“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.
The Economist's Lexington's yammering about 'white racism' is so much bogus nonsense. If anything, the real moral scandal is that white power is being currently used to serve Jewish supremacism.
The Economist article by ‘Lexington’ makes no moral sense.
White people conquered and took land from Indians. Okay, one could see tragedy there. In order for the US to have come into existence, the native American Indians had to go. White people should acknowledge that historical fact and make amends. Fair enough.
Also...
White people bought slaves from African kingdoms and brought them to North America. These blacks were brought by force and toiled as slaves. And later, they were denied freedoms and rights that were secured for whites. White people should acknowledge that as part of their history. Fair enough.
One can speak of White America's historical wrongs to Indians and blacks(who were brought as slaves). But WHAT WRONG did the US do to the rest of the world? Why does White America have to make amends to the entire peoples of the world via endless immigration-invasion when the US was not founded and developed by taking their lands or enslaving them? By what right or moral justification do peoples around the world have the moral license to enter the US and take over stuff founded and built by whites? What historical or moral claim do they have on White America? "Hey, I'm Nepalese. White Americans owe me stuff. If they don't let me in to leech off their achievements, they are 'racist'." Huh?
At least American Indians can argue, "This was our land". At least blacks of slave ancestry can say, "Our ancestors picked cotton but weren’t properly rewarded for their work." What claim does the rest of the world have on White America?
Also, let's give white race-ism some credit. If anything made the US possible as a great rich powerful nation, it was white race-ism. Sure, it had its dark and violent side, but there was NO WAY the US could have been possible without the White Race War on the Indians. For starters, even if whites had approached Indians with the utmost love and peace, Indians would still have said NO to the American Project because it would have meant the extinction of the Indian way of life as happy savages romping around with bisons and wolves. (The only reason why so many peoples all over the world want to come to the US is because white race-ism conquered land from Indians and built a rich modern nation that became the envy of the world. ONLY white race-ism could have done it. Give white race-ism some credit.)
Also, the reason why the US expanded and developed so fast and powerful was because its immigration policy was race-ist and let in mostly whites. This was most useful because whites had the cultural assets and intellectual capital to create a modern society. Also, racial homogeneity led to greater unity and higher levels of mutual trust, something non-existent in Latin America where excess racial diversity and race-mixing led to social confusion. Also, as whites were elite minorities in Latin America, they never felt a real sense of unity with the teeming brown masses. If anything, the (white)elite oppression of the (brown)masses became more intense in Latin America, like the caste system in India. Imagine if the US had a colorblind immigration policy from the very beginning. Suppose US became 80% non-white already by 1850. It would have been just another failed Latin American nation. Or, imagine most of the 13 colonies been settled by non-whites. Would the American Project have been possible? Virginia settled by Chinese, Carolina by Hindus, New York by Muslim Arabs, Pennsylvania by Turks, Massachusetts by Zulus, and etc. Could it have formed into a single nation or developed as a modern Western democracy?
Also, even though blacks were clearly oppressed in the US, negative white feelings towards blacks were partly justified. Whites had made a huge mistake by importing a savage race that is more muscular and aggressive. So, granting equal freedom to blacks risked unleashing tons of social problems, and boy oh boy, haven't we seen a lot of that, especially since the 1960s. And Europe is now seeing a lot of it too due to endless waves of Afro-Invasions. Even though this will be sound morally problematic for many, the US probably gained from the suppression of blacks for much of its early history. If blacks had been granted equality much sooner, Detroit would have become 'Detroit' much sooner. Look where South Africa is headed as the result of black takeover.
At any rate, the Moral Argument of globo-homo PC makes no sense. Its ludicrous logic says, because past whites committed wrongs against Indians and blacks, current whites must atone for their historical 'sins' by letting their New World creation be taken over by invasive peoples from all over the world despite the fact that white Americans hadn’t taken their lands or used them as slaves.
Now, it could be argued that the US did wrongs to other nations. But these issues can be resolved on a nation-by-nation basis. US fought bloody wars in Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and problems still linger. But that is an issue for diplomacy. If there are still people in Vietnam who suffer from Agent Orange, maybe US can offer medical help or offer some kind of reparations. But there is no moral claim for Vietnamese to flood into the US.
If anything, it is the nationalists, especially of the white kind, who are calling for NO MORE WARS and no more neo-imperialist interventions(especially at the behest of Israel and Zionists). They don't want white people to take part in new wars of aggression or intervene in other nations. They detest Deep State machinations around the world by CIA and other psychopathic agencies. They bemoan how America's lone-superpower antics(after the end of the Cold War) led to so much grief in the Middle East and North Africa. All that madness was steered by people who claimed to be for 'liberal democracy', 'human rights', and 'anti-racism', but, seriously, who did more harm to the Middle East and North Africa? John McCain(the Grand Wizard of the CCC or Cu-Cucks-Clan) or Peter Brimelow(or Jared Taylor)? Funny that the so-called white 'racists' want to leave the world alone and be left alone in turn, whereas the 'anti-racists' want to destroy other nations, restart a 'cold war' with Russia(to the point where relations between US and Russia are worse than during the real Cold War), and flood the West with non-white moochers whose children are instilled with anti-white vitriol by PC education and pop-culture.
In truth, this anti-white globo-homo nonsense isn’t really about fighting 'white supremacy'. It's about maintaining Jewish Supremacy. After all, if white people thought in terms of white identity and interests, they will focus on their own limited racial-national affairs and leave the rest of the world alone. But, that means they won't be serving Jewish interests and agendas on the world stage. Jews have globalist ambitions of dominating all the Middle East and North Africa. They got White America to smash Iraq and Libya. They got White America to make a mess of Syria and Ukraine. They got White America to sing hosannas to Israel's oppression of Palestinians. Indeed, Zionism is dangerous because it actually appeals to Implicit White Supremacism. Its subtle appeal to whites is essentially neo-imperialist: Great White Jews beating up on Brown Arab Barbarians. Thus, Jewish supremacism becomes a proxy of repressed and lingering traces of white supremacism-imperialism. If we really want to end white supremacism once and for all, we need to end white support of Zionism and Jewish globalism. We need to stop making white people savor supremacism-by-other-means. Since they can't be proudly white-supremacist-imperialist anymore, they relive the glory and spectacle of past imperialism by serving Jewish supremacism. Because white Americans see the Middle East Conflict in terms of White Jews whupping Brown Arabs, their support of Zionism is clearly an alternative form of white supremacism: Go White Jews, beat them Brown Arabs, or ‘muzzies’ or ‘ragheads’. If we really want to end white supremacism, we need to say NO MORE to white support of Zionist imperialism. And then, whites can focus on the limited needs of white identity and white interests within the national setting. That is modest and humble in range and goal. As Patrick Buchanan characterized it, 'Republic, not an Empire'. White interests should remain within white nations and white-made nations that, by the way, have every moral right to remain white(just like any black African nation has the right to remain black and African).
The crazy thing about the current state of affairs is that Jewish supremacism relies on white support, and this makes Jews nervous. Jews got power and influence but can't really do anything around the world without white talent, skills, and support. It's like the Brits in India had great power and wealth but lacked the numbers, therefore, their power was vulnerable IF the Indians were to disobey and refuse to serve British interests.
Zionism and Jewish ambitions in the Middle East(and even against Russia) cannot be sustained without white support of Great White Jews. Do blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. really care about Middle East issues or about Russia? No, Jews are obsessed about them, and Jews got whites to support them; and whites support Jews because they implicitly see Jews as the Other Whites, the 'good whites'(because they got the holocaust victim card as moral shield).
But this poses a problem. It means Jewish Power is aided and abetted by White Power. It is white goy power that allows white Jews in Israel & West Bank to beat up on brown Palestinians. It is white power that allows white Jews to engineer a foreign policy that has destroyed countless non-white brown Arab and Muslim lives. So, Jewish power draws from the well of white power. And as white Jews in the Middle East are clobbering brown Palestinians, it means white Jews and white goyim are working together to terrorize and oppress non-white brown people.
This is very inconvenient for Jews because it means Jewish Supremacism and White Power are joined at the hip. To cover up this fact, Jews push a narrative in the US that disassociates themselves from whites. Even as Jews call on whites to support Zionism and Wars for Israel(and new cold war with Russia) OVER THERE, they use their control of media to promote themselves as best buddies of people-of-color against those 'racist' and 'supremacist' whites OVER HERE. So, Jews want white soldiers to smash and kill Arabs in the Middle East and demand that white politicians 'stand with Israel' even as it crushes Palestinians, but then, these very same Jews indoctrinate, hire, and coddle rabid yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong to bark at the Eternal White Goy as the fount of all evil. But here's the paradox. How can whites atone for their 'white evil'? By supporting White Jews to beat up on Brown Arabs.
By the way, returning to the Economist piece, as long as we are playing the game of Associative-Morality, how about associating Immigration with Imperialism and even 'genocide' and slavery? After all, it was the mass immigration of whites that led to American Indians losing their lands. More immigration meant less and less land for Indians who got squeezed out by immigrant-invaders. (Also, those railroads laid down by the Chinese hastened white takeover of more Indian territory. So, yellows participated in the 'genocide' of Indians too.) Also, what was the slave trade but Forced Immigration or Forced Migration? And weren't blacks out-competed from many jobs by arrivals of more immigrants? So, immigration = imperialism = slave trade = 'genocide' = black disadvantage. And Jewish immigration sure led to the demise of Palestine. And Han Chinese mass-migration into Xinjiang had led to internment of who-knows-how-many Uighurs.
If Chinese one day think like the PC West... "Hey Uighurs and Tibetans, we're sorry we took your lands. We are racked with this awful yellow guilt, and we want to make amends by inviting ALL THE WORLD to take over your lands as well. Boy, that sure makes me feel so much better."
Funny, but despite America’s evil history, blacks with only 300 yrs of history in the US don’t want to go back to Africa, but blacks in Africa with 100,000 yrs of history there want to flock to white nations, even the US that once enslaved their kind. So much for black pride.
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.
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.
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 people 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.
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.
1. Just like the body rots without the head, the people rot without the elites. In the present, white people have no elites(even with Trump's presidency). There are whites in the elite ranks --- indeed, many of them --- , but they are not white elites in the sense of caring about the white race, white nations, and white white survival. They are in "white privilege" mode, which means they will do anything to guard their own privileges above all other considerations. In this sense, they are like the comprador elites of the Third World under Western Imperialism who shilled out to their foreign masters to get 'what is mine' and forsook their responsibility to their own people and nation. Because the prevailing Narrative and neo-religion of the West are all about Homomania, Afromania, Holocaust Worship, 'anti-racism', and Diversity, even the richest white people are at a moral disadvantage, and the ONLY way they can justify their privilege is by serving globalism than nationalism. Even though many white gentiles are fabulously rich and privileged, they are under the thumb of Jewish globalists who, pound for pound, are the most powerful people on Earth. Despite there being many more white gentiles than Jews in the US, both groups are neck and neck in wealth and representation in elite institutions. Furthermore, whereas Jews have a holy aura about them --- criticism of their power is denounced as 'antisemitic' ---, no such moral shield exists for whites, who are the main targets of the Narrative. Jews are justified just for being Jewish. White gentiles are justified ONLY if they atone at the feet of Jews and denigrate their own identity and the 'deplorables' among their own kind. Because whites in elite ranks dare not think or act race-consciously, they are like a head that obeys the god of globalism. This white heads doesn't serve the white body. It's like the body of a paralyzed man will wither and grow weak because its link to the mind has been severed.
Even though non-white groups have problems(and some big problems), they may be psychologically better off because non-white identity & pride are permitted, even 'celebrated'. So, even if they have less wealth than whites, they feel like someone's looking over them. Also, among non-whites, even the rich & privileged are ennobled as 'victims'. You can be Oprah and still be the object of compassion. In contrast, among whites, even the poorest white sod is tagged with 'white privilege' and treated as if he's a rich tycoon.
2. Though White Death and White Decay affect all white ethnic groups, it seems Mormons are still doing better than most. This may owe to the connection between Mormon elites and Mormon masses. Even though whites aren't allowed to group together as whites, they are still allowed to group together under different labels. Since Mormonism is a religion, whites can unite around it. It used to be a White Religion, but Mormonism has since reached out to all groups, even blacks. So, in the future, Mormonism may also become like Episcopalians, esp as Mormons tend to be pretty materialistic.
Still, Mormons have fused materialism with moralism, and this moralism isn't merely secular but fused with God. It is perfectly fine for white Mormon elites to offer guidance to white Mormon masses. Of course, this isn't done in name of whiteness, but still, the overall effect is white Mormon masses have guidance from white Mormon elites.
Also, a certain muscularity in Mormonism serves as protective shield against degeneration and sloppiness.
The problem of Evangelicalism is it's all heart, no brains. It's all about "Jesus Loves Me, and I love Jesus." You can be lazy and tardo, but Evangelicalism still accepts you since you love Jesus. In contrast, Mormonism doesn't merely stress faith and creed but behavior and manners. So, even though Mormons aren't anything really special when it comes to IQ, their sense of discipline, dedication, and work ethic have led some of them to high achievement in finance, real estate, government, and other areas. Even a bit of pop culture with indie NAPOLEON DYNAMITE and TWILIGHT. Also, even less intelligent Mormons have something to gain by being part of a community that stresses order, cleanliness, and personal responsibility. Now, given the ubiquity of Pop Culture and decadence, it appears even some Mormons are falling by the wayside with drugs and even homomania. Also, we'll have to see what the Mormon elders do when push comes to shove: Morality or Money As Mormons gain more in finance and deep state, they may opt for globalism than serving their own community. But then, there used to be a Core Mormon Community of mostly whites. But as Mormonism itself goes globalist, Mormon elders may pay more attention to non-white Mormons than to white ones. It's like the Catholic Church, having gone Afro-Asian-Latin-American, no longer speaks for Europeans. The current disgusting Poop is calling for the mass invasion of Europe.
Anyway, there have been Mormonic successes along the way, and even non-Mormons can learn something from the Mormon Way, a kind of excellence-striving for mediocrities. It created a core community and core identity with strong moral purpose(despite Mormonism being founded on lies and fraud). Also, the community was initially Jewish-like in concentrating on its core community than trying to convert the world. The shift to global outreach may prove to be the fatal flaw of new Mormonism. In a way, Mormonism is like combination of Amish-ism, Jewishism, and Americanism. Amish are moral but isolated and separatist. So, they have no power and sway over America. In contrast, Mormons, even when they maintained their separatism, were savvy, cunning, and pragmatic enough to be like Jews who both kept the tribe but learned to strive. And Mormons are very Americanist. Paradoxically, because Mormonism was impugned for so long in the US and seen as 'weird', Mormons went out of their way to prove that they are More-American-than-American. This has led to funny result because much of Mormonism's idea of America is stuck in the 50s or early 60s. At any rate, there are lessons to learn from Mormonism. In some ways, one could argue Mormonism is the only true American religion. Other sects of Christianity were imported from the Old World or radical deviations or reinterpretation of preexisting ideas. In contrast, Mormonism is truly an American phenomenon, a Christian Cult that developed on American soil. Even if America had never been discovered or settled, all other sects and schools of Christianity would exist. But without America, there is no Mormonism. So, Mormons are in a kind of quandary. They have the most authentically American religion(though some might call it a cult), but most Americans still see them as the weirdest bunch of Christians. It's no wonder Mormons feel most at odds with American religious tradition but also most patriotic and rooted in America.
3. People have forgotten that behavior, manners, and attitudes govern emotions. Not all emotions are of same value. Some emotions are rich, deep, and meaningful. Some are shallow, trashy, and stupid. The crucial factor is emotions are molded by behavior and manners. Radical change in social behavior will affect emotions, for good or ill. The good emotions are love, respect, devotion, reverence(for things of true worth, not stuff like homomania and tranny-hysterics), and appreciative-ness: the sort of things you find in Kurosawa films. These emotions are best served by a culture of self-respect by way of self-control and self-restraint, search for love, marriage, commitment to family, raising kids properly, and aging gracefully. So, these emotions rely on certain set of attitudes, manners, and behaviors. There's a novel by John Hersey, THE CALL, and it has a moving passage near the end as the main character looks back on his life and remembers his late wife. Those deep and rich emotions are possible because of the kind of life they experienced together. If they'd been both into drugs, piercing, tattoos, and boffing everything that moved, such emotions wouldn't have been possible. If behavior turns porny, so do emotions, and those are the emotions of animals. With pornification of mainstream culture via TV shows, Miley Cyrus & crew, and even cartoons(that even kids watch), there's been a vast shift in behavior, attitude, and manners. And that means emotions have become trashy, shallow, and stupid. What kind of emotions arise by choosing to live in the World According to Laci Green? Stupidity, vulgarity, and shallow stuff may be fun for young ones, but they aren't sound foundations for meaningful life. Even though puritanism and excessive repression are to be avoided --- as they can create their own set of problems, as seen among nutty Muslims --- , emotions need to develop in the mold and cast of sound attitude, decent manners, and respectable behavior. From those things arise self-respect and respect for others. Despite all the crap about 'tolerance' and what-have-you, there is no real respect or self-respect among the nose-and-lip piercers, the ass-tattooers, the hair-dye-morons, and potty-mouthers. Tarantino's films beginning with PULP FICTION may be fun, but they encourage worthless trashy attitudes leading to coarsening of sensibility and even behavior --- as impressionable youth ape their 'heroes' on TV and movies.
There was once a time when human attitudes, values, and manners were formed by Church, family, community, sense of heritage. And even Pop Culture wasn't the malignant as it is today. If an American only consumed Pop Culture up to the mid 60s, it couldn't have done much harm. He would have seen a lot of John Ford movies and William Wyler movies. And even shallow stuff was pretty harmless, like GILLIGAN'S ISLAND and THE BRADY BUNCH. But somewhere along the line, Pop Culture turned into poison, a drink for degenerates, decadents, homos, pornographers, hostile minorities, new age navel-gazers, and globalists. It became insane and inane.
The growing depravity of behavior and deterioration in manners have led to perversion of emotions.
Sure, the progs will say that greater libertine-ism of sensualism led to freer emotions. But there's a difference between sensuality with sheer animality. Sensuality, in sane doses, adds spice to life. But when raw urges are allowed to run riot and go into hyper-overdrive, liberation turns into a new enslavement: people become slaves of gluttony and sluttony. How can people properly fall in love in this kind of cultural climate?
Consider THE GRADUATE and LOVE STORY. Now, the sexual mores of the 1960s weren't what it was in the period of THE CALL or THE GODFATHER. Still, there is a modicum of moral norms and proper manners. And that is why Ben feels the way he does about Elaine. If Elaine had appeared with a ring through her nose, green hair, and joined the boob-twisting stripper on stage, Ben wouldn't have felt as he did about her. It is because she has dignity that he begins to change and turn a new leaf after that hanky-panky stuff with Mrs. Robinson. And even though the couple in LOVE STORY are part of the new sensibility, they do dress properly, there is sincerity and growing loyalty as their feelings converge. If Oliver had a tattoo on his ass & acted like Sam Kinison and if Jenny had a piece of steel on her lips & green hair & acted like Lena Dunham, they never would have felt the kind of emotions they did.
CELESTE AND JESSE FOREVER has shallow trashy emotions and why? Because the attitudes and behavior in the movie was so childish and moronic. You can't have proper emotions with such behavior and dumb attitudes.
Just look at this scene:
If millennials act like this, forget about any hope for meaningful love or respect or self-respect.
Or consider the scene in WOODSTOCK where some hippy couple is interviewed, and both yammer about 'balling'. I mean what kind of self-respecting man and woman talk like that, esp in front of the camera too? "We balled each other, and we are in love." No, it doesn't work.
We live in a have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too world. So, blacks bitch about their 'right' to act like jive-ass fools but then bitch about failure in school. Did it ever occur to them if acting like jive-ass fools leads to failure in schools? So, feminists bitch about how they wanna be both super-career-person and super-mom. Did it ever occur to them that one cannot do everything? (Whenever you do THIS, you have to sacrifice a good part of THAT.) So, homos say they wanna bugger one another like crazy and then throw fits about how society hasn't done enough to cure diseases spread by mass-ass-humping.
Given the cultural climate, people believe they can adopt any kind of attitude & manners and behave any way they feel like BUT still feel the kind of deep and rich emotions that make life meaningful. Tarantino is a fitting icon of the age. He postures as a real 'artist' and 'auteur', but he can't tell Kurosawa from Sonny Chiba. We live in the Age of Slut Pride where women want to act like sluts but also command dignity and respect. We live in an age when we are warned of the evil of stereotyping Negro men as sexual predators and murderous thugs, BUT the mainstream culture fills the airwaves with rapper gangstas and Negro loons who have nothing on their minds but fighting and f***ing.
America forgot how to do social and moral math. It failed to understand if you do THIS, you subtract THAT. If your behavior is shallow, your emotions cannot have substance. You can't have the cake and eat it too. .
If you stick homo flags in churches, Christianity is no longer a meaningful religion. If marriage is associated with homo stuff, it is no longer a moral institution. Indeed, consider what these freaks and degenerates did with one of the most beautiful and miraculous natural phenoms, the rainbow. Rainbow is created by meeting of opposites: rain and sunshine, day and night. When rainstorm is followed by break of sunlight through clouds from horizon where day turns to dusk, the rainbow appears. It's like life is a 'miracle' created by meeting of opposites, male and female.
But the homos, with full backing of sick degenerate globalists, associated the rainbow with fecal penetration and men-cutting-off-balls-to-get-fake-vaginas. I mean what kind of sick society is this? Also, the wildfire of homomania goes to show that we can't have truth and morality without honesty and conviction. Any sane adult person should be able to see how nutty and phony homomania is, but we are not living in world of seriousness and truth. Instead, we have hysteria for emotions and conceits for ideas. Pop Culture and PC spread hysteria, both happy and angry. Rendered childlike and tarded, so many people act like Pavlov's dogs whenever someone waves the homo flag. They ONLY culture they know is Pop Culture and the only ideas they know is from specious PC. As for intellectuals, they have this 'radical conceit' that they are ahead of the curve and 'more evolved' than others. Their 'progressivism' is really a kind of ideological supremacism of feeling ahead of everyone else. Addicted to a political fetish, progs have to keep up cooking up new fads with which to feel superior over others. So, even though some of these intellectual types are indeed educated, cultured, and smart, their conceit and arrogance make them embrace every smarmy BS that comes along. It's like Jean-Paul Sartre hopped onto every New Trend to burnish his radical relevance. Even that Charles Murray caved to 'gay marriage'. If supposedly courageous thinker like Murray bend over so easily, there cannot be truth and real morality. And then, there are cynical operators who push that stuff for political expediency. The rich push homomania and trannymania as the New Leftism because such poses least economic threat to their wealth and privilege. And Jews value homomania in normalizing elite-minority-privilege since Jews are the ultimate elite minority rulers. When even churches are putting up homo flags, much of christianity has god worshiping the homo ass than homos atoning before God.
It seems white folks now have either culture of lust and culture of intellect. Celebration and cerebration. What they have lost is the culture of love, and I mean real love, not the kind of new age crap or save-the-world-generic-nonsense.
PC pressures white people to hate what they are naturally inclined to love and to love what they naturally inclined to dislike or even hate. PC is a kind of mind-game in this respect, a kind of vulgarization of cerebration.
However, even worthy uses of the mind in relation to arts, culture, and ideas cannot constitute the core meaning of life. Why not? Because cerebration requires constant use of the mind. The mind has to be switched ON for cerebration to be active. So, while a work of art, music, literature, or culture are 'alive' when the mind is turned ON, it vanished the second the mind is turned OFF. If you're not reading or thinking about Shakespeare OR listening to or thinking about Beethoven, neither exists. Many educated Western folks are into ideas, arts, and culture first and foremost. That stuff make up the core meaning of life. But it has value only when the mind is turned on, and the mind cannot be turned on at all times. Also, the emotional connection, if such manifests, exists between the mind and the object-of-interest only when the mind is tuned to that thing. So, the mind may be moved by Beethoven when it's engaged with Beethoven's works. But when the mind is engaged with something else, Beethoven might as well not even exist. It's like books are on the wall are all dead and have no meaning and no 'life' unless one is being read. And it is 'alive' only while it's being engaged by someone's mind.
As for the hedonics of celebration, it may be fun & pleasurable, but it too relies on excesses of energy, without which it's nothing. It's like fireworks. It has no self-sustaining energy. it's fun as long as it lasts. So, things may be exciting at a nightclub, rock concert, festival, or some such, but they come 'alive' when the juice/electricity is turned on. So, while it may be exciting when one enters a rock concert or night club, it's totally over the minute one leaves the place. But so many Western folks live for these thrills as the ultimate meaning of life. Since these thrills lack autonomy without the Juice, people must go back for more and more and more, like degenerate gamblers returning to casinos. Like the intellect, the pleasure zone must be turned ON for it to come into play. No juice, no tang.
In contrast, real love arising in man, woman, and family always has meaning regardless of the mind or body is turned on or off. Even if a man's mind is turned off, he feels depth and meaning just by being in the same room with his wife and kids. Love is 'on' even when the mind is 'off'. And Love is also on even when the body is 'off'. There is a deeper feeling that goes beyond sparks of intellect or flames of sensations. And this kind of deep love comes from family, a sense of being part of a larger organic community, and, for the spiritually-incline, a connection to God or some higher entity. But, this culture of love has been degraded by Western culture that prefers cerebration and celebration above all else. So, we have some people who live for ideas & arts as substitute for life, and we have other people who live for fun & thrills as substitute for love. Now, ideas/arts and fun/thrills are all very fine, but they can't be the core of life. Culture of real love based on family, ethnos, and maybe God must be the core. After all, why does a parent look forward to going home? His work is done at the job. He won't be using his mind at home. He won't be partying at home either. But he feels happy at the prospect of going to a place where he belongs regardless of what's happening in his mind or body. At home, even when he's doing nothing, he is organically part of something. This feeling has been lost in modern culture that has separated the brains and loins from the heart.
And this feeling of being a part of something even when doing nothing is the core of nationalism, a sense of extended ethnic-family. In our growth-and-achievement-driven world, every nation is urged to do whatever necessary to increase productivity. So, Hungarians have no right to feel relaxed in Hungary as their homeland. They must move aside and make way for newcomers if they may expand economic growth. Today, every Hungarian feels at home whether he is rich or poor because he has a homeland for his people. While it's good to excel and achieve, it's also good to feel at home in at least one part of the world. Hungarians can't feel this sense of home in most of the world but they can feel it in Hungary. Hungarians may travel around and see nice things, but they are guests or strangers in all other parts of the world. It is only when they return to Hungary that they feel 'this is my home'. In Hungary, it doesn't matter if one's rich or poor, smart or dumb. It is the homeland for all Hungarians, a national family. It's like, smart or dumb, all kids of a family is part of that family and has at least that much. But this sense of homeland is being eroded in all parts of the world by globalism that only favors the powerful. As for everyone else, they are urged to move all over the world, abandoning their own homeland and invading homelands of others, just for economic reasons.
But what happens when a nation is totally changed? It's like Planet of the Apes where the human comes back to find his homeland of humans totally transformed. There is nothing sadder than finding oneself a stranger in one's own homeland. Jews felt awful when their homeland was taken over by others, and recently, Palestinians suffer the tragedy of having their once-homeland as the homeland for the Jews. If a Frenchman in Africa returns to France today, does he feel like he's back in his home or in African-Europe? Because Latinos colonized South America, it is called 'Latin America' even though its native people are NOT Latin. If France is colonized by Africans, it will just be Afro-Europe, and the loss of homeland for the French. When Asians and Africans kicked out the French in the 50s and 60s, at least the French had a homeland to return to and call their own. Tough luck for French as France turns into Afro-Europe.
4. 'Disposability' and 'Replaceability' have come to prevail over Durability and 'Irreplaceability', esp among white folks. There used to be a time when products were made to endure, to be hard and durable. They were made with steel and were built-to-last. But over time, plastic and cheaper materials came to be used to make stuff that break down after a few yrs. Still, when it comes to consumer products, 'disposability' isn't such a bad thing. If technology were to hardly change, it would make sense to buy something that lasts a long time. But since technology changes ever faster and we want new products with better technology, it doesn't matter if something breaks down after a few yrs. I mean who wants a TV that lasts forever? Look how LCD screens replaced old tube screens. And even in the age of tube screens, color TV replaced B/W. And computer technology keeps improving, so it makes no sense to own computers that will last decades. We change them after several yrs. Some get new one every year.
But humans, culture, history, and territoriality cannot be treated the same way. After all, in any family, the electric fan or TV is replaceable. The car is replaceable. If someone steals the car, you don't say "OMG, that car was irreplaceable'(unless it's a collector's item or such)". You don't hold a funeral for a dead car. You just spend money to get a new car. If the TV breaks down or is too old, you get a new one.
But you can't feel this way about family members or even the family dog or cat. Strong bonds and deep emotions exist among those within the family. So, even if though if a dog dies, you can get a new one, the new one cannot replace the old one. You will always mourn the dead dog as a unique being. So, even though the new dog can be appreciated, it is not a substitute for the old dog. It's like in the Kurosawa film MADADAYO where the retired professor yearns for his lost cat's return. He eventually raises a new cat, but he never forgets the old cat that never returned.
Consumer materialism now treats people like products. So, people aren't mere shoppers at Ikea or Walmart; they are Ikeans and Walmartians. Their value is only as consumers. So, if society can replace them with New People who will consume more, that's swell, and don't worry about it.
Also, ideo-centrism puts ideas above people. So, the idea of 'America'(as devised by globo-intellectuals) matters more than Core Americans who made this country. So, 'conservative principles' matter more than conserving real things like race, culture, territory, and mythology(sacred narrative of a people). So, if 'conservative principles' are said to be all about 'free trade', anything should be sacrificed to uphold that 'ideal'. Or if America is conceived of 'nation of immigrants', then the 'conservative principle' must only conserve that idea(and hell with any notion of core identity).
Now, the rise of 'disposability' and 'replaceability' may do wonders for some people, especially the elites. If the elites are all about maximizing their own profits, privilege, and advantages, they may do better if they dump their sense of connection and bond to their own kind. When it comes to the nihilism of success and power, it's an hindrance to be bound to anything. It's like George Bailey's bond to Bedford Falls kept him from his personal ambition.
So, if an athlete plays for a losing team and wants to be part of the winning team, his loyalty to his original team will keep him back. Why not just go with the winners? If married man found success in Hollywood, why not just dump his wife and kids and marry someone more glamorous? In a way, this has been both the advantage and danger of America. America, as a promising nation with so much land & resources and guaranteed by property laws(relatively lacking elsewhere), lured so many talented people from other parts of the world. As such, the US gained huge advantage by 'buying' off the the talents of other nations. And since people with talent want to be with others of comparable talent and success, they feel stifled by common identity and sense of obligation. China sends students to the US to learn and come back to serve China, but so many Chinese who come here just want to stay and serve their own interests. People may be tribal by nature to some degree, but as organisms, they prefer self-interest, comfort, and convenience above all else. It's like even a wild animal will leave its pack or tribe and come to live with humans if humans offer safety, food, and security. In CITIZEN KANE, Kane just buys the best journalists from other paper. The men go for money. (Nevertheless, the Jewish example shows that one can work with the best of all kinds of people in professions but nevertheless maintain a sense of ethnic community in personal and cultural life. So, a Jewish chemist will exchange ideas with best chemists around the world --- Germany, UK, Japan, Russia, etc --- , but apart from work, he may do things that may heed to the needs of the Jewish community and Israel as a whole. It's like a Jewish athlete may play ball with Negroes in the professions but, in personal life, may work for the good of the Jewish community. If Jews can do this, surely others can also. But for some reason, whites are attacked if they try to do the same. Whites are encouraged to have only professional identities based on ability. So, talented whites must work with talented of other people, BUT talented whites better not, away from work, try to develop common identity and solidarity with untalented whites in the way that talented Jews often help even untalented Jews in Israel.)
The globalist elites happen to be 'mercurian' as Slezkine might characterize them. Their main concern is wealth and success, and they don't want to be weighed down by any moral or ethnic obligation to anything. They want to play fast and loose with all the world. Most globalist elites are like this in most nations. Some nations, like Russia-China-Iran, have governments that try to maintain a modicum of national sovereignty, but the elites of those nations also want to join with globalism. 75% of Japanese corporations want mass immigration into Japan. And globo-pop-culture even affects the masses, which is why so many people want to move to other nations that are seen as more fun, cool, or rich. But the fact is the masses have little to gain from mercurian fluidity of 'disposabilty' and 'replaceability'. Despite their ambitions, they are in an 'apollonian' existence because they lack the means of the globalist elite to game and play the entire world. If Japan is invaded by mass immigration, the Japanese elites will gain something, the masses will lose it all. Elites will gain cheap labor. Also, with the implosion of the sense of Japanese nationalism and community, the elites can ignore the needs of the Japanese people and do whatever globally to 'get what is mine'. As for the Japanese masses, they will just lose to the invaders, and if they complain, they will be attacked as 'racist'.
In a way, the American template has been both hopeful and dangerous to the world. It is hopeful because America did so many things right and showed new ways of development and progress. But it's dangerous because America was birthed and developed by betrayal. The War of Independence was about colonists turning against their own mother country and king. And as time passed, the US encouraged people-of-talent around the world to betray their own nations, abandon their own identities and heritage, come to the US, and reinvent themselves as 'Americans'. The ONLY people who've resisted this successfully are Jews, but then, Jews mastered the art of self-preservation for 1000's of yrs without a homeland. All other peoples just became generic 'Americans'. So, the very idea of 'American-ness' is about a dissolution of identity.
Nevertheless, the American Way was still workable since most early Americans were Anglos or Northern-European types who could easily become Anglo-Americanized. Also, US and UK patched things up and got along pretty well. It went from War of Independence to Ways of Interdependence, and until the post-WWII era, US and UK were the most important allies in the world. UK could have messed it up for US during the Civil War by aiding the South but chose not to. In turn, the US, for the most part, didn't meddle in the British Empire and commonwealth areas.
Also, as Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans are also fellow Europeans, with some extra effort they too could be made into ersatz Anglo-Americans. So, there was as much continuity as disconnect between US as the new world and Europe as the old world. But with mass immigration of Diversity, PC regimen of anti-white lunacy, and Pop Culture trashiness of Afromania and homomania, everything is falling apart except for good times for the globo-elites who thrive in 'creative destruction' of a fluid and ever-changing globalist system. If you're a geek in Silicon Valley, a financial shark on Wall Street, an operator in Las Vegas, or a hustler in Hollywood, the ONLY thing that matters is glitz and money. Turning the entire world into interchangeable consumers and identity-less hedonists will increase the cash flow.
Anyway, while the elites may feel liberated by 'disposability' and 'replaceabilty', such modes are bound to have a degrading and disruptive impact on the masses. The masses have much less than the elites, especially as most of the wealth keeps accumulating in the top 10%.
So, what do the masses have left for morale, pride, and meaning? A sense that they are part of a land, history, and identity. A sense that they have unique value for what they are and where they are as opposed to what they have and in which zip code they live.
After all, didn't Jews survive for 1000's of yrs despite the lack of homeland because they had this feeling of uniqueness? They felt specially chosen by God, and that meant they were irreplaceable. If Jews are replaceable, a Super-Holocaust of all Jews need not be the end of the Jewish people. A bunch of Mexicans, Nigerians, and Chinese can replace the extinct Jews and become 'new Jews', and presto, we got the Jews all over again.
But of course, if a super-holocaust threatened to wipe out all Jews from the world, Jews would be horrified by not only the bloodbath but by the sense it will be the end for Jews forever. For Jews, gentiles-as-new-Jews are not real Jews. Jews see themselves as irreplaceable. They are unique. They have a covenant with God or history. So, even when Jews had nothing and were in exile, they kept their morale as a people. They felt unique and irreplaceable even when they'd been stripped of everything. And in the end, Jews wanted to add territoriality to their sense of ethnicity and history. Jews had held onto their seed bag of Jewishness, which kept their identity over the ages, but unless they had a land to really call their own --- instead of being guests in other lands --- , they couldn't plant those seeds and make them grow into a Jewish tree with roots deep into the ground.
So, the morale of a people depends on their self-perception and their leadership. It's like the story of Exodus where Jews maintain their morale because God, through Moses, tells them they are special, unique, and irreplaceable.
What works for Jews should work for others as well. A people will feel meaningful and blessed if they feel they are unique and special, when they feel that their identity, history, culture, and territory are durable than disposable. They will have a deep sense of life if they feel as a people and culture that are irreplaceable. They are a race with a unique history, narrative, and destiny, unlike electronics, chairs, tables, or cars that be replaced with new ones or new models. Indeed, it was the want of durability that made sacrifice seem worthwhile to peoples through the ages. Why did Poles struggle and fight for independence at great loss of lives? Because they wanted to endure as an ethnicity with a unique history on their own territory. Why would any Pole fight and risk his life if he knew that everything he might give his life for will be taken over by Muslims and Africans as 'new Poles'? If Poles are disposable and replaceable, why resist or fight to preserve one's homeland at all? Why not just let other take it?
One of the ugliest fact of Ireland and Scotland is that peoples there make so much noise about independence from Bad Ole Britain, but both are run by globo-progs whose ideology says Irishmen and Scotsmen must see themselves as disposable, therefore replaceable by other peoples, especially Africans. What was the whole point of resisting, struggling, and gaining national independence from the British Empire IF the ultimate aim was to surrender Ireland to Africans?
Some see the world in terms of 'left vs right'. Some see it in terms of 'globalism vs nationalism'. It can also be seen in terms of 'disposables and replaceables' vs 'durables and irreplaceables'.
What is generally called 'leftist'(these days) and 'globalist' believes that all peoples, cultures, and nations(with the possible exception of Jews) are disposable. To cling to any nation, identity, or territory is demeaned as 'atavistic', 'reactionary', or 'exclusive'. All peoples and nations must open up to all others. So what if the French dispose of what had once been traditionally French? The 'new french' will do just as well, or it will even be better since they won't have any atavistic vestige of connection to French blood and soil.
According to globalism, no people should consider themselves to be irreplaceable. They should replace others, and others should replace them. (Bu then, when Jews took over Palestine, they didn't become 'new Palestinians' but Israelis, a people and culture distinct from Arabs and Muslims/Christians.) Now, if the US/Canada/Australia didn't exist, people might be more resistant to this idea. But because the US/Canada/Australia are so inviting and irresistible, many peoples with ancient roots and ties are tempted to abandon their deep identities and loyalties to enjoy better lives as 'Americans', 'Australians', or 'Canadians'. And since they got their goodies by gaining entry into US, Canada, or Australia, they feel they must support globalism over nationalism, even for their nations of origin. After all, it'd be hypocritical to say US must open up to the world but not your own nation. And this globalist virus of 'replaceability' and 'disposabilty' is beginning to infect all nations. EU is already far gone. It's catching on in Mexico and East Asia too. Now, there are tons of foreigners in Mexico, though their ultimate aim is to slip into the US. An idiot Chinese woman, brainwashed by globo-PC, has an irrational faith in the Negro and accuses her countrymen of having 'irrational' fears.
So, seeing blacks for what they are is 'irrational', but ignoring the mountain of evidence on black problems is supposedly 'rational'. Globalism turns everything upside down. In the end, 'rational' and 'irrational' are just PC brands that have no bearing on reality. People who belong to globo-culture must make right-sounding noises to maintain their status as a 'citizen of the world'. And of course, the privileged tend to rub shoulders with the best kind of people(even blacks) around the world and can afford to ignore horrors witnessed by the un-privileged at the ground level. It's like rich white Libs who deal with nice token blacks choose to ignore all the hurt suffered by un-privileged whites at the hands of mean nasty blacks.
Anyway, the message is clear. If we were to take Hungary as an example, globalism tells Hungarians, "You, as a people-culture-history, are disposable. If Hungary no longer has a Hungarian majority, it's no loss and don't worry. If anything, it should be 'welcomed' as a blessing. Hungary must 'reinvent' itself endlessly like fashion shows. Nothing about Hungary should be seen as durable or enduring. Also, Hungarians are replaceable. There is nothing unique or special about Hungarians. Any bunch of people should come to Hungary to be New Hungarians. Hungarianness should have nothing to do with ancestry, history, roots, culture, or territory. It should just be a brand or piece of stamped paper or a t-shirt to take on and off. So, if some African wants to come to Hungary and be 'hungarian' for 5 yrs, he has every right. If he then tires of hungarianness and wants to move to Poland to be polish for awhile, that should be accommodated too." That is globalism's message to Hungary.
In contrast, nationalism tells Hungarians that they are a unique people bound to particular territory and special history & culture. And even though non-Hungarians, in small numbers, may gradually come and assimilate to Hungarianness, Hungary will cease to be genuinely Hungary if it is taken over by masses of foreigners. Besides, mass invasion makes assimilation impossible.
So, globalism tells all the peoples & cultures of the world that they are disposable and replaceable, whereas nationalism says each people & culture need to be durable or have enduring qualities and think of themselves as special, irreplaceable. To think oneself special or irreplaceable isn't supremacism. If a child believes that his own mother is irreplaceable by other women, it doesn't mean his mother is the best woman in the world. It means he has one real mother with whom he shares a special bond. If the car dies, you get a new car, and you may even be glad to be rid of the old car since the new one is better. But if one's mother dies, one cannot just buy a new mother. That special person is gone forever and is irreplaceable.
So many white folks have been told that they are not special. They are disposable like old furniture. David Brooks says so. So does William Kristol. If white folks aren't cannon fodder, they are econo-fodder. They have no significance or meaning beyond economic interests. Whereas each Jew or Israeli is made to believe that he is unique, irreplaceable, and deserving of durability, each white gentile is told that he has no special or unique qualities or histories.
So, even an un-privileged Jew feels special and meaningful in his uniqueness. Privilege or no privilege, a Jew feels he has a special place in the world, and this special-ness can only be preserved by real Jews. Jews even insist that gentiles must ensure that Jews will endure. What are AIPAC rallies about, after all? (It's hilarious Nancy Pelosi deriding Alt Right at AIPAC conferences of all things. I mean what is Zionism but Alt Right for Jews, and what is Alt Right but Zionism for whites?) Jews can feel meaningful even without privilege because of their special sense of self.
But whites are NOTHING unless they have privilege since they are told that they are disposable and replaceable and have no special qualities, no special covenant with history or territory. They are just like cattle to be replaced with new animals if need be.
But in time, all gentiles will be messed up by globalism. Consider the Muslim hijab camouflaged with the US flag. While some conservatives see this as 'Muslim invasion of America', the bigger danger could be Americanization of Islam. Not being of fan of Islam, I'm not defending the religion or culture. But given what has become of American culture and values --- homomania, afromania, slut pride, 'pussy hats', 'gay-pornification' of children's literature, etc --- , fusing Islam and Americanism is a bigger affront to Islam.
How did the world fall for this Diversity crap? Don't people know diversity is the reason for clash of empires in WWI? Don't they know diversity was the reason for the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia? Diversity resulted from imperialism of the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks and Arabs didn't want to be under Turkic rule. Also, even after all these centuries, the problems of diversity are still not settled in South America and Mexico.
And the very worst legacy of Western Imperialism was the diversification of new nations. Most of the new nations that emerged from receding empires were cursed with arbitrary boundaries. So, one people, instead of having their own nation, could be scattered among several nations. A tragic case involves the Kurds who, like Poles under imperial rule, have been divided among several nations without having a nation to call their own. How nicer things would have been if the Western Imperialists had been more mindful in drawing boundaries in the Middle East to reflect ethnic divisions. Instead, various ethnic groups were forced under the same national roof, and the ensuing diversity led to endless headaches. Diversity also made democracy less doable since a nation like Syria was ruled by minority Alawites while Iraq was ruled by minority Sunnis. Democracy was doable in Israel ONLY BECAUSE Jews comprised a solid majority. And things are even worse in Africa where these gigantic nations -- some almost as big as all of Western Europe -- are made up of so many different tribes. Most African nations are really mini-empires where one tribe or clan rules over the rest. Most of the political violence since the end of WWII has been due to this diversification of new nations where borders were drawn arbitrarily by imperialists.
And now, globalism seems to idealize and impose Arbitrarism all over the world. It wages war on Consistency, Purposefulness, and Meaningfulness. So, Hungarians are pressured to abandon any purposeful, meaningful, and consistent meaning of Hungarian-ness and adopt Arbitrarism of just letting any bunch of marauding gate-crashers to enter as 'new hungarians'. Sorosism is one the vilest things to ever see the light of day. Vampire George needs to be placed in a coffin and locked away forever.
Diversity leads to either division & strife OR dilution & dissipation. Yugoslavia exploded because of diversity. And the legacy of the Ottoman Empire was bloodbaths between Turks & Greeks, Turks & Arabs, and Turks & Armenians.
Because diversity leads to distrust & division, the only way to make diversity work is to weaken every group's identity because identities naturally clash with one another. So, in the West, diversity can only work by diluting the identities & cultures of whites and then even of non-whites. But when identities and cultures are diluted, they grow weak and dissipate into bathetic fake emotions. What is American values in the Current Year? Oprahism?
For different peoples to get along and maybe bowl together, they must grow amnesiac because memory leads to dissension. After all, if Palestinian minds could be wiped clean of their tragic history, they might get along better with Jews. But such amnesia leads to cultural idiocy. It also leads to confusion. Collective Alzheimer cannot be the foundation of culture. No wonder Latin America is so enervated and dissipated. With all that diversity, it's been impossible for forge a strong unified and purposeful identity and purpose. Every identity and theme must be watered down lest they give offense to others. It leads to cultural paralysis. (One other way to hold diversity together is by scapegoating a group as the Evil Other. In the US, this means Jews and various non-white groups maintain an alliance based on shared fear of 'nazis'.)
America has become a strange nation. It flatters itself as 'indispensable' but every American is seen as disposable(with the possible exception of Jews). Imagine that, a indispensable nation in which every group must feel itself to be dispensable, to be overtaken by yet MORE WAVES of immigrants.
Would most people want to think of their kind as 'replaceable and disposable' or as 'irreplaceable and durable'? Races and ethnic groups are like macro-families. Just like a family shouldn't think any of its member as 'disposable', replaceable', or 'interchangeable', a national family shouldn't feel this way about it own members, no matter how lowly or humble he may be. Spielberg made SAVING PRIVATE RYAN where US soldiers go out of their way to save one of their own. Nice sentiment. But then, Spielberg supports globalism that would render Americans as dispensable. But then, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a contradictory movie. On the one hand, it says whites should fight and kill other whites(the evil Germans) to make world safe, but then it says, America is so wonderful because good ole Americans see one another as part of a family and duly sacrifice their lives to save one another.
Anyway, white Americans once used to feel special and unique, but over the generations, they've been told they don't matter and the world, even America, will be just fine without them. Their kids have been exposed to the vile lectures of scum like Tim Wise who rejoice at the prospect of whites being eclipsed and replaced by others.
What kind of parent wants to tell his children that their race, culture, and history are disposable and replaceable? It sounds awful, but so many white parents now do this to their kids because the ONLY culture they know is pop culture. And since the kids grew up with PC that rewards them ONLY when they turn on their own race and culture, 'replaceability and disposability' have the the hallmark of whiteness.
Incidentally, even though Pop Culture is poisonous, the antidote can't be high culture. High culture, though grounded in particular cultures, has universal value and belongs to all the world. After all, even though English can make a special claim for Shakespeare and Germans can make a special claim for Beethoven, those great artists belong to anyone with appreciation for literature or music. So, as important as high culture, it cannot be the Core Culture of a people, especially most peoples and cultures were not great, and even if there was greatness, it was for a relatively limited period. The Greeks mattered as intellectual and cultural innovators only for several centuries in Ancient times. So, do the Greek people, history, and culture since then have no value? No, they have value to Greeks because it's about who they are. It's like most families are not great, but every family means a great deal to its members. And this kind of cultural mindset once existed on the larger social level. If you were an Irish-American in the past, what mattered most wasn't what books you read. You are part of Irish tradition, community, customs, religious practices, and family. And there was the Irish patriarch in the family and the Irish mother to make potato dishes. There was the folkish sense of Irishness apart from passing fads of pop/mass culture and elitism of high culture. But such folkishness has fallen by the wayside. Irishness now means getting drunk on St. Patrick's Day and puking all over.
At least when Anglo-American culture was strong and sturdy, one could abandon one's ethnic culture and meaningfully become part of Anglo-American culture. But what is Anglo-Americanism today? Hillary sucking up to trannies, and Episcopalians planting homo flags in every church run by lesbians who wanna fill up white nations with 'diversity'.
We need a revival of folkishness. Pop culture may be fun, but it's all about fads and trashiness. What is 'cool' today is laughable tomorrow. As for high culture, it belongs to the cultured & intellectual of every culture. It transcends ethnic and national boundaries(and has limited appeal to most people who will never get high art). It would be churlish to insist that Mozart is only for Austrians. High culture is the product of genius, and most cultures were never great. As Murray's HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT shows, most of human achievements were concentrated in few places. And even in the West, it was a handful of nations that really made the difference. Now, France, Germany, and UK did much much more than Bulgaria, so does that mean Bulgarian people and culture have no right to preserve themselves? No, from a folkish perspective, Bulgarian nation and culture are just as valuable, at least to Bulgarians. Also, if they fail to preserve their own culture, no one will do it for them and no one is going to mourn the loss. If Tajiks decide to abandon their identity and culture, no one is going to do it for them. And no one will care except for some anthropologists who might bemoan the loss.
Likewise, it is the duty of white folks to preserve whiteness because no one is going to do it for them. Also, all those people who come to white nations come ONLY FOR ONE REASON: better material life. They are not coming to appreciate the history, the culture, the tradition. Furthermore, why should they when PC in every white nation tells the kids of newcomers that white people suck and are disposable & replaceable?
Nationalism is the best way of organizing the world. It is the midpoint between petty tribalism and imperialist globalism. And yet, globalists keep attacking nationalism as a disease. Globalists invoke some 'universal values', but they overlook the fact that universal truths don't make for universal peace. If anything, universal truths teach us to be more cautious about everything. After all, consider the animal world. The universal truth among animals is all animals like to eat. Okay, so all animals share in this universal truth. The result? They all fight and devour one another in a state of constant war. It is also a universal truth that animals are territorial. Lions, elk, bears, leopards, wolves, and etc, all mark their territories. Result is they fight over territoriality. It's a universal truth that all organisms must mate. But this makes for endless competition for sex that leads to violence and bloodshed and even killing of the young.
So, the fact that there are universal truths about animals doesn't mean that those truths lead to universal peace among animals.
It's universally true that every sports team wants to win and every boxer wants to to fight. The result of that is a lot of violence on the field or ring. Same goes for all peoples of the world. Yes, there are universal truths about humans. Humans thrive on group-identity, territoriality, collective memory, competition, ego, acquisitiveness, distrust(for sake of survival, which is why we sleep with locked doors and have property laws), and etc. Given these universal facts of human nature --- that humans naturally come in conflict with other humans --- , the best way to order society is to create communities where conflict can be held to a minimum or regulated most effectively. And this is made easier in a nation of shared identity, culture, and trust. Surely, Anglos competing with other Anglos in an Anglo society or Japanese competing with other Japanese in Japan will be less tension-filled than either folks competing with lots of other groups, all of whom view each other with distrust, envy, and resentment. So, given the universal truths of human nature, the worst thing one can recommend to nations is excessive diversity. SOME diversity is tolerable, even good. But when has excessive diversity ever made a society better? Who really thinks Europe will do better when it's turned into something like Eurasia or North Africa? Who really thinks US will do better when it become more like Brazil? And if diversity is doing such wonders of Latin America, why don't Latinos stay in their own nations and enjoy all their wonders instead of moving to whiter nations with Anglo legacy?
To better understand what is happening and why, we need a kind of Organicism that approaches humans as primarily organisms. The instructive thing about the term 'cuckservative' or 'cuck' is its organcist implications. The terms illustrates how the human organisms can fall prey to parasitic maneuvers of other invasive human organisms.
Wittingly or unwittingly, every idea is an organismic instrument or weapon of facilitating defense & survival or offense & domination. Every idea or image used by man is like venom or some chemical used by animals. Ideas and images don't just pass through the logical processing of the mind but elicit chemical reactions in the mind/body to influence emotions. These emotions can paralyze, embolden, enrage, confuse, or enervate. Often, what is thought to be 'right' or 'wrong' has less to do with logic or facts. In math, something can be proven to be right or wrong based on cold dry logic. But in ideological matters, 'truth' has less to do with reason or rationality than with associating the idea or image with a certain bio-chemical responses that shape emotions. And this is something white folks need to realize because so much of what they've been led to 'think' of as 'true' or 'correct' were really manipulations of bio-chemistry. Is it any wonder that PC keeps aiming for younger and younger converts since kids are most prone to emotional manipulation? If kids can be made to believe in Santa, why not a black santa who is 'married' to a white guy?
5. PC applies the cosmetics of fake vapid virtue while injecting souls with poison. It's like the best makeup is what you put IN you than ON you. You can put all the fancy expensive makeup on your face, but it won't do much good if you ingest bad stuff into your body: excessive sugars, chemicals, tobacco, hard liquor, drugs, and etc. Health of skin depends more on what lies beneath than on what's applied outwardly.
It's like one can polish the leaves and trim a plant to look real good from the outside, but if one pours poison into the soil, the bad stuff will enter through the roots and start killing the plant from the inside.
PC is pure cosmetics. It has all these slogans like 'tolerance', 'inclusion', 'progress', 'black lives matter', 'rape culture', and etc. but it's all superficial and shallow. When it comes to true morality that calls for responsibility, accountability, integrity, maturity, sobriety, honesty, personal ethics, individual virtue, and etc, PC offers nothing. If anything, PC and pop culture inject the American Soul with degeneracy, decadence, excess, egotism, narcissism, triviality, frivolity, self-aggrandizement, and etc. For some groups, the mere fact of their identity makes them noble and justified. So, if you're Jewish, Negro, or homo, you don't even have to try to be good. You're good by virtue of what you are. But if you're white, it doesn't matter how decent, sane, and sober you try to be. You're bad cuz your identity is associated with 'white guilt'. PC tells a woman to put on expensive makeup while smoking 5 packs a day.
This state of affairs has a demoralizing impact on all whites but especially the un-privileged whites. Since privileged whites live in a bubble, they can put on airs of being repentant 'good whites' and earn even more pokemon points to gain more 'white privilege'. But if you're an un-privileged white and has to deal with the real problems of diversity at the ground level, you're bound to gripe, and this makes you a 'bad person' since you, as a white person, is tainted with 'white privilege' and 'white guilt' and should really be in atonement mode.
NY Times headlines like AMERICAN FAILS BLACK GIRLS says it all. There is no moral accountability for blacks. No matter how much they louse up things, they are not to blame. No, AMERICA failed them. This sounds so compassionate and caring, and some mistake it for moral concern. But it's PC lies masquerading as moral concern. Worse is the hypocrisy of NYers who support stop-n-frisk, gentrification(aka denegrification), and mass incarceration of blacks, esp under Clinton. They DO all the things to spare themselves from black problems but then act like they CARE SO MUCH by churning out these boo-hoo articles.
6. White folks must beware of 'virality' of ideology. When people come up with an idea or policy, they think they can keep it under lid. But once something is let out of the box, it often has a 'logic' of its own and runs out of control accordingly. It's like a housewife might start sipping a little alcohol and feels she has it under control. But in some cases, the logic of alcoholism takes over and gains control over the person. When people start something, they initially have total control over it. But, they can lose sight of the fact that it can take on a life of its own in relation to reality bigger than any individual will or foresight.
When we light a match in a forest, we initially have complete control over the match and fire. We might gather some woods and light only them, and the fire is under control. But suppose there are lots of dry leaves and wind is blowing. If we light match and if the wind blows the burning leaves that land on other leaves, there is a start of a forest-fire that goes out of control like the brooms and pails in SORCERER'S APPRENTICE.
No one joins a religion thinking he will turn crazy. When people enter a faith, they see it as a matter of their own choosing. But religion is bigger than any individual, and it may stir up certain passions and obsessions with the soul of a person that soon comes to override his rational mind or self-control. Soon, they may feel they didn't choose the faith, but God chose them and they must do everything God tells them to do via the leader or demagogue posing as leader or prophet.
This danger lies in all ideologies, cults, religions, causes, movements, and etc. No matter how much an organization or movement labels itself as 'free' and 'rational', it can easily rob those who enter of their agency and autonomy, especially if the members feel a 'spiritual' vacuum that is crying to be filled with a sense of righteous certainty.
PC and other poisonous ideologies have gone viral. They're out of control. Even some libby-dib professors are worried cuz their students are deranged and foaming at the mouths over 'trigger-warnings' and 'micro-aggressions', most of it imagined for sake of self-aggrandizement. Even terrible Mao was shocked by how crazy the Cultural Revolution became. Its fires spread in accordance to its own 'logic', beyond what the Chairman intended to use as weapon against his enemies.
So many bad ideas, like Great Society and deregulation of Wall Street under Clinton and Bush II, began as something that seemed controllable by the Best and the Brightest. This was also true of Russian privatization in the 90s. But once they were set in motion, nothing could forestall their momentum, and events played out according to a historical logic shockingly different from the human logic of those who'd devised the plans.
To prevent people's hearts and minds from becoming to easily swayed by every fad or fashion(that ends up burning like wildfire and causing more grievous harm to culture), minds need to be more critical and hearts need to be grounded in real culture and values. It's like a tree without roots firmly in ground will topple over with the wind.
Something like homomania and tranny-nonsense caught on so fast & furious and go viral only because so much of the culture had become so debased and despoiled. It's like a deforested area will turn into a massive mudslide with rain. American culture was slashed & burned and then its trees were removed, roots and all. The result is a massive moral mudslide every time it rains. Men pretend to be women, illegals pretend to be citizens, globalists pretend to be patriots while demeaning real patriots. It's all very sick.
7. Sane society has a sound middle-ground that regulates the forces of both the natural and the spiritual. Humans are products of nature but must be more than nature. Humans must strive toward the higher/spiritual but also be mindful of their limits. Man must be more than ape but know he's no angel. Thus, man is midpoint between animal and god. Without nature, man doesn't exist. Without god(or higher ideals), man is just an animal. But if man lurches too close to nature, he turn beastly. If man reach too much for god, he turns sanctimonious and holier-than-thou.
PC combines the worst excesses of both naturalism and spiritualism. Even though PC is ostensibly secular and atheist, its emotions are quasi-spiritual with its sacraments, icons, witches, and taboos. On the one hand, PC promotes libertine animalism of that lurches toward shameless gluttony, sluttony, and drugs(legal and illegal). Now, if gluttons and lechers were at least honest, it wouldn't be so bad. They would at least be honest beasts and louts. It's like a criminal who is at least honest isn't as bad as one who pretends to be on the side of angels. But, PC has combined a vulgar Afro-Homo-Freudianism with holier-than-thou sanctimony of utopianism. So, when homos act obscene and filthy in massive parades, it's not decadence or degeneracy. It's a moral statement, a utopian vision. So, when Negroes act like gangstas and ho's, it's not beastly behavior of thugs and louts. It's some kind of Moral Message. So, PC wages war on the sane middle core from both excessive naturalism and excessive (quasi)spiritualism.
The sane middle is attacked by would-be-apes and would-be-angels.
Worse, it's a sham naturalism and sham spiritualism. How does nature really work? It is a brutal counter-balancing act. So, if a baboon in nature were to eat too much overripe mango, he's gonna get drunk, fall asleep, and be eaten by a leopard. So, nature balances itself. An excess(eating too much fruits with alcohol content) is balanced by an extreme(being devoured by a predator).
Nature is about actions with consequences. But among humans, modern medicine and contraceptives have allowed nature to run wild without sobering consequences(until it's too late, the point at which even technology cannot save the afflicted and/or addicted). Naturally, people like to eat. Naturally, people seek sexual pleasure. But by rules of nature, if you eat too much, you get sick and die. But modern medicine can keep alive those with diabetes and other diseases for a long spell, and so, the tubaroons keep eating like pigs and cause more health problems whose cost fall on rest of society. Also, even if you're grossly obese and incapacitated and cannot work to buy more food, the government will provide you with ample food so you can pig out some more.
Also, by the way of nature, those who have excessive sex get pregnant or get disease. But due to contraceptives and medicine, people can fool around and not worry about pregnancy. And if they get some disease, they can go see a doctor. Now, even HIV is manageable after a homo has been buggered a 1000x. So, the current embrace of sexual nature(as liberation) is disingenuous since it circumvents the true nature and the true way of nature. It indulges in one aspect of nature while shutting off the other side of nature. It allows the hubris of pleasure/desire without the nemesis of pain/corrective. It distills only one side of nature while artificially suppressing the other. Thus, being 'natural' means playing tricks on true nature to only get the joy without the pain. It is really semi-naturalism.
Instead of sobering correctives(as true nature is as brutal as the Old Testament God), we concocted means of circumvention that encourage people to indulge in animal instincts without worry. The long-term impact of this? Cultural coarsening, decline in health, moral degradation, infantilism, and increased piggishness that no longer pays mind to Moral Hazard since everyone expects Technological Wizard to fix all the problems. It is surely one reason for White Death and so many problems that plague other communities as well.
Are you an overindulgent pig with diabetes? Don't worry, the doctor will provide you with insulin and all sorts of other pills so that you can feel better and pig out some more. Are you a homo with HIV? Don't worry, new drugs will keep you reasonably healthy so that you can go around buggering tons of other guys. Did you get pregnant from having loose sex? Not to worry; abortion will suck out the baby, and next time take these pills so that you won't get pregnant and screw like a whore. All this is hailed as 'progress', but it also encourages people to act shamelessly and carelessly. But even as technology finds new ways to keep the body humming, it degrades the souls, and sick souls turn to more excesses until things break down to the point of irreversible hazard that even technology cannot fix.
And then, there is the attack on the sane middle by the would-be-angels. All religions have this holier-than-thou-pain-in-the-ass element. The self-righteous sanctimonious stuff. But at least with religion, the highest virtue is with God who is above humanity. But with secular PC, godliness is claimed by certain groups, especially those with huge egos, and they are Jews, Homos, and Negroes. Jews think they are the chosen, Homos conflate their creativity with creation itself, and Negroes think they be better cuz they be badass and loud.
Also, there is radical sanctimony as compensation for 'cripples'. The ugly, unattractive, and/or sickly cling to religion or revolution to claim righteous authority and sense of moral superiority. Andrea Dworkin the fat pig played the feminist saint and 'rape victim'. Jean-Paul Sartre was an ugly weakling, and his crutch of manhood was endorsing every crackpot radical movement that came down the pipe. We see the same kind of mindset among so many bottom-feeding antifa members who, being nothing in life, want to feel justified and sanctified via some holier-than-thou cause. It usually degenerates into nihilism, as with the character of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, since these would-be-holy-crusaders of the Better Future convince themselves that anything, even acts of terror, is justified to make the world better. The Cripple Complex is there in movie AMERICAN PASTORAL where the stuttering daughter takes up righteous radicalism to overcome her sense of frustration.
In the movie SPECTACULAR NOW, we see a double whammy against its white male character: The Negro and his estranged alcoholic father. He loses his white girlfriend to some ghastly Negro, and as Section 8 and other such programs fill up small towns and suburbs with Negroes, more white guys will become demoralized as they will be whupped by Negroes and lose their girls to Negroes.
JOE(with Nicholas Cage) is also an interesting film about consequences of failure of men to mature and the dire consequences of failed fatherhood. Many white fathers since the 60s never learned to grow up. Brian Wilson stayed in bed for three yrs. So, we have perpetual youths as fathers of real youths. What passes for a 'conservative' today is Gavin McInnes of excessive tattoos and pud-flashing. And so many parents think there is nothing wrong with their sons and daughters going to Spring Break to act like whores and punks.
Kids will always be trouble, and they need leeway to find themselves, but men need to grow up and be better fathers.
8. Something went awry with the ideal of gradual maturation. For most of history, young ones grew up fast. Kids were put to work on farms and other kinds of work. Children were laborers unless born to aristocracy, in which case they were raised for hunting, warring, and leading. So, in most cultures, a boy was considered a real man by age of 13. So, he went suddenly from childhood to adulthood. The positive side of this was it exerted pressure on kids to grow up, man up, and take on adult burdens. Put away childish things. But the negative side was that kid were not allowed to mature to full potentiality of what it means to be human. It's like cooking. If you throw a chunk of raw meat into an oven and cook it at very high heat and pull it fast, it may be cooked(or even overcooked) on the outside, but it's not fully cooked on the inside. It may even be raw on the inside. So, kids who were rushed into adulthood had the outward look of adulthood but hadn't matured fully and gradually on the inside After all, the process of going from childhood to adulthood is very complex. Society can force it to happen in 3 yrs from age 10 to 13, but true maturation takes longer. Humans have complex minds and emotions. There is much to learn, appreciate, and realize to fully cook into mature adulthood.
So, the concept of maturation was changed in the West, especially since public education was made available to all. So, the ideal was the slow-cook method. Children would gradually but fully grow into adulthood. Instead of being quick-cooked on the outside but left raw or under-cooked on the inside, children would be allowed to go from childhood to older childhood to young adulthood to adulthood to full adulthood. And along the way, they would be instilled with history, science, math, philosophy, languages, art appreciation, music appreciation, literary appreciation, and so on.
So, the real purpose of slowing growth was really to make young ones grow better and more fully.
But at some point, this ideal was lost. Slow growth turned into delayed development, then arrested development, then youth-mania, then even infantilism.
Initially and properly, the pressure to grow up fast was replaced by method of gradual growth. However, one of the problems of easing the pressure(to mature quickly) was that some misguided souls could misinterpret or corrupt the ideal to imply that one shouldn't grow up at all. So, instead of gradually letting go of childish things and taking on more adult things, increasing number of youths just clung to childish things. This was made all the worse by TV, popular culture, and youth sensibility that arose in the 1950s. Now, youth wasn't just a phase but a demographics, and it never went away since there was always a new batch of young dupes who could be hooked on ever changing fads and fashions of what is 'cool' and 'fool'.
And then, youth was overly romanticized and politicized to the point where, especially beginning the 60s, inexperience and impulsiveness were seen as the purest of virtues. Some may trace such view to Rousseau, but due to problems of scarcity, the luxury of youth culture only became a reality with the success of capitalism that allowed young people to put off adulthood and indulge in all sorts of fun to fuel the pop culture industry.
Another problem with the ideal of gradual growth was the fact of genetic inequality. While some young people with reasonable intelligence and seriousness may indeed mature meaningfully from childhood to adulthood with genuine cultivation of the arts, music, history, literature, and etc, the methodology meant nothing to the dummies. Some people are naturally dumb, incurious, impatient, childish, stupid, and/or imbecilic. Offer them the opportunity to expand their horizons with arts, literature, history, and such heady stuff, and their attitude will be "what this shi* be?" They find the curriculum and disciplines boring, punkass, 'weak', 'gay', or 'fa**oty and shi*'.
So, for them, the ideal of slow cooking just become a means to mess up the kitchen and make a mess of things. Imagine a chunk of meat that's frozen solid on the inside. It just fails to cook like other chunks of meat because it's frozen on dumb or stupid. For such people, it would be better to opt for fast-track maturation via specialization in practical skills or vocations. Since they are simple-minded, expecting them to mature intellectually or culturally beyond the age of 13 is naive at best and fantastical at worst. They are not gonna get anything from literature, history, arts, humanities, science, and rest of that 'fa**oty-ass shi*'. Do-goody libby-dibs might argue that such kids haven't been properly acculturated, and that may be true of some. But in most cases, the kids simply aren't bright enough for intellectual engagement or high-culture appreciation OR they are emotionally unsuited for the academic setting.
So, the ideal of slow-maturation actually harms such kids since they are expected to develop in ways for which they are unsuited. So, all they end up doing is goofing off, acting the fool, and making things miserable for everyone else: teachers and kids who want to learn.
