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.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Was the Jewish-Christian Conflict More about Race than Religion?
Was the Jewish-Christian divide really about race: most Christians came to be gentiles?
Suppose Christianity hadn't gone the Paulian way. Suppose the followers of Jesus preached mainly to fellow Jews in a movement intended mainly to be a reform religion for Jews.
There surely would have been much acrimony between the two groups(Judaic Jews and Christian Jews), but maybe the problems wouldn't have been so unsolvable if the contest had remained among Jews. It's like German Protestants and German Catholics used to attack one another but eventually patched things up and got along as fellow Germans.
But Christianity passed onto gentiles; thus most Christians were not Jewish converts/reformers but non-Jews who took up the Faith. So, the conflict between Judaism and Christianity went from differences of theology to differences of ethnology. And matters of blood are always deeper than matters of ink.
Religious Jews in Israel can tolerate and even accept secular Jews, communist Jews, decadent Jews, and all sorts of non-observant Jews as fellow tribesmen, but they reject even the most Philosemitic non-Jews as members of the community. Indeed, Jews feel closer to ethno-Jews who accept Jesus than to gentiles who reject Jesus and accept Moses. When Bob Dylan was into Jesus for awhile, Jews still regarded him as one of their own.
Suppose Christianity hadn't gone the Paulian way. Suppose the followers of Jesus preached mainly to fellow Jews in a movement intended mainly to be a reform religion for Jews.
There surely would have been much acrimony between the two groups(Judaic Jews and Christian Jews), but maybe the problems wouldn't have been so unsolvable if the contest had remained among Jews. It's like German Protestants and German Catholics used to attack one another but eventually patched things up and got along as fellow Germans.
But Christianity passed onto gentiles; thus most Christians were not Jewish converts/reformers but non-Jews who took up the Faith. So, the conflict between Judaism and Christianity went from differences of theology to differences of ethnology. And matters of blood are always deeper than matters of ink.
Religious Jews in Israel can tolerate and even accept secular Jews, communist Jews, decadent Jews, and all sorts of non-observant Jews as fellow tribesmen, but they reject even the most Philosemitic non-Jews as members of the community. Indeed, Jews feel closer to ethno-Jews who accept Jesus than to gentiles who reject Jesus and accept Moses. When Bob Dylan was into Jesus for awhile, Jews still regarded him as one of their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)