Just Say It is RACE-IST AND TRUE. Associate Race-ism with Truth.

Even after so much ink has been spilled over how Political Correctness robs us of reason, liberty, integrity, and courage, we still can’t have honest discussions of world problems because the vast majority of people adhere to the PC definition and deployment of the term ‘racist’. The word has such power over us because nearly everyone, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, agree on its dubious meaning. So, even as there are increasing numbers of people who deny that they are ‘racist’ or hurl back the accusation at the other side, almost no one dares to deconstruct the term and examine why it is so powerful.

People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.

Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.

Anyway, because a neutral-seeming term like ‘racism’(race + ism) has been defined as an extremist ideology, it’s difficult to have an honest and truthful discussion of race. After all, the formulation of the term ‘racism’ keeps reminding us that ANY ism(belief) about race must be extreme and pathological. Some have tried to solve this problem by using terms such as ‘racialism’ or ‘race realism’, but that only complicates matters. Such tactics are defensive when, if anything, true race-ists must go on the offensive and stop backing down. The term ‘racism’ must be rehabilitated, just like innocent victims of tyranny. The only alteration I would recommend is to spell and pronounce it as ‘race-ism’ to reiterate that the word should mean race + ism = belief in reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness. For more on this matter, go to this link: http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-only-true-race-ist-how-misuse-of.html.

Anyway, for the time being, what steps can we take to slowly steer the ship to redefine ‘racism’ or race-ism properly? I propose the ‘Race-ist-and-True’ Rule. If you make a true statement about racial reality and racial differences OR exhibit natural tendency of racial consciousness & solidarity, don’t ever back down when you are accused of ‘racism’. If you try to explain that you’re not ‘racist’, you’ve lost the argument there and then. You’ve put yourself in a defensive and pleading corner, as if the other side has the right to judge you while you feel a need to defend and justify yourself. This is because what should be a neutral term has been rigged by Jewish radical agenda and political correctness to mean something extreme and evil. For that reason, ANY belief in race or expression of racial identity(at least if you’re white and gentile) is automatically smeared as something extreme.
Now, what is so extreme about believing that evolution created different racial groupings of human beings? It is so obvious to any honest pair of eyes. What is so extreme about noticing racial differences? We can see it all around in sports, crime, and all sorts of behavior. And what is so evil about a people having a sense of racial identity, unity, and solidarity? It seems rather natural given that humans are genetically programmed to judge things based on sight and other visible signals. But because the mere terminology of race + ism has been defined as the most heinous form of extremism, even people making the most obvious observations or statements about race and racial differences must be on guard against charges of ‘racism’. With nearly all the institutions and powers operating in such PC manner, is anything possible to stem the tide of this rabid and virulent Judeo-Nazi agenda?

Yes, even if it’s an upward struggle. Also, the first tentative steps are the most important in any movement. It means you are serious and willing to move forward with the truth. And once we reach the top of the hill(like the Train that Could), it will be easy coasting from there on, with historical gravity being on our side.

So, what exactly is it that should be said when our perfectly reasonable views are accused of ‘racism’? First, I’m talking of rational and sane statements about racial reality, racial differences, and racial identity. I’m not talking of clown antics of people like Andrew Anglin who will say ANYTHING to trigger people and gain notoriety. Their views really are extreme, demented, or unserious(and mainly for attention). There can't be any moral defense for such stupidity and dementedness though we must defend speech rights to say offensive things.
As for those of us who dare to speak the truth about race & racial differences and have facts, truth, courage, and integrity on our side, the proper way to respond to accusations of ‘racism’ is to say that our views are ‘race-ist and true’. That is the right way. Don’t try to deny that you’re ‘racist’. Don’t play by their word game that was long ago rigged to favor them... just like a socialist can’t win any argument IF even the most moderate socialism is made synonymous with Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer Rouge.

Likewise, a capitalist will be in a hopeless position IF the base terminology of ‘capitalism’ is defined to mean Scrooge-like greed and pathological selfishness. Indeed, communist nations defined capitalism in just such manner, and that made it nearly impossible to lay out a rational case for free markets. According to communist terminological rules, the term ‘capitalism’ could never mean a neutral theory of economics based on market dynamics. It couldn’t be approached rationally and judiciously because it had an albatross of ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ around its neck.

Now, capitalism CAN be exploitative and ugly, but just because a system is capitalist doesn’t mean it is ultra-libertarian where the ONLY thing that matters is greed & profits and nothing else.
But in a communist nation, there were few things worse than being called a ‘capitalist-roader’ or ‘bourgeois’. Communist terminology fixed it so that ‘capitalism’ could only mean utterly greedy exploitation and ‘bourgeoisie’ could only mean the reactionary exploitative class. A rational, balanced, and empirical discussion of capitalism or the bourgeoisie’s role in history was nearly impossible because those very terms were loaded with moral contempt and loathing.
And in the Current West, ‘racism’ has the same kind of effect. Thus, even if someone like Charles Murray wants to calmly discuss the subject of race, it is denounced immediately as ‘racist’, and then any views about racial differences between whites and blacks is associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. This hysteria would have us believe that because racial differences had been invoked the past to justify certain institutions, any idea of racial differences must be to restore slavery.
This is like someone in a communist system insisting that any argument in favor of capitalism and market economics must be evil because, at least in his mind, anything associated with markets and profits must be about the greedy rich hogging all the wealth, sadistic henchmen tyrannizing workers, giant smokestacks belching out black soot to choke the proletariat, and innocents beaten down with truncheons. The radical stigmatization of the term ‘capitalism’ made it difficult for reformers to call for more efficient market economics because their reputations and careers(and even lives) could be ruined by accusations of being ‘bourgeois reactionary’ or ‘capitalist roader’. Even basic market reforms and limited privatization that might boost the economy became taboo in many quarters because, according to the communist terminology, there could never be a moderate and balanced form of capitalism. No, all forms of capitalism were extreme, exploitative, & evil, and that was that, and there was nothing more to be said.
People in the West face the same trouble with the term ‘racist’. As Charles Murray and many others found out, there are too many people brainwashed by PC into believing that rational ideas about race and racial differences are simply not possible. There can only be one view of race, and it is ‘nazi’.

Now, there are idiotic Nazi types who do espouse extreme and radical views on race. Calling them ‘racist’ would be correct to the extent that they do hold views on racial reality and racial differences. But the difference is their views are indeed radical and extreme, and more importantly, there is no way that sane and rational people who believe in racial reality and racial differences have views that resemble the lunacies of Neo-Nazism. So, my advice is not for radical racists who are prone to saying idiotic things. As so much of what they say is numbnuts and retarded, I have no wish to represent them or defend them. Fools who dig themselves into holes can’t be helped.

But, what if you’re a sane, rational, and honest person? What if your views on racial reality and racial differences are fully in accordance with known facts & data and are indeed in alignment with what any honest pair of eyes can see from racial reality in any society. If you’re that person and if what you’ve said makes good sense, then the worst thing you can do is deny that you are ‘racist’ when that charge is thrown at you. If your race-ism is valid & true and if you’re accused of ‘racism’, the proper response is to say that your views are ‘race-ist and true’.
This puts the accuser in a bind. After all, truth has the advantage of prestige. How can falsehood be better than the truth? Those who argue for the Noble Lie will lose soon enough because no one wants to believe that he or she must stick to demonstrable falsehoods for the ‘higher good’. People want to believe that their righteousness is based on rightness about reality. The rabid dogs of PC want to believe that science, reasons, and facts are on their side. To be sure, there are some PC hacks who argue that truth about race must be suppressed for the ‘higher good’. But such argument simply cannot stand for long. It’s like the Geocentrism of the Catholic Church couldn’t withstand the truth of real astronomy that placed the Sun at the center. If PC admits that it favors lies over truth in the name of the ‘higher good’, it will be admitting that PC 'goodness' has no legs of truth to stand on. It must be propped up by crutches of deception, the logic of which is not unlike withholding the truth about Santa Claus to little children.

So, truth beats all in the end. Those with truth on their side merely need to speak honestly because truth backs them up. In contrast, those opposed to the truth must resort to lies, propaganda, hysteria, or banal homilies. Indeed, the reason why so many Jews(in media and academia), Antifa Janissary types, and cuck-collaborators are so triggered by rational race-ists is due to their abject fear that they may indeed be wrong on facts and truth, thus on the wrong side of history. Not only are racial differences so obvious to the naked eye but new genetic studies are showing that group differences among various races are all too real. PC hacks are now so desperate that they go beyond calling people ‘racist’ and call them ‘nazi’ as well. (This is rich coming from Jewish globalists especially because, if we were to judge people by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, Jewish Power is the most nazi-like force in the world as it indulges in Jewish supremacism, warmongering & imperialism, politics of paranoia & scapegoating, cult of megalomania, and even genocidal tendencies.) PC hacks hope to shut down debate by screaming ‘racist’, and that is supposed to decide there-and-then that your race-ist views are false and invalid.
But if you do have truth and facts on your side, you should respond to the charge of ‘racism’ by clarifying that your views are, yes, ‘race-ist’ and also true. This way, the term ‘race-ism’ is gradually, step by step, associated with the courageous will to speak the truth and counter the platitudes of PC. Prog idiots use ‘racist’ as shortcut to invalidate those who won’t get on with the program, and they gained much power by convincing so many people that, yes indeed, any view about racial differences had to be about irrational ‘hatred’ and ‘supremacism’.

And PC got the upperhand because even people with rational and sane views on race, upon being accused of ‘racism’, denied the charge and tried to explain themselves on ground of science and facts. But the fact is they never had a useful term for their rational position on race. Because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been defined to mean something extreme(and possibly the most evil thing in the universe), people with rational views on race simply didn't know how to characterize their positions. Perhaps, they could have used the term ‘genetist’(as opposed to geneticist who is a researcher of genetics). A genetist could mean someone who believes in the genetic or biological roots of human existence. But ‘genetist’ is too broad and would apply to all life forms. As we are mostly involved with human affairs, it made sense to winnow down to categories and concepts with the greatest relevance to us. And race is of great importance because evolution has been at work to create different human groups that really do vary generally in appearance, body size, intelligence, strength, speed, temperament, and other factors. Therefore, we must stick to the term that addresses the reality of race, and that term must be race + ism or race-ism. If race is real(and it is), then it means there are real differences among races. That is the truth, and we prefer the truth over falsehood. So, it means we are race-ist and truthful. Then, if some PC dog barks at us and accuses us of ‘racism’, we must simply say that, yes, our positions are race-ist-and-true. PC dolts assume that the mere accusation of ‘racism’ has a magically discrediting and disinfecting effect on people who espouse 'hateful' views.

But they are unprepared to deal with people who dare to point out that race-ism = truth. If we stand our ground and insist that our views are race-ist-and-true, then the other side will find itself in a bind. They are so used to ‘winning arguments’ with that magic word ‘racist’ that they've grown mentally lazy. Our enemies are accustomed to people cowering or backing down because PC has long held that ‘racism’ = extreme views on race = falsehood.
But we can easily demonstrate that race-ism is valid and true. Facts are really on our side. Races do exist, and the differences are not just skin-deep. So, our race-ism is rational and sane. Furthermore, because we have the facts on our side, our views are race-ist-and-true. Because we stand our ground and associate race-ism with truth, it is now up to the PC side to prove that our race-ist views are untrue. But this is difficult because the evidence of racial differences is so everywhere and so obvious. Furthermore, the advancement of genetic science is beginning to prove that differences among racial groups go the roots of our DNA.
So, there you go, the idea of Race-ist-and-True will be difficult to beat. Then, the next time you are accused of ‘racism’ by PC dogs and dolts, don’t cower and sweat as you try to persuade them that you’re not ‘racist’. Instead, tell them that your views are Race-ist-and-True. Insist that truth is on your side precisely because you are a race-ist who has the will and courage to look at the world with honest eyes. See what happens.

Race Denial Is No Long Tenable - Ideology Is Downstream from Iconography

Following WWII and the demise of Nazism(and revelations of its horrors) and prior to the explosion of race problems in America(and now in Europe as well), one could forgive the sincere belief among intellectuals, social scientists, and politicians that race is essentially a ‘social construct’ and, once equality was assured under the law, all races could achieve more or less the same. If intellectuals were wrong about race reality and racial differences back then, it was more out of naivete or idealism than dogma, cowardice, or some pernicious agenda.

But after several decades of social experimentation, it should be clear to any honest person that racial differences are all-too-real and account for the persistent problems of race, especially pertaining to blacks. But because of the pervasiveness of PC as status symbol(as political incorrectness will invariably lead to blacklisting or demotion in the choicest careers), iconography of holy relics(as Jews, Negroes, and Homos are now objects of mandatory reverence), and radical violence as forms of intimidation(as heretics & dissidents face real danger of being physically assaulted by Antifa thugs, BLM lunatics, or screeching campus fanatics), most academics and media people are FORCED to be dishonest, FORCED to ‘not know’ what they, in the heart of hearts, know.

We can forgive a white liberal in the 1940s, 1950s, and even in the 1960s for believing that black conditions would be vastly improved with new laws and federal programs because, after all, blacks(along with other non-white races) had been denied equal opportunity in America. But after several decades of undeniable proof of black advantage in muscle power, black impulsiveness, black aggressiveness, and black psychopathy that tends toward obsessive egotism & narcissism, one has to be willfully disingenuous or just plain delusional to insist that the racial problems in this country owe to the legacy of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’.

It’s no longer about Jim Crow but ‘Radio Raheem’(the obnoxious thug of Spike Lee’s worthless DO THE RIGHT THING), the kind of moron who is all too common in black communities across America. The problem is too many Negroes who act like ‘nogs’ and carry this ‘groid’ gene that makes them tougher, more aggressive, more impulsive, and more psychopathic. After decades of black rampage against other races(and among themselves), this fact should be plain as day, but the tyranny of political correctness prohibits honest discussion of race that locates the black problem as rooted in genetics. As a result, we are left with praising everything black(as if even Problem Blacks are really just misguided and misunderstood victims of the System)and blaming anything white as explanation for the failures of the black community.

PC is an excuse-making machine that blames external white forces for all that stinks in the black community. (This is all the more disingenuous because it is the problematic nature of blacks that is hyped and sensationalized as ‘cool’ and ‘badass’. So, the very white progs who insist something must be done about black gangsta culture of mayhem and murder also promote it as ‘authentic’ and something worthy of emulation.) The idiot critic Andrew O’Hehir at Salon surmised(or pontificated) that Detroit’s decline owed to envious white racism’s punishment of Motown. Apparently, white folks decided Detroit must go down because Smokey Robinson wrote too many groovy songs.

To be sure, conservatives are hardly better on the Race Issue; they also play by the PC songbook in their own way. So, we are told that Detroit was ruined by Liberalism, socialism, and the Democratic Party. Apparently, it had nothing to do with race, specifically the naturally destructive tendency among blacks. If so, why are some white-majority cities under Democratic rule among the richest in America? Why is San Francisco and Manhattan, two very Liberal cities, overflowing with wealth and privilege despite their ‘big government’ policies?

Or consider how Ann Coulter blames lowly black behavior on the Democratic Party, as if blacks would have acted better under Republicans. So, how are blacks acting in Republican Alabama or Texas? Or channeling Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter muses that blacks learned how to be violent from Scotch-Irish hillbillies, a notion that would imply that Black Africa was an Edenic paradise of peace and harmony when, in fact, it was inhabited by spear-chucking savages from time immemorial. Why is there so much nonsense about blacks?

Political Correctness isn’t just about ideas & issues but also about idols & icons. In a way, the power of idolatry & iconography is more crucial to the sway of PC. After all, even as the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ differ in their explanations & proposals of the Black Problem, both sides are agreed that blacks, along with Jews and even homos, must be treated as a preternaturally noble and holy people, a Magic People. Despite differences in ideology, the American ‘right’ and American ‘left’ are agreed on the icons. It’s like the conflict between Catholics and Protestants or between Sunnis and Shias. Despite doctrinal differences, they worship the same gods or icons. So, ‘iconology’ > ideology. While ideology offers explanations, ‘iconology’ determines what or whom should be worshiped. There is a reason why Jews, homos, and Negroes have special iconic power in the US. Part of the reason is obvious: Jews control the media and decide which people should get favorable attention and adoration. But it’s also because Jews, homos, and blacks have special talents. Jews are especially good with intellectualism, science, business, and humor. So, they are admired as people of superior skills whose achievements continue to do wonders for all humanity. Jews also promoted the Cult of Shoah. As for homos, they are naturally fanciful, flamboyant, & narcissistic, and in our Age of Vanity & Hedonism, those qualities count for a lot. As for Negroes, they dominate sports, pop music, and sexual symbolism. For many whites, nothing is worthier of worship than the black ‘twerking’ booty and the black dong. Andrew Breitbart once said "Politics is downstream from culture." Sometimes, ideology is downstream from iconography. People are captivated by something first on the sensory level and then seek rational or ideological explanations to justify their fixation. It’s like the John Hurt’s closeted homo character in LOVE AND DEATH IN LONG ISLAND who is so enthralled by the iconic sexuality of some second-rate actor that his mind follows his heart and balls.

Paradox of Globalism. We are made into Animals and then Tamed into Obedience.

The Perverse Paradox of Globalism.

It says we should reject & abandon our old 'repressions' of civilization and be uninhibited(much like black-Africans). We should give into our wild animal nature in sex and aggression. It's no wonder that Rap, MMA, and pornification of mainstream culture are what the Current West is all about.

This return to 'natural' freedoms also means erasure of national borders and facilitation of free movements of peoples like wild animals and migratory birds. This is where globalism meets libertarianism. We should give into our natural urges and instincts and be like animals liberated from old inhibitions.

But 'nature' isn't only about fun & excitement but about tension, conflict, and crisis. Nature gains equilibrium through constant violence and counter-violence, through the endless friction between aggression and defense.
So naturally, when people are urged to feel, act, and express themselves like animals, there will be more tribal tensions among them. Nature seeks balance, pitting the aggressive drives and defensive reactions. This leads to social chaos, and this worries globalist elites who see rising problems all over the world. The elites tell us to act like animals but then admonish us for acting out-of-order or tribal-and-defensive.

Globalists want us to be like animals because people who give into their animal urges and impulses are more likely to be excessive consumers of goods and services. Also, humans-as-consumers are merely economic animals and have no sense of identity, culture, or heritage. They are easier to manipulate with the latest fads and fashions. They are useful minions who work and then blow all their earnings on 'fun and games' of the Moment.

The problem for globalists is that Being-Natural means being uninhibited not only as excessive consumers and hedonists but as tribal warriors and territorial defenders. A 'natural' person could be a mindless consumerist pig(favored by globalists), but he could also be someone who expresses his or her TRUE and HONEST feelings about Jews, homos, and blacks(the holy three according to PC cult). And Jews can't tolerate that kind of 'naturalness' since it challenges their supremacist claim to power. Jews want us to be like animals and children with big appetites for consumerism. They want us to be like pigs who will buy whatever pushed onto them. But they don't want us to be brazen and uninhibited with our true blue honest opinions about power(held by Jews), crime(dominated by blacks), and degeneracy(spread by homos).

For globalism to sustained(to the point of breaking the spine of European consciousness), we need to be turned into trashy animals who've lost their sense of identity, culture, and heritage. We need to be like animals who will go wild over the latest 'fun' fad or fashion. However, natural passions can also run wild and free against Jews, blacks, and homos. After all, the natural tribal passion among whites is to defend themselves against Jewish malfeasance, black brutality, homo pathology, and demographic imperialism by hostile peoples. But that is the natural side of white folks that globalists cannot tolerate. So, PC is used as Obedience School to TAME us to act proper when it comes to certain topics and issues.

We are no longer cultivated into thinking rational individuals with respect for heritage and culture. Traditionally, the Western Ideal was to elevate people from their base animal nature with a combination of critical reason, cultural reverence, and creative individuality. No more. Thanks to globalism, we are to be turned into wild impulsive animals(addicted to trashy junk pop culture and infantile pleasures) and then be tamed by PC to spare certain groups & interests (Jews, blacks, and homos) from our natural ire. If whites are allowed animal-like hatred, it is against other whites or whomever Jews hate at the moment(like Iranians or secular Syrians at war with Jihadis).

Globalism doesn't regard us as humans capable of rising about animality. It encourages us to be dumb animals enslaved to piggish appetites and restrained not by reason and civility but by sticks & carrots of PC with its simple-minded taboos and hysteria.

Muslim Terrorist Attacks in the West are partly the Continuation of the Clash of Cultures between Arab Islamism and African Savagery

There's long been a violent Clash of Cultures between the Muslim World(especially Arab) and the Afro-pagan World. Arab Muslims considered black Africans to be wild, savage, lascivious, and beastly. So, Arab Muslims not only enslaved black Africans but castrated them to tame their Jungle Nature. It was Jihad Justice against Jungle Junk. This went on over many centuries. Scholars say Arabs enslaved millions of black Africans, seeing them as little more than animals.
But Arabs also spread Islam among black Africans, and many black Africans became Muslims and waged Culture War on other black Africans who were seen as mired in tribal-pagan-savagery.
As both the West and the Muslim World were dominated by spiritual institutions and communal values, the main thrust of their moral-cultural narrative was directed against black African savagery that was regarded in a negative light, not good for much of anything. White Christians and Arab Muslims held that black Africans had value only as slaves or converts to Christianity or Islam. They didn't find intrinsic value in black African-ness.

That was then, this is now. With the ebbing of religion and morality in the West, Pop Culture became the main mode of cultural expression and experience. Also, with the fading of traditional mores and authorities, the new religion became Political Correctness or Cult of Social Justice. PC came to be controlled by Jews. YMCA buildings in colleges are now more likely to host homo celebration or hip hop orgy.

This gave a huge advantage to blacks. With the rise of electro-amplified Pop Culture, black music or black-inspired music came to dominate the modern world. The most popular music among Western elites is reggae. Among ordinary people, it's Rap or Hip Hop. Also, sports as the New National Culture led to worship of blacks as local heroes since blacks are most athletic. Also, the erosion of moral values led to sexual licentiousness, and the cult of black twerking booty and hung black dong became iconic in the Western/Modern consciousness. Black savagery, once regarded as the lowest state of human existence, became the most popular and in-demand(even though this techno-savagery often appeared in the form of imitation by white, brown, Jewish, Asian, or Hindu performers).

So, if the religious-moralistic Arab Muslim World and the White Christian World once had in common their low regard of black savagery as just backward, animal-like, crazy, and beastly, those facets of blackness came to be admired, adulated, fetishized, sensationalized, and even revered in the Age of Electronic Mammon, at least in the technologically advanced West.

White girls now grow up to Rap music and Jungle Fever. White boys now grow up admiring black athletes who routinely beat up white males and colonize white wombs. Cuck-dom is the state of the Modern West, and most white men(except those in the Alt Right) have accepted their inferior racial status via-a-vis blacks. This is why we have 'whiggers'(and even 'chiggers' or yellows who appropriate blackness to compensate for their innate 'lameness'), but we don't have blacks trying to imitate country music or J-Pop.
Much of Pop Culture in the US and EU are variations of Jungle Fever where white girls imitate black girls and fantasize about having sex with blacks and having mulatto babies. And there is hardly any resistance from white males since they've been lobotomized and castrated. (White fathers are more afraid to say, "I wish my white daughter marries a white guy" than "I'd be proud to see my daughter be knocked up by a black guy." ) Indeed, even after Muslim bombings, these cucked out males condemn terrorism mainly in defense of concerts that promote Jungle Fever among white girls and cuck-wussiness among white males. For most whites, Homomania and Jungle Fever are their main cults or neo-religions. 

But blacks prevail over whites not only with sports, music, and sex. Because of the Slavery Narrative(and milking of 'white guilt' by PC) and the bellowing voice of the Negro, whites also see blacks as the Magic Race, the Holy Race, the soulful people of god. Your average white American worships MLK more than God; your average European worships Mandela more than Jesus. Whites feel no comparable reverence for figures of other races.  Even Gandhi has faded in appeal. Dalai Lama is more a figure of adoration than adulation.

But if White post-Christian West surrendered to Black Savagery, the Arab Muslim World is still in a state of Culture War with Black Africa. Arab Muslims never felt sorry or apologetic for their imperialism in Africa or black slave trade. If Christian morality is steeped in the cult of guilt, Islam is immersed in other matters. Muhammad preached to his followers to be warriors, hardy and ruthless. So, Arabs don't feel sorry or guilty about their historical role in Africa.
Also, if Christianity is a spent force and only survives in its secularized form of PC, Islam is still very much alive as a spiritual and moral force. As such, it continues to view black African culture as savage, backward, beastly, and demonic. If the West gave up its traditional certitudes and now worships Negroes as heroes, studs, angels, and demigods, the Arab Muslims still regard themselves as culturally, morally, and spiritually more advanced than black Africans, indeed by light years.

So, it must be strange for Arab Muslims to come to the West only to realize that black techno-savage culture is favored over Islamic values by the white natives who are into reggae, jungle fever, black sports, and Magic Negro idolatry. Hail Mandela but hell with Ayatollah and Arafat.

Even though Muslim terrorism is characterized in terms of Islam vs 'Western Values', it is really a Culture War between Arab Islamism and Black Africanism(that has culturally colonized the West and is now sexually colonizing the wombs of white women, with the sheepish approval of pathetic cucked-out white males). It is Jihad vs Jungle, a Clash of Cultures that's been going on over a thousand years. This battle is now being waged on Western Soil since both black Africans and Muslims have been allowed in huge numbers.

This aspect of the clash eludes detection under the radar because some of the Muslim attackers are black Africans and most of the victims are white Europeans. (Of course, there is also the factor of PC pushing the fanciful notion of all People of Colors being united against 'white racism'.) But devout black Muslims have made the cultural shift from Jungle Jive to Jihad Justice. They've come to reject Afro-pagan-savagery.
Also, those white victims of terrorism are often 'whiggers' to the extent that their main mode of entertainment and enjoyment involve black sports, sex, and music.
In that sense, the so-called Clash of Civilizations we see today isn't Islam vs the West but Islam(still a spiritual-moral force) vs Whiggers(whose main objects of worship are electro-amplified Afro-savagery and homomania).

Multiculturalism is Not about Tolerance of Minorities. It is a Cancer that Demands Endless Demographic Imperialism until the Native Majority is Reduced to a Minority.

Multiculturalism is like a cancer that keeps on metastasizing. It never stops. It grows bigger and bigger and demands more and more Diversity until the native host population is consumed and devoured by it.

PC or Political Correctness is the mental virus that fools a people into seeing Multiculturalism as a magic cure than as the cancer that it really is.

Those who ignore cancer because it begins as a small tumor doesn't understand its true nature. Unlike a birthmark or mole that remains fixed in size, cancer cells tirelessly grow and spread, eventually to sicken and kill the person.
Likewise, those who ignore multiculturalism as just some small thing fail to realize that it is a radical ideology designed to keep increasing foreign populations until the native folks are reduced to cowered and powerless minority.

It is natural for a society to have minorities. That is not the problem. Every society has some minorities.
However, multi-culturalism isn't about humane tolerance of existing minorities. It is a radical ideology insisting that MORE minorities and foreigners must be added UNTIL the native majority is reduced to a minority and shamed and intimidated into obeisance.

It is about immigration-invasion and destruction of native folks and culture.

There is no negotiating with multi-culturalists. They will not accept any limits on the percentage of minorities. If a nation is 99% white and willing to accept multiculturalism until the nation is 90% white, multiculturalists will only insist on more diversity. If the white majority settles for a 80% white nation, that won't be acceptable either. Indeed, the more you try to negotiate or compromise with multi-culturalists, the bolder and nastier they get. So, if you seek compromise for a nation that is to remain 60% white, the multi-culturalists will again say NO!
Then 50%? 40%? 30%? No, the multi-culti process is radical & ravenous and continue with zeal even when whites become 10% or less of the original population.

THAT is multiculturalism. It is a cancerous mechanism that never compromises and insatiably presses fore more conquest and concessions.

Politics of Empathy: Empathy is Secondary to "What You Empathize With?" and "Who Controls What You Empathize with?"

The problem is the Politics of Empathy in relation to graven or craven images put forth by the media.

Empathy is a useful mental process. It is about trying to see things from the viewpoint and feelings of other persons(or even animals). Empathy doesn't necessarily mean agreement or sympathy. It means that other people have their own egos, experiences, problems, justifications, biases, and rationalizations. A novelist has to empathize with all his characters. An artist must 'read' minds. So, even though Oliver Stone was no fan of Nixon and loathed Bush II, he tried to enter their heads in his movies.

Everyone should develop one's own capacity for empathy, but he or she must also ask, "What am I empathizing with?" With Reality, ideality, or fantasy?

In reality, we come across real people, and over time, we come to see them for what they are. If we must learn to empathize with others(by looking into their thoughts, feelings, personal agendas and angst), it must on grounds of understanding their true motives and emotions. So, empathizing with reality is the most important thing and bring us closer to to the truth.

But outside our close circles of family members, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers, we have to rely on the media, education, arts, and pop culture to get a glimpse of what other people are like and what makes them tick. After all, we have no direct contact with them. They come to us filtered, altered, and/or spun by the media or academia. This reality outside our inner circle of people we actually know is almost never presented as raw reality or neutral truth by the controllers of knowledge. It is manipulated and shaped into an idealized version of the reality. So, if one has no direct contact with the real mafia and has never read a serious & honest account of them AND if one only knows about the mafia from Hollywood gangster movies, one's empathy will be with the ideality or fantasy than with reality of the mafia.
This is obvious enough, and the elite intellectuals should know this themselves and should be reminding us to be skeptical of how reality is manipulated by the media. Instead, elites are addicted to their own PC crack and incapable of rising above their biases. They fear the Cold Turkey of truth. Also, as they control media and academia, they prefer to use them as instruments of power and control than free thought. After all, a thinking people might disagree with the elites and draw different conclusions based on contrasting sets of facts.
So, the elites prefer the current condition where books, fiction, and movies are used as effective(especially when images are used with music) conveyors of ideality and fantasy as more-real-than-real. People's view of reality are shaped more by stereotypes and archetypes presented by media and academia than by what's really out there.

The result is the perversion of empathy. Empathy has value only when one tries to access and assess the thoughts & feelings of real people in the real world. It is a fool's game when we are empathizing with false graven/craven images conjured by the media.
Surely, if one doesn't the know the real Hitler or Stalin but only knows him by pro-Hitler propaganda or pro-Stalin movies, one will be 'empathizing' with a heroic & sympathetic portrait of the man. Thus, empathy can only become a mindless worship.
Or, if a certain figure or person is presented in the most despicable or villainous manner, the reader or viewer doesn't have much leeway to think otherwise of him.

Such rigging undermines the true worth of empathy. The reader or viewer can only go along with the pre-cooked 'empathy' served by the writer or film-maker. Now, a true artist may present complex characters in complex situations and invite the reader or viewer to participate in the exploration. But most books and movies dispense with complexity. For one thing, it's usually commercial poison as people prefer cops and robbers. Also, the powers-that-be despise the masses as dummies who should be controlled and manipulated, not provoked to think.
More importantly, the globalist-masters fear the rise of complexity & ambiguity among the educated elites because truly curious, skeptical, and rational scholars and journalists are likely to raise inconvenient and 'dangerous' questions about the true nature of power in the world and who has it. This is why the masters of the world want elite colleges and big media to be so PC, closed-minded, judgmental(without judiciousness), and smugly bigoted as 'more evolved' people by the virtue of spouting the tiresome mantras of 'racism', 'homophobia', and 'antisemitism'. Better to have intelligent educated elites fume mostly about 'trailer trash' rednecks and Evangelicals than ask questions about which group has the Real Power and uses it to spread misery around the world.
The masters of the world fear free-thinking elites more than free-thinking masses. After all, most people don't care about anything even if they had the freedom to think and ask questions. They are too incurious and none-too-bright. It is the educated elites who read books, ponder theories, and think new thoughts. So, if the paradigm is to shift, it usually begins with the elites. After all, it was Anglo elites, not Anglo workers, who shaped the political and ideological culture of the West. It was educated Jewish elites, intellectuals, and artists who changed culture and ideology. Jewish plumbers, accountants, and used car dealers had no use for that. So, in order for the Masters of the World to keep the power, they must control the educated elites that do the most thinking and raising of questions. Free-thinking elites are the most dangerous force against the Status Quo of Power. Then, we can understand why the Power Elites prefer PC hysteria in elite colleges. It is a way of preventing the culture of free thought.

For this very reason, there needs to be a major shift in the way that ideas are discussed. Since colleges only allow PC, there needs to be an online virtual campus where all voices can be heard. I'm not talking of online courses that many colleges now offer. I mean a Virtual Center of Free Thought and Discourse that is totally safe from PC. There are many independent voices on the internet and youtube, but they are too scattered and disorganized. Also,they are too fixated on a single issue or ideology to be part of a larger intellectual community committed to free discussion of ideas.

Anyway, many progs consider themselves very 'empathetic'. But they don't ask the crucial question of whom or what they are empathizing with. After all, there is a huge difference between the real Jesse James and the movie Jesse James(often featured heroically). Empathizing with the real Jesse James(for those who knew the real man) and empathizing with the Hollywood Jesse James are entirely different things. Empathizing with figures of ideality is to fall into a trap of a rigged system. Since the figure or character has been idealized, you can only see him as a hero, saint, or martyr. Empathizing with fantasy is even worse. In our celebrity culture, much of the cult of personality of various figures is closer to outright fantasy, going way beyond trimming and airbrushing less reputable details of their lives.

Too many pampered whites who grew up in protective environments don't knew the reality or actual conditions. Their idea of reality comes from books, movies, TV shows, and music videos. So, they are more likely to come across Magic Negroes than real blacks. Also, even black thugs who cause lots of harm in real life has been made 'fun' and 'cool' by the media, especially via the cult of rap. So, even the worst pathology of blacks is featured as something positive, and gullible and naive whites end up empathizing with the black gangsta some kind of 'hero' or 'legend'.

We often hear that Liberals are more empathetic by nature, but true or not, the more important question is "Are they empathizing with reality or with fantasy?" Those who empathize with fantasy mistake it for reality, and then, the whole point of empathy has been rendered moot.

Virtue-Vanity is the Main Identity for Many in the West. Virtue Vanites reject Tangibles for Intangibles.

The main identity of many people in rich nations is none other than Virtue-Vanity as shaped by PC, which of course is controlled by the GLOB(globalist elites).

So, if the GLOB says homos are sacred, the V-V's(virtue-vanites) make a big show of their special 'virtue'. Also, Virtue Vanity is less something to practice personally than display fashionably. It's like a hat or high-heel shoes. It's a form of pseudo-ethical exhibitionism, and Virtue-Vanites get their jollies and virtugasms by making a spectacle of themselves. Indeed, the mindset of V-V partly stems from celebrity culture. Recall how Rock Stars held concerts to party and boogie about some cause or other to highlight their vanity not only as rich famous pigs but oh-so-caring saints. Morality for charlatans. Have the cake and eat it too. Celebrate and throw a party AND win plaudits as the new jesuses.

People are naturally 'spiritual'(and crave 'emotional uplift'), but since God has been banished from the culture, people thirst for new issues and themes to feel rapturous about. And PC offers the latest fix of Fashion Faith for the quasi-spiritual junkies.
So, if the latest neoligious(neo-religious) craze is 'trannies in the toilet', that's Virtue Vanitism's snakeoil-of-the-hour... until something new is hyped by the PC machine.

This explains why the political culture is so often 'vanitized' than merely sanitized. It is sanitized of inconvenient truths but also 'vanitized' to make people feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou. Thus, the matter goes from a social event or political issue to a new crusade or chest-beating sermon.

For many white people in the West, the vanity of virtue is the ONLY identity they have left since they are not allowed to connect or reconnect with their racial roots, cultural core, and historical bonds. Because those rich, deep, and healthy drives have been condemned and expurgated as 'racist' and 'evil', white people hunger for something to provide them with compass, meaning, and direction.
And the ONLY hope offered by PC is for whites to feel to good about themselves by putting down other whites. The 'bad whites' are those who choose to defend things that are tangible and real: race as biology, nations as homeland and territory, actual history as memory, collective & shared property of the white race.
According to PC, whites must forgo all bonds with anything that is real, substantial, or tangible. Instead, whites must strive to be 'good whites' denouncing and attacking 'bad whites', those who still hold onto the real and tangible. 'Good whites' are kindled to chase after intangibles such as 'universalism', 'social justice', 'equality', or fantasy of limitless genders. Because intangibles tend to be vague and uncertain, 'good whites' must be animated with blind faith and fanaticism. So, virtue-vanites are most hard-headed about things that can least be hand-held. Virtue Vanity is a fire that burns on PC fumes. But once the fumes vanish, so does the fire because there is no tangible wood or coal to keep the fire going independent of artificial feel-good fumes supplied by PC.

PC or Political Correctness needs to be classified & treated as a Disease

PC should really be treated as a disease.

What is a disease? It is something that makes an organism sick, defenseless, and weak.

There is organic disease caused by bacterial or viral infections. And there is disease resulting from physical injuries like falling down or being thrown off a horse(even leading to paralysis).

But, as Richard Dawkins theorized, ideas also work like viruses or bacteria. Ideas have a kind of iDNA.
Some have a way of colonizing, infecting, subverting, and reprogramming minds and senses.

Some ideas and images are beneficial to the organism and promote healthy outlook, constructive habits, and well-being. Their impact is like nutrition, exercise, beneficial micro-organisms(like lactobacilli), vitamins, and oxygen-rich red blood cells.
Some ideas and images are harmful and lead to dissipation, confusion, agitation, deterioration. Their effects are not unlike rabies from a bite of diseased animal or diabetes from excessive intake of sugary calories.
Ideas can infect minds like viruses and bacteria infect cells. Ideas can lead to Idea-disease or Ideasease. Punk Rock culture had a toxic and degenerative effect on the British Working Class.

PC is a kind of idea-disease. To understand the danger of PC, we need to consider the immune system, be it biological or socio-political.
A healthy organism relies on a strong immune system. Every individual body is organo-nativist-and-defensivist. It is under constant bombardment from countless germs in air, moisture, and objects. The body’s immune system must constantly maintain itself against invasive-foreign elements. It tries to filter in only the things that are essential to the body. A healthy body accepts food to be digested and absorbed by the body. It also benefits from some beneficial ‘germs’, like lactobacillus. But it must constantly be on guard to keep out useless and especially hazardous materials. Harmful germs and parasitic agents are useful only to the extent that they strengthen organismic immune system against them. People in germ-free environments will end up up immune systems grown lax and weak. So, the body’s constant struggle against germs has a way of invigorating and recharging the immune system, thus keeping the body vigilant and hardy.
But when there is TOO MUCH invasion of germs and hazardous elements, the exhausted and/or overwhelmed immune system can’t sustain itself and collapses.
More dangerous yet, a virus may sneak in and play fifth-column from within the cells, insidiously subverting the immune system from the inside. That’s how HIV works. It enters cells and wreaks havoc on their internal mechanism, thus rendering their immune capacity moot.

PC is like HIV. It messes up the white race’s immune system from the inside.
PC makes white folks suffer from RIDS, or Racial Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

PC memes infect white folks' neurons with paralysis of ‘white guilt’ and images of ‘white evil’. Thus 'converted' or 're-programmed', even when white folks sense danger(and the need to respond accordingly), their corrupted internal mechanism tells them NO. PC-infected whites feel they have no right to defend their own kind.

Young PC types  in colleges are not rational beings, and they didn't arrive at their worldview rationally. Rather, right from the cradle, their minds were inculcated with PC. Thus infected, they feel that their race has no right to defend itself or preserve itself. They see the white race as a rapacious parasite that deserves to be leeched on by other races who'd been historically sucked dry by the white race.
So, as a race or ethnic community, white folks infected with PC have been rendered defenseless. PC-programming allows white virulence & aggression only in attacks on its own kind.
Even so, despite their antipathy to their own kind, every single organism seeks out safety and comfort. So, even as white PC brats are committed to their racial demise, they nevertheless strive for success as individuals. Devious PC offers this opportunity to white collaborators as a hook. The pledge to abandon group-survival and collective-power buys them certain privileges as atomized individuals.
Invasive systems often play this game on their prey. Since wholesale conquest may be too daunting a task, the invasive force seeks out collaborator-agents(with the uncanny ability to loosen themselves from the whole) to turn against their own kind for rewards of individual gain. Certain germs have the same effect on the body. They make some parts of the body cooperate against the rest of the body. This is also true of how human organs work. The tongue can become a fatal collaborator against the body. Its sweet-tooth addiction can make the tongue take leave of its senses and 'collaborate' with the Junk Food Industry that encourages it to consume more junk that tastes wonderful to the tongue but does the rest of the body wrong. SJW-s who spout PC to gain individual success are slurping-in-tongues. They do will say and do anything to gain sweet things for themselves at the expense of their own race. Of course, they can rationalize their betrayal on universal grounds --- they live for all of humanity than for the tribalism of race --- , but such mindless utopianism isn't grounded in the limitations of reality. It is as stupid as parents who neglect their own children to pursue the impossible dream of caring for all children. Of course, utopian-universalism is, more often than not, just a crutch for doing nothing at all. When one's task is conceived in such grandiose and herculean manner, one never knows where to start, so he doesn't. Instead, one can just pursue individual interests while pontificating about how he hasn't the time for his kind since he is concerned with the entirety of the 'human race'. It's like a general who refuses to fight a single battle since he's too occupied with the entirety of the war.

We mustn't treat PC-infected youth as rational agents. They are mentally infected and diseased. All healthy organisms seek to survive and be strong. As humans are social organisms, it makes no sense for a group of humans to invite harm & danger to its own kind. Swedes are not acting rational or natural by inviting more Invasion of Diversity. Nature is about organisms using sense and reason to save themselves, grow strong, and survive. It is not about organisms inviting self-destruction. Organisms act to harm themselves ONLY IF they are diseased.
Health = More Strength and Better Survival.
Disease = More Weakness and More Harm.

PC whites are idea-diseased or ideaseased. They are like Red Guards in China whose minds were infected with Maoism. When dealing with the diseased, we need to focus on the disease, not on the patient. It is the disease that renders the patient weak. Weakened state lowers the immune system, and then more foreign elements attack and infect the body. Thus, HIV had a domino effect on the body. Initially, the body falls prey to HIV and is made weaker. And then, more infections by other viruses and bacteria make the body increasingly weaker until the body cannot even defend itself from the weakest pathogens.
The pathogenic effect of mass immigration-migration-invasion into the West works in a similar manner. PC has been the ideological-HIV that weakened the Western immune system's effectiveness against invasion. PC weakened white-pride and white-defensive-resolve by associating such ideas & passions with negative emotions tainted with 'racism'. Thus, the West was helpless to stem the initial waves of invasion. But with each successive wave of invasion, the Western body is made weaker as its resources & energies must be allocated toward taking care of these invasive foreign bodies. Each successive stage of weakening means another round of invasion, even by ragtag mobs. Just like the weakest & smallest creatures can gorge on a beached whale or fallen elephant, the most hapless bunch of nobodies can invade a civilization whose defensive systems have corroded and decayed to the point of no return.
Naturally, there have been signs of healthy reaction from certain elements of the West. There are righteously enraged patriots in Sweden and other nations. They are like white blood cells activated to destroy germs and foreign elements. However, the West is under treatment by the globo-Jewish quack-doctor who keeps injecting the White Body with sedatives & chemicals to weaken its defenses. Thus, white blood cells must contend with both the infection(by foreign bodies) and the injection(by Jewish versions of Dr. Mengele).

Organisms have control over certain foreign bodies but may come under control of others. When we eat, the food-as-foreign-body is controlled by our bodies. Our bodies process the food, take what we need, and excrete the rest. We use and 'control' the food, not the other way around.
But when germs-as-foreign-bodies infect us, they control us. They mess with us and try to take over us.

Anyway, any organism that acts against its own interest must be diagnosed as sick and diseased. A deer that runs into a pack of wolves is surely not well in the head.
To the extent that PC is making Swedes invite self-harm and self-ruin, Swedes are idea-diseased. Their minds are filled with ideas and images that lead them over the cliff.
Furthermore, a diseased-mind can become schizophrenic and be given to hallucinations. Sweden is under such a delusion. Its hallucinations of delusions-of-grandeur as a 'moral superpower' has rendered it blind to obvious facts of what's really happening in Sweden and around the world. It has turned batshit crazy, indeed into the Crazy Cat Lady of the World. But then, in the Current West under the chemi-control of the globo-Jewish doctor --- Jew-run academia serves as mental institutions and the Jew-run news/entertainment media serve as dope-pushers --- , so many gentiles now hallucinate that homos = rainbow, man's anus = sex organ, and sexuality = 50 genders.

When we respond to SJW’s as if they themselves are the problem, we are giving them too much credit. It’d be like blaming Red Guards or Hitler Youth for their own virulence(as if they'd rationally and individually arrived at their 'convictions') when, in fact, their minds were infected with radical idea-germs inculcated into them by the all-powerful-system. Though the US is not a totalitarian power, most of its institutions and industries have fallen into the hands of Jewish globalists whose agenda is drive by a 'radical will'. If anything, the conceit of the US being a 'liberal democracy' makes PC delusions all the more insidious because the PC-infected can believe themselves to have come to their conclusions by way of free will and individual choice when, more often than not, the decisions/delusions were made for them by the controllers of the academia and media. At least in Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Nazi Germany, everyone knew there was no such thing as 'free speech'. In contrast, the globo-Jewish West trick the PC-infected with the notion of 'free speech but no hate speech'. The PC West tricks people into believing they have the freedom they really don't.

Anyway, it’d make no sense to treat a sick patient as if he is rationally willing the disease to be there when, in fact, he’s been taken over by the disease. Once infected, he has no control over the disease that has a logic of its own. It’s like someone with malaria is sick regardless of what he thinks or feels. It'd make no sense to treat a diseased person as if his condition is a matter of creed or conviction. (Likewise, when dealing with problems of addiction, it's important to understand that the addiction has control over the person, not the other way around. An addict is what he is not because he has wrong ideas but because the totality of his mind and body, his soul, has become slave to the addiction. Even though rational understanding of the problem is helpful to the addict, it isn't enough for him to break free. It's like someone suffering from flu or malaria cannot overcome the illness with medical knowledge about it. Whether sick or addicted, the starting point of the treatment must be the realization or admittance that the mind-and-body has been taken over by a force that is beyond the power of reason and morality.) If someone has rabies, it doesn’t matter what he thinks or feels as an individual. The fact is the rabies virus has control over him, and it is the virus that must be the focus of medical attention. As with any disease, some people can be saved, some cannot. Also, we need to give it time and expect no quick fixes. Just as a disease goes through phases and cycles, PC has its own symptoms and processes: its infection state, incubation state, fever stage, delirium stage, etc. Some eventually emerge from it and regain mental health. Others become chronic cases and become college professors or journalists... or slacker antifa types or crazy cat ladies.
A PC-deranged person has to be treated as a patient with an infection that may be cured(for good) or controlled(like Herpes that never goes away) than as a rational thinker with free will or individuality. Though there's no quick fix, helpful advice may allow more mental oxygen and iron into his intellectual bloodstream and hasten the healing process. (In some cases, PC passes away naturally. It's like growing up. Some people seem difficult in teen yrs and destined for trouble but land on their feet as soon as they mature.) A sick patient with a flu or malaria can't do anything about it --- he can only wait for the disease to play itself out and exit the body --- , but there are still precautions and procedures he can undertake to make the sickness subside faster. For example, he should be resting and eating healthy than partying and drinking. Likewise, we can goad the PC-infected to take certain steps to bolster their white blood cells and reactivate their immune system that will help them realize how demented & deranged PC really is. Still, it will take time. (To be sure, there may be instant cures, like dropping them into Haiti for a week, but I don’t think too many PC types will go there.)

SJW’s, who all sound and talk alike, are zombies infected with same virus. If indeed they are free-thinking agents, why do they drone the same mantras like mental clones? They all exhibit the same ‘symptoms’. It’s like people with rabies or leprosy all end up the same way. SJW’s all have the same psycho-symptoms or psymptoms.

When the priests treat Regan in THE EXORCIST, they focus on the Demon inside her, not on the girl. Once the evil spirit has taken possession of her, she no longer has agency. (AMERICAN PASTORAL is even more frightening on the matter of ‘possession’.) Regan is really helpless even when she acts wild and crazy. It is the spirit-possessing-her that is really driving her.

Certain ideas and images have this power to take over someone's soul. Same is true of certain foods. Most foods are not addictive. Whoever heard of broccoli or spinach addiction? But sugar can be additive. And certain drugs, like nicotine or cocaine, can be very addictive. It gains control over the person…. like opium in China and meth among certain white demographics. People with strong moral fiber and critical mindset are less prone to fall under the influence, but some people are either weak of mind/spirit or have personalities prone to virulence & extremism. As for children, they can easily fall for anything… which is why PC keeps targeting kids at younger ages. “Is you baby racist? You must make him worship at the altar of the Mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse or the Tranny Drag-queen from the earliest age possible.” (If no amount of social engineering can turn a homo into non-homo or tranny into non-tranny, why does PC believe that normal-sexual people can be pried out of their 'hetero-normativity'?)

If some people become diseased with ideas, others become diseased with images and sounds. Intellectual types often fall for radical ideas that may turn out to be harmful.
The hoi polloi often fall for addictive images and sounds of pop culture. These are without ideas — though increasingly fused with PC into ‘cool’ memes — , but they can be just as powerful, indeed even more powerful. Bad ideas can close the mind, but they must nevertheless must be activated by the mind, requiring some effort and modicum of critical activity. In contrast, hedonistic images and sounds of Pop Culture can turn young ones into cultural meth-heads. In the Age of Paglia, we've seen how Slut-feminists can be just as crazy, even crazier, than the earlier Stalinist ones.

Institutional Man vs Internet Kid

Every professor or journalist is an institutional man(or woman or person). Institutions are necessary, and without them, we wouldn't have organization and structure. (Some people say they are not against religion, only institutionalized religion, but this is like saying education is okay as long as it's not institutionalized. Yet,r religions wouldn't have survived without institutionalization, and most people would be uneducated if not for institutionalization.) That said, all institutions are inherently about conforming to norms and standards. This isn't a problem and, indeed, it is even a necessity insofar as every department or discipline must maintain its rules and principles. After all, a chemist has to know & practice real chemistry, and his work has to be examined and approved by his peers. If every alchemist posed as a chemist, chemistry would soon turn into anarchy.

So, institutions must enforce standards. But when do standards turn into dogma under peer pressure, ideological or otherwise? Ideally, regardless of the ideology of scholars, they should live up to academic standards of research and discourse. In some fields, it’s easier to uphold proper standards. It’s harder to fake studies in math and hard science. But history and social sciences are open to interpretation, bias, ideology, passion, and personalities. So, as Jonathan Haidt came to realize, most of the social sciences and humanities operate as rigged systems. They don’t so much uphold objective standards of academics as enforce or nudge-nudge the peer-pressure of dogma. Indeed, some academics have admitted that they favor their own ideological kind. So, they prefer a second-rate ‘leftist’ to a first-rate ‘rightist’ even though, by objective academic standards, the latter is more deserving. And some academics and journalists dismiss the notion of 'objective standards' altogether and blatantly favor only those facts, data, and even lies that legitimize their chosen Narrative. Their logic says, since absolute objectivity is not possible in the social sciences and humanities --- or worse, since objectivity might sometimes favor the counter-Narrative --- , it should be shucked whole hog in favor of Narrative as sacred dogma.

Institutions are exclusive and open to just a few. Every academic department can hire only a handful of people for coveted slots. So, everyone knows he has to play ‘politics’ and say the ‘right thing’ to be accepted and move up the ladder. Furthermore, even though professors(esp those with tenure) are technically free to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, they know very well that if they say or do the ‘wrong thing’, they will be targeted for demotion or prevented from further promotion. Or, SJW’s, as barking dogs of PC professors, might come running after them, even physically assault them.

This is the curse of all institutions, secular or religious. This is why nearly all great religions arose from outside the institution: Jesus and Muhammad. For most of history, academic institutions enforced strict dogma or the sacred canon of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. This may explain why so many false scientific theories of Aristotle went unquestioned and unchallenged for so long... until Galileo came along.  And China was hooked on Confucianonics.
In contrast, the modern German university conceived of a new academic culture that allowed greater leeway in discourse and research. But the model came under attack time and time again from the far right, the far left, the tribalists(Jews here, Hindus in India and even UK and Canada), and religious forces(in nations like Iran and now Turkey). Sometimes, the attack on academic freedom came from within the institution as certain personalities and thinkers wanted only their ideas to prevail.

When an institution becomes excessively ‘institutionalized’ — a tendency that exists in all institutions — , it turns into a fortress of dogma, the island of Nurse Ratched. And PC has really done damage to Western academia and to 'mass media'(which are worse because most of media are owned by six conglomerates that hire and fire people based on adherence to PC, homomania, and tribal interests of Jews).

But thankfully, there is the internet. Now, in terms of erudition and access to sources/materials, internet personalities like Stefan Molyneux and other would-be ‘thinkers’ fall short of the best of professional academics and journalists. But there is one crucial difference in favor of internet personalities. Whereas those in the institutions — even the very best, most honest, and most capable individuals — must always look over their shoulders and fear peeing their pants lest they be denounced by peers, hunted down by SJW’s, or fired from above, no such fear exists among internet ‘thinkers’ who have the freedom to notice and spout off on anything since they got nothing to lose. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
If institutions allowed total freedom to academics(who were hired on basis of qualifications regardless of ideology) and protected free speech, the internet personalities couldn’t compete with professors or media people. But people in the media and academia must play the PC game because every institution has a gatekeeper who decides who gets in, who stays out, and who-inside is pushed outside. Gate-keeping is essential to all institutions, but the politics of gate-keeping compromises the freedom of every institution since would-be-entrants must not only live up to objective standards but, more often than not, demonstrate that he or she is 'one of them'. So, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable an institutional man is, there are tons of things he can’t say and lots of topics he can’t broach. Even if he is technically or theoretically free to deviate from dogma or canon, he most often chooses not to out of dread of being shunned or hated by peers. When institutions grow Byzantine, it is the rag-taggers with guerrilla spirit who gain a sudden advantage. This wouldn’t be the case without the internet, but it now exists. Some youtube ‘thinkers’ reach many more young people than professors or journalists could possibly hope to. And people find their views interesting because the unrestrained nature of the talk seems closer to reality or doesn't shy away from controversy.

Leftists once spoke of ‘long march through the institutions’, but the metaphor is faulty. The Chinese Communists' Long March was not a trek into the centers of power to away from them. During the march, Mao and his men covered some 6,000 miles and ended up in the hinterlands. And it was from the periphery that Mao devised plans to take power. He appealed to the masses than to the elites.

In contrast, the Western leftists lost connection with the people and burrowed deep into institutions to take on monastic roles as the clergy of PC. It was more a deep dig than a long march. Despite their claims of caring about real people in the real world, half of what they yammer about is ‘gender politics’ over tranny issues.

If anything is long-march-like, it is the politics on the internet. Because internet is not institutionalized, it is an open platform for the free movement of ideas. While some of these ideas are crackpot and crazy, there are also discoveries & discussions of truths that the media and academia simply refuse to address. It’s like Colin Flaherty has the gall to spill the beans on the racial nature of US crime & violence that the institutions of media & academia don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

So, the Culture War is turning into Long March through the Internet vs Fortress Mentality of the Institutions.

Incidentally, Mao was like Muhammad of his age. How did Muhammad and his Muslims take power so fast over such vast an area? Clash of empires created a great vacuum of destruction and exhaustion. Persian Empire and Byzantine Empire battled one another ceaselessly and ground each other down…. and that provided the opening for Muhammad and his ragtag Arab raiders.
Likewise in China. The clash of big powers — Chinese Nationalists, Japanese Imperialists, and US military — led to a huge power vacuum in China; and Mao, esp thanks to Soviet intervention at the request of the US, found his opening and took all of China. The lesson to learn from this is that the minor power should look for an opening when the big guys cripple one another. When two lions maul each other nearly to death, even a hyena can take over as king.

Guardians of Political Correctness DUCK honest engagement with Those with the Courage and Honesty to Speak the Truth on Race, History, and Identity

Long ago, white boxers -- and even black boxers like Jack Johnson and Joe Louis -- 'ducked' fights with black boxers who might beat them.

Today, PC-pushers duck engagements with those who speak candidly about race, culture, history, and identity because they fear getting KO'ed.

On race, the facts point to racial differences. Races are different, and these differences have profound impact on society in terms of income, crime, sex, sports, culture, and power.

On culture, it's irrefutable that Western Culture is now decadent & degenerate and non-Western Cultures have problem with modernity.

On history, facts say all peoples have been violent and invasive. Whites weren't the only conquerors and colonizers. Also, white expansionists did a lot of good as well as bad.

On identity, it's a fact that people crave some form of group identity and that an identity rooted in ethnicity, history, and territory is the most sound and stable. After all, why did Jews seek a land of their own where they can be Jews with a sense of history?

With PC ducking honest debate and discourse, Alt Right and HBD community have become like the Negro Leagues.

Freedom, Independence, and Liberty are NOT possible without EXCLUSION

INCLUSION is now the buzzword in PC lingo pushed by Globalists.

But inclusion can work against freedom, liberty, and security. Indeed, freedom and liberty are impossible without security. Does anyone really free in a jungle full of dangerous animals? Does anyone really feel free in high-crime Detroit? Does anyone really feel free in the war zones of Syria or Libya(caused by Zionist-imperialist intervention)? Radical Inclusion leads to breakdown of security(and stability) and that means less freedom and liberty. Coercive Inclusion of US military imperialism into the Middle East and North Africa led to countless deaths and chaos everywhere. And Coercive Inclusion of masses of Africans and Muslims into Europe is leading to crime and mayhem.

Inclusion forces intrusion(even invasion) of other homelands. When EU is forced to be 'inclusive', it means it must surrender to intrusion and invasion by masses of Africans and Muslims. When White Americans are forced to be 'inclusive' of masses of non-white immigrants, it means having to live in a nation where they are reviled and blamed for everything.

A woman who is forced to 'include' every penis can only be rape victim. A woman without the choice to exclude the men she doesn't like is no longer free.

And this goes for victims of stalking as well. Such victims call on the police for safety to keep stalkers away. A woman doesn't feel safe with such types trailing her. This is especially true with famous celebrities who are stalked by crazy fans. In order for such people, women or celebrities, to feel secure(and free and independent), the police is called on warn or even imprison the stalkers. Women and celebs want to EXCLUDE stalkers from their lives.

Freedom and liberty have often been about Exclusion. Exclusion can happen by expelling a people who are deemed dangerous or threatening(or invasive). Or it can be achieved by mass-escape or mass-exile.

In the case of the Vietnamese and Algerians, they finally got together to expel the imperialist French invaders. Natives used guns and bombs to send the French back to France. Vietnamese and Algerians sought national independence via the expulsion of the French. Independence was achieved with the exclusion of the foreign French invaders.

In the case of Moses and Hebrews(if the Biblical legend is to be believed), they self-exiled themselves from the Egyptians. For the Hebrews to be free, they needed to exclude Egyptian tyranny from their lives. Since they couldn't overthrow Egyptians in Egypt, they chose mass-departure from Egypt to found their own homeland. Thus, Egyptian power came to be excluded from the lives of Jews, especially with the help of God who sent the Pillar of Fire and split the sea to devour the Egyptian cavalry(according to myth anyway).

So, Jews found freedom by excluding Egyptian tyranny from their lives. (But in founding their own homeland, they intruded into the lands of other peoples and slaughtered tons of them, again if the Biblical legends are to be believed. In forcing those gentiles in the Promised Land to be 'inclusive' of Jews, there were blood invasions and reprisals. Recent history has similar themes of freedom-by-exclusion and oppression-by-inclusion. The 20th century Exodus is about Jews gaining freedom by excluding the gentile world from their own lives. By departing from gentile lands and creating a Jewish state, Jews would welcome only the Jews and keep out the gentiles. Jews in hostile gentile nations would seek exile and exodus to Modern Israel, thus excluding gentile tyranny from their lives and living freely with other Jews. But this creation of the Jewish homeland required the the intrusive 'inclusion' of Jews upon Palestinians. Palestine was forced to 'include' Jews who soon turned into intruders and invaders who came to lord over the Palestinians. Exclusion meant freedom for Jews, but Inclusion meant tyranny for Palestinians. It's like the Japanese found new opportunities in Manchuria, but it required the coercive 'inclusion-invasion' of Northeast Asia. Later, for the Chinese to be free of Japanese Rule, the Japanese had to be expelled and excluded from China.)

America was founded on themes of exclusion. Colonial elites(Founding Fathers) rebelled against the 'tyranny' by King George and the Brits(even though historians say it wasn't all that bad). Also, white folks worried about Indian raids and red folks scalping white folks and leaving them bald. So, in order for America to be created, the colonials had to declare independence and EXCLUDE British power from the Americas. And in order for white folks to be safe and secure(in order to be free as civilized folks), they had to exclude the 'red savages' and dangerous animals(bears, cougars, wolves, and etc) from their domain.

The very idea of INDEPENDENCE implies exclusion. After all, to be independent means to be free FROM something.

When the Pilgrims came to America, they chose exile in order to exclude British religious tyranny(or what they saw as such) from their lives. When Robert Duvall flees in THX 1138, he is trying to exclude the tyranny of the System from his life. He wants to be free. He wants to be free FROM something. It's like the movie THE GREAT ESCAPE. The prisoners are trying to be free FROM of the German Prison Camp System. They want to exclude the power of German Guards from their lives.

Of course, themes of exclusion and inclusion are often inter-connected, as in the Moses story. Jews seek to exclude Egyptian tyranny from their lives. But in seeking a homeland of their own, they force other peoples in the region to 'include' Jews who come as intruders and invaders.

Also, there is the troubled relation between man and God. In some ways, man wants to be free of God. God has too many laws and injunctions. So, some Jews wanted to dance and party around the Golden Calf. They wanted to follow Edward G. Robinson than Charlton Heston. But God insists on the Jews including His laws in their lives because He figures Jews freed from God's Laws will succumb to their wild egos and start acting nuts like Sarah Silverman and Anthony Wiener. (To be sure, God sometimes want to exclude human affairs from His existence because humans are pesky, ridiculous, and retarded. But just when He wants to say 'get lost, idiots', humans are praying to Him and beseeching Him for help after they mess up. And God figures He will include their prayers in His plan for humanity...)

In a way, one might argue that the theme of INCLUSION in current American politics allows freedom for all of humanity. US is the Promised Land to which all peoples of the world should escape to. All the world is like one giant Egypt, and every people who want to flee are like Jews. Just as Jews sought freedom by excluding Egyptian tyranny from their lives by seeking mass-exile, all these immigrants are trying to exclude from their own lives the tyranny of their own kind by coming to America. So, Chinese wanna flee from China, Indians wanna flee from India, Africans wanna flee from Africa, Mexicans wanna flee from Mexico. Their own people are their worst enemies, and they want to exclude their own race and culture from their own lives and come to America and be included as 'Americans' by presumably superior white folks who run a better political, economic, and social system.

But this is where the analogy with Hebrews break down. Hebrews were not escaping from their own people. They ran from Egyptians. In contrast, Immigrationism says that people should 'escape' from their own race, culture, and land. They should become McCitizens of America.
Yet, there is another contradiction, that of multi-culturalism. Even though all these immigrants say NO to their own race & culture and reject their own homelands in order to join the White World, the white/Jewish 'progressives' who control Western media/academia insist on immigrant-folks maintaining their non-Western 'identities'(as redefined by multi-culti politics). (Better to exploit tensions in the service of 'progressive' politics because non-whites who get along with whites might become 'Republicans'.) So, we have the strange phenomenon of non-white immigrants(and esp their children) rejecting and forgetting their own race, culture, and language(and becoming just generically American in Hollywood and MTV sense) but also taking on 'identity politics' of hostility toward whites. However, this non-white 'identity' is a political construct than something genuine or organic. It is imposed on non-whites by PC politics that didn't originate in their homelands. (For example, no non-Western culture has been traditionally homomaniacal, but multi-cultism would have non-white kids in America believe that worship of homosexuality is part of multi-culturalism. It even fuses Islamic identity with homo decadence.) Non-white 'identity' according to multi-cultism is less about the intrinsic assets of a race, culture, or language than about the politics of hostility toward whites. Indian-Indian identity isn't the same as Indian-American 'identity'(as constructed by PC). Asian-Indians in India are Indian regardless of events and developments in the rest of the world. Even if the entire white world were to vanish overnight, Indians in India would organically and historically be Indian. But 'Indian-American' has no such autonomous or independent meaning. It is premised on PC-ordained Indian-American hostility towards whites as the holders of 'white privilege'(according to venomous PC). Multi-culti identity is about the exploitation of identity politics to corral non-whites against whites. This kind of identity can only exist in opposition to something. It lacks autonomy.
A Japanese in Japan is organically Japanese even if the rest of the world were to vanish. Indeed, Japan was Japanese for many centuries in isolation. But Japanese-American 'identity', as constructed by PC multi-cultism, cannot exist except in the context of hostility against whites.
This is why we have PC-ized Asian-Americans identifying with blacks against whites. These clowns might have had an autonomous identity back in their homeland. But in the US, where they've lost their racial, cultural, and linguistic identities, they rely on multi-culti 'identity' of hating 'white privilege' with the implication that Asians have more in common with Africans than with whites(with whom Asians are closer genetically, in terms of civilizational achievement, and as victims of black violence). It also means Middle Easterners(who are Caucasian if not white and whose histories are more closely tied to the West) have more in common with Mongolian-Americans and Peruvian-Indian-Americans. As white Hispanics count as 'people of color', it also means someone like Marco Rubio can claim to have more in common with a Nigerian-American than with European-Americans. It just gets surreal. And the politics of victimhood identity means that white homos and white women can claim to have more in common with blacks, browns, and yellows than with straight white men. It just gets more and more surreal.

Christianism(worldview stemming from Christian Morality) is now the soft underbelly of the White Race

Christian Morality is about Spiritual Virtue-Signaling of either Holier-than-thou or Redemptive-for-my-sins.

What is the biggest ‘sin’ in the West according to the PC Narrative? ‘Racism’.

Christians are affected by the current moralist culture, and so their main priority is to demonstrate they are oh-so-good and moral by fervently celebrating ‘diversity’.

Given the moral dynamics of Christianity, it was bound to end up this way.

Christianity must be rejected if the white race must survive.

Paradoxically, Christianity claims moral supremacism via moral self-debasement.
Christians profess to be redemptive of their myriad sins, but such display of sanctimony is grounds for their moral superiority over others. "I humbly admit my worthlessness in the eyes of God; therefore, I am better than you and fit to judge mankind." Such mentality is the core of PC.

University of Chicago is disingenuous in not offering 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings' to incoming students

While I fully support University of Chicago's stance against Political Correctness in defense of free speech and discourse, the only reason why U of C can function as an oasis of civil and learned discourse is because the community of Hyde Park is an artificial Safe Space sustained by a heavy-duty double-layering of police force that discourages blacks in the surrounding area(crime-ridden Chicago South Side) from entering and making trouble.

Do search the Internet for: “A Wall Around Hyde Park”: The History and the Future of the UCPD

Furthermore, is the University of Chicago really a haven for free speech and exchange of ideas? According to Jonathan Haidt, there is a concerted effort in every university, elite and otherwise, to discourage and squeeze out conservative and contrarian voices that challenge the prevailing PC orthodoxy. Robert Putnam, the author of BOWLING ALONE, even sat on his own data for years because he didn't like what it implied.

Also, if students are hysterical about 'micro-aggressions', 'triggers', and the like, it is only because they picked up these tics from the educational system.

It wasn't the students who drove Lawrence Summers(of Harvard) from his position when he ventured to speculate that males may be advantaged over females at the tail ends of IQ. It was the professorial class itself that threw fits and tantrums.

Would things be any different at University of Chicago? I don't think so.

Institutions like the University of Chicago were just fine and dandy with PC hysterics as long as it was directed at 'conservatives' and 'reactionaries'. But now that the 'red guards' of PC-revolution are beginning to devour their own parents, U of C makes faux-principled noises about defending free speech against PC. I guess Zionists at U of C are afraid that BDS folks might come to town to shut down any pro-Israeli voice.

Alt Right is defined by DEFIANCE

Alt Right is defined by DEFIANCE, an absolute refusal to play by rules of PC as enforced by the GLOB(globalist masters) and its PC commissars.

If cuckservatives always look over their shoulders for Neocon approval and if cuckerals look over theirs for Soros & gang's permission, the Alt Right isn't afraid to shoulder the burden of telling it like it is.

Alt Rightists should call each other 'Triggers'.

Black rappers call each other 'niggaz', short for 'niggers'.

Progs prefer PC fantasy and hate being triggered by the truth.
In contrast, people of Alt Right value the truth and want to trigger the world with it.

If black rappers want to call each other 'niggaz' or 'niggers', that's fine by me.

One thing for sure, Progs who push PC might as well be 'riggers' because they rig the Narrative through their censorious control of the media and academia.

Since the Alt Right wants to trigger the world with the truth about Jews, race, power, and other heretical topics, its members might as well be called 'triggers'.

The Narrative is about black rapper 'niggers' spewing trash and about globalist 'riggers' pushing PC dogma.

Against the demented 'niggers' and disingenuous 'riggers', there are the 'triggers' of the Alt Right who do not cower in fear or cowardice.

I'm a Trigger. Be a Trigger too.

So... what's up, Trigger?

Alt Right Is the Only Un-PC Zone in American Politics

Alt Right is the ONLY anti-PC zone.

Conservatism Inc or Cuckservatism will not touch on issues pertaining to race and Jewish power because they serve the donor class and want approval from the cocktail party crowd.

Liberalism Inc or Globalism is now the Ruling Elite, and it cares most about holding power. It fears any truth that undermines their Narrative. It is totally Jewish-dominated and promotes MLK cult and Homomania as quasi-religions.

The Left is ideologically dead. At one time, the radical left did play an provocative and effective role of challenging the status quo and critiquing power.
But, PC came from the Left, and it stifles debate, controversy, and free exchange of ideas. Because the Left is so hampered by PC, it has muffled itself. And since the Left is funded by the likes of George Soros, it has essentially become Left Inc.

So, there is only the Alt Right that is bold and brazen enough to say it like it is.