unless he comes into belief in a set of ideas. And he must remain faithful to those ideas because failing to do so will unperson him. Idiotic, right?

Then, why do we apply such fallacy to the nation of America? If America is an idea(as opposed to a nation that upholds certain ideas, which have changed over the course of its history), then America was not America until those ideas came to fruition & dominance. And America would no longer be America if those ideas were compromised or rejected for new ones. In fact, however, America will always be America no matter what ideas it espouses since America is essentially the land mass between Canada and Mexico(and Alaska and Hawaii) constituting the continuity of a particular civilization that originated and developed from the mass arrival of Europeans.

Also, using the current PC logic of ideocentrism, America was not America for most if its history. If indeed America is the current set of globalist PC ideas, then it couldn’t have been America since it held onto different ideas, attitudes, and values in the past. Until the mid-1860s, America had slavery, and until the Civil War, the Northern Free States tolerated slavery in the South. Since America then had slavery — ideas at odds with freedom — , America must not have been America. We are told that America cannot be ‘racist’. But America wouldn’t exist if not for ‘racism’. White Europeans conquered America and drove out the native peoples who came to be called ‘Indians’. And there were race wars between whites and reds where the former prevailed. Also, until 1965, American immigration policy favored Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, over other peoples. Since the ideas back then were very much at odds with current Ideas(that are said to define True America), America must not have been America in the past, at least prior to 1965 when the Immigration Policy was changed by Jews.

Some have said America is a Christian nation. Some revised it to Judeo-Christian nation. It is true enough that America, as founded, was an overwhelmingly Christian Protestant nation. There’s no doubt that Christianity has been culturally and historically important to America. But is America = Christianity? But the Founding Fathers were Deists who were skeptical of Biblical claims. And they thought Jesus was a great man than a Son of God. If America = Christianity, it was founded by remarkable men who were not the most committed Christians. Also, many Americans of prominence were agnostics or atheists.

While ideas and values matter a great deal, a nation is much more than that. Nations are like people in this sense. If Bob and John are both libertarians, are they the same? After all, they believe in the same ideas. If nations are ideas, why shouldn’t we say humans are ideas too? So, Bob and John would be interchangeable since they are both ideas of libertarianism. But we know this is not true. Even if Bob and John believe in a certain ideology, they are more than what they believe. Also, even when people espouse the same ideology, they interpret and practice it differently. There are no two same Christians. Each person responds to Jesus in his or her own way. And each person came to libertarianism in his own way. And he practices libertarianism in his own way due to factors of intelligence, integrity, character, personality, happenstance, and circumstances. So, a person has a being and story beyond any set of beliefs.
Furthermore, an idea changes over time and can evolve to the point where it has little semblance of its original self. It’s like meanings of words change over time, even to the point of meaning something profoundly different from its original usage. Consider how the Greek term ‘tyrant’ didn’t necessarily have negative connotations but came to mean an evil oppressive ruler. Indeed, even Liberal Americans of the past would not recognize today’s so-called ‘liberalism’. And Progressives 100 yrs ago, or even 50 yrs ago, would be appalled at much of what passes for ‘progressivism’ today. And Conservatives from 50 yrs ago would find nothing conservative about current Conservatism Inc. that’s mostly about "Democrats are the real racists" and "Muh Israel".

Just like every person is more than the ideas he believes, a nation is more than the ideas it upholds and practices. If America is an idea, then it would follow that any other nation that shares those ideas are also ‘America’. If America is about democracy and tolerance, then isn’t Mexico also ‘America’ since it is also a tolerant democracy? Isn’t Germany also ‘America’ since it is democratic? Isn’t Brazil also America because of its democracy?
As for ‘diversity’, it can be an ideal or a condition. A nation can be diverse in actuality but not see diversity as a good thing. A nation can be homogeneous but see diversity as a desired ideal. Many diverse nations are not happy with their diversity and plagued with tensions. Some nations have traditionally been homogeneous but came under Jewish PC influence and feel inadequate because they are not ‘diverse’ enough. So, they welcome Africans and Muslims to increase diversity. Current Sweden believes Sweden = Ideal of Diversity. Since the new mandatory Idea = Diversity, many Swedes don’t believe Sweden was True Sweden in the past. True Sweden can only be created via adherence to the idea of Diversity. See how utterly stupid this line of thinking is? If indeed Sweden = Diversity, are Peru and Morocco ‘Sweden’ since they have Diversity?

Furthermore, if we claim that America is America ONLY IF it commits to the current PC of ‘anti-racism’, then even the America of either political party is not that True America. After all, both parties support Zionist-imperialist-supremacist repression of Palestinians. If True America must not play favorites among racial, ethnic, or national groups, why does the current US favor Zionists over Palestinians? Why does it favor Israel(that has 200 nuclear weapons) to Iran(that adheres to international nuclear agreements and has no nukes)? And why do the national Media favor Jews, blacks, and homos over other groups IF INDEED America is all about ‘equality’ and not about ‘playing favorites’? And if all peoples and groups are equally valuable, why must all peoples be made to support Jews/Zionism and Homomania BUT Jews and Homos are not required to support, praise, or celebrate Mormons, Palestinian-Americans? Or Chinese-Americans, Russian-Americans, German-Americans, or Incest-Sexuals? And if America is about using its might to remind us of past injustices, why is there no Nakba Remembrance Day? And if America is about waging war on its ‘racist’ past, why is the South attacked for Confederate monuments but the North isn’t condemned for its ‘genocidal’ wars against Indians? And if America is all about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, why does it honor the memory of Emma Lazarus who fully endorsed Manifest Destiny and called on more Europeans and Jews to come to America and grab remaining Indian territories by killing Indians or reducing them to wretched huddled masses in barren reservations?

If America is an idea, it is not America whenever it violates those principles. So, America could not have been America during WWII since its media called Japanese ‘Japs’ — how ‘racist’!! — and since the government rounded up Japanese-in-America for ‘internment’. Some German-Americans, tens of thousands of them, were also ‘interned’. Since the US violated its ideals, it must not have been America back then.

Now, certain ideas and values have become so ingrained or instituted into a nation or civilization that there is a tendency to conclude: Identity + Place = Ideas + Values. But the core identity of a people in a place is always more than any set of ideas and values. China was a Confucian Civilization for a long long time. But was it no longer China because Chinese Communists waged war on Confucianism? No, China was China even under the ideology of Maoists. Current China dearly loves businessmen who get rich. But Confucianism despised the merchant class. If China = Confucian Ideas, then current China is not China since the current ideas and values are so much at odds with traditional Confucian moralism.
Now, take the Turks. For the longest time, Turks were defined by Islam. But Kemal Ataturk came along and created modern secular Turkey where religion was banished from much of public life and state affairs. So, were modern Turks no longer Turks since Turkishness = Islam? Atarturkism proved that there is more to Turkishness than what Turks believe as credo.
Same goes for Greeks. Ancient Greeks were pagans. Then, they became Christians. Since their ideas and credos changed, were they no longer Greeks? Or did Greek become True Greeks only as Christians? But, if Greekness = Christian Credo, are Greeks no longer Greek if they become atheist or secular?

Ideas matter but they are not the core of an identity. Under communism, the Soviet authorities insisted that Russia and its Soviet Republics were all defined by an Idea. Soviet Union was a Proposition Empire of Marxism-Leninism. But if that is True Russia, was Russia not Russia prior to the Revolution when it had espoused different ideas and values? And did Russia cease to be Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was no longer the Propositional Idea of Russians?

The fact is cradle matters more than credo. Each person exists because he was born and develops a biography. That existence is the core essential self. Now, ideas and values are very important because humans live with beliefs and principles. But a person is a person, he is himself, regardless of what he believes. John is John as a libertarian. If he chooses to reject libertarianism and adopt communtarianism, he is still John. And even if he changes his name to ‘Muhammad’, he is still his biological self who was born of his parents. Even as ‘Muhammad’, he is the person who was born to such and such parents and was named John, experienced a unique personal history that led him to current set of beliefs that led him to change his name to ‘Muhammad’.

This much is true. Bad ideas or attitudes lead to degradation and demise of a person or nation. Hedonism will destroy a person. Fanaticism can destroy him too. And radical ideologies can bring about hell on earth to nations. Also, crude impulses can ruin a person like crazed personalities can destroy a nation. Take National Socialism. It had good ideas and bad ideas. Its good idea was nationalism and German revival, its bad idea was imperialism and racial chauvinism. What really destroyed Germany wasn’t so much the ideas but the crazed personalities who impulsively acted on the worst ideas of National Socialism. (Even systems with bad ideas can be steered safely by sane personalities. Gorbachev and Deng took over systems founded on radical ideas but steered them to moderation and world peace. If someone like Albert Speer had gained control of National Socialist Germany, wars would have been avoided.) Personalities of a nation are like impulses in a person. If a person’s neurons go haywire and go for short-term impulses than long-term sobriety, a man or woman can be lost to drugs or debauchery. Likewise, if a nation indulges the most radical, fanatical, or crazed personalities to to pursue their egotistical or tribal lusts without restraint, the result is something like US embroilment in Wars for Israel that laid waste to the Arab/Muslim world and destroyed millions of lives, resulting in the massive flood of Europe with 'refugees' as well. Another result is the ‘new cold war’ with Russia on the premise that the entire world exists mainly to serve the megalomania of Jewish supremacists who hypocritically mask their ultra-tribalism and egotism with platitudes about ‘spreading democracy’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘human rights’.

One of the worst and most dangerous ideas is to put credo before cradle or to conflate cradle with credo. Such assumption says a person’s ideas are more important that the person. Indeed, we are believe he is the idea. Using such logic, he is no longer a person unless he espouses certain ideas. He is unpersoned if he were to question or reject those ideas. Likewise, globalists threaten to un-nation America unless it commits to the ideas of Emma Lazarus.
But then, even if we play by rules of PC, are Lazarusean ideas really in line with Current PC that claims to be the True America? Wasn’t Emma Lazarus an imperialist and ethno-supremacist? After all, more European and Jewish immigration to America meant the expulsion of American Indians from their ancestral lands. If America is about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, didn’t Lazarusean ethos violate those principles since continued mass arrival of Europeans and white Jews made America less ‘red’(Indian) and more white? Jews say their ancestors ran from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but wasn't America created by 'pogroms' against Indians, just like Israel was created later with massive pogroms against Palestinians in the Nakba?
Furthermore, if Americanism is about atonement for its ‘racist’ past, why does the current America support Israel that was created by imperialism, pogromic ethnic cleansing, & destruction of Palestine and, furthermore, occupies West Bank & practices Apartheid there? If America is an Ideal that requires feeling guilty over Jim Crow and once-alliance with apartheid-practicing South Africa, why is it so un-repenting of its historical ‘sins’ against Palestinians? And if America is about equality, why is there more ‘white guilt’ for what was done to blacks than what was done to American Indians? Surely, ‘genocide’ is a bigger crime than slavery.

When we look at Current America, it’s less about an idea than an agenda(driven by the zealous ego of an ethnic tribe). If America is really an idea as this ethnic tribe claims, why don’t the members of this tribe practice these ideas themselves? If whites must forgo their racial identity and interests to serve the higher idea of True America, why don’t Jews forgo their identity and tribal interests to just merge with all other Americans? Why do Jews tell European-Americans that it’s wrong to preserve and serve European identity but insist that not only Jews but all gentile groups must support, praise, and serve Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionist Israel, and Wars for Israel? Why do Jews insist that all non-Jews must worship Jews-as-Jews. Worse, why do they insist that all non-Jews must hate peoples and nations hated by Jews? So, if Jews hate Russians, all gentiles(even Russians) must hate Russians. If Jews hate Iranians, all gentiles(even Iranians) must hate Iranians. So much for America being an Idea. That ‘idea’ in Current America is just a ruse used by the Agenda serving the Ego of a rabid, virulent, and fanatical ethnic tribe.

Finally, if indeed America is an Idea, there is no need for people to come to America. Ideas are portable and transferable. If American Ideas are the best, then the rest of the world can adopt and use those ideas. It's like, if a people learn how to make fire, that idea can be borrowed by other peoples who can make their own fires in their own lands. They don't have to come to the people with the fire to have the fire.
It's like one doesn't have to go to Mecca to be a Muslim or go to the Vatican to become a Catholic. Islam and Catholicism are ideas or creed. They can be adopted by any people in any part of the world.
So, even if we argue America = Idea, the world can just adopt Americanism-as-Idea in their own nations. There is no need for them to flood into America. Also, if democracy was a precious commodity in the 19th century, it is dime-a-dozen all over the world. Most nations are democracies around the world. Besides, much of the world has been 'Americanized' with McDonalds, Hollywood, Evangelicalism, and even Homomania. They can have their 'America' in their own nations.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Smug Drug of Political Correctness

Why do people take certain illegal drugs. They want to get high and feel super. They want to be like insta-gods. Drugs — PCP, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, meth, etc. — elevate their sense-of-being with euphoria that fills them with delusions of grandeur. Consider James Woods in the movie THE BOOST where his coke-head character feels he can do anything when high on powder. Cocaine boosts his ego with Mood Supremacism. He feels like the greatest player that ever lived. He feels invincible, better than all the rest. Addicted to the sensation, he returns to the drug for the high over and over and over, and eventually he can't do without it.

Our world tends to associate ‘supremacism’ with ‘white racism’, but wanting to feel superior/supreme is a common trait among all peoples. Religions fill people with a sense of spiritual supremacism: "Our god or gods are better than yours", "God is on our side", "I am holier than thou". And the reason why women are so obsessed about cosmetics and celebrity is because they're drawn to the culture of Beauty Supremacism. Women want to look better than other women.
And men are obsessed with sports that are premised on masculine supremacism of the tougher guys lording over weaker guys, making big bucks, and humping ‘hot babes’.

So, despite all this stuff about ‘equality’, our society is obsessed with supremacism of all kinds. And one of the easiest kinds of highs is Moral Supremacism. Thus, Political Correctness or PC is really a kind of drug. Karl Marx called religion the ‘opiate of the masses’. PC is crack for the self-righteous. Certain terms like ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘homophobia’, and etc. have a drug-like effect on those who chant them. Though ostensibly used against bigots, chauvinists, and supremacists, the reason for their terminological appeal is the euphoric effect upon snorting, vaping, injecting, or popping doses of self-righteousness.
And this is why PC is dangerous. It really has to be treated as a drug addiction. Anyone who has observed so-called ‘SJW’ types will notice they are not amenable to compromise, understanding, and reason. They just love to repeat the mantras of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’(and sometimes ‘misogyny’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘Islamophobia’) because another 'hit' of virtue-vanity gives them easy highs.
Trying to communicate with such people is like trying to get through to those intoxicated on moonshine or flying on speed. The smug are more prone to preening self-righteousness, and the easiest way to feel holier-than-thou is by resorting to PC. This addiction isn’t limited to a single group. Even Conservatives are addicted to insta-virtue by preaching that the Democrats are the ‘real racists’. No one wants to discuss complex issues with honesty and reason since they care more about supremacist sensations of easy virtue.
Even cucking is a form of PC drug addiction. Sniffing Cuckaine makes one bunch of whites feel insta-morally-superior to other whites(those who refuse to cuck). Cucks feel as ‘good whites’ attacking ‘bad whites’. It’s near-impossible to get through to them with honest debate since the likes of David French are so full of themselves as ‘good whites’ who say the Magic Words of insta-virtue.

In this sense, media and academia should really be seen as Big Pharma of the mind. They are drug-dealers who push PC as Uppers and Downers to the confused and impressionable who, by abusing terminological substances of PC, get to indulge in self-righteous supremacism as a raging high.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Did the Rise of Educated Parents Lead to Political Correctness?

We generally associate more education and higher learning with expansion of discourse and thought. The idea is that educated people tend to be liberal(in a good way) and more open to new ideas and contrasting perspectives. Such assumption is surely valid to some degree.
But, we must ask... Is current education-in-general more about open-mindedness and critical-thinking or about ideological dogmatism, secular idolatry, and political conformity? If the former, it’s very possible that more education will lead to greater exchange of ideas and honest discussion of power. But if the latter, more education could very well make people closed-minded and judgmental in their conformity to the prevailing Political Correctness.

Prior to the boomer generation, only a small section of Americans got higher education. Even the Greatest Generation, with their G.I. Bills, focused on learning skills to get jobs. It was with the boomers that a burgeoning number of young people went to college to expand their minds. However, the 60s were a time of extreme ideological and racial polarization, and many boomer students spent their college years getting radicalized than intellectualized. Their youth became defined and qualified by the level of commitment, determination, and self-righteousness. Even though they were more libertine in their socio-cultural attitudes(in regards to church, manners, and sexual mores) than their parents, they were more judgmental in their ideological views. In contrast, their parents were more uptight about sexuality and more likely to respect traditional manners, but because they were less educated, their views on politics tended to be less radical. Sure, parents of boomers could be political like Archie Bunker in defending the flag or hating communism. But because of their relative lack of education and ‘sophistication’, their attitudes were more about patriotism and sentiment. It was knee-jerk stuff. Because they didn’t have elaborately intellectual rationale behind their political views, they were less likely to be radical about it. After all, radicals are ideological extremists. For one to be truly ideological, there has to be intellectual pedigree behind one's commitments. The parents of boomers simply didn’t have a complex thought system behind what they believed. Also, even as they disagreed with their boomer kids radicalized by college and media, they thought maybe the kids knew better with their superior education. After all, they worked hard and raised their kids to get the kind of college education that they didn't get or got an inferior version of during the Great Depression or the crude era of G.I. Bill mass education. Parents of boomers felt patriotic feelings but lacked a thought-system. In contrast, their boomer kids were instilled with mind-systems to support their radical views. While political emotions ebb and flow, the cold steel of ideology is always present among those who've adopted an intellectual(or pseudo-intellectual) thought system. Even though both Archie Bunker and Meathead are prone to outbursts, the difference is Archie runs on emotions & sentiment whereas Meathead is energized by an ideology & agenda. Also, because Meathead is better educated, he is so sure that he ‘knows everything’. His intellectual supremacism leads to moral supremacism. In contrast, even though Archie Bunker is very sure about some things, he sees himself as a servant of God, nation, and tradition. He doesn't think HE himself knows everything.

Even though Archie Bunker disapproves of much that Gloria says and does, he left her alone to develop her own mind. Not being a thinker or intellectual, he played the conventional role of father, letting Gloria to develop as a person on her own by way of education, entertainment, and experimentation. Bunker trusted that the institutions would do a good job filling his daughter with the right kinds of ideas. He didn’t hover over her at all times. He saw himself as a undereducated man, so his main role was to provide for Gloria so she would get real knowledge from school and media. So, despite his cantankerous nature and abrasiveness, Gloria didn’t grow up under his shadow. She developed on her own.
In contrast, well-educated Meathead believes he knows all there is to know since he read so many books, got a college degree, and settled in an intellectual position as teacher. As such, he plays a much bigger role in the raising of his child. He’s not content to play the role of father who tells funny stories and provides food on the table. He wants to steer his son to think like him and judge the world as he does. And since there is no God as higher authority, there is only the power of ideology as the final word.

Thus, we end up with a conundrum. It’s possible that more free-thinking kids will come from undereducated parents and less free-thinking kids will come from overeducated parents. Undereducated parents don’t know much and leave their kids to learn stuff on their own. Now, it’s possible that these kids will come under power of PC at school. But because they are not under ideological domination at home, they are likely to develop a more libertine attitude about things. In contrast, kids of overeducated(which is to say over-indoctrinated) parents will get PC not only from school but at home from their parents. So, they got double-whammy PC. One thing I noticed is that many of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s were left alone by their parents when it came to ideological matters. Most of their parents were around 30 yrs old in 1967, so they were too old to be part of Counterculture(though too young to be part of WWII generation). These parents were not overtly ideological(for the most part) and left the kids to develop freely.

But things have changed over the years with new batch of parents, especially among the upper-middle-class and above, being very well-educated(which is to say well-indoctrinated). These parents are not content to just provide a nice and loving environment for their kids. They insist on instilling their children with their own self-righteous ideology and iconography(mainly around Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Wonderful Jews). This ideological domineering is all the more effective because of the passive/aggressive style of parenting. Parents prior to boomerism weren’t very ‘nice’, huggy-wuggy, and friendly with their kids. So, kids grew apart from their parents with the passing of years. But, the PC parents want to be ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’. This bonds them closer to their children and makes the children want to please their parents more. So, if the parents are boo-hoo weepy-poo about MLK and ‘racism’, the kids want to play along to please their ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’ parents.

And things have gotten much worse due to the rise of PC. At least throughout the 70s and even 80s, the prevailing value among many Liberal parents and teachers was freedom of speech. Consider the Liberal support of Salman Rushdie when Iranian clergy put a Fatwa on him over SATANIC VERSES. Back then, despite the campaign against ‘racism’, Liberalism was strongly defined by ACLU-style libertarianism that defended free speech and expression as a good in and of themselves. (Also, culture hadn't gone totally bonkers with stuff like 50 genders and homomania.) But with the rise of PC, the correctness of views became more important than freedom of speech or individuality. Also, because PC has become such a determinant in careerism — consider the fate of James Damore at Google — , ambitious parents who want their kids to attend elite schools and have successive careers apply extra pressure, consciously or subconsciously, to make their kids assent to the rules of PC.

So, what is the solution? The ideal of the less-educated parents? No, that would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, we need to create a new intellectual culture that favors freedom, honesty, and truth over correctness, self-righteousness, and craven opportunism.