Sunday, April 30, 2017

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.

There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their identities on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race.
Among the capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially be elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so crude as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal of cosmopolitanism would go from an elite privilege to a mass reality if all worked according to plan.

But as things turned out, identity matter after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, and if anything, nationalist tensions flared up between the USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and heritage.
And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that ideology cannot be a lasting identity. Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.
Also, the certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusive toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America has to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identity and melt into a single pot of a new unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it. And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about overall impact of such assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites. So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own identities against whiteness.
This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 80s. So, if assimilation were indeed the magic formula for America, it meant that non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore.
If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks did. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they mustn't assimilate into whiteness and become mere imitation-wasps(as some Conservatives wishes Jews to be).. Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reach the top, whites(and others) could assimilate into Jewishness. After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into Jewishness than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.

So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right.
Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory. Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrants usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges all nations around the world to surrender to Hollywood culture, Western PC, homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But this cult of Diversity is then interwoven with homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam perse. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans to maintain their Islamic ways. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into Muslim-ness. They did just that with Christianity already.

Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims of white racism and white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.

And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homos? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims.

The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for long-term bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything.
Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It offers reprieve to the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is ensure continued Muslim immigration, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.

Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something.
In contrast, the identity-of-for has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He is a proud Greek under Turkish rule and without Turkish rule. In contrast, an identity-of-against feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is an identity of vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou.

Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity of depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Holocaust. Under this shallow formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics.)
And this is one reason why Jewish Power decided to unleash homomania, especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, given the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism or the Outpost of Western Civilization, and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-anno-sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. In all other respects, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings can only be washed with white shameful acts(of homo fecal penetration).

The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI.
The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It has one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Otherwise, it had to be destroyed, crushed, or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control must be in hands of the radical left.

In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another.
The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all way when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.

So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial.
Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they surely have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way.
Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"

Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as the Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini foolishly made a pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite their divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian).
Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.

In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the rubbing of branches of different trees at the whim of winds.
Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads.
In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality --- just take a look at California --- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definite. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." Even libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean.

It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

The Obstacle to Honest Discussion of Diversity, Jews, Blacks, and Homos is the Cult of Sacramentalism. Also, the problem of the Millennial Bunghole Crisis

The obstacle to honest discussion of Race is Sacramentalism.

Whether a society is theocratic or ideocratic(defined by secular ideology), certain ideas, images, and/or icons are upheld as holy, sacred, divine, and/or untouchable.  It goes beyond factual value or utilitarian value. It is what makes the society feel justified, redemptive, inspired, uplifted, and/or righteous(and maybe better than other societies).

Sacramentalism has value insofar as it provides emotional or spiritual(or quasi-spiritual) meaning to the people of that culture. But it comes with a certain danger:  When something is held up as sacred or holy, it becomes taboo to say or do anything that offends the official sanctimony.  Now, if what is upheld as holy or sacred is the absolute truth, it may cause little or no harm to prevent views or actions that threaten to upset the officially sanctioned apple-cart.

But few things in life can be said to own the absolute truth. Even hard sciences undergo paradigm shifts. Social sciences and social values(being more heavily influenced by social norms, political power, and ideological biases) are suspect as final arbiters of truth.  So, in order for there to be advancement in our understanding of humanity, we need a spirit, culture, and system of free inquiry and open exchange of ideas.  Ideas and views that challenge the Official Truth may or may not have lasting value, but unless there is freedom to challenge the Official Dogma, what we have is Sacramentalism as the dominant culture authority. And this is no less a problem in modern secular societies as in medievalist theocratic ones.  Consider the two stories:

The first story happened in Saudi Arabia, a medievalist theocratic state. The second story happened in UK, a modern secular republic(or democracy).   No two societies couldn't be more different. And yet, there is an eerie similarity to the two stories. What are they? They are both the result of Sacramentalism.

In Saudi Arabia, Islamic Law is sacred.  For non-Muslim observers, the death of Saudi girls in the fire in the above-linked story sounds horrible and totally unjustified, and I would concur. But we don't share in those sacramental Islamic values. For hardcore Muslims for whom their religious laws aren't merely the rules of man but the divine decrees of God, what is Holy is more precious than mere mortal lives. I'm sure even hardcore Muslims were saddened by the deaths of those girls in the fire, BUT more sacred to them was the preservation of Islamic Laws and Tradition.

In the case of UK, there is the neo-religion or neoligion of Diversity and 'White Guilt'.  Generations have been drummed with the PC mantra that 'diversity is our strength'.  It is not to be disputed. To disagree or dissent from Diversity-as-Sacred is to be a bad evil person, a 'racist', gasp gasp.  It is an article of faith to worship Diversity. Also, white Britons have been weaned on 'white guilt' that was supposedly inherited from crimes of British Imperialism.  (But then, there is also an element of closeted-white-pride among some Britons insofar as non-white masses seem to prefer white UK over their own homelands ruled by their own kind. Thus, UK is remade into a mini-facsimile of the Old Empire for those who secretly hark back to the Age of Empire. UK as theme park of Britannia ruling over diverse peoples.)
Since Diversity and 'white guilt' are sacrosanct in the new UK, any fact or revelation that exposes PC assumptions as falsehoods(or half-truths at best)  must be suppressed, indeed denounced as demonic. And those who dare to speak inconvenient truths must be castigated as heretics.
The result was silence from law officials who knew what was happening in Rotherham. But they remained mum out of fear of being condemned or excommunicated as 'racists' if they'd taken actions to sound the alarm about those white girls being abused by Muslim sex traders and rapists.
Likewise in the US, many military men who suspected something wrong about Nidal Hassan(the Fort Hood shooter) said nothing lest they be accused of desecrating the magic spirit of Diversity(as our 'greatest strength').  So, the shooting that could have been prevented based on troubling signs in Hassan's behavior was allowed to happen.

Also, one of the airport security officials said he sensed something strange about Ansar-Al-Fatah on 9/11, but he didn't say or do anything since it went against the spirit of 'Diversity' as America's greatest strength. And then, consider all the time and energy wasted in the US by having everyone(even old white ladies) inspected at airports when young Muslim men are prime suspects as terrorists. All that wasted energy and resources were also due to the sacramentalism of PC.

Due to the Sacramental place that blacks occupy in the US narrative stemming from the Civil Rights Era, it's nearly impossible to speak honestly about the problems of race, especially as they pertain to crime and violence. The Holy Narrative would have us believe that these saintly and wonderful blacks suffered so nobly as slaves. And blacks were completely in the right and white segregationists were completely in the wrong during the Civil Rights Era. So, blacks are tragically holy, whereas whites must atone for their great 'sin'.  Now, there was slavery and oppression of blacks in American History. And there were morally compelling themes in the Civil Rights Movement. But the real history is far more complicated than the Ken-Burnsy fairy-tale we've been getting forever.
True, blacks had to labor as slaves, but slavery was hardly unique in the world. Also, the only reason why black slaves seemed relatively docile and nice(in Uncle Tom-ish ways) was out of the fear of the white man's whip and gun. It had nothing to do with the innate nature of the blacks, which is more aggressive and brutish that the natures of other races.
And segregationists were partly justified in their fear of the Negro as the black man is bigger, more muscular, stronger, tougher, and more aggressive than the white man. And the ensuing racial mayhem committed by blacks all over the US(and not just against whites) attests to the problems of real racial differences among the races.
So, even though there are compelling arguments in favor of the Black Narrative, the counter-narratives are valid in their own way. There is no single truth that explains everything. No social or historical truth is so sacrosanct that nullifies all other narratives. But PC insists that we treat the Black Narrative as holy, the only acceptable one. As our society worships the Magic Negro, MLK cult, Civil Rights Movement as a battle between angels and demons, and etc., we can't have a honest discussion of race and racial problems. The narrative keep reeling back to some old movie with Gregory Peck representing an innocent Negro falsely accused. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is like the GROUNDHOG DAY of the American Narrative. No matter what Negroes do, we are back to ground one of Innocent Saintly Negro vs all those wicked white 'racist' bigots. That serves as the template of our discussion of race even after blacks rob, rape, riot, and rampage.

As for global affairs, the most dangerous 'Sacramentality' of America is the Icon of the Holy Jew. Because of the Holocaust-as-neo-religion, we are supposed to worship Jews. We are not supposed to say anything critical of Jewish Power lest it be 'antisemitic' which may soon degenerate in 'Nazism' paving the way for new holocausts.
Now, if Jews were powerless or just regular folks in the US, such protection of Jewish sensitivities couldn't do much harm. But Jews are the most powerful people in the US, the most powerful nation in the world. Worse, Jewish control of foreign policy had led to Wars for Israel that had decimated innumerable people in the Middle East: Mostly Muslims but lots of Arab Christians too.  Also, Jewish bitterness at Russian sovereignty(as barrier to total Zionist takeover) has added led to the 'new cold war' that may even turn hot.
It's interesting that Conservatives express outrage at Saudi Arabia for sacrificing 15 girls to defend Islamic sacraments, but these Conservatives seem unaware that their near-worship of Jewish Power had made them turn a blind eye to how megalomaniacal Jewish Power has steered US foreign policy toward wrecking entire nations, killing 100,000s of people, and uprooting millions into refugee status. 15 dead Saudi girls, that's an outrage. But 100,000s of dead Muslims and Arabs? Who cares?

As Jesus said, "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her."
Americans, who in their worship of Holy Jews, hurl bombs all over the world and destroy entire nations should be the last ones to be casting blame on others for sacrificing lives for an idea or icon.

And then, there is the problem of Millennials and the Cancerous Bunghole, aka the Millennial Bunghole Crisis. How did this happen?

We know why.  Due to rise of homomania --- the worship of homos as holy-schmoly --- , society has been reluctant to teach kids about the dangers of fecal penetration, aka 'anal sex'. With all the homotion(homo promotion), millennials have been raised to worship homos and trannies as the secular saints of America. Actually, homomania isn't merely a neoligion but threatens to take over real churches and become the new christianity. According to Anno Sodomini of gaytianity, Jesus died on the Cross to bestow blessing on men buggering one another or cutting off their puds and nuts to get fake poons.

Since homos are holy, we can't say anything that might offend their sensibilities. So, the younger generation was not informed of how fecal penetration increases the chance of anal cancer by 17 times. Also, insofar as pornography promotes homosexuality and interracialism among young ones, it too was allowed to spread all over the internet, and the result is young girls grew up with the idea that taking it up the butt is part of the 'new normal' in sexual behavior. The result is many more cancerous bungholes, some of which will lead to deaths.  But there is no concerted effort to inform young people of the dangers of fecal penetration because homos are sacrosanct. But then, this is a country that still cannot face up to the fact that the MAIN REASON why all those homos dropped dead like flies in the 80s and 90s was because they were buggering one another all over the place in wild abandon. But homos, like Jews and blacks, are holy according to PC, so they must never be blamed for anything. Just blame it on "Reagan's Indifference".

So, all those who feel smugly superior to Saudis who allowed 15 girls to burn to death in the fire should really look in the mirror.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

The Irony of Jewish Moral Outrage and the Axis of Jewish Neurosis

It's all very ironic.

Zionists make so much noise about Iran(and North Korea) having the Bomb. They say everything must be done to stop Iran getting nukes. An EVIL REGIME or ROGUE NATION like Iran doesn't deserve to have the Bomb.

Well, the ironies...

1. Due to the continuing Occupation of West Bank(and building of new settlements with full approval of the US), much of the world sees Israel as the Rogue Nation. Israel has nukes, lots of them. And if any nation has been acting 'rogue' around the world, it is the US, usually at the behest of Zionists and globalists. It's amusing that the US should accuse Syria of torture and human rights violations. Yes, Syrian government has carried out torture, but the US did Abu Gharib. US also used extensive torture in the 'war on terror'. And Israeli torture of Palestinians has long been documented even though Israel insists the practice has been ended.

2. Jews have often said that Apartheid South Africa was the worst nation in the world since end of WWII, but Jews overlook the inconvenient fact that its main ally was Israel(which currently enforces apartheid policies in West Bank). Also, Israel supplied South African with Atom Bomb Technology. Imagine that. Jews, who say rogue nation Iran must NOT have the Bomb, once looked the other way while Israel was funneling nuke secrets to South Africa.

3. The most closely guarded secret in the early part of the Cold War was the Bomb. In the beginning, the US was the ONLY nuclear power. Stalin desperately sought the Bomb, and he finally got it through a pro-Soviet network with lots of radical Jews. Among the key players were Julius Rosenberg and Morton Sobell. So, Josef Stalin, one of the biggest killers and tyrants of the 20th century, got the Bomb thanks to certain key Jewish figures.

When the extent of radical Jewish involvement in Soviet espionage became undeniable, the Jews in the media and academia went into hyper-drive and put the anti-communists on the defensive by framing the Cold War in terms of 'Red Scare', 'right-wing fear-mongering', 'paranoid style of American politics', and etc. That way, the attention was diverted from the fact of REAL JEWISH INVOLVEMENT in espionage and passing of nuclear secrets to the USSR. Liberal and even Conservative Jews closed ranks with leftist Jews who had betrayed the US and aided/abetted a mass killer and tyrant(whose empire stretched over all of Eastern Europe) in the worst possible way.

4. We are now living in the post-Cold-War age when Russia wants peace with the world. It has no ideology for World Revolution. And yet, Jews fear the current much-diminished Russia more than the Soviet Union of the Cold War era. Why? Because Russia is for limited national sovereignty for itself and other nations. So, why would Jews fear a Russia whose ambition is far more limited and restrained than during the Cold War?
Paradoxically, limited Russian nationalism is more threatening than boundless Soviet expansionism because nationalism is the most potent force against imperialism and empire-building. Jewish power is globalist-imperialist, and Jews fear that Russian nationalism might inspire nationalism in many nations around the world.
Current Russian 'ideology' simply amounts to Russian control over Russia. If Russia minds its own business and respects(and even supports) the sovereignty of other nations, why should Jews feel so threatened? What is wrong with each nation minding its own business and protecting(than projecting) its own national interests?
It is because national sovereignty is the most effective barrier against Jewish globalist-homosexual intervention, penetration, subversion, and inversion-of-values. After all, Jewish Power is global, not national(except in Israel).

The Russian example doesn't say all nations should be like Russia. During the Cold War, the Russians-as-universal-Soviets championed the Soviet model as the correct one for the entire world. Not surprisingly, many peoples around the world resisted and rejected this model. So, international communist revolution was bound to fail. But the current Russian-ism is not universalist -- 'all nations should adopt the Russian model' -- but particularist: 'each nation should define its own interests and future'. Under the nationalist logic, Iran should be Iran and preserve Iran-ism. China should be China and preserve China-ism. Hungary should be Hungary and support Hungary-ism. Real blood-and-soil ideology is the best formula. It certainly works for Israel(if we subtract the problems in West Bank when Jews violate the blood-and-soil principles of remaining Palestinian territories).

People who associate Nazi evil with 'blood and soil' totally miss the point. National Socialist Germany had a sound policy with blood-and-soil. It simply meant Germany for Germans and unification of German peoples on German soil. Hitler initially took back Rhineland, part of Germany. Then, Germany united with Austria as both nations wanted it that way. They were of both German peoples. And then, Hitler took Sudetenland because it was mostly German. This blood-and-soil part of National Socialism was sensible. But then, Hitler began to violate the blood-and-soil principles of other nations: Czech republic, Poland, and most fatally, Russia. And if any force rolled back the tide of Nazi imperialism(as well as Japanese imperialism and then, after WWII, French imperialism and British imperialism), it was the blood-and-soil nationalism of the native folks. Poles resisted the Germans to save their blood-and-soil nation. Russians drove back the Germans for blood-and-soil Mother Russia. Chinese resisted the Japanese based on blood-and-soil defense of China. And then, Asian, Arab, and African nations began to roll back Western Imperialism on blood-and-soil principles. So, true blood-and-soil nationalism means defense and preservation of one's own nation.
If anything, it is imperialism and globalism that violate the blood-and-soil principle of each nation. Hungary isn't trying to push Hungary-ism on the world. All it is saying is that Hungarians have a blood-and-soil right to their own nation. But globalist Jews say NO, your nation must be swamped with endless waves of African and Muslim 'refugees' and immigrants, and you must encourage Hungarian wombs to be colonized by seeds of non-white men. So, Hungarian wombs should belong to invading races and produce kids for them than produce Hungarian kids. Globalism is for Womb Colonization, like what Spanish did to native wombs in South America on a massive scale.

Now, NO Jew would push such policy on Israel, which by the way takes in ZERO 'Syrian' or other kinds of refugees. Jews support that blood-and-soil concept of Israel as sacred, but they denounce any blood-and-soil nationalism of gentile country(even when totally defensive) as 'ugly'.
So, why do Jews hate national sovereignty except in Israel? Because, with the exception of Israel, Jewish power around the world is held by minority-elites. And for Jews to maintain their supremacism over other nations, they must deactivate nationalism, deracinate native gentile identity, and promote globalism(essentially dominated by Jews and their proxies homosexuals) as the highest good. So, if you're Swedish, put Swedish ethnicity and heritage in the back-burner, and instead, wave the 'rainbow' flag in delirious worship of homos & trannies and, better yet, reject white men and instead offer your wombs to black men and have black babies.(If you refuse, you're a 'nazi' and 'racist'.) To understand this dynamics, look at the fate of George Soros in nations that restored national sovereignty. His power has been reduced or blocked. They've had enough of his penetrative, disruptive, and subversive acts masked by NGO's tagged with bogus labels of 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'human rights'. In fact, it's just globo-oligarchic greed and power-lust hiding behind nice-sounding cliches. Soros has a much easier time gaming and taking over nations without sovereignty and autonomy. But he's pushed back in nations with blood-and-soil defensive nationalism.

Anyway, the irony screams at us. Jews, who'd been most responsible for passing atomic secrets to one of the biggest killers and tyrants of the 20th century(Stalin), are now making the biggest stink about Iran and the Bomb. Also, these very Jews are freaking out about Russia when Russia no longer pushes World Revolution and global domination. Jewish Logic is incredible.
According to Jewish Logic, when Jews gave nuke secrets to Stalin the mass-killer during the height of the Cold War, it was the anti-communists who were extreme, ignorant, rabid, virulent, paranoid, fear-mongering, and crazy. But now, when the Soviet Empire is no more and Russia is ruled by a mild nationalist who upholds national sovereignty as a model for all nations, Jews are flipping out, frothing at the mouth, screaming about Russian hacking & interference, and Russian aggression. Such reaction is supposedly 'rational discourse'.
But where is the evidence of Russian aggression? Did Russia invade Iraq? Did Russia level Libya? Did Russia foment the coup d'etat in Ukraine? (Russia annexed Crimea only in retaliation of US-engineered coup, but then Crimea has historically been part of Russia.) Are Russian tanks encircling the US from Canada and Mexico? It's the US that pushed NATO up to the Russian border and mobilized soldiers and tanks into Poland and Estonia. It's the US that used Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to pull off the coup. It's the US that cooked up lies to destroy Iraq and Libya. It is the US that worked with Saudis and Turks to aid crazy Jihadis against secular Assad who protects Arab Christians in Syria. The saying, "Jew screams in pain as he strikes you" is most apt here.

The real problem for the world is the Axis of Neurosis, mostly Jewish. The world is on the precipice of another war because of Jewish neurosis of globalist domination and hegemony. The notion that each nation should be autonomous and sovereign is anathema to Jews who see gentile nationalism as a barrier to Jewish financial, ideological, and military penetration and takeover. Of course, much of this is done with bribery. With immense wealth, Jews try to bribe the elites of every nation to collaborate with globalism than defend one's own nation. It's no wonder so many nations wave the homo flag. Want a good trade deal with the US? You have to let US imperialists plant the homo victory flag in your country.

It makes no sense for the whole world to revolve around the Axis of Jewish Neurosis that demands that all nations bow down to Jewish supremacist interests over their own national identity and interests. Jews denounce true nationalism as 'blood and soil' so as to associate it with Nazism, but this is disingenuous because the best thing about National Socialism was blood-and-soil nationalism up to 1939, and the WORST thing about Nazism was its imperialist violation of the blood-and-soil of other nations. If National Socialist Germany had been true to the principles of blood-and-soil, it would have united only German peoples in German lands --- just like Israel sought to unite Jews from around the world in Israel.

Nationalism is blood-and-soil. Imperialism is a bloody takeover of other people's soils. It was when Hitler moved into imperialist mode that his project was doomed. His aggression awoke blood-and-soil rage in other nations that refused to live under the German heel. When Bismarck unified Germany, his goal was to forge German peoples in German areas into one nation. He wasn't interested in violating the blood-and-soil of other peoples; he advised the Kaiser against emulating the French and British imperialists in grabbing other parts of the world that belonged to other peoples. If Hitler had kept his nationalism on the Bismarckian level, WWII could have been avoided.

In our world, Russianism means every nation should preserve itself and be itself. It doesn't mean all nations should be like Russia or imitate Russian values. It means, "just as Russia preserves Russian-ness, other nations should preserve their own unique identities and heritages." THIS is what most threatens Jewish globalists because rise of gentile nationalism in each nation means more barriers to Jewish penetration and takeover(not least with the proxies of homosexual globalists who seek to plant the homo-globo victory flag in every nation; also, when homos take over the culture of a nation, they promote the ideal of the pansy-wussy male, which undermines national masculinity that may serve as bulwark against foreign threats. Europe, having been wussified, cannot even defend itself from US bullying and Muslim/African invasions. Jews want it this way).

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

The CHANGELING Syndrome that threatens the West with the Idea that White People are replaceable with Non-Whites

Steve King said the West cannot preserve its cultural legacy with somebody else’s babies or children. Europeans and European-Americans are members of a racial-cultural-historical family. They are unique and not replaceable by other peoples.

King's sentiments are not unlike the dramatic tension in THE CHANGELING, the movie by  J. Michael Straczynski & Clint Eastwood

In that movie, a mother’s child is missing, and he is replaced with another boy who is not her son. She insists the kid isn't hers, and naturally she's unwilling to pretend that her real child has been restored. She can't pretend that this new kid(who is not her real son) is as dear to her as her real child. But the INSTITUTIONS demands that she accept the kid as ‘hers’. If not, she will be deemed sick in the head and treated accordingly.

What we are seeing in the West is CHANGELING on a massive scale. It is mass-replacement of a people with a new one that pretends to be the real thing.

All these non-white invaders are changelings. They are to invade the West and replace Europeans, but Europeans are supposed to welcome and embrace these usurpers as their own, as suitable and even rightful replacements for native Europeans. The ‘new Europeans’.

It’s like the changelings of folklore.

The Changeling Phenomenon is happening both physically and culturally.

So, if a man says he is a woman, he is a ‘she’ who can take the place of a woman on a women's sports team. He is to be regarded as a 'woman' and replace a real woman. If women complain that he is not a real woman, they are denounced as 'intolerant' and 'hateful'.

Even Rachel Dolezal got into the changeling act and pretends to be ‘black’.

Homomania replaced Christianity as a neo-religion or neoligion that's supposed to fill people's hearts with rapture. MLK or Mandela is the replacement for Jesus.

Fantasy is the new reality.

It used to be that reality was the center of life, and fantasy/imagination was appreciated as extra-mental-activity adding color and excitement. But now, fantasy isn’t merely an addition to reality but the changeling to supersede reality itself. So, we are to believe some Meso-American indicted on murder charges is a ‘they’. We are to accept 50 genders(maybe more) as replacement for two sexes. We are to believe the new Russia(that wants peace) is a bigger menace than ever in a New Cold War. We are to believe homosexuality is just as normal and useful as real sexuality.
We are beyond fake news. We live in the world of Fantasy News. When fantasy replaces reality as the fulcrum of culture, we can be led to believe just about anything. A warped habit of mind has a way of corrupting cognition and poisoning perception. Normal cognition feeds on honest perception. It assesses truth based on what is seen, heard, and felt of the real world. But PC injects the cognitive faculty with fantastical notions, and resultant ideological hallucinations distort even honest perceptions that are misread. When cognition is contaminated with the notion that 'gender is fluid', even someone who is obviously a man pretending to be a woman is seen as a real 'woman'.

It used to be we understood the truth of life and how it is created. There is real sexuality, and from that comes life, but there are also organic deviations from the genetic norm, such as homosexuality.
Sane people can accept homosexuality as a minority deviance from real sexuality.
It is an odd branch that sprouts from the tree of real sexuality. But now, we are to believe that this deviant branch is as good or even better than the Core Tree.

Once the Changeling Syndrome takes effect, people get into the habit of believing that anything is replaceable with something else. It’s a habit of mind that trivializes and corrupts everything.

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

Ziad Ahmed wrote 'Black Lives Matter' a 100x times on his application essay and was rewarded with admission to Stanford University. Does this mean the rise of Muslim power in America? Should Jews be worried?
No, Jews need not worry about his ilk since he is a Bangladesh Muslim whose beef is with Hindus than with Jews in the Middle East. He is a Safe Muslim. Even though all Muslims around the world pay lip-service to the plight of Palestinians, non-Arab Muslims really don’t care. (And even most Arabs don't care since the main rift in the Middle East is Sunnis vs Shias than Muslims vs Jews.) Still, a Muslim is a Muslim, and Jews don’t like Muslims.

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

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

Even so, there is no real love for Muslims among Americans, not even among Progs addicted to Virtue Vanity. Muslims are just political-moral pawns(against Trump) for Progs and globalists to play with and feel good about. After all, these Progs said nothing and did nothing while Obama-Hillary team was destroying Libya(with no-fly-zone air war) and Syria(by working with allies to undermine Assad). So much for their ethical concern for Muslim lives.
And this Muslim kid Ziad Ahmed surely has an inkling(even if only subconsciously) of how the political-moral game is played in the West. That is why he ran with BLACK LIVES MATTER than MUSLIM LIVES MATTER(even though countless more Muslim lives have been destroyed by the US war machine than blacks were killed by American Police).

Despite all the PC talk of equality, some groups are more equal than others in Western Political Morality. Notice how Mandela the Negro is revered while Arafat the Palestinian has been disappeared down the memory hole in the West. (Also, notice how Israel touts the memory of Mandela, as if to own him, when it was the main ally of apartheid South Africa and practices apartheid against Palestinians in the West Bank.)
Certain groups are designated as holier by the sacraments of PC. So, to gain political advantage in the US, you need ethno-consecration by association with holy groups IF your own group is deemed unholy, uncool, or unimportant.
If you’re black, Jew, or homo, you are holy and justified just for being what you are.
But most racial/ethnic/cultural/religious groups mean little or nothing in America. So, for them to gain righteousness, they must associate themselves with one of the holies. Their own group must be presented as being in good graces with one of the holies, or their own cause/interest must be shown to reflect or further the causes/interests associated with the holies. (So, Ziad Ahmed went with BLACK LIVES MATTER than SAVE CHRISTIAN ARABS FROM US IMPERIALISM.)  Trump  also did this by hugging blacks and flattering homos as people he cares about especially. He said he wants to vet Muslims to protect homos, a holy people. He said he wants to limit immigration to help them Negroes in Detroit(who are being out-competed). And of course, Iran must be destroyed to save those poor poor Jews in Israel.

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

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

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Libertarianism vs Nationalism. Why Nationalism is the Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Left has done itself no favors with this brand of socialism. It always gives useless or even destructive advice to the people it purports to help because of its dogmatic sentimentality about the poor, the minorities, or the 'wretched of the earth'. So, if blacks riot and burn down a city, the Left just sees blacks as noble and justified. So, if a bunch of Muslims leave their own nations to seek better material lives by illegally barging into the West, they are to be coddled as the 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' instead of as craven opportunists.
Imagine a parent who never straightens out his children but always makes excuses for them. Imagine a teacher who never accuses his student for bad behavior but only makes excuses as if it's never the student's fault. There can be no progress, no improvement, and no rectitude with such attitude. This is why leftism has been such a catastrophe. The problem is not its concern for fellow man(who may be down and out) but the lack of courage to be critical of those in need of help. Even if a people are with privilege or less advantage, they must be judged and corrected when they do wrong. It's like Moses sometimes had to be tough with his people even if they were a sorry desperate lot.

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

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

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

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

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

There's a scene in SANDS OF IWO JIMA where a soldier goes on break. He's supposed to return quickly and aid his company, but he prolongs his recess to take it easy. As the result, his fellow soldiers end up getting killed because of his absence. He is overcome with shame and guilt. His extended break proved negligent and led to the death of his compatriots.
The Jewish Nationalist feels in a similar way in relation to other Jews. He feels that all Jews should care about one another. This doesn't mean that some Jews should work so that others can freeload off them. Such dependence would be parasitic and opportunistic. No, his ideal is for a kind of interdependence whereby, despite every Jew's effort to gain success on his own, he would be mindful of what's happening with the worldwide Jewish community. So, if some Jews are seriously hurting in some part of the world, other Jews should feel obligated to do something, like when American Jews lent a hand to Soviet Jews. Such compassion may be tribal than universal, but universalism is too generic for meaningful emotions. After all, it's impossible for anyone to care about all the families around the world. Naturally, one cares more for one's own family. Trying to help or save all the peoples around the world would be impossible. Besides, universalists only force themselves into pretending to care about other groups as for one's own. 20th century was filled with lots of horrors, but Jews have been fixated on the Holocaust. Why? Would Jews have cared so much if it had been directed only at Polish Catholics and not Jews? It's only natural that Jews would care more about fellow Jews.

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

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

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

Likewise, all nations have more to gain by maintaining their own peoples, cultures, histories, and territories. Let the French preserve what is French in France. Let Cameroonians preserve what is Cameroonian in Cameroon, and let Algerians preserve what is Algerian in Algeria. Let different specialize in their own ethnicity, territory, history, and narrative. And once each nation is preserved in such manner, the world can share and exchange each other's ideas, stories, achievements, and etc... just like various departments in colleges can share its general knowledge with other departments that specialize in their own disciplines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This must all change.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

It's best to see Proglodytes as Demon-Possessed. Talk to the Devil, not to its minions.

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Globalism and the Revenge of Neo-Nomadism

Mankind is constantly at war with nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Esau-ians are not to be confused with Mercurians, even though the latter often champion the former in reckless virtue-signaling manner. Mercurians are elites and relatively small in number. They facilitate business all around the world and are most necessary. So, if a bunch of German executives travel to Paris, London, Hong Kong, New York, and etc., they are just doing business. It's like Japanese companies send their agents and representatives all over the world. Also, Mercurians move around the world with specific purposes. A German company will send its workers to Saudi Arabia to finish a project. It's like Burt Lancaster sent some guy to Scotland for a possible deal in LOCAL HERO.
In contrast, Esau-ians move around not as purposeful individuals but parasitic populations... like the gypsies, the locusts among people. A group of German engineers or Japanese negotiators outside their own nations cannot take over another nation. But tons of Mexicans and Central Americans have taken over entire swaths of Southwest America. African migrants have taken over entire areas of Marseilles France. And these Esau-marauders or Esauders come with no purpose but to leech off green pastures. They have no specific skills or vision. They just come to take advantage of richer areas. Their mode of behavior is closer to wild nature than civilized norms. Because the current PC has done so much to subvert the validity of identity and territoriality, the Jacob-ian worlds are once again being invaded by Esau-ian peoples, a phenomenon that was thought to have have passed into dustbin of history forever. It's coming back like some disease that was once thought be stamped out forever, at least in the advanced world. (To be sure, some people are waking up and embracing nationalism. Nationalism is the necessary bacteria --- there are good bacteria and bad bacteria for humans --- for the survival of civilization, but globalism keeps coming up with new strains of PC antibiotics to kill his beneficial form of bacteria while the nasty bad ones keep multiplying. Hopefully, the lactobacillus of European nationalism can develop immunity against PC eventually, and then no newer strain of PC antiobiotic will be effective.) Today, the Jacob-ian worlds have all the technologies at their disposable to keep out the Esua-ian marauders if they chose to, but their minds have been psycolonized by deadly PC that paralyzes their defensivist mechanisms of human nature are supposed to carry out necessary inspections and maintenance of the system to ensure survival of the realm. Without such mechanisms, cracks develop in the system and foreign elements begin to creep in in ever greater numbers. It's like a house that isn't properly maintained has more to fear from moisture, mold, ants, bugs, mice, and etc than from a wrecking ball. It's death by a thousand cuts. It's like a boxer with no defenses will lose even to a weak boxer. Even if there is no KO-magnitude punch, the constant barrages of jabs and punches will wear down the boxer. EU is alert to the danger of KO from Russia but willfullly blind to endless jabs from the Esau-ian Third World that are really wearing down Europe and turning it into hell. It fears the Czar's sword when it's really dying by 1000 cuts.

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