Thursday, September 6, 2018

In the Jewish War on Whites(or J-WOW) and Palestinians, Zionist-Globalists regard White Patriots and Palestinian Nationalists as the Biggest Threats to their Hegemony


https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/06/the-jewish-war-on-white-australia-colin-tatz-and-the-genocide-charge-part-one/

Jewish War on White or J-WOW.

An interesting fact is that the Two Peoples who are most repressed by Jewish Supremacist Globo-Homo Power are (1) White Patriots and (2) Palestinian Nationalists.

Why?

Jewish supremacism fears white patriots and Palestinian nationalists the most because...

(1) Jewish supremacism cannot sustain itself around the world without cucky White Submissivism. Jews don't have the numbers to rule the world. White numbers and talent must be in service of the Jewish Agenda. In order to make whites serve Jewish interests than white interests, Jews must 'pathologize' any hint of white identity and white interests as 'white supremacism', 'nazism' or 'far right'(even though genuinely far-right elements in Israel are never called such by NYT and Jew-run MSM). And yet, the great irony is that Jewish supremacism attacks 'white supremacism' not to eradicate supremacist ideology but to ensure the continuance of Jewish supremacism. It's like the master 'pathologizes' the desire for freedom on the part of the slave as 'uppity' not because he's opposed to uppitiness per se but because he wants to safeguard his own uppity status as the master. So, Jews must 'pathologize' all forms of white identity. (For this reason, true white patriots must distance themselves from neo-Nazi morons who really do harbor supremacist ideology, albeit as a crutch as Neo-Nazi types tend to be low in IQ and ability. White Patriots must support national autonomy for ALL peoples. Richard Spencer shot himself in the foot by saying he's for empire. He wants to replace Jewish globo-homo hegemony with Spencerian 007-Darth-Vaderian awesomeness. The best way to fight Jewish supremacism is to oppose supremacism of all kinds.)

2. Jewish supremacism fears Palestinian nationalism for two reasons. For Israel to have come into existence, Palestine had to be wiped off the map. We never hear any US politician say, "Palestine has the right to exist". They say "Israel has the right to exist" while totally ignoring that it came into existence by geo-ciding Palestine off the map. Jews sure love to project. They wiped Palestine off the map but they accuse Iran of wishing to wipe Israel off the map when, in fact, Iranian leaders never said such thing.

Anyway, Palestinian nationalism is a threat to Israel because Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land that European Jews wrested from them.

Jews fear Palestinian nationalism for geopolitical and MORAL reasons. In some parts of the world, there is no clear right-or-wrong in territorial disputes. India and China still disagree on border issues. Such disputes are common all over the world. But there is NO DENYING the fact that Israel came into existence by massive Nakba Pogroms of 1948 that destroyed Palestine in whole.
Incidentally, 2018 is the 70th anniversary of the Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map and denied the right of Palestinians to have a nation of their own. Notice the Jew-run media remain shhhhhhh about this anniversary. (Everyone in the Alt Right should run with the 1948-2018 Nakba Pogroms theme.) So, something like the BDS movement poses not only a geo-political but moral challenge to Jewish-Zionist supremacist power. It is an 'existential' threat to the Holy Holocaust Narrative that has so many people believing that Jews have always been gentle, kindly, and helpless souls who were incapable of harming a fly but were abused and murdered by 'anti-Semites'. But a closer examination of history reveals that Jews were among the biggest killers of all time as Bolsheviks and have been acting like Judeo-Nazis against Palestinians. Also, isn't it strange how conveniently the world forgot that Israel was the closest ally of South Africa during the apartheid years(while communist Jews in South Africa worked with blacks against the Boers; in effect, the backroom deal seems to have been that Jewish communists would help the blacks who, in turn, would go easy on Jewish capitalist diamond merchants; Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists work like hand in glove; white goyim think in terms of white left VERSUS white right whereas Jews think in terms of Jewish left AND Jewish right; this is why Jews feared fascism; it was the unity of white leftism and white rightism, a most potent combination of socialist benefits for workers and capitalist incentives for the elites, with both sides being united by nationalism)?

So, Jews fear white identity and Palestinian nationalism the most. They do everything to repress anything that is white-and-proud and anything that is Palestinian-and-for-freedom. Jews use Big Tech(which is mostly Jew-tech) to silence white voices and deny financial services to white patriots. Jews use their whore politicians to criminalize BDS and to deny financial services to pro-Palestinian groups.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-fifth-column-2/
http://www.unz.com/article/there-is-a-deeper-darker-agenda-afoot-as-the-us-cuts-unrwa-funding/
Even though Jews pressure the US to funnel billions to Israel, a nation that supports ISIS and Alqaeda terrorists in Syria, just about any pro-Palestinian group in the US is targeted and defunded as a 'terrorist' group.

Given what Jews do to both groups, you'd think white patriots and Palestinians would make natural allies. But Jews pit them against one another, like Kirk Douglas and Woody Strode, as slave-warriors, were made to fight and kill one another by the haughty Roman elites in SPARTACUS.
Incredibly, the two groups who are most repressed by Jews are always insulting and hating on one another. Even as Jews crush Palestinians OVER THERE, they coddle Muslims OVER HERE and tell them that 'white racists' are the biggest danger to Arabs and Muslims when, in fact, it was Jewish Hollywood that made all those All-Arabs-are-terrorists movies and it was the Zionists who used their power in media and deep state to make White Christian Soldiers fight Wars for Israel that, along with unrelenting sanctions, have killed over a million Muslims. (Of course, many Muslims ally with Jewish globalists despite their loathing for Zionism because their main priority is to gain entry into the West for material improvement. Since Jews are for non-white invasion of the West, even anti-Jewish Muslims work with Jews.)
As for white cucks and paycheck conservatives, they are spineless & gutless, eager to do anything to win favors from Jews inside the Beltway. As for men like Jared Taylor, there is this pathological hope that, some day, all these high IQ wealthy Jews will wake up and side with whites. This is purely delusional. Notice in the video below, Taylor refuses to Name the Jew even though it is the real power behind the Russia-Hysteria and the censorship of White Advocates like Taylor himself. It wasn't the Chinese or Mexicans who got Taylor and Alex Jones removed from many platforms. It wasn't the Chinese or Mexicans who denied basic financial services to Taylor. It's the Jews. Just like "It was Barzini all along" in THE GODFATHER, it was the Jews who were the real force in the War on White.

Jews want supremacism for themselves, not 'equal partnership' with goyim. Jewish personality is such that it cannot accept equal-anything with any other group. Just think... Jews are fuming over Russia because they weren't allowed to take over and dominate that country. Imagine that. Jews are less than 1% of Russians, but they think THEY have the right to call all the shots. Since Putin denied them this 'right', he is defamed as a 'new hitler' according to Jew-run MSM and cuck-dogs who bark for their Jewish master.
And remember how Jews once said Palestinians have no reason to worry about Jewish migration into the Holy Land because Jews only want to peacefully co-exist with Palestinians and would pose no threat to the demographic integrity of Palestine as Arab-majority territory? Well, how did THAT work out? Palestinians who trusted Jews were like whites who fell for proto-cuck Ted Kennedy's promise that the European character of America would not be altered by radical changes in Immigration Policy. Today, Jews rule all of Israel, and IDF death squads ruthlessly mow down anyone in Gaza or West Bank who stand up for Palestinian freedom.
Ann Coulter on Ted Kennedy and 1965 Immigration Act
White patriots and Palestinian nationalists must wake up. They must realize that the Main Power doing most to repress the aspirations of both groups is Jewish supremacism. It is about time White People apologized to Palestinians for having aided and abetted in the Zionist destruction of Palestine. White people supported Jewish aggression against Palestinians in the hope that grateful Jews would use their wealth and influence to support white-and-Christian-friendly causes and interests. But the idea of Jews being grateful for anything is laughable. If you do favors for Jews, they don't feel grateful. They feel contempt for you as a sucker who disadvantaged himself in favor of The Other. It's no surprise that Jews showed no gratitude for white support of Zionism. If anything, as Jews gained more power, they began to treat whites in the West in the same way they treat Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza. Whites were dehumanized, whites were shamed & scapegoated, whites were discredited, white lands were to be invaded by non-whites(who would vote for politicians who shill for Jewish interests), white towns would be demographically transformed by color, young white minds would be infected with PC, and white wombs were to be colonized by black seed.
Jews hire yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong to spew hatred against whitey... just like Jews hired white cucks like Mitt Romney to spew hatred against Palestinians. The first step toward freedom is to say NO. White people must say NO and refuse to cuck out to Zionist-imperialism that is destroying the Palestinian people. Why should whites support Zionist policy against Palestinians when Jews in the West regard & treat whites the same way that Israeli Jews regard & treat Palestinians? In West Bank, Palestinians are dehumanized and their lands are to be resettled by Jewish migrant-imperialists. And in the West, the Jew-run PC spreads anti-white hatred among POC(people of color) and instills self-hatred among whites(who end up like Mollie Tibbetts); and its end-goal is to flood the West with immigrant-invaders who are to take over white lands and colonize white wombs.
Mollie Tibbetts, the white prog whose mind was poisoned by Jew-run Media & Academia. Jews got their hooks so deep into white minds that her father defend mass migration-invasion(that led to the death of his daughter) because it means more guacamole and enchiladas for his stupid cuck-self.
In the Jewish-Zionist mind, White Patriot = Palestinian Nationalist. Both groups must be broken in pride and spirit in order to secure Jewish Supremacism for all eternity. 14/88 for Jews is 66/8 -- Rule by Semitic Noses for eternity. (Some people say that Diversity will eventually undermine Jewish Power because many POC are anti-Jewish. While this may be true in France and UK where so many of the immigrant-invaders are Arabs or Muslims, there is little chance of that in US and Canada where immigrant-invaders are mostly not Muslim and come from all over the world. Also, most of them don't have the brains to rise very high. East Asians do, but their dog-like personality leads them to serve The Power than challenge the power(like Jews did against the Wasp elites). Since the Power is Jewish, most Asian elites become little more than yellow dogs of Jews. In the US, the majority of immigrant-invaders come from south of the border, and their votes mostly end up serving Jewish supremacism. As all politicians rely on Jewish money, American people have only two choices: Republicans who suck up to Jews and Democrats who also suck up to Jews. So, even as POC supply the votes to elect Democratic politicians, the politicians take their orders from the donors[many of whom are Jewish], not from the masses whose idea of culture is the bread-and-circuses of TV shows[made by Jewish Hollywood]. There are many more black, brown, and yellow voters than Jewish ones, and yet, all Democratic politicians take orders from rich Jews and usually ignore their constituents. Why? Because, before they can campaign for votes, they must be vetted and funded by Jewish interests. Many more Mexicans and blacks than Jews may vote for a Democratic candidate, but the candidate's priorities will be Israel, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Homomania[proxy of Jewish power], and whatever Jews want, like 'new cold war with Russia' and more sanctions against Iran, a nation which most Mexicans and blacks in America couldn't even find on the map. Indeed, even Muslim votes that go to Democrats end up serving Jewish interests because the politicians are chosen and groomed by Jews. Even politicians who started out as critics of Israel soon change their tune and sing hosannas to Israel-First policy as they seek higher office.)

Anyway, it is time for white people to stop the War on Palestine. When the Jewish War on Whites now treats white Americans like Zionists treat Palestinians in Israel/Palestine, Gaza, and West Bank, isn't it about time for white folks to see the light? White people need to look in the mirror and say "We are the New Palestinians." And white people need to atone for what they've done to Palestine. Palestinians did NOTHING to white Americans, but white Americans chose to support the Jewish destruction of Palestine. Unlike Palestinians, many Jews had taken part in mass murder of whites in the 20th century. Many top Bolsheviks were Jews. And the main spies and agents for the Soviet Union were Jews. (While the current Russia Hysteria is total fantasy concocted by crazy Jews, the Red Scare was premised on the REALITY of extensive Soviet-Jewish espionage in the US. But in Jew-run US, the Red Scare was a terrible time of political repression while the current US is ruled by Trump-as-new-hitler-as-puppet-of-Putin-as-another-new-hitler.)

And yet, white Americans supported Jews in their destruction of Palestinians in the great Nakba tragedy of 1948. Now, if Jews had felt grateful for white support of Zionism and returned favor in kind, the white support of Zionism would have made political if not moral sense. After all, much of politics(especially involving foreign policy) is amoral and based on realpolitik considerations of "What's in it for us?"
But guess what? Jews only felt contempt. Given an inch, they demanded a mile. Given a mile, they demanded the whole nation. Given the whole nation, they now demand the world. It's incredible that the US must wage 'new cold war' with Russia simply because of Jewish neurosis for supremacist madness. So, the white support for Zionism turned out to be both a moral and political disaster.

It is time to wake up.

Ziad Ahmed Revisited -- Jews, Muslims, and the Politics of Holiness


http://www.theroot.com/muslim-teen-writes-blacklivesmatter-100-times-for-his-1793975181

Ziad Ahmed wrote 'Black Lives Matter' 100x times on his application essay and was rewarded with admission to Stanford University, beating out other applicants who took their essays seriously. (Stanford's act of 'social justice' was clearly a case of corruption whereby worthier candidates were passed over in favor of the trendy virtue-signaler. How ironic that justice, which is supposed to defend fairness against corruption, is utterly blind to its own corruption of favoring the correct over the credentialed. Worse, the fact that there was no real effort to challenge Ahmed's undeserved admission indicates that America is not only increasingly corrupt but utterly craven. Apparently, blacks are holy and magical. That being the case, it wouldn't be good sport to reverse the admission of a kid who wrote BLM a 100x, right?)

Anyway, does Ahmed's fame(or notoriety) signal the rise of Muslim power in America? Are Muslims prepped to join and ultimately challenge Jews for the mantle of American 'Liberalism'? Should Jews be worried?

No, Jews need not worry about his ilk since he is a Bangladesh Muslim whose beef is with Hindus than with Jews in the Middle East. He is a Safe Muslim. Even though all Muslims around the world pay lip-service to the plight of Palestinians, non-Arab Muslims really don’t care. (And even most Arabs don't much care since the main rift in the Middle East is Sunnis vs Shias than Muslims vs Jews.) That said, a Muslim is still a Muslim, and Jews don’t like Muslims and vice versa.

The ONLY reason why Muslims have received some favorable coverage of late is because of Donald Trump. In order for the US to continue with the INVADE policy(military intervention and proxy wars) in the Middle East, it must mask its imperialism with Humanitarian gestures of INVITE(taking in 'refugees' with shows of 'compassion'). So, when Trump endangered the policy of INVITE, he also endangered the policy of INVADE, and that enraged the Supra-Semites(Jewish Supremacists) who want perpetual wars among Arabs/Muslims to further hegemonic Israeli interests. US makes a show of offering a helping hand to strike with the other hand holding the hammer.

Now, surely many Muslims see right through the duplicity of the Supra-Semitic US foreign policy. They most certainly understand how Jewish-controlled foreign policy is messing up Muslim nations. So, why are so many Muslims, abroad and in the West, allied with Jewish-Zionist globalists? Because for many Muslims, their main hope is gaining entry to the good life in the West, not some high-minded principles about protecting Muslim nations from neo-imperialism emanating from the Zionist-controlled US. So, even though Muslims detest the brutality of the INVADE strategy, they much appreciate the INVITE policy(at least for themselves and their close ones) and therefore are opportunistically allied with Jews(who are behind the US foreign policy of using Saudis, Turks, and Qatar to undermine Syria).

Even so, there is no real love for Muslims among Americans, not even among Progs addicted to Virtue Vanity. Muslims are just political pawns(against Trump) for Progs and globalists to toy with and feel good about. (The Jewish way is to attack Trump as a 'xenophobic racist' for his wariness about mass immigration-invasion from the Muslim World but then to pull the strings to effectively silence and strangle the BDS movement calling for justice for Palestinians still struggling under occupation. Perversely enough, Jews in the UK are freaking out about close ties between the Labour Party and Muslim groups. Jews pressured the UK to take in all those African and Muslim immigrant-invaders and refugees. But because the plan didn't pan out as Jews wished when the White Left made common cause with Muslims who loathe Zionism, the very Jews who'd admonished the UK into taking in all those Muslims are now throwing tantrums about how Jeremy Corbyn is overly sensitive to the concerns of Muslims against the supremacist interests of Zionists. In a nutshell, Jews had intended to use non-whites against whites in the UK, but Corbyn's alliance of the White Left with non-whites & Muslims against the Zionist strange-hold over the UK is making many Jews go batshit crazy.) The proof that White Progs feel no special love for Muslims was quite evident when most Progs said nothing and did nothing while Obama-Hillary team was destroying Libya(with no-fly-zone air war) and Syria(by working with allies to undermine Assad). Well well, so much for their ethical concern for Muslim lives!

Now, this Muslim kid Ziad Ahmed surely has an inkling(even if only subconscious) of how the political-moral game is played in the West. That is why he ran with BLACK LIVES MATTER than MUSLIM LIVES MATTER(even though countless more Muslim lives have been destroyed by the US war machine than blacks were killed by American Police).

Despite all the PC talk of equality, some groups are more equal than others in Western Political Morality. Notice how Mandela the Negro is revered while Arafat the Palestinian has been disappeared down the memory hole in the West. (Also, notice how Israel touts the memory of Mandela, as if to own him, when, in fact, Israel was the main ally of apartheid South Africa and currently practices apartheid against Palestinians in the West Bank.)

Certain groups are designated as holier by the sacraments of PC. So, to gain political advantage in the US, your people need ethno-consecration via association with officially recognized holy groups IF your own group is deemed unholy, uncool, or unimportant.
If you’re black, Jew, or homo, you are holy and justified just for being what you are.
But most racial/ethnic/cultural/religious groups mean little or nothing in America. So, in order for them to gain the aura of righteousness, they must associate themselves with one of the holies. Their own group must be presented as being in good graces with one of the Holy Three, or their own cause/interest must be shown to reflect or further the prestige and authority of the holies. (So, Ziad Ahmed went with BLACK LIVES MATTER than SAVE CHRISTIAN ARABS FROM US IMPERIALISM.)  Trump  also played this card by hugging blacks and flattering homos as people for whom he feels special consideration. He said he wanted to vet Muslims to protect homos, a holy people. He said he wants to limit immigration to help them Negroes in Detroit(who are being out-competed). And of course, Iran must be destroyed to save those poor poor Jews in Israel.

In the US, you won’t gain much if you belong to a non-special people. Also, your cause or movement doesn't mean much if you express sympathy for a people who are not of the Holy Group pantheon. For instance, so many Christian Arabs have been brutalized or killed since the Iraq War. So many lost their homes, so many got raped, and so many were exiled. It’s a sad story. But they are ignored and passed over because they are deemed a Holy People; the Glob-Homo Media all but ignore them. (Jews hate Christian Arabs because the latter rely on secular Arab leaders like Assad for protection.  As Assad is allied with Iran and Russia -- nations hated most by Jews -- , Jews hate Christian Arabs who support him.) So, it doesn’t matter how much you champion the plight of Christian Arabs. No one listens and no one cares. Also, it has long been political poison in the US to champion the cause of Palestinians because doing so offends the Jews, the holiest of the holies. So, despite all the injustices suffered by Palestinians, there's been either silence or compliance with Zionism as the supposed 'outpost of Western values'.
The reason why the GOP cuddles up to Zionists is because white gentiles lack autonomous holiness and therefore need to rub themselves on Jews for some holy static. Groups without holiness are like men suffering from scurvy who crave fruits with vitamin C. Likewise, the non-holies rely on the holies for doses of sanctimony and righteousness.
The service is costly. It's like Russia, a non-holy nation by canons of globalism, must associate itself with Chabad Jews to obtain and stockpile its supply of holiness. (Given Russia's great sacrifices and suffering in WWII and its victory over Nazi Germany, you'd think the Russian Brand would be blessed with eternal holiness. But the globalist narrative is controlled by Jews who have denied this aura to the Russians. So, political holiness is less about real history than who gets to spin history.)

Jews, homos, and blacks are designated as holy, so they don't need to rely on others to feel justified and righteous. But, a people who aren’t one of the three must associate themselves with one or all to earn moral pokemon points. And that is what Ziad Ahmed did. Black Lives Matter indeed.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

Libertarianism vs Nationalism. Nationalism is the Answer. / Proglodytes as Demon-Possessed. Talk to the Devil, not to its Minions

http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-collapse-of-trumpism-on-war-and-immigration

Donald Trump's supporters are becoming disillusioned with Zionist-Globalist War Cries emanating from Washington D.C. Whatever happened to nationalism over globalism? Whatever happened to no more wars and instead focusing on the problems facing the American people?

It goes to show that a people cannot rely on just one man.

It's like Moses led his people out of Egypt, but the Hebrews couldn't rely only on his leadership and vision. After all, even great men fade, fall, or die eventually. So, Moses had to provide his people with the Law, the vessel of principles and meaning. That way, with or without him, the Hebrews had something to guide them and set them straight through the ages.

Likewise, white people need something more than Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Putin won't live forever, and Trump has shown himself to be a huckster and opportunist. He's not to be trusted. Also, Jewish Power is so entrenched in the US that it's difficult for Trump to outmaneuver the Jews even if he wanted to. In contrast, Russia was such an anything-goes anarcho-gangster state in the 90s that someone like Putin with deep state instincts and connections could pull off a counter-coup against the Jewish oligarchs.

Anyway, white people need a sense of who they are, what they are, where they came from, and how they must advance into the future. Trump was useful in shaking things up, but he has to deal with the reality of the Deep State and powerful institutions being controlled by Jews and/or globalists.

One thing for sure, white people need to reject libertarianism that has defined so much of 'conservative' thought. Consider soulless and spineless asses like Paul Ryan. While individualism and freedom are valuable, libertarianism goes too far in lionizing those themes above all else. It is the ideology of "I got mine, and I don't care about others, even or especially for those of my own race/ethnicity."
The problem isn't one's conviction in individuality, independence, responsibility, and personal success; it isn't one's criticism of those paying the price for poor decisions. After all, the kind of leftism that mindlessly fawns upon the poor and the 'powerless' is pretty useless. It has a knee-jerk tendency to see success as 'greed' and failure as 'nobility'. In fact, many people, especially in a free society, messed up in life due to poor/stupid decisions. And they must realize this and act more sensibly in life. To be free means to accept the consequences of one's freedom.

The important thing is there is a sensible middle-ground between Libertarianism and Socialism. Libertarianism is so radically self-centered that its adherents care only about their own success. Or, if unsuccessful themselves, they fawn on those with money and power with toady-like deference. Theirs is a worldview of arrogance and contempt. According to libertarianism, the winners must be great and wonderful since they used their smarts and freedom to rise high. Libertarianism tends to ignore how ability and success can easily lurch into corruption, abuses, and exploitation. It's like even naturally talented athletes will cheat by using steroids or dirty tricks. Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones.
Socialism, in contrast, is so sanctimonious in its righteous compassion that it fails to see the flaws and failings of groups deemed as 'victims'. So, lower classes are just saints with hearts of gold who, if they act crazy or violent, are merely reacting to oppression.
Blacks, refugees, and immigrants are automatically good for belonging to a 'marginalized' group. Such lack of critical mentality in socialism fails to come up with useful advice to the 'losers' of the world. By fawning on such peoples, socialism only encourages the 'victim' groups to feel sorry for themselves, self-righteous relative to the have-mores, and justified no matter how stupidly they act.

The Left has done itself no favors with this brand of socialism. It always gives useless or even destructive advice to people it purports to help because of its dogmatic sentimentality about the poor, the minorities, or the 'wretched of the earth'. So, if blacks riot and burn down a city, the Left just sees blacks as nobly enraged with injustice. So, if a bunch of Muslims leave their own nations and illegally barge into the West for material gain, they are to be coddled as the 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' instead of as craven opportunists.
Imagine a parent who never straightens out his children but always makes excuses for them. Imagine a teacher who never accuses his students for bad behavior but only makes excuses for them, as if it's never the students' fault. There can be no progress, no improvement, and no rectitude with such attitude. This is why leftism has been such a catastrophe. The problem is not its concern for fellow man(who may be down and out) but the lack of courage to be critical of those in need of help. Even if a people are without privilege or advantage, they must be judged and corrected when they do wrong. It's like Moses sometimes had to be tough with his people even if they were a sorry desperate lot.

But libertarianism has its own problems. While it has some positive ideas like individuality, freedom, responsibility, and work ethic, it is obsessive about the self at the expense of all other considerations. In regard to humanity, it only sees single individual selves, not a people with common bonds of ethnicity, culture, history, and territory.
Libertarianism isn't wrong to espouse the ideal of individual success by individual effort. After all, no one should expect others to do his homework for him. Where libertarianism fails is the total unconcern for anything but the self(or the various individual selves). If the self has it good, a libertarian feels no compunction to care about anyone else. But with such unconcern, a libertarian cannot have a meaningful identity, culture, or sense of history.
He is just an atomized individual in a globo-cosmopolitan universe. Since he identifies only as an individual and sinks-or-swims as a mere individual, his heart and mind have no connection to anything beyond the self. As such, it cannot have a wider or deeper sense of community across time and space. Libertarianism sees lots of dots but never connects the dots to form a large picture.

Consider two individuals. One is a Libertarian Jew who is totally radical about his libertarian principles. The other is a Jewish nationalist. Now, suppose both individuals believe in individuality, responsibility, and ambition. Suppose both Jews gain success. In that regard, they have much in common.
However, the Libertarian Jew is only concerned with the individual, the self. He only cares about his individual freedom and success. And he considers rest of humanity ONLY AS INDIVIDUALS. So, he sees successful individuals, middling individuals, and failed-individuals. He has no other consideration of who-they-are when dealing with humanity.

In contrast, the other guy, the Jewish nationalist, has a sense of ethnic, historical, and cultural identity. He doesn't see himself merely as an individual but also as a person of a specific racial community. So, even though he also sees a world composed of successful individuals, middling individuals, and failed-individuals, he also sees a world made up of cultures and tribes. And he feels a unity with the people of his tribe/culture, the Jews of the world. So, even though, purely on the basis of economic and individual worth, he is more like rich Hindus, rich Anglos, and rich Chinese, he feels a deep connection with all other Jews, rich-middle-poor. And if possible, he would like to do something that serves the interests of all Jews on the racial, cultural, territorial, or historical level. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Jew feels no such feelings when it comes to other Jews. They are just individuals, and some are successful, and some are not.

Now, suppose there's a Jewish community in some part of the world and something horrible is happening to it. The Libertarian Jew's attitude is, "Why should I care?" Since he only sees himself as an individual among other individuals, why should he care MORE about what happens to some Jewish community than what happens to some other community? After all, bad things are happening all the time in some part of the world. Earthquake could destroy a community in Iran. Hurricane could destroy a community in Florida. Famine could destroy a community in Ethiopia. Flood could ruin a community in Japan.
So, why should the Libertarian Jew care more about what happens to a Jewish community? After all, his special concern for Jews would go against his own Libertarian principles.
It might be deemed 'racist', 'supremacist', and 'exclusive'. For him to care more about a tragedy befalling a Jewish community would mean his emotions are playing racial-favorites. It means he's thinking collectively and nationalistically than as an individual committed only to principles of colorblind freedom, liberty, and success. So, even though, in a broad sense, he might feel generic sympathy for any group facing hardship or horrors -- and donate to humanitarian charities for trouble-spots around the world -- , he doesn't feel an obligation to care more about suffering Jews than any other people. So, he sees suffering Jews only in a generic way. They are suffering like the rest of humanity that is suffering, and that's that. And there is no need for him to feel especially bad about the plight of his people. Indeed, he doesn't even regard them as 'my people'. So, even though there could be some Jews suffering really badly in some part of the world, he feels no special connection with or obligation toward them. As such, he feels just fine going about his daily business and is concentrating on persona/professional interests. So, if HE is rich and happy, all's fine with the world. His happiness isn't associated with what happens to a bunch of Jews halfway around the globe.

In contrast, the Jewish Nationalist feels as part of a larger ethno-humanity. No matter how well he may be doing, no matter how well-off he is personally and professionally, and no matter how safe & secure he and his family are, he doesn't feel happy or feel all's well with the world IF there are Jews suffering terribly in some part of the world. He sees them as a part of an extended family. So, their suffering is, at least partly, his suffering as well. He feels a connection to others of his kind. His life doesn't revolve around himself. His life revolves around something bigger and deeper, a sense of being part of a history and culture.



There's a scene in SANDS OF IWO JIMA where a soldier goes on break. He's supposed to return quickly and aid his company, but he prolongs his recess to take it easy. As the result, his fellow soldiers end up getting killed because of his absence. He is overcome with shame and guilt. His extended break proved negligent and led to the death of his compatriots.
The Jewish Nationalist feels in a similar way in relation to other Jews. He feels that all Jews should care about one another. This doesn't mean that some Jews should work so that others can freeload off them. Such dependence would be parasitic and opportunistic. Rather, his ideal is for a kind of ethno-INTERdependence whereby, despite every Jew's effort to gain success on his own, he would be mindful of what's happening with the worldwide Jewish community. So, if some Jews are seriously hurting in a part of the world, other Jews should feel obligated to do something, like when American Jews lent a hand to Soviet Jews. Such compassion may be tribal than universal, but universalism is too generic for meaningful emotions. After all, it's impossible for anyone to care about all the families around the world. Naturally, one cares more for one's own family. Trying to help or save all the peoples around the world would be impossible. Besides, universalists only pretend to care about other groups as for one's own. 20th century was filled with lots of horrors, but Jews have been fixated on the Shoah. Why? Would Jews have cared so much if it had been directed only at Polish Catholics and not Jews? It's only natural that Jews would care more about fellow Jews.

For a person to care ONLY ABOUT THE SELF AND CLOSE ONES would be petty. For a person to care for ALL OF HUMANITY would be generic, more a case of virtue-signaling than anything meaningful or consequential. The middle-ground for meaningful human emotions is ethno-culturalism. A Polish person shouldn't just care about the self or the individual. But it'd be impossible for him to care about all of humanity. Universalism will always be generic and confused.
The meaningful balance can be found in ethno-culturalism: A Pole who cares about Polish-ness as a people, culture, nation, and history. Let him defend and preserve Polish-ness, and let peoples of other nationalities defend and preserve their own identities and heritages.
It's like different departments in colleges focus on different things. Chemistry department focuses on chemistry, not on the law. Accounting Department focuses on accounting, not on agriculture or rocket science. It would be absurd to expect every academic department to focus on every discipline & every field of knowledge and welcome any student with any interest. Likewise, every nation has its own specialization in ethnicity, culture, territory, history, and mythology(collective narrative). Specialization allows the university to maintain the various departments. People of each department specialize in a certain field and maintain expertise in it. So, those in psychology maintain knowledge about psychology, and those in film studies maintain knowledge on the art of cinema. We don't condemn such specialization as 'academic tribalism' or 'academic exclusionism'. In order for every department to be expert in its specialty, it has to concentrate on certain kinds of knowledge at the expense/exclusion of other kinds. So, if a department is about teaching foreign languages, it would be stupid for it to include physics and finance as well in the name of 'academic inclusion'.

Likewise, each nation has its own special history. And each nation is stamped by a unique story of a dominant ethnic group. And each nation has a rich history, culture, folklore, and tradition. It is up to the people of each nation to safeguard, preserve, defend, and disseminate this specialized body of national-cultural knowledge among all its members. Each person of a nation must be seen as a student & scholar of its ethnicity, history, culture, and territory.
Just like everyone in a college department must gain expert knowledge of the department's subject, every person of a nation should try to be an expert on that nation's history, culture, arts, geography, and etc.
It is the loss of such mindset under the pressures of globalism that has made so many people into such bad students of their own identity, history, and culture. It is no wonder they are flunking in national survival and self-preservation. Poisoned by globalism that says every nation must inclusively accept ALL nationalities across its borders, people are no longer compelled to become knowledgeable patriots of their ethnicity, history, and culture with the will to defend their territory.

Imagine if the French language department was accused of specializing in French and not welcoming other disciplines. Therefore, suppose the French department declares itself as no longer exclusively about French and allows people from engineering, agriculture, ceramics, photography, law, medicine, and etc into the department. So, what would the French department be about now? It'd be deemed 'nativist' or 'racist' for the department to be about French above other disciplines. But the people in the department only know French, and they know nothing of other disciplines. And people who specialize in other disciplines feel lost wandering around the French department which is ill-equipped to serve their interests. In time, every discipline that's been allowed into the French department suffers since no one is allowed to meaningfully concentrate on anything. Only by everyone returning to his own department and only by French department concentrating on French will all departments flourish.

Likewise, all nations have more to gain by maintaining their own peoples, cultures, histories, and territories. Let the French preserve what is French in France. Let Cameroonians preserve what is Cameroonian in Cameroon, and let Algerians preserve what is Algerian in Algeria. Let different peoples specialize in their own ethnicity, territory, history, and narrative. And once each nation is preserved in such manner, the world can share and exchange each other's ideas, stories, achievements, and etc... just like various departments in colleges can share their general knowledge with other departments that specialize in their own disciplines. For there to be interdisciplinary studies across departments, each department must maintain expertise in its special field. That way, if another department needs help from the French Department, the latter will be all revved up to deliver.

We need a robust nationalism that encourages each person to be an expert in his folk, history, and culture of his/her nation. And it should be seen as a lifelong pursuit than something only learned in schools. A person with no such interest or investment should be seen as a flunk. What's the point of being a member of a nation if one has no interest in it? It'd be like being part of college department without having any knowledge of its subject.

Anyway, a nationalist doesn't only care about himself or look upon humanity as a collection of 'free individuals' in a borderless world. That would be a libertarian. A nationalist believes that certain peoples, histories, and territories became interwoven to form special 'cultures' that need to be preserved, ideally by those with blood ties to the cultures. Surely, a black African feels a deeper connection when he looks upon the artifacts of his culture. While anyone can appreciate African art on the aesthetic level, it is more than mere art to those of the race and culture that created it. Similarly, Chinese culture surely means more to people of Chinese lineage. It's like Jewish things in Jerusalem mean more to a Jew than to a Japanese, for whom the gardens of Kyoto have special meaning.

Globalism wages war on the specialization of cultures, histories, and peoples. It tries to turn all cultures into Cultures-for-Dummies: bland, generic, superficial, interchangeable. Globalism tries to turn every nation into Nation-for-Dummies.
In contrast, nationalism believes that each person should become an expert of one's identity, history, and culture. Also, if the people of the culture fail in this, they mustn't expect any other people to do it for them. If Hungarians give up on Hungary, non-Hungarians will not fill the void? If Hungarians decide to abandon their culture, who will preserve it for them? Africans? Mexicans? Japanese? Brazilians? No chance.
And even if another people did decide to preserve it for Hungarians, it still wouldn't be the same. It'd be like Chinese preserving the Kenyan nation, or Nigerians speaking Polish and pretending to be Polish Catholics. It'd be just 'larping'. If Jews gave up on Jewish identity and culture AND if Hawaiians or Gypsies took up the mantle of Jewishness, would it be the same? Of course not. No more than if Vietnamese took over Congo and pretended to be New Congolese.

For a nationalist, the meaning of freedom and justice cannot derive solely from personal well-being. No matter how free and well-off he may be as an individual, he doesn't feel truly free and secure as long as others of his kind are suffering or living in bondage. He feels a 'psychic' connection with others of his own kind. It's like a father cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his own children are going hungry. It's like a son cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his parents are starving. A nationalist sees his people as part of his larger family.

A libertarian has no special feeling for others of his own kind. He only cares about himself and has a generic sense of humanity as individuals. So, if people of his ethnicity are suffering, he doesn't see them as 'my people'. He just sees them as suffering individuals no different from other suffering individuals in some other part of the world. A true-blue Libertarian Jew would be no more disturbed by Jews being rounded up and killed than by any other people being rounded up and killed. He would be appalled but no more appalled than by violence committed to any other group.

Of course, few Jews actually feel that way. Jews, even those who claim to be libertarian, feel a great deal of tribal camaraderie with other Jews around the world. Jews know this feeling is the source of their power, resilience, unity, and will to survive.
Now, it'd be nice if Jews, in valuing the meaningfulness of such tribalism, respected similar feelings among other peoples. But Jews won't tolerate such among whites because white gentiles with a sense of tribal compassion may favor their own kind's interests overJewish interests. After all, if white gentiles felt special compassion & loyalty to their own kind, they'd be less partial to sacrificing their own interests in favor of Jewish ones. In some cases, they might see Jewish interests as threatening to their own and work against them. And this is why Jews will not tolerate tribal-communion compassion among white gentiles. (This is why Jews use three methods to make sure whites serve Jewish interests uber alles. First, Jews try to persuade whites that Jewish/Israeli interests and American/European interests are one and the same. So, what is good for Israel is good for the US, no ifs and buts about it. And Western Values are synonymous with Jewish values. Second, Jews tell whites that nationalism is passe, and therefore, whites must adopt Universal Values. Oddly enough, however, once whites are made to forgo white identity in favor of universalism, Jews steer whites toward to serving Zionism and Jews above all else. In other words, it's a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. When Jews say people must surrender nationalism for universalism, it doesn't apply to Jews who are, if anything, celebrated for clinging to their nationalism. Also, 'universalism' is a sham because deracinated and de-nationalized whites are then steered to serve specific Jewish interests than truly universal ones. To be sure, Jews mask their tribal interests with faux-principles about 'human rights', 'war on terror', and 'liberal democracy', but just about everything Jews push under such labels goes toward serving Jewish or Zionist interests. Third, Jews not only advise whites to adopt universalism but go all out to smear even the faintest whiff of white identity as 'nazi' or 'white supremacism'. Therefore, whites are made an offer they can't refuse. They must reject nationalism in favor of 'universalism' that, however, is configured only to serve Jewish tribal interests and Zionism. The current trouble with Russia and Syria has everything to do with Jewish obsessions and nothing else, at least from the standpoint of the US.) If Jews are killed by Palestinians, Jews care a great deal about Jewish victims. Indeed, they use the media to make even gentiles care for Jewish victims. But whites are not supposed to feel any kind of racial compassion for their own kind.

So, there's hardly been ANY expression of sympathy or alarm about all those whites who've been brutally robbed, raped, and/or murdered in South Africa. And Germans are not supposed to care about German victims of migrant rapists. French are not supposed to care about French victims of Muslim violence or African thuggery. And in the US, whites are never allowed to express racial camaraderie with fellow whites attacked by blacks or overrun by non-white immigrants. Ethno-Compassion has been stamped out for whites... but whites are pressured to feel compassion for Jews(every crisis is a new holocaust), blacks(black lives matter), homos, and immigrants, even illegal ones("we have to keep families together"). But when it comes to white identity and interests? Forget about it. If anything, non-whites are encouraged to insult whiteness(despite their desire to move to and live in white nations), and even many whites have been mentally-colonized to spit on their own identity and history. Whites are only allowed, indeed compelled, to feel racial compassion for other groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos.

This must all change.

-----------------------

Dealing with Proglodytes, it's best not to approach them as individuals with critical faculty and agency of thought. It's best to see them as mind-infected, psycolonized, or 'possessed'.

Demon-possessed Regan in THE EXORCIST was no longer herself. She was taken over by the Devil. It would have made no sense for the priests to address her as a free-thinking, independent, and autonomous person. Her young impressionable mind was taken over by Satanic spirits.



Progs are possessed by some demonic GLOB spirit. And it is that demon-spirit in them that we must address. We must focus on the Soros-bug inside their minds that is doing the 'thinking' and talking for them. We must bypass them-as-individuals and get to the source of the malaise.
Progs are mere carriers of this disease. Notice how they all sound and act alike. It's as if they all caught the same Flu. It's the Globonic Plague. When a doctor treats a patient for a disease, he focuses on the infection or condition, not on the patient per se. It is the disease that has hold on the patient, not the patient who has hold on the disease. These ideological infections create the illusion among the afflicted that they freely and personally chose those 'ideas' & 'values' when, far more likely, they became infected or 'possessed' by them.
Granted, the afflicted might have done things that aided and abetted the likelihood of the infection. If a person situates himself in an area where lots of people have come down with the flu, he has a good chance of catching it himself. Still, once the person has caught the flu, it is the disease that must be addressed, not the person as he no longer has control over the disease that has a 'logic' and 'will' of its own.

Proglodytes are zombie-like minions... just like Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution were infected with Mao-itis. It would have made no sense to treat every Little-Red-Book-toting-and-quoting Red Guard as an independent thinker with free will. Their minds were infected with the same ideo-disease. Once Mao-itis ran its course and passed away, it was amazing how everyone lost the fever at the same time and the same way.

Now, the GLOB is tricky and deceptive in hoodwinking its minions into believing they are made free, liberated, independent, and empowered by casting off the core tenets of morality, integrity, responsibility, sobriety, and normality. But once young ones reject such virtues as 'reactionary', they are left with a void that, desperately hungry for meaning, fills up with every fad or fashion that comes down the pipeline. Young ones fail to understand that core virtues are the immunity against being infected by various fads concocted by the cynical GLOB or radicals(or fadicals) who are infected themselves. Now, there are degrees of infections. Some proglodytes may eventually emerge from the infection and regain sanity. But some have caught the viral rabies or leprosy version of the disease, and for them, it's total madness or slow decay.

Saturday, September 1, 2018

Globalism and the Revenge of Neo-Nomadism


Mankind is constantly at war with nature.


If mankind were to disappear, nature will go to work and take back all of civilization.

People have become so accustomed to human mastery over the entire world that they fail to appreciate how invasive and destructive nature is. And because we leave it up to others in specialized professions to maintain things, we don't fully appreciate how this maintenance of civilization is a full-time job.

What's true of civilization as a whole is also true of every human community or nation.
Humans are organisms and, as such, naturally invasive. Against such invasive-ness, other human communities must be nativist and defensivist.
Just like animals move to where there's food and good stuff, human nature searches out for 'green pastures'. Long ago, hunters went where the mammoth were. Before mankind developed agriculture and put down roots in fixed territories that became their homelands, they were constantly on the move. Nomadism was the norm, like among African savage tribes, Germanic barbarian tribes, Mongol raiders, and other such folks. The rule was simple: Go where the 'mammoths'(in both the literal and figurative sense) are. They were merciless and tireless in their pursuit of fruits and meats(and maybe of womenfolk too).
But then, the rise of agriculture made people more stationary, and people put down roots and developed a sense of fixed territories(and even borders). THIS is OUR land, THAT is YOUR land.
But globalism is threatening this long-held state of affairs. Just like electricity & electronica have amplified hedonistic urges and made humanity revert to a kind of techno-savagery, the ease of communication & travel has made a huge proportion of humanity revert to a kind of nomadism, indeed on a scale unimaginable even few decades ago.

Some scholars have said that Jacob's advantage over Esau represents the shift from hunter-nomadism -- Esau is hairy like a barbarian and loves to hunt -- to a more ordered and settled life. Though Jacob is a shepherd than a farmer, his life is more stable and sedentary than that of the wandering hunter led by whim, lust, and hunger.
As time passed, Jacobism gained more and more power among civilized folks. Even though there were times when the Esau-ians whupped the Jacob-ians -- Germanic sack of Rome, Mongol sack of China, etc -- , the Jacob-ians eventually triumphed and maintained modern civilizations. One could argue that mobile Western Imperialism was Esau-ian, but not so. It was more like Jacob-ianism on the move, especially since the Western Imperialists, far from being savage or barbaric, were more advanced than the peoples and/or lands they conquered. Also, Europeans conquered to create permanent stable civilizations than to 'play Indian' or slash-and-burn. They were more into New Romes than new roams. Indeed, it was the American Indians who were the Esau-ians, and it was the white arrivals who turned America into a permanent civilization with stable borders and settlements.
But today, it seems like we are witnessing the Revenge of Esau. We really are seeing the vast movements of savage and barbarian folks who, upon entering Jacob-ian domains, turn them upside down. Look what's happening to entire city blocks in Sweden, Paris, London, Rome, Madrid, and etc.

So, why is so little being done about this? My guess is the Jacob-ians had it so good for so long, they took the viability of their own domains for granted. As a result, they've forgotten that civilization needs constant maintenance, checkups, tuneups, cleanups, stress tests, reinforcements, and etc. They've fallen into the habit of thinking that a civilization just takes care of itself. It doesn't. Unless it is constantly defended and maintained, it begins to corrode, rust, bend, cave, and crumble. No bridge maintains itself. If not properly inspected and repaired, it will end up like the one in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES.


Another problem of the current Jacob-ian world can be seen with all this Russia Hysteria.
For much of human history, the Jacob-ian world was constantly under threat from the Esau-ian tribes. Even a high and mighty civilization like China could fall to ragtag Mongols. Even great Rome could fall to Germanic barbarians. This is why every kingdom had castles in which people could group together and take shelter when barbarian hordes came marauding into the area. Consider how both the Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire were shaken to the core by the sudden rise of nomadic Arab tribes led by Muhammad. And in Ancient times, great civilizations were shaken to the core -- and some were smashed forever -- by Sea Peoples. Chinese later got so worried about such things that they built a massive wall just to keep out Mongolian Esau-ians.


But then, with rise of modern technology, the idea of any civilization being brought low by a Esau-ian nomadic armies became laughable. Mongols invade Russia in the 19th century? Ridiculous. So, the only danger to a civilization was another civilization. It was no longer Jacob-ians vs Esau-ains but only Jacob-ians vs Jacob-ians... like in WWI and WWII, the clash of great civilizations. And this became a habit of mind among the most advanced peoples.

So, today, the EU still makes a lot of noise about the Russian Threat since Russia is a giant Jacob-ian power. It is a civilization with over 100 million people, and it has a sizable military and nukes. And some people in the West sound alarm about Iran, another major civilization.

Now, if every nation had strong borders and stringent rule of law on immigration, the West need only fear other Jacob-ian powers like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, etc. After all, Russia can invade and destroy Poland if it wanted to whereas a bunch of ragtag migrants cannot. But that is ONLY IF Poland strictly maintains its borders and bans invasive migrant-marauders.

Disturbingly, the Rule of Law along the borders and the pride of identity(that morally justifies the defense of one's realm) have broken down in the EU. The weakening of national identities under EU domination has led to fraying and fading of the very idea of European-ness itself. It went from "a Pole can become a new Briton or Frenchman" to "a non-European can become a new European." It went from "one kind of white can become another kind of white" to "a non-white can become a new white."
Thus, the West has become defenseless against neo-Esaus from the Third World. Many Europeans believe such invasive peoples must not be banned from Europe. Why, they are just 'new Europeans', and anyone saying otherwise is a 'racist'. The pope, or Poop, says the same thing too. He even allows Islamic prayers in Christian churches, implying that Islam is the new christianity.

So, the real danger is no longer Jacob-ian vs Jacob-ian, except when the US, as the lone superpower, bombs and destroys nations like Iraq and Libya. The real danger is about the Jacob-ian world being invaded by neo-Esau-ians who are massively on the move for green pastures and mammoth meat. In the short term, these folks may be useful to businessmen in search for cheap labor they can exploit to maximize profits. But these invaders don't return to whence they came when their employment runs out. They remain and call on more of their kind to join them. Even without jobs, there is a better life to be had in the land of greener pastures. Better to scavenge off mammoth remains than be stuck in poor Africa or Guatemala where the natives are still in subsistence or slash-and-burn mode.
Esau-ians are on the move. Shiploads of Africans and Muslims are crashing onto the shores of Europe. Migrants from Central America and Mexico pour into the US. People are on the move all across Africa where effective border controls are non-existent. And the destabilization of Jacob-ian systems and infrastructure by the US and its allies in places like Syria & Libya opened the gates for Esau-ian ISIS and other Jihadis to move around and create all sorts of havoc.

Esau-ians are not to be confused with Mercurians, even though the latter often champion the former in reckless displays of virtue-signaling. Mercurians are elites and relatively small in number. They facilitate business all around the world and are most necessary. So, if a bunch of German executives travel to Paris, London, Hong Kong, New York, and etc., they are just doing business. It's like Japanese companies send their agents and representatives all over the world. Also, Mercurians move around the world with specific purposes. A German company will send its workers to Saudi Arabia to finish a project. It's like Burt Lancaster sent some guy to Scotland for a possible deal in LOCAL HERO.
In contrast, Esau-ians move around not as purposeful individuals but parasitic packs and hordes... like the gypsies, the locusts among humanity. A group of German engineers or Japanese negotiators outside their own nations cannot take over another nation. But tons of Mexicans and Central Americans have taken over entire swaths of Southwest America. African migrants have taken over entire areas of Marseilles France. And these Esau-marauders or Esauders come with no purpose but to feed on green pastures made by white folks. They have no specific skills or vision. They just come to take advantage of richer areas. Their mode of behavior is closer to wild nature than civilized norms. Because the current PC has done so much to subvert the validity of identity and territoriality, the Jacob-ian worlds are once again being invaded by Esau-ian peoples, a phenomenon that was thought to have passed into dustbin of history forever. It's coming back like some disease that was once thought to have been eradicated forever, at least in the advanced world. (To be sure, some people are waking up and embracing nationalism. Nationalism is the necessary bacteria(along with white cells) -- there are good bacteria and bad bacteria for humans -- for the survival of civilization, but globalism keeps coming up with new strains of PC antibiotics to kill the beneficial form of bacteria and white cells while the nasty bad ones keep multiplying. Hopefully, the lactobacillus of European nationalism can develop immunity against PC eventually, and then no newer strain of PC antiobiotic will be effective.) Today, the Jacob-ian worlds have all the technologies at their disposable to keep out the Esua-ian marauders if they chose to, but their minds have been psycolonized by deadly PC that paralyzes their defensivist mechanisms of human nature that are supposed to carry out necessary inspections and maintenance of the system to ensure survival of the realm. Without such mechanisms, cracks and fissures develop in the system and foreign elements begin to creep in in ever greater numbers. It's like a house that isn't properly maintained has more to fear from moisture, mold, ants, bugs, mice, and etc than from a wrecking ball. It's death by a thousand cuts. It's like a boxer with no defenses will lose even to a weak boxer. Even if there is no KO-magnitude punch, the constant barrages of jabs and punches will wear down the boxer. The EU is alert to the danger of KO from Russia but willfully blind to endless jabs from the Esau-ian Third World that are really wearing down Europe and turning it into hell. It fears the Czar's sword when it's really dying by a thousand cuts by razors and switchblades.

People of the world may be categorized as four types: Mercurians, Apollonians, -- as Yuri Slezkine defined them -- , Jacob-ians, and Esau-ians. Mercurians would be the cosmopolitan elite class of businessmen and intellectuals. As long as they are trading ideas and goods, they do no harm to anyone. If anything, they make the world richer by creating new opportunities. And their minds are focused on specific tasks of business, technology, science, information, etc. Apollonians would be a people who are rooted deeply in their own homelands. Japanese and Hungarians would be such, especially those in small towns and rural areas. Many Americans are not Apollonians but Jacob-ians. Jacob, as a shepherd, was both on the move and a bearer of social order. Americans move around a lot with in the US and have weak sense of roots to any one area, though there are exceptions, like Mormons and Utah. (Utah is a special kind of place because of its mythic association with Mormonism. Mormons might see it as their 'Israel', and their narrative isn't simply one of migration and settlement but of neo-Biblical significance. While other parts of the US also have their cultural distinctness -- Germans in Wisconsin and blacks in the South -- , Utah is to Mormons what Monument Valley was to John Ford. There's a mythic connection. Whatever their history in and affinity for Wisconsin, there is no mythic bond between Wisconsin and German-Americans like there is between Utah and Mormons. Mormons have been mobile but also very insistent on maintaining historical roots and ties to a certain state as distinctly their own. (Also, whereas the story of Wisconsin is simply that of some German immigrants having moved and settled there, the Mormons created an Exodus-like Narrative about their 'wandering in the wilderness' to found a neo-holy-land in Utah. One might say this decision was as much made for them as was theirs since Mormonism was regarded with suspicion and even disgust for good part of American history.) If Europeans, at least prior to the creation of the EU, tended to be Apollonians -- Hungarians in Hungary, Poles in Poland, Irish in Ireland, etc -- Americans were more like Jacob-ians because there was so much land and new opportunities in America. To be sure, there are two kinds of Americans: Some who like to stay put and some who like to move(like the family that made it all the way to Oregon in SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION). 'Blue State' whites tend to be more mobile than 'Red State' ones who prefer to put down their roots. Southern whites must really like the South. I mean they insist on staying there even though there are so many Negroes. (College culture is contradictory. In some ways, professors could be said to be Mercurian since they visit other institutions and exchange ideas. But so many colleges are like closed provincial bubbles separated from the rest of the world. After all, the ideal of academia is to create a safe and quiet environment where thinkers can pursue the truth without distractions, pressures, and compromises. So, what happened at places like Middlebury?) Finally, Esau-ians are essentially barbaric or even savage, and the only logic of their behavior is primal-organicist. If possible, they will invade and feed off anything that looks like greener pastures. Just like Ice Age folks went where the mammoth was to feed off it and just like some African tribes stayed close to big game, today's Esau-ians see the White West as just one big whale or mammoth to hunt. And they may well hunt and feed on the West to extinction... like what happened to real mammoths and almost to blue whales. The Esau-ian mindset is hunt-and-kill-but-don't-know-how-to-breed-new-animals, slash-and-burn-but-don't-know-how-to-plant-new-trees, and take-but-don't-know-how-to-make.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Mormons, Two Meanings of Justice, and Future-Socialism


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive

“What’s happening here? The state population is now about 13 percent Hispanic, but only 1 percent black. Part of the explanation is probably the Mormon Church’s century of institutional racism.”

Race-ism is best foundation for social-capitalism. Swedish model of social-capitalism was working just fine when Sweden was all Scandinavian... but then Diversity came along. (By Race-ism, I mean, "Ism means belief, so Race + Ism = Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences; and the need for Racial Consciousness".)

In a way, Mormons became the way they are because they excluded others, but it was also because others excluded them. In this respect, they are like Jews who were excluded by others but also excluded others. Thus, Mormons developed a ‘ghetto’ mentality.

There are Two Meanings of Justice.

1. Legal Justice and Righting wrongs. So, if Bob does something wrong to John, Bob owes John compensation. It is about redress and punishment for violation of the law or social contract. This concept of justice is represented by "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" in the Bible. By its standards, if someone didn't do you any wrong, there was no injustice, and he owes you nothing.

2. Tribal Justice. A sense of shared survival and success. This concept of justice is found in the Exodus. Moses feels a sense of obligation to lead ALL Jews out of Egypt. He doesn't owe them anything as he hadn’t done them wrong(on a one-on-one basis) in his capacity as an individual, but as a Jew, he feels responsible for other Jews. This concept of justice says it is not enough for a person to be successful as an individual and care only about himself. He must belong to a community and work for the common good.
Greek mythology is more individual-oriented. It's about the rare hero who rises above the rabble and demonstrates his superiority, like Perseus in the slaying of Medusa. To be sure, through his extraordinary feat, he saves others of his kind. And Theseus protects his community by slaying the Minotaur who gorged on human offerings. Still, the emphasis is on individual feat and personal glory. It is about how the hero stands APART from the rest.
In contrast, the stories in the Bible emphasize how every individual's deeds relate to family and tribe. Communism, a secular form of Judeo-Christian worldview, tried to realize this Jewish-communal-sense-of-justice on a universal scale, but it was too grandiose and unwieldy. Just like a tower erected too high will collapse, so will a bridge built too long.
The ideal of communal justice works best on the ethnic/tribal level and even on the national level IF the nation is racially & culturally homogeneous or reasonably so. This ideal that a people must all make-it-together and not leave others behind is found in the Zhang Yimou film NOT ONE LESS, a kind of 'no child left behind'. It only works within a shared racial community.


Mormon capitalism is bound to their brand of social-culturalism. But, it will fray if the Mormon community becomes overly diverse. Mormon theology is hardly profound stuff. What has made Mormons special has been (1) a sense of community based on shared race and history (2) Muslim-like emphasis on daily rites, some of which are sufficiently strict to prevent members from giving into excessive vice.

When it comes to family formation, Mormons have an intuitive sense that generating children amounts to a kind of future-socialism or bio-socialism. In a way, having children is 'socialist' in the sense that you have to share your earnings with others. Purely from an economic viewpoint, children are 'parasitic'. They do no work and leech off the wealth of parents. Parents must buy them food, spend time with them, clothe them, provide medical care, and etc. It is very taxing, economically and emotionally. So, why do it? Because it is a kind of future-socialism. Why is future-socialism rewarding in ways that paying taxes to provide benefits to total strangers isn't?
Because there is a special bond of love & happiness between parents and children. Also, unlike faceless strangers who live off the tax revenues of others(via the confiscatory state) and show NO gratitude(and often demand MORE free stuff as a 'right'), children are happy and grateful for what they receive from their parents, even just an apple or orange. It's socialism of emotions than just of materials. (This is why prolonged welfare dependency is corrupting to both parents and children. When kids see their parents struggle to make ends meet, they feel appreciation and gratitude, even a bit of guilt because parents work so hard for the family. But when kids see their parents as mere leeches off the state, they feel no sense of obligation because it wasn’t the parents who provided for them. So, do they feel grateful to the state? No, because the state is faceless and abstract as far as they’re concerned. It is just a system to milk.) Also, if children are raised properly with sound nurturing of identity, culture, history, values, arts, and appreciation-for-nature, they carry on with the heritage even after their parents have passed away. Indeed, they see it as their obligation to do so. And in earlier times, they would have taken care of their parents. This was a big theme especially in traditional societies. Kids were seen as organic Social Security. Parents provide for their children, and later, the children-as-grownups provide for their parents-grown-old. So, family formation has always been a bio-cultural socialism into the future. Parents share their wealth with kids, and in turn, kids feel obligation to their parents and the culture they all sprung from.

This sense has weakened over the years because the state or industries came to provide for old people. Also, with the fading of identity and real culture, there is less of a sense of inheritance from parents and bequeathing to children except in monetary/material matters.
If a people no longer believe in what they are in the racial-cultural-historical sense, they feel no need to pass the torch to keep it going. Today, most young people culturally identify with celebrities and what Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion, a frivolous(but intensely charged) Fantasy World, than in the richness and depth of the line-of-my-people.

Orthodox Jews and Mormons still have strong identities, and they feel their cultures must be kept going through the ages as living inheritances and timeless inspirations. And the ONLY way to ensure that is to have children and teach them well. More than anything, one’s wealth, knowledge, experience, and genes must be SHARED with one’s children. That is the deepest and richest kind of socialism. Bio-Socialism.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Will Trans-Professionalism be the Next Big Craze after Trans-genderism?

Will we have trans-professionals?

I think I'm a lawyer, therefore I am one.

I think I'm a doctor, therefore I am one.

I think I'm a sign-language interpreter, therefore I am one.



(There was alarm about the potential security threat posed by the bogus interpreter at Nelson Mandela's funeral upon World Leaders, but aren't 'world leaders' themselves really just a bunch of fakers who do the bidding of their globalist masters? I mean, did Obama really want to destroy Libya? Was it really his personal decision? Or was he ordered to take out Gaddafi? Maybe it's time to call 'world leaders' by their proper name: Globalist Puppets.)

All identities are breaking down under globalism.

Who is a woman? A man with a wig.

Who is an American?  An illegal.

Who is a patriot?  A globalist.

Who is a moralist?  A homomaniac.

Who is a poet? A rapper.

Who is a doctor? A chiropractor.

Who is a lady? A slut.

Who is a parent? A homo pretending to have had the kid.

What is free speech? Shutting down 'hate speech'.

The real shame is that even professionals are acting fake.
If US journalism has genuinely high standards, I would support its concern over Fake News.  There are lots of fake stuff on the internet, and amateurism is no substitute for professionalism. But the 2016 election coverage revealed how low the standards of journalism have come in this country.  Too many, possibly even the majority, of professional journalists are shills, whores, propagandists, partisans, liars, and genuine kooks, like Kurt Eichenwald.

Anne Appleabaum's once wrote a sober piece about dangers of amateurism and wikipedia. I thought it was a good piece and a necessary one.

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-blog-of-war/

Especially with the rise of the internet, categories are breaking down. Prior to the internet, the term 'film critic' or literary critic' used to mean critics with professional pedigree and credentials. Now, it means just about anyone with an opinion and a blog, podcast, or youtube channel.  So, anyone gabbing endlessly about Hollywood blockbusters or anyone yammering about the latest teen fiction is a 'critic'. There are also tons of amateur historians, amateur philosophers, amateur everything muscling in on those with real professional credentials. The internet has made all these people possible.

But people like Applebaum haven't done their professions much credit by shilling for the Deep State, pushing US propaganda, favoring tribal interests, and pursuing political agendas at the expense of academic standards. Applebaum is clearly a Jewish supremacist not unlike Jennifer Rubin committed to doing her part to game the global system to favor Jewish interests over the national interests of gentiles. So, even though her cautionary piece on amateurism was valid in and of itself, her own behavior and violation of professional ethics have, in action and deed, been a disservice to her own thesis.

One advantage of amateurism, despite deficiency of professional training and production values, is the relative freedom and lack of restraint. This was the advantage of the French New Wave over the French film industry, French cultural scene(that was heavily slanted to the communist left), and Hollywood studio domination. French New Wave directors had less means but more freedom and room for personal expression. They made up with originality, creativity, and vision what they lacked in materials, craftsmanship, and funds.

Monday, August 27, 2018

Intersectionality of Wanting Entry into Anglocratic Nations


https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2017/doodle-4-google-2017-us-winner-5145189378162688-hp.jpg

Especially the image of the Zionist and Arab Muslim arm-in-arm kills me.



So, what do Jews and Palestinians have in common? Nothing... except for wanting to have free access to Anglocratic nations, especially the US.

Surely, Palestinians hate the US for having abetted the creation of Israel possible and funneling billions to Israel every year. But Palestinians are organisms, and organisms seek comfort and well-being, and what better place than America or some other Anglocratic state for immigration destination? They crave entry into the US more than recovery of Palestine itself. Good life uber alles. Comfort-Supremacism.

So, that is the only intersectionality that REALLY matters between Jews/Zionists and Arabs/Palestinians... and among all other non-white groups. They all want access to Anglocratic states. They have NOTHING ELSE in common despite their mouthy sloganeering. All these bogus terms like 'inclusion' and 'tolerance' are ruses and obfuscations. After all, if such 'universal values' are for all the world, how come Jews and Muslims don't push such them on Africa and most of the Third World? Because they don't want to go there to live, that's why. It doesn't matter if black Africa is tolerant/inclusive or not because no people want to move there, at least permanently. (Chinese and Hindus go there for investment to dig out natural resources.)

Now, if all non-whites want access to Anglocratic nations, why is there such hostility against whitey? Why do they hate what they want(and love) most?
It's like the Jilted-Lover Syndrome. If some guy asks a girl out for prom because he's smitten with her, he might fume and seethe with rage if she says No. So, he ends up hating what he loves most.
It's like something that happened in high school. There was some Jewish kid who asked this really gorgeous Jewish girl out for the prom, and she said NO, and he, in typical neurotic Jewish way, was bitching all over the school about her refusal. It's like she did him(and the world) great injustice by refusing him.

So, paradoxically, this hate/hostility on the part of non-whites is really to gain access to white nations(esp Anglosphere), or what they love most. With such antsy hostility and accusations of 'racism', 'white guilt', 'intolerance', and 'exclusion', they are trying to make white nations cave to their demands and put out. And PC is just a Jewish & non-white date-rape drug used on Ms Liberty. In Europe, this rape thing is getting too real in Sweden and other places.

When a person asks someone out on a date or makes a proposal for marriage, the asked has advantage over the 'asker'. Asker makes a request, and the asked can agree or disagree, and that's that. So, the asked has the upper hand... as these guys find out.



If the 'asker' plays by the rules, he will accept the answer NO and gracefully walk away.
But what if the 'asker' really really really wants it? Suppose he meant it as "an offer you can't refuse". Well, there is the mafia way, like in THE GODFATHER. Look what happened to Woltz's horse and Moe Green's eye. That works well enough in the criminal world, but it won't wash in the realm of public opinion.
In legal society, the NO to "an offer you can't refuse" -- AOYCR -- must be de-legitimized, impugned, reviled, mocked, condemned, and cursed.
In other words, anyone who says NO to AOYCR is publicly humiliated and shamed as a wicked person. It's like the issue of interracism. Suppose some white woman says that she personally would not go with anyone outside her race. (If a Jew or black said it, no problem, but rules are different for whites since non-whites want sex with whites. I mean who would care if indigenous Bolivian Indians or African Pygmies said they won't put out to other races?) She will be reviled as a 'racist' and 'hater' and 'nazi'. Or remember beauty contestant Carrie Prejean who said she will have to say NO to 'gay marriage'? She was attacked by all the media that even dug up dirt on her(mafia style) to de-legitimize her. They sent a message to all of America. If you say NO to homo AOYCR, you will get the Prejean Treatment.

So, Diversity is a forced marriage between Anglocratic nations and the Rest. If whites or Anglos say NO to Diversity-Invasion, they are hounded & denounced as wicked 'racists' who 'hate'. It's not perceived as a NO to a particular group for a particular reason but an affront to 'human rights' itself.
So, demographic imperialism(mostly into white nations that non-whites crave most) is promoted as a 'human right'. White nations must say YES to any bunch of non-whites who propose demographic marriage, and globalists operate as mafia-like matchmakers. (Global matchmaking operates like white slavery. It's like white slavers promise good jobs and money --- economic advantages --- to Eastern European and Slavic women who are duped and find themselves in bondage. Soon enough, the women discover they are forcibly matched with men and used as sex slaves. All this 'immigration' stuff is a lie. White nations are told that global mass-marriage will lead to fine workers and economic boom, but it's only leading to more rape, crime, and anti-white propaganda. Worse, whites who may well lose their homelands and inheritances.)

But then, the question... why do all these people want to move to Anglocratic nations? They say all races are equally talented and all cultures are equally worthy. Based on those premises, every nation should be able to become just as successful as Anglocratic ones. But the hard evidence says otherwise. So, they want to move to Anglocratic nations that they, deep down inside, see as superior in every way(because Anglos and whites do everything better). Many even want to marry and have kids with white folks(seen as superior in beauty and personality) than with their own kind. Some see their children's marriage with whites as a move up the racial ladder.
Now, to be able to do all that, non-whitse must gain a foothold into the Anglosphere. The problem is Anglosphere may say NO to their proposal of entry or demographic marriage. (US is more a Proposal Nation where whites are being forced into marriage with rest of the world.) So, all non-whites have 'intersectional' common interest of de-legitimizing a white NO as an answer. They want to make sure that White America has no choice but answer YES and only YES.
So, they go about acting like the jilted Jewish kid in high school. He asked the beautiful Jewish girl, and she said no. Okay, fine. Some girls say yes, some say no. Most guys accept it. But boy oh boy, did he get all hissy pissy and antsy-pantsy. He went around the entire school badmouthing her for having said NO to him. He said nasty things about her... until finally she broke down and cried under pressure from his defamation of her character. He made it seem like her rejection wasn't just a No to him personally but an insult to decency, goodness, wonderfulness, and love since, apparently, he was brimming with those qualities(even though he was a dork not unlike the kid in RUSHMORE). It was like Portnoy's Defamation.





Every nation has the right to say NO to other people's proposal for entry. But non-whites are so eager to enter white nations(esp Anglocratic and Germanocratic ones) that they won't take NO for an answer. And they learned from Jews how to wear down the defenses of the white refusal of marriage with Diversity. Universalize the issue. So, if whites say NO to immigration for a certain people, it's not just a No to them but a NO to 'tolerance', 'inclusion', 'what America is really about', 'western values', 'love', 'understanding', 'compassion', 'economic growth',as well as a YES to 'hate', 'xenophobia', 'racism', 'nazism', 'white supremacism', 'white privilege', and etc.

Maybe a fat ugly girl can use such trick on a guy. Suppose she asks a handsome guy on a date or wants to marry him, and he says NO. So, instead of just taking it as personal rejection, make it seem like he insulted and said NO to universal values of 'love', 'kindness', 'acceptance', 'family', 'home cooking', wedding, and etc. Universalize the issue.

Non-white world acts toward whites like the crazy woman in PLAY MISTY FOR ME. It's a kind of globo-fatal-attraction.



The whole Jewish meltdown over Russia is about crazed jealousy. What??? Jealous Jews are aghast!!! Donald Trump has the hots for Lady Russia? No!!! Captain America must play misty only for the Tribe.

Do Jews really like non-whites? No. But because Jews don't have the numbers themselves -- only 2% of US and less even in European nations -- , they rely on non-white allies to carry the demographic weight against whites.
Since non-whites serve as allies, they demand their turn with Ms America too, and Jews have to say Yes once a while. Nothing comes for free. It's like the Hammond brother in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY must share his bride with his brothers.

It's all very odd. We are told that one of the great things about modernity is freedom of choice and independence. So, unlike the bad ole days when men and women were 'forced' in marriage by parents or others who arranged such things, modern peoples & modern nations can be independent -- the right to separate yourself from others -- and make their own choice of whom to be with.
So, if a guy is matched with someone like Andrea Dworkin or if a girl is matched with someone like Chris Farley, he or she can be independent and say NO, whereas in the past he or she would have had to enter into a kind of 'forced marriage'.

In FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, we root for the girl to say NO to the old fat guy and go for the young revolutionary. Independence! Independence means the freedom to say NO and separate yourself from others. That's how America got started. It said NO to forced membership in the empire. Anti-imperialism after WWII was about third world peoples saying NO to white colonizers.



At 2:37


But now, we are told that an Entire People(especially whites in Anglocratic nations) must be pushed into forced-marriage with other Entire Peoples. So, Jewish-controlled NYT denounces Hungary and Poland for saying No to demographic-marriage with the Muslim World.
The behavior of the globalist elites isn't much different from Rotherham Rape Gang that facilitated a system of forcing whites into sex with non-whites.
And even the governments of Germany and others are pushing their own women to PUT OUT to foreign invaders.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/16/german-govt-drops-136k-to-publish-sex-manual-for-migrants/

And guess who wrote this:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Marry-Finnish-Girl-Everything-ebook/dp/B006GB4LOS

As for proggy whites, they serve as heinous matchmakers who denounce patriotic independent-minded whites for saying NO to this forced-marriage between the West and the Non-West. And some sound like sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome.

Anyway, Non-white world is in love with the white world, but the white world may not be sufficiently in love with the non-white world that comes with stale flowers and a gruff proposal of marriage. Since all non-whites and Jews fear the reply of NO from the white world(best nations with best systems), they have this intersectionality thing going whereby they try to shame the White World for saying NO or NO MORE. So, even if Trump says NO to just a handful of Muslim nations, that is seen as an affront to 'universal values' and 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. Even though most non-whites are not Muslim, they fear that the NO to Muslims will eventually lead to NO to more of their own kind. So, despite the hostilities among Africans, Muslims, Zionists, Hindus, and Asians, what they all have in common is the desire to marry into White America or Anglosphere, and they fear the NO. It's fitting that the Progs are represented by 'pussy hats' since that is how non-whites see the US. They want penetration, and PC is the date drug. It's like Tony Montana wants entry into 'paradise' but turns it into a 'human rights' issue.



Non-whites are like ants who all get inside the white pants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ants_in_the_Pants