Greeks and Jews came to face the same conundrum. How to reconcile the universal resound of their ideas with the tribal ethno-centrism.
Greeks were awful proud and developed complex forms of science and governance. They conceived of political systems like democracy. It had universal implications, but Greeks had no intention of sharing the idea with barbarians. It was for Greek city-states only. But the idea eventually caught onto other civilizations.
Jews were awful proud and developed the idea of the one and only God. It had universal implications, but Jews wanted to own it for themselves. So, they came up with the Covenant that would bind God of all things to the Jewish tribe.
These two contradictions would come to shape much of Western History. West developed science and technology of universal import but sought to keep it to itself to gain power over others. West developed ideas of universal human rights but sought to restrict those rights to Western peoples.
Just as Greeks saw democracy as a Greek thing and Jews saw God as a Jewish thing, America’s Founding was also marked by a similar contradiction. It was, in a sense, a universal republic committed to principles transcending tribes and nations. And yet, it was also a nation of Anglo-Germanic stock where Christianity and English were the defacto official religion and language. It was both about big OURS encompassing all humanity and a small ours serving a specific ethnos. Thus, Anglo-Germanics would have a special place in the American experience. This was most obvious to Indians, blacks, and non-whites but even, to a lesser extent, to certain ethnic groups from Southern or Eastern Europe.
Universalism wasn’t the intention of the Greeks when they devised ideas of democracy and individuality. Similarly, Jews instinctively feared the consequences of monotheism as an abstraction. Abstractions, having been distilled from a particular reality, can pass to any people, culture, or nation. It’s like every fruit has its own sugars. So, apple sugars belong to the apple, peach sugars belong to the peach, and watermelon sugars belong to the watermelon. But when sugars are extracted from those fruits, they lose their unique attachments and just become ‘universal’ sugar that can be used to sweeten anything. It’s like when piles of wood are turned into charcoal, it no longer matters which tree they came from; they just exist to burn and provide heat.
Thus, to own and keep their own concept of God, Jews entwined the idea with the Covenant between God and Jews as the Chosen People. Thus, the Jewish God had features of a universal idea but was contractually bound to The Tribe. God was the Lord of all things, all peoples, and all everything; however, He’d chosen the Jewish People to keep the torch of greatness(like Zeus gave Athena the Aegis for safekeeping; it was her responsibility and privilege).
A similar kind of contractualism informed the founding of America as both a Republic premised on universal principles of human rights AND a Christian nation mainly of Anglo-Germanic stock.
But such contractualism — combination of universalism and particularism — tends to be unstable in the long run, especially if a people rub up against diverse groups of people either through imperialism or mass migration. Historically, Jews were never alone in their world like the Swedes in Sweden, Japanese in Japan, Hawaiian natives in Hawaii, and etc. They were always invading or being invaded by other peoples, always trading with other peoples, always bickering with other peoples, always hating and co-existing with other peoples. Thus, the potent bottle of Jewish nitroglycerin got shaken left and right, hither and thither, and the formula finally exploded into a truly universalized idea of God for all peoples of the Earth.
As for Anglo-Americans, their importation of large numbers of black Africans to toil as slaves and then huge numbers of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants — especially the feisty and pushy Jews — led to increasing pressures to transform America into a ‘proposition’. As long as America was overwhelmingly(and proudly) of Northern European stock, it could maintain both the ‘radicalism’ of the Revolution and the ‘racialism’ of the original Northern European stock.
But as America filled up with growing numbers of blacks(with high birthrate) and ethnic white Americans(who strove for the same rights and privileges as the Wasps), America lurched more toward abstract universal principles(though, for some reason, it also favors three groups for special praise and recognition: All Americans must support Israel, all Americans must worship Homomania or Queertianity as the new religion, all of Anglosphere must celebrate blackness for an entire month). Thus, even though the founding ideas of the American republic/democracy had once been almost synonymous with the Anglo-American people, their eventual universalization undermined Wasp power and then white power in general, with the exception of Jewish power.
But then, Jews didn’t so much destroy the Founding Contradiction/Hypocrisy as filch it for themselves. It’s like the pigs in ANIMAL FARM didn’t so much distribute human goodies equally among the animals as keep the choicest portions for themselves. The Founding Contradiction continues in altered form in favoring Jews as the quintessential Americans. After all, we are told that America is about both universal commitment to ‘tolerance’ & ‘diversity' AND total support of Israel as the ‘closest ally’ and 'best friend' of America. Thus, the core of Americanism continues to be about universalism + tribalism, i.e. Jews are ‘more equally’ American than other Americans. The crucial factor is that that tribalist element of Americanism passed from Wasps to Jews.
Consider that all Americans are NOT forced to praise or support Iran, Russia, China, Germany, Mexico, Egypt, and etc.(even though Americans come from those nations), but all Americans are forced to have their taxpayer money support Israel.
That has been the great Jewish Globalist Swindle. Jewish globalists would have us believe that Bad Old America betrayed its universal principles by favoring the Anglo-American Tribe, but thankfully, such favoritism is no longer viable in Good New America where no group is favored over others and where supremacism has no place.
But any cursory observation of American reality makes it plainly obvious that the system is rigged in favor of Jewish tribalism. American Universalism now means ALL Americans must support Israel and obey Jewish globalists.
Showing posts with label universalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Universalism is not about adherence to Universal Principles but about the Power to Force an Agenda Universally
Universalism as a political tool is not about peoples around the world agreeing to what constitutes universal values but about the preeminent power imposing its ideas and interests as 'universals' on all other peoples.
This was true of religion.
Catholics were universal in the sense that the whole world should be turned Catholic.
Muslims were universal in the sense that the whole would should be turned Islamic.
It was about Universal Imposition or Universal Coercion than Universal Consensus.
This was also true of ideology.
Communists were universal in the sense that the whole world should be turned communist.
Today, Globalism is a Universal Imposition(the new inquisition) that pressures the entire world to conform to the favored ideas and interests of the Rulers of the US. Since Jews are the ruling elites, Homos are their main proxies & agents, and blacks are sacro-negroes by PC narrative & Pop Culture, the dominant form of Universalism is about Holocaust Worship, Homomania, and Afromania.
After all, if the globalist-universalism is really about 'anti-racist egalitarianism', it should be just as sensitive to the interests of Palestinians as to those of Zionists. But it isn't so. All those politicians in Congress say they support 'universal values', but they totally ignore the tragic history and plight Palestinians caused by Jewish influence on US politics. At the UN, when Iran raised the question of why Palestinians were punished for the crimes of Europeans during WWII, the European delegation all walked out despite their professed commitment to universalism.
So, univeralism as political phenomenon isn't about what the world sincerely, rationally, and morally agrees upon as the shared values that transcend all cultures. It is not about all nations, great and small, submitting to the same principles but really about the Great Power forcing its agenda and biases on the universal scale on all other nations. Using the analogy of nature, it's not about all species of animals agreeing on shared animal-hood but about one dominant species pressuring all other species to 'universally' bow down before it.
Take 'gay rights'. This is promoted as 'universal values'. But who said so? Now, if 'gay rights' means that all peoples should acknowledge, based on scientific evidence, that some people are born homosexual, that it's not homosexuals' fault that they are homo, and that homosexuals should be allowed to pursue professions based on ability, that is a workable and sound principle. It is factual, rational, and humane; it can be held up as a universal principle in the name of reason, tolerance, and meritocracy(as some homos are skilled and talented.)
But what currently goes by the name of 'gay rights' in the West is homomania, a mindless worship of homosexuality as something holy and the cult of homo narcissism & vanity as next to godliness. It is sick, perverse, and degenerate. So, it's not about 'gay rights' but 'gay worship'. It is a fruit-sade, the new crusade. Homomania says even churches should be converted to homo-worship. Sacred texts should be re-written or reinterpreted to spread the 'gayspel' that God, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad would have been for something like 'gay marriage'.
'Progressives' deride the Inquisition of Old, but they aren't averse to using their vast globalist power to push the Imposition of their sick agenda on all the world. It is often done through bribery of foreign regimes(candies and prizes if they put on 'gay pride' parades), spread of decadent Pop Culture as narcotic & opiate, and promotion of PC that suppresses free speech ironically in the name of 'liberal values'. PC limits the range of inquiry, constricts the Narrative spectrum, and insists on a loaded terminology as dishonest as loaded dice. A term like 'homophobia' favors homomaniac since it implies that those who oppose the homo agenda are clinically sick in the head. And 'racism', as currently defined, is a loaded term since it presumes that anyone who believes in the reality of races is also a racial supremacist.
Anyway, universalism as political force is more about the power to impose one's agenda universally than about the adherence to universal principles applying equally to all nations and cultures.
This was true of religion.
Catholics were universal in the sense that the whole world should be turned Catholic.
Muslims were universal in the sense that the whole would should be turned Islamic.
It was about Universal Imposition or Universal Coercion than Universal Consensus.
This was also true of ideology.
Communists were universal in the sense that the whole world should be turned communist.
Today, Globalism is a Universal Imposition(the new inquisition) that pressures the entire world to conform to the favored ideas and interests of the Rulers of the US. Since Jews are the ruling elites, Homos are their main proxies & agents, and blacks are sacro-negroes by PC narrative & Pop Culture, the dominant form of Universalism is about Holocaust Worship, Homomania, and Afromania.
After all, if the globalist-universalism is really about 'anti-racist egalitarianism', it should be just as sensitive to the interests of Palestinians as to those of Zionists. But it isn't so. All those politicians in Congress say they support 'universal values', but they totally ignore the tragic history and plight Palestinians caused by Jewish influence on US politics. At the UN, when Iran raised the question of why Palestinians were punished for the crimes of Europeans during WWII, the European delegation all walked out despite their professed commitment to universalism.
So, univeralism as political phenomenon isn't about what the world sincerely, rationally, and morally agrees upon as the shared values that transcend all cultures. It is not about all nations, great and small, submitting to the same principles but really about the Great Power forcing its agenda and biases on the universal scale on all other nations. Using the analogy of nature, it's not about all species of animals agreeing on shared animal-hood but about one dominant species pressuring all other species to 'universally' bow down before it.
Take 'gay rights'. This is promoted as 'universal values'. But who said so? Now, if 'gay rights' means that all peoples should acknowledge, based on scientific evidence, that some people are born homosexual, that it's not homosexuals' fault that they are homo, and that homosexuals should be allowed to pursue professions based on ability, that is a workable and sound principle. It is factual, rational, and humane; it can be held up as a universal principle in the name of reason, tolerance, and meritocracy(as some homos are skilled and talented.)
But what currently goes by the name of 'gay rights' in the West is homomania, a mindless worship of homosexuality as something holy and the cult of homo narcissism & vanity as next to godliness. It is sick, perverse, and degenerate. So, it's not about 'gay rights' but 'gay worship'. It is a fruit-sade, the new crusade. Homomania says even churches should be converted to homo-worship. Sacred texts should be re-written or reinterpreted to spread the 'gayspel' that God, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad would have been for something like 'gay marriage'.
'Progressives' deride the Inquisition of Old, but they aren't averse to using their vast globalist power to push the Imposition of their sick agenda on all the world. It is often done through bribery of foreign regimes(candies and prizes if they put on 'gay pride' parades), spread of decadent Pop Culture as narcotic & opiate, and promotion of PC that suppresses free speech ironically in the name of 'liberal values'. PC limits the range of inquiry, constricts the Narrative spectrum, and insists on a loaded terminology as dishonest as loaded dice. A term like 'homophobia' favors homomaniac since it implies that those who oppose the homo agenda are clinically sick in the head. And 'racism', as currently defined, is a loaded term since it presumes that anyone who believes in the reality of races is also a racial supremacist.
Anyway, universalism as political force is more about the power to impose one's agenda universally than about the adherence to universal principles applying equally to all nations and cultures.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Ethno-Conservatism vs Credo-Conservatism
Ethno-Conservatism is about conserving the racial identity and biological inheritance of a people.
Credo-Conservatism is about conserving the principles or dogma of an ideology or belief system.
An ethno-conservative can also be a credo-conservative. A person may believe in preserving race and identity but also believe in free markets. A person may believe in preserving ethnicity and territory but believe in socialism or communism as the ideal economic system. However, what matters above all for an ethno-conservative is the survival of his race and preservation of his people's history and territory.
For example, let's suppose an ethno-conservative who believes in free markets is offered two options: For the next hundred years, (1) his ethnic kinfolks will remain the dominant demography in their nation under the dreaded ideology of communism OR (2) his people will become a minority in their nation and forget their own identity & history, but free market economics will dominate.
A true ethno-conservative will prefer the survival of his people even with bad ideas than the demographic demise of his people despite the prevalence of good ideas. (But then, can the demise of any national demographics be a good idea?) An ethno-conservative believes that humans are first and foremost lifeforms with culture, history, and territory. More important than any ideology, set of abstract principles, or universal creed, there is the need for human life and its preservation in relation to land and history. Ethno-conservatives are bio-conservatives, geo-conservatives, and mytho-conservatives.
In contrast, credo-conservatives are first and foremost wedded to a belief system. Their set of ideas is held to be so sacred and dear that it must trump all other considerations. So, even if a credo-conservative may want his race and territory to survive, when forced with having to choose between saving the idea & losing his race/territory AND losing the idea & saving his race/territory, he will opt for the former.
This is why Jews prefer credo-conservatives to ethno-conservatives. Ethno-conservatives know what they want. They want their race and history to survive on their territory. The object of their loyalty is tangible and obvious. In contrast, ideas can be manipulated and altered with sleight-of-hand trickery. So, Jews can take the idea of America and change it to a 'proposition' and say 'America' is an 'immigration nation', whereby America is no longer America unless it welcomes endless non-white immigration to supplant native white Americans as Core Americans.
There was a time when almost no white American believed in such an ideation of America. But the thing to remember is that ideas are always mutable and open to manipulation by the power and clever.
For instance, if someone holds onto some object, he is in possession of something tangible. He has it and he wants it. Simply on the basis of object-hood, it is difficult to take it from him because he feels it is his. But if you associate the object with an idea and if you convince him that the idea of the object is more important than the object itself, then you can manipulate the idea and mess with his mind until he freely hands the object over to you. Suppose you tell him that the true idea of the object is for it to be handed from person to person. So, it is wrong for him to cling to the object as his since such claim of ownership goes against the very spirit and meaning of the object-as-idea.
Indeed, this is how Jews stole America from white gentiles. Jews turned America from a white entity to a 'universal idea' that could be manipulated with at the whim of Jewish globalists(who say American immigration must not favor whites over non-whites but must favor Jews over gentiles). So, if America is turned into an Idea and if the 'sacrosanct' rule of this idea is that endless immigration is essential to what America is all about, then white Americans who've come under the spell of this idea cannot object to non-white newcomers taking America from whites. America went from a concrete nation owned by whites to an abstract entity whose future is to be determined by Jewish globalist who seek to increase gentile diversity to play divide-and-rule among the much divided goyim.
And Jews don't just stop with the US. They've convinced the Brits and the Irish that their nations are mere ideas too than concrete entities. They are no longer tangible and specific territories that belong to a particular genetic stock or ethnic group with unique histories. No, they too are 'nations of immigration' and, as such, must open up to endless immigration of non-whites in order to be true to their 'idea'. And Jews did the same to Sweden, indeed to the tragic effect that many Swedes no longer believe that there is Sweden as a territory, ethnicity, or history. There is only Sweden as a universal idea of ceaseless immigration, diversity-worship, and humanitarianism. Sweden went from concrete nation to concept nation.
Credo-centrism has rendered most American Conservatives useless. They are credo-conservatives than ethno-conservatives(preservers of European genetics), geo-conservatives(defenders of white lands), and mytho-conservatives(torchbearers of white narratives). Their main loyalty is to the Constitution, free markets & free trade, family values, and individualism. Personally, I don't have anything against the Constitution, free markets, family values, and individualism. I see them as good things, even great things. Indeed, peoples all over the world might have something to gain by emulating the general political and economic ideas of the United States.
However, a nation is primarily about a specific people with a specific history on a specific territory. A nation is not about universality or generality. A nation is meaningful in its distinctiveness from other nations.
It's like Christianity is a great universal creed, but it is not a basis for nationhood. Italians, Chinese, and Nigerians may be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are the same people with shared nationality.
Russians, Chinese, and Cubans may be communist, but that doesn't mean they belong in the same nation. Many peoples practice democracy and free markets, but they have different nations with different histories. So, the conservatism of any nation has to put race, territory, and history above all other considerations. After all, Israel will be a Jewish state whether it is a democracy, monarchy, or a dictatorship. The core of Israel isn't democracy but Jewish ethnicity and territoriality. If Israel's core meaning is democracy, would it still be Israel if Arabs took over and practiced democracy? If a Jew had to choose between a non-democratic Israel dominated by Jews and democratic Israel dominated by Arab Muslims, which one would he choose? If he's a true Jewish nationalist, he would choose dictatorship with Jewish rule than democracy with Arab rule. Democracy is nice, but it cannot be the core meaning of a nation. It is merely a political means of governance that may or may not serve a nation well.
If American Conservatives were merely overly idealistic in their credo-conservatism, their naivete might be forgiven. But they are hypocrites, snakes, and/or morons. They are hypocrites because, even as they excoriate white identity and interests, they go out on a limb to 'celebrate' non-white identities. And most obnoxious of all, they go all out in promoting Jewish power and Zionism as the core meaning of what America is about. If credo-conservatives really prioritize universal ideas and values above all else, why do they lavishly exhibit such shameless obeisance to Jewish identity and power?
Also, American credo-conservatives don't have control over the ideas and values that they claim to espouse with utmost commitment to high-minded principles. They claim to believe in family values, but these values are always molded and remolded by Jews and their cuck-collaborators. So, if Jews say 'family values' are now about 'gay marriage'(which supposedly is 'conservative' because homos are choosing 'family life'), many credo-conservatives simply nod along and go along. Since everything has been abstracted into ideas that are always mutable and open to re-interpretation, credo-conservatives really believe in nothing that is true and essential. For the credo-cons, family values went from defense of traditional family to singing praises to 'gay parents'. The American Idea went from defending America as part of Western Civilization to promoting America as the 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' Universal Nation open to non-white hordes who just might appreciate the Constitution(at least through HAMILTION the rap broadway musical). Credo-conservatives don't have autonomy and agency over their own ideas. Being servile and spineless like slugs, their idea of Conservative Principles depends on the faddishness of think-tanks funded mostly by globalist-Zionists. It is hardly surprising then that credo-conservative Heritage Foundation fired Jason Richwine, an ethno-conservative, at the behest of Jennifer Rubin. Is Rubin a credo-conservative herself? No. She is a Zio-ethno-conservative who is all about Jewish power, Jewish identity, and Jewish territory. She reviles and attacks the ethno-conservatism of white gentiles as posing a threat to the ethno-supremacism of Jews, her main passion. So, in her mind, white gentiles can either be credo-liberals or credo-conservatives, but they must NOT be ethno-anything.
What is truly tragicomic about credo-conservatives is they naively believe they can have one without the other. They think Western Ideas, Cultures, & Values can survive without Western Peoples. So, it doesn't matter if non-white peoples replace white peoples who created Western ideas, cultures, and values. All that matters is that non-white invaders and usurpers appreciate and practice those ideas and values. But the loss of Western people will also lead to the loss of Western Culture. Culture flows from the gene pool of a race. Even when Europeans adopted ideas & icons from the non-West, they reshaped and remolded those ideas & icons in their own image and inclinations. Surely, what whites did with Christianity is different from what other races did with it. So, even if non-whites were to adopt Western ideas, their use of them will drastically different from what white people did with them.
It is like different races of women will do different things to the same seed received from the same white man. If a black woman takes white seed, she will produce a mulatto. If an Asian woman takes white seed, she will produce a yellato. If a Hindu woman takes white seed, she will produce a Hindotto. Only with a white woman can white seed produce a real white child. When white cultures are inseminated into other races, the latter may do interesting things with them, but the result will be something other than a truly white culture. But given the current levels of immigration, what the West is experiencing is not the insemination of Western Cultures in the hearts & minds of non-whites but the Rape of the West by non-white hordes made especially nasty by rap culture, decadence, and Jewish anti-white propaganda. Their view of the West is essentially Negroid. The West is now a white woman to be raped and conquered, especially since white men are now a bunch of cucks, either sexually, ideologically, or morally.
Contrary to the conceits of credo-conservatives, Western Culture can only remain intact with white peoples. The fact is most non-whites are not interested in preserving the West as a culture or idea. They come to the West for material comfort and sex with white people whom they find more attractive. But even if non-whites wanted to preserve Western Culture, they wouldn't be able to. They could imitate Western Culture, but in the process of mimicry and reinterpretation, something new would be created in its stead. Imagine if whites took over an African nation and replaced its native population. Suppose these whites then decided to preserve the indigenous culture by acting like black Africans. Despite all the sincerity in the world, it would only be a parody of African culture. At best, something new would result from the process but it could no longer be called truly Africa.
So, credo-conservatives are seriously deluded. They are like the dog with the bone in its jaw looking at its own reflection in the water. In going for the abstract bone over the real bone, it loses both the real bone and the abstract bone that no longer shows in the water since the real bone is no longer in its mouth to show up as reflection.
We need to learn from Jews. Jews fused the credo with the ethno. Jews came to believe that there is a universal power BUT that it has a special covenant with the Jewish people. Then, likewise, each people must find their own unique covenant with the Truth of the World.
Credo-Conservatism is about conserving the principles or dogma of an ideology or belief system.
An ethno-conservative can also be a credo-conservative. A person may believe in preserving race and identity but also believe in free markets. A person may believe in preserving ethnicity and territory but believe in socialism or communism as the ideal economic system. However, what matters above all for an ethno-conservative is the survival of his race and preservation of his people's history and territory.
For example, let's suppose an ethno-conservative who believes in free markets is offered two options: For the next hundred years, (1) his ethnic kinfolks will remain the dominant demography in their nation under the dreaded ideology of communism OR (2) his people will become a minority in their nation and forget their own identity & history, but free market economics will dominate.
A true ethno-conservative will prefer the survival of his people even with bad ideas than the demographic demise of his people despite the prevalence of good ideas. (But then, can the demise of any national demographics be a good idea?) An ethno-conservative believes that humans are first and foremost lifeforms with culture, history, and territory. More important than any ideology, set of abstract principles, or universal creed, there is the need for human life and its preservation in relation to land and history. Ethno-conservatives are bio-conservatives, geo-conservatives, and mytho-conservatives.
In contrast, credo-conservatives are first and foremost wedded to a belief system. Their set of ideas is held to be so sacred and dear that it must trump all other considerations. So, even if a credo-conservative may want his race and territory to survive, when forced with having to choose between saving the idea & losing his race/territory AND losing the idea & saving his race/territory, he will opt for the former.
This is why Jews prefer credo-conservatives to ethno-conservatives. Ethno-conservatives know what they want. They want their race and history to survive on their territory. The object of their loyalty is tangible and obvious. In contrast, ideas can be manipulated and altered with sleight-of-hand trickery. So, Jews can take the idea of America and change it to a 'proposition' and say 'America' is an 'immigration nation', whereby America is no longer America unless it welcomes endless non-white immigration to supplant native white Americans as Core Americans.
There was a time when almost no white American believed in such an ideation of America. But the thing to remember is that ideas are always mutable and open to manipulation by the power and clever.
For instance, if someone holds onto some object, he is in possession of something tangible. He has it and he wants it. Simply on the basis of object-hood, it is difficult to take it from him because he feels it is his. But if you associate the object with an idea and if you convince him that the idea of the object is more important than the object itself, then you can manipulate the idea and mess with his mind until he freely hands the object over to you. Suppose you tell him that the true idea of the object is for it to be handed from person to person. So, it is wrong for him to cling to the object as his since such claim of ownership goes against the very spirit and meaning of the object-as-idea.
Indeed, this is how Jews stole America from white gentiles. Jews turned America from a white entity to a 'universal idea' that could be manipulated with at the whim of Jewish globalists(who say American immigration must not favor whites over non-whites but must favor Jews over gentiles). So, if America is turned into an Idea and if the 'sacrosanct' rule of this idea is that endless immigration is essential to what America is all about, then white Americans who've come under the spell of this idea cannot object to non-white newcomers taking America from whites. America went from a concrete nation owned by whites to an abstract entity whose future is to be determined by Jewish globalist who seek to increase gentile diversity to play divide-and-rule among the much divided goyim.
And Jews don't just stop with the US. They've convinced the Brits and the Irish that their nations are mere ideas too than concrete entities. They are no longer tangible and specific territories that belong to a particular genetic stock or ethnic group with unique histories. No, they too are 'nations of immigration' and, as such, must open up to endless immigration of non-whites in order to be true to their 'idea'. And Jews did the same to Sweden, indeed to the tragic effect that many Swedes no longer believe that there is Sweden as a territory, ethnicity, or history. There is only Sweden as a universal idea of ceaseless immigration, diversity-worship, and humanitarianism. Sweden went from concrete nation to concept nation.
Credo-centrism has rendered most American Conservatives useless. They are credo-conservatives than ethno-conservatives(preservers of European genetics), geo-conservatives(defenders of white lands), and mytho-conservatives(torchbearers of white narratives). Their main loyalty is to the Constitution, free markets & free trade, family values, and individualism. Personally, I don't have anything against the Constitution, free markets, family values, and individualism. I see them as good things, even great things. Indeed, peoples all over the world might have something to gain by emulating the general political and economic ideas of the United States.
However, a nation is primarily about a specific people with a specific history on a specific territory. A nation is not about universality or generality. A nation is meaningful in its distinctiveness from other nations.
It's like Christianity is a great universal creed, but it is not a basis for nationhood. Italians, Chinese, and Nigerians may be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are the same people with shared nationality.
Russians, Chinese, and Cubans may be communist, but that doesn't mean they belong in the same nation. Many peoples practice democracy and free markets, but they have different nations with different histories. So, the conservatism of any nation has to put race, territory, and history above all other considerations. After all, Israel will be a Jewish state whether it is a democracy, monarchy, or a dictatorship. The core of Israel isn't democracy but Jewish ethnicity and territoriality. If Israel's core meaning is democracy, would it still be Israel if Arabs took over and practiced democracy? If a Jew had to choose between a non-democratic Israel dominated by Jews and democratic Israel dominated by Arab Muslims, which one would he choose? If he's a true Jewish nationalist, he would choose dictatorship with Jewish rule than democracy with Arab rule. Democracy is nice, but it cannot be the core meaning of a nation. It is merely a political means of governance that may or may not serve a nation well.
If American Conservatives were merely overly idealistic in their credo-conservatism, their naivete might be forgiven. But they are hypocrites, snakes, and/or morons. They are hypocrites because, even as they excoriate white identity and interests, they go out on a limb to 'celebrate' non-white identities. And most obnoxious of all, they go all out in promoting Jewish power and Zionism as the core meaning of what America is about. If credo-conservatives really prioritize universal ideas and values above all else, why do they lavishly exhibit such shameless obeisance to Jewish identity and power?
Also, American credo-conservatives don't have control over the ideas and values that they claim to espouse with utmost commitment to high-minded principles. They claim to believe in family values, but these values are always molded and remolded by Jews and their cuck-collaborators. So, if Jews say 'family values' are now about 'gay marriage'(which supposedly is 'conservative' because homos are choosing 'family life'), many credo-conservatives simply nod along and go along. Since everything has been abstracted into ideas that are always mutable and open to re-interpretation, credo-conservatives really believe in nothing that is true and essential. For the credo-cons, family values went from defense of traditional family to singing praises to 'gay parents'. The American Idea went from defending America as part of Western Civilization to promoting America as the 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' Universal Nation open to non-white hordes who just might appreciate the Constitution(at least through HAMILTION the rap broadway musical). Credo-conservatives don't have autonomy and agency over their own ideas. Being servile and spineless like slugs, their idea of Conservative Principles depends on the faddishness of think-tanks funded mostly by globalist-Zionists. It is hardly surprising then that credo-conservative Heritage Foundation fired Jason Richwine, an ethno-conservative, at the behest of Jennifer Rubin. Is Rubin a credo-conservative herself? No. She is a Zio-ethno-conservative who is all about Jewish power, Jewish identity, and Jewish territory. She reviles and attacks the ethno-conservatism of white gentiles as posing a threat to the ethno-supremacism of Jews, her main passion. So, in her mind, white gentiles can either be credo-liberals or credo-conservatives, but they must NOT be ethno-anything.
What is truly tragicomic about credo-conservatives is they naively believe they can have one without the other. They think Western Ideas, Cultures, & Values can survive without Western Peoples. So, it doesn't matter if non-white peoples replace white peoples who created Western ideas, cultures, and values. All that matters is that non-white invaders and usurpers appreciate and practice those ideas and values. But the loss of Western people will also lead to the loss of Western Culture. Culture flows from the gene pool of a race. Even when Europeans adopted ideas & icons from the non-West, they reshaped and remolded those ideas & icons in their own image and inclinations. Surely, what whites did with Christianity is different from what other races did with it. So, even if non-whites were to adopt Western ideas, their use of them will drastically different from what white people did with them.
It is like different races of women will do different things to the same seed received from the same white man. If a black woman takes white seed, she will produce a mulatto. If an Asian woman takes white seed, she will produce a yellato. If a Hindu woman takes white seed, she will produce a Hindotto. Only with a white woman can white seed produce a real white child. When white cultures are inseminated into other races, the latter may do interesting things with them, but the result will be something other than a truly white culture. But given the current levels of immigration, what the West is experiencing is not the insemination of Western Cultures in the hearts & minds of non-whites but the Rape of the West by non-white hordes made especially nasty by rap culture, decadence, and Jewish anti-white propaganda. Their view of the West is essentially Negroid. The West is now a white woman to be raped and conquered, especially since white men are now a bunch of cucks, either sexually, ideologically, or morally.
Contrary to the conceits of credo-conservatives, Western Culture can only remain intact with white peoples. The fact is most non-whites are not interested in preserving the West as a culture or idea. They come to the West for material comfort and sex with white people whom they find more attractive. But even if non-whites wanted to preserve Western Culture, they wouldn't be able to. They could imitate Western Culture, but in the process of mimicry and reinterpretation, something new would be created in its stead. Imagine if whites took over an African nation and replaced its native population. Suppose these whites then decided to preserve the indigenous culture by acting like black Africans. Despite all the sincerity in the world, it would only be a parody of African culture. At best, something new would result from the process but it could no longer be called truly Africa.
So, credo-conservatives are seriously deluded. They are like the dog with the bone in its jaw looking at its own reflection in the water. In going for the abstract bone over the real bone, it loses both the real bone and the abstract bone that no longer shows in the water since the real bone is no longer in its mouth to show up as reflection.
We need to learn from Jews. Jews fused the credo with the ethno. Jews came to believe that there is a universal power BUT that it has a special covenant with the Jewish people. Then, likewise, each people must find their own unique covenant with the Truth of the World.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Elites invoke Universalism to renege on their Responsibility to the National People
For most of history, it was difficult for mankind to trek and communicate across great distances. So, the elites of a community developed a strong bond with the people on their allotted territory.
This bond between elites and people was most resilient among the Jews, not least because their nomadism required strong tribal bonds to keep the community together. The paradoxical nature of the Jews is their preferred mode of existence tended toward the division of elite and people yet their commitment to Tribal Will demanded conservation of unity. The Jewish Will of the Tribe grew stronger against the Jewish Nomadic Drive. Under normal circumstances, the Tribal Will should have weakened under the pressures of Nomadism, but Jews forged for themselves a culture of blessed particularity and unceasing paranoia(and humor of contempt) that militated against the Jewish loss of identity and unity, especially between elites and peoples. Jewish Culture claimed that Jews are a specially chosen people of the only true God and, furthermore, warned of decay and downfall were Jews to give into temptation of assimilation with other peoples and their wicked ways. Thus, even though the Jewish mode of nomadism was naturally most conducive to weakening of identity and unity, the Jewish spiritual worldview fed on that very existence to produce the opposite effect. What should have made Jews weaker as a Tribe made them stronger as a Tribe. The Jewish example illustrates how a people can rise above or triumph against Determinism with a special mindset. It is like the sport of Judo where one channels the force of the opponent against the opponent. What is naturally directed against you ends up favoring you against the opponent. If he pushes, you pull. If he pulls, you push.
If, in the past, the difficulty of travel, trade, and communication drew the local elites and local masses closer, the ease of worldwide networks has had the effect of pooling together the elites or the best-and-the-brightest all around the world. Thus, globalism acts against the unity of the elites and the masses in any national community(with Israel being an exception because Jews have a special mindset). It is natural for the best-and-brightest to favor other best-and-brightest, just as it is natural for the rich, the famous, and/or the beautiful to seek the company of other people of comparable status or qualities. Since the rich and privileged can travel and communicate easily around the world, they've come to disdain the local community of 'losers'. Why would a rich Briton care much about 'dumb and dirty' working class Britons when it's more fun, thrilling, fulfilling, and glamorous to hang around with rich Hindus, rich Asians, rich Arabs, and rich Russian Jews? (To be sure, the internet has afforded this 'privilege' to the masses as well, and this accounts for the rise of the Alt Right made possible through independent worldwide networking of Eurosphere nationalists. Since the white elites no longer care about white masses, the white peoples around the world have formed an international network of voices sharing their disillusionment with the globalist elites and their venal ways, especially in 'cucking' out to Jewish Globalists whose advantage depends on white-elite-collaboration with the likes of George Soros. And yet, Alt Right networks, even though international in reach, has an agenda at odds with globalism. If globalism is a neo-aristocratic pact among elites around the world to bond closely with one another than with their own peoples, Alt Right's neo-nationalism is about mutual pact among different nations and races to respect each other's borders, histories, and unique narratives.)
Since the globalist elites have chosen neo-aristocratic privilege over identity-and-unity with their own peoples -- Irish elites feel closer to Hindu and African elites than to fellow Irish masses -- , they must make up for their moral deficiency. After all, favoring one's globalist elite privilege above the interests of one's people sounds rather vain and greedy. An Irish elite member who prefers identifying with rich Asians, Africans, and Muslims has pretty much betrayed his own countrymen.
So, how does he go about regaining moral legitimacy.
1. One is universalism over nationalism. The elites may argue that nationalism is too narrow and petty. It's about us-versus-them, whereas universalism is about the good of all humanity. This may sound nice and noble, but it's just a pipe dream invoked as an excuse to abandon what is real and doable. It is doable for national elites to look out for the interests of their national people. In contrast, it is impossible for even a nation as powerful and rich as the United States to save and redeem the world. So, lofty rhetoric used by globalists is just a convenient utopian hat-trick to morally excuse their reneging of responsibility to their national folks.
The truth is the elites of any nation can effectively rule over the nation, but even the grandest project by all the elites of the world cannot fix or redeem the world. It's like a father and mother can feed their own kids but cannot take care of all the children of the world.
The lofty-impossible is a useful crutch to excuse one's dereliction of duty to the real-possible. Parents who neglect their own kids and let them starve in the name of caring for and saving all the kids of the world are just fooling themselves as they throw a party for themselves in the name of saving ALL the kids.
This is a definitely problem in the black community where leaders are full of Big Talk about 'social justice' bu utterly lacking in down-to-earth actual deeds that might make a real difference. So, when a globalist elitist yammers about humanity-over-nationality, it's just an excuse for him to indulge his own narrow interests. After all, if one's goal is the lofty-impossible, one can stick to mere rhetoric while doing next-to-nothing since nothing real can be done to save all of humanity. When national leaders take after celebrity phonies like Bono and George Clooney, they no longer care about their own people. Just take a look at Justin Trudeau who can't tell the difference between Hollywood and nation.
2. Another is Multi-Culturalism and Diversity. Generally, a nation has a dominant racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group that defines the essence of the nation. It's like Greece is defined by its majority Greek population and Turkey by its majority Turkey population. So, the core national duty of the national elites is to be mindful of the interests of the national majority. Greek interests should trump all else in Greece, and Turkish interests should take precedence over all others in Turkey.
But this is problematic to the globalist elites that now rule many nations, especially advanced ones. The ruling elites don't much care for their own people since their main identification is with globalist elites they rubbed shoulders with at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, and etc.and whom they meet at globalist gatherings and conferences.
Still, as national leaders, they come under pressure to look out for the interests of the national masses. So, a kind of tension develops in these globalized national leaders. They feel closer to the diverse membership of the Global neo-aristocracy but are obligated to represent & serve the identity and interest of their national masses.
So, what is to be done? Multi-culturalism, mass immigration, and Diversity are meant to do the trick. If their own nations are made more diverse and multi-cultural, it means their nations are no longer defined by a dominant history, narrative, or culture. Their nations are now just another globo-diverse nation. Since all nations are to be defined more by multi-cultural 'minority rights' than national-majority-interests, the globalized national elites no longer need to be mindful of representing and serving core national interests. After all, if each nation is just a diversified mini-version of the World, there is no such thing as national interests, and national leaders can more legitimately pursue global interests while neglecting national ones.
If UK is made into a mini-version-of-the-world with its Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Pakistanis, and etc. who are all said to be equally British, then there is no need for British elites to favor British interests since Britain is just one more carbon-copy colony of the Globo-Community.
Also, the intermarriages among the elites of the world, like intermarriages among the European aristocrats in pre-modern times, tend to favor globalist privileges over national interests. If Chinese in America or Canada marry whites or Jews, they are going to feel closer to globalist empire than to China the motherland.
3. Pop Culture as Core Culture. In order for the globalist elites to justify their own privileges, they've given up on the notion of High Culture and Serious Art. Sure, they might still attend classical concerts once awhile, but they'd rather have fun, like Princess Diana did with celebrities and trash culture. The globalist elites prefer the Pop Art of Andy Warhol and his imitators than serious art or high culture that may be deemed as elitist and 'exclusionary'. So, with pop culture, Pop Art, dance music, and Hollywood as the centerpiece of globalist elite culture, the impression is created that the richest, most privileged, and the most powerful people are 'just like us'. After all, there is Hillary at a rap concert. There is Justin Trudeau hanging with famous homo celebrities. There is even the British Queen who's into 'hip stuff' now. There's some national leader taking a photo with Bono or some Hollywood star. And in some cases, these phony celebrities, like Oprah, become a member of the elite. Elites 'hipsterize' themselves to seem like any other consumer.
But in the end, all of this for the globalist elites and for them alone. For the rest of humanity, there's just tattoos, piercings, and obsession over 50 genders as the meaning of their life.
This bond between elites and people was most resilient among the Jews, not least because their nomadism required strong tribal bonds to keep the community together. The paradoxical nature of the Jews is their preferred mode of existence tended toward the division of elite and people yet their commitment to Tribal Will demanded conservation of unity. The Jewish Will of the Tribe grew stronger against the Jewish Nomadic Drive. Under normal circumstances, the Tribal Will should have weakened under the pressures of Nomadism, but Jews forged for themselves a culture of blessed particularity and unceasing paranoia(and humor of contempt) that militated against the Jewish loss of identity and unity, especially between elites and peoples. Jewish Culture claimed that Jews are a specially chosen people of the only true God and, furthermore, warned of decay and downfall were Jews to give into temptation of assimilation with other peoples and their wicked ways. Thus, even though the Jewish mode of nomadism was naturally most conducive to weakening of identity and unity, the Jewish spiritual worldview fed on that very existence to produce the opposite effect. What should have made Jews weaker as a Tribe made them stronger as a Tribe. The Jewish example illustrates how a people can rise above or triumph against Determinism with a special mindset. It is like the sport of Judo where one channels the force of the opponent against the opponent. What is naturally directed against you ends up favoring you against the opponent. If he pushes, you pull. If he pulls, you push.
If, in the past, the difficulty of travel, trade, and communication drew the local elites and local masses closer, the ease of worldwide networks has had the effect of pooling together the elites or the best-and-the-brightest all around the world. Thus, globalism acts against the unity of the elites and the masses in any national community(with Israel being an exception because Jews have a special mindset). It is natural for the best-and-brightest to favor other best-and-brightest, just as it is natural for the rich, the famous, and/or the beautiful to seek the company of other people of comparable status or qualities. Since the rich and privileged can travel and communicate easily around the world, they've come to disdain the local community of 'losers'. Why would a rich Briton care much about 'dumb and dirty' working class Britons when it's more fun, thrilling, fulfilling, and glamorous to hang around with rich Hindus, rich Asians, rich Arabs, and rich Russian Jews? (To be sure, the internet has afforded this 'privilege' to the masses as well, and this accounts for the rise of the Alt Right made possible through independent worldwide networking of Eurosphere nationalists. Since the white elites no longer care about white masses, the white peoples around the world have formed an international network of voices sharing their disillusionment with the globalist elites and their venal ways, especially in 'cucking' out to Jewish Globalists whose advantage depends on white-elite-collaboration with the likes of George Soros. And yet, Alt Right networks, even though international in reach, has an agenda at odds with globalism. If globalism is a neo-aristocratic pact among elites around the world to bond closely with one another than with their own peoples, Alt Right's neo-nationalism is about mutual pact among different nations and races to respect each other's borders, histories, and unique narratives.)
Since the globalist elites have chosen neo-aristocratic privilege over identity-and-unity with their own peoples -- Irish elites feel closer to Hindu and African elites than to fellow Irish masses -- , they must make up for their moral deficiency. After all, favoring one's globalist elite privilege above the interests of one's people sounds rather vain and greedy. An Irish elite member who prefers identifying with rich Asians, Africans, and Muslims has pretty much betrayed his own countrymen.
So, how does he go about regaining moral legitimacy.
1. One is universalism over nationalism. The elites may argue that nationalism is too narrow and petty. It's about us-versus-them, whereas universalism is about the good of all humanity. This may sound nice and noble, but it's just a pipe dream invoked as an excuse to abandon what is real and doable. It is doable for national elites to look out for the interests of their national people. In contrast, it is impossible for even a nation as powerful and rich as the United States to save and redeem the world. So, lofty rhetoric used by globalists is just a convenient utopian hat-trick to morally excuse their reneging of responsibility to their national folks.
The truth is the elites of any nation can effectively rule over the nation, but even the grandest project by all the elites of the world cannot fix or redeem the world. It's like a father and mother can feed their own kids but cannot take care of all the children of the world.
The lofty-impossible is a useful crutch to excuse one's dereliction of duty to the real-possible. Parents who neglect their own kids and let them starve in the name of caring for and saving all the kids of the world are just fooling themselves as they throw a party for themselves in the name of saving ALL the kids.
This is a definitely problem in the black community where leaders are full of Big Talk about 'social justice' bu utterly lacking in down-to-earth actual deeds that might make a real difference. So, when a globalist elitist yammers about humanity-over-nationality, it's just an excuse for him to indulge his own narrow interests. After all, if one's goal is the lofty-impossible, one can stick to mere rhetoric while doing next-to-nothing since nothing real can be done to save all of humanity. When national leaders take after celebrity phonies like Bono and George Clooney, they no longer care about their own people. Just take a look at Justin Trudeau who can't tell the difference between Hollywood and nation.
2. Another is Multi-Culturalism and Diversity. Generally, a nation has a dominant racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group that defines the essence of the nation. It's like Greece is defined by its majority Greek population and Turkey by its majority Turkey population. So, the core national duty of the national elites is to be mindful of the interests of the national majority. Greek interests should trump all else in Greece, and Turkish interests should take precedence over all others in Turkey.
But this is problematic to the globalist elites that now rule many nations, especially advanced ones. The ruling elites don't much care for their own people since their main identification is with globalist elites they rubbed shoulders with at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, and etc.and whom they meet at globalist gatherings and conferences.
Still, as national leaders, they come under pressure to look out for the interests of the national masses. So, a kind of tension develops in these globalized national leaders. They feel closer to the diverse membership of the Global neo-aristocracy but are obligated to represent & serve the identity and interest of their national masses.
So, what is to be done? Multi-culturalism, mass immigration, and Diversity are meant to do the trick. If their own nations are made more diverse and multi-cultural, it means their nations are no longer defined by a dominant history, narrative, or culture. Their nations are now just another globo-diverse nation. Since all nations are to be defined more by multi-cultural 'minority rights' than national-majority-interests, the globalized national elites no longer need to be mindful of representing and serving core national interests. After all, if each nation is just a diversified mini-version of the World, there is no such thing as national interests, and national leaders can more legitimately pursue global interests while neglecting national ones.
If UK is made into a mini-version-of-the-world with its Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Pakistanis, and etc. who are all said to be equally British, then there is no need for British elites to favor British interests since Britain is just one more carbon-copy colony of the Globo-Community.
Also, the intermarriages among the elites of the world, like intermarriages among the European aristocrats in pre-modern times, tend to favor globalist privileges over national interests. If Chinese in America or Canada marry whites or Jews, they are going to feel closer to globalist empire than to China the motherland.
3. Pop Culture as Core Culture. In order for the globalist elites to justify their own privileges, they've given up on the notion of High Culture and Serious Art. Sure, they might still attend classical concerts once awhile, but they'd rather have fun, like Princess Diana did with celebrities and trash culture. The globalist elites prefer the Pop Art of Andy Warhol and his imitators than serious art or high culture that may be deemed as elitist and 'exclusionary'. So, with pop culture, Pop Art, dance music, and Hollywood as the centerpiece of globalist elite culture, the impression is created that the richest, most privileged, and the most powerful people are 'just like us'. After all, there is Hillary at a rap concert. There is Justin Trudeau hanging with famous homo celebrities. There is even the British Queen who's into 'hip stuff' now. There's some national leader taking a photo with Bono or some Hollywood star. And in some cases, these phony celebrities, like Oprah, become a member of the elite. Elites 'hipsterize' themselves to seem like any other consumer.
But in the end, all of this for the globalist elites and for them alone. For the rest of humanity, there's just tattoos, piercings, and obsession over 50 genders as the meaning of their life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)