Colin Flaherty did great work in reporting on the epidemic of black crime, but alas, he was just another useless ‘boomer’. He would usually ban any commenter on the Jewish Question or denounce anyone as ‘Anti-Semite’ who noticed the obvious. His page on minds.com was especially censorious.
Stuff like BLM(or Black Lives Matter) isn’t really about blacks. It’s about whites. Jews don’t care about black lives, anymore than they care about Palestinian or Iranian or Russian lives. Indeed, if the world had no white people, would Jews push BLM? Of course not.
It really boils down to the formula: Black Lives Matter = White Obedience Matters. Or, BLM = WOM.
White Obedience Matters to what or whom? To Jewish Supremacist Power. How can Jews maintain White Obedience? By White Guilt and White Shame, which fosters to White Submission and White Hope for Redemption.
Jews used the Holocaust Card, and it’s been very effective in Europe but less so in the US with its triumphalist pride of ‘We beat the Nazis!’ So, against white Americans, Jews use the Black Card. Again, it’s not because Jews care about black lives. Jews promoted gangster rap that encouraged violence in the black community, leading to more deaths. Jews pushed all manner of social licentiousness that led to family break down, which has been especially devastating to blacks. Also, it was Jewish Power decided to lock up record number of blacks beginning with Bill Clinton when 'inner-city' pathologies were threatening to undermine big cities and boost support for White Conservatism.
BLM is really just a tool directed at whites because Jews fear worsening conditions will begin to awaken white consciousness in search of autonomy from Jewish Authority. Jews fear white awakening like Catholic Church feared the rise of Protestantism, like the British Empire feared the awakening of Indian National Independence Movement.
Jews have been disadvantaged in Russia because they don’t have something comparable to guilt-bait Russians with. Sure, there’s the thing about pogroms, but Russians can fire back and point to Jewish role in communism that killed many more lives. Besides, Russians were the main destroyers of Nazi Germany. So, if anything, Jews owe the Russians. And besides, Russians remember what was done to their country in the 1990s by Jewish 'oligarchs'. (Furthermore, as Russian sports and popular culture are dominated by national folks, Russians are less enamored of the Other as 'heroes' and 'idols', whereas white Americans have come to idolize blackness in sports and music. No wonder then that Jews can manipulate white feelings about blacks.)
At any rate, Jewish Power ultimately depends on control of White Americans. Jews feel they must control the gods that decide what is sacred or profane in the US. This is absolutely crucial because it’s the sacraments and taboos that decide the character of a civilization. Power and wealth aren’t enough. After all, we can badmouth Bill Gates even though he’s super-rich. We can insult Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. We can also put down Mark Zuckerberg as a billionaire geek but never ever as a, guess what? A Jew!
So, being rich isn’t sacred in the West. Wealth can be attacked, and rich people can be mocked. But being Jewish is sacred. Indeed, putting down a super-rich oligarch is less dangerous than putting down a Jewish plumber. If a politician impugned a super-rich hedge-fund shark or Big Tech oligeek as a greedy a-hole, his career will remain intact. But if he muttered something negative about the ethnic traits of a Jewish non-entity, he would be in Big Trouble. It’s like the FBI and Justice Department can go after someone for being rich and corrupt but better not touch anyone or anything associated with Jewishness. So, Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted of sex charges but shhhhhhh about her Israeli-Jewish connections.
Jewishness is like the Kim Clan in North Korea. As long as Jews control the gods in the West, Jewishness is sacrosanct. And in order to control and subdue whites, Jews also made blackness sacrosanct. Again, it’s not because Jews care about blacks but because they see the advantage of using blackness to milk ‘white guilt’. BLM is really about controlling whites. Because blackness has been sacralized, the death of some lowlife black punk like George Floyd or Arbery gets more attention than the deaths of affluent non-blacks murdered by black criminals.
If Jews care so much about human lives, why hasn’t there ever been a Palestinian Lives Matter campaign?
If Jews talk of Jews and blacks uniting against whites, isn’t it about time whites talked of whites and blacks(or any bunch of goyim) uniting against Jews? But, as Jews control the gods, that would be ‘antisemitic’ because Jewishness is inviolably holy. Jews can put down whites and whiteness, but no one better put down Jewishness. Jews can recycle so many anti-goy tropes of rednecks, ‘racists’, Christ-tards, and etc., but woe to anyone who dares say anything suggestive of ‘antisemitism’.
Who controls the gods is of utmost importance. Consider: In the Jewish community, you could badmouth Jesus all you wanted because He wasn’t holy among the Jews. If anything, He was much reviled and it was even obligatory to demonize him. But among Christians, Jesus was the holiest of the holy. Now, how could Jesus, a Jew who was killed long ago, exert such power over the Christian West? Why did even kings and generals bow down before Him? How come anyone could be burned at the stake or tortured horribly for having blasphemed the name of Jesus? Jesus, while alive, had no worldly power and was humiliated in the worst possible way before being put to death. Yet, He came to reign over the West as the King of kings. Why? Because He was worshiped as God.
Secularism turned out to be a fraud in most cases because so-called secularists merely sought out new gods. So, Stephen King put down the Bible and Old Religion but worshiped at the feet of some Magic Negro/Negress of his befouled imagination. MATRIX also sacralized Negroes as holy, as founts of spirituality and wisdom. All those ‘well-educated’ whites who never go to church will get all weepy at the thought of St. George Floyd and volunteer to wash stinky Negro feet. They will look upon Anne Frank as the new madonna. It’s all so tiresome.
At any rate, the human mind shall always remain ‘spiritual’, and this is why it’s of utmost concern as to who controls the gods. Jews present themselves as secular and ‘liberal’, but they are really neo-theologians and propped up ‘wokeness’ as the new faith. And BLM, along with globo-homo, is meant to be the new faith for goyim. Jewish message to all goyim is “Worship blacks and homos(whom we control and fund) above everything, even your own kind.” And it’s especially directed at whites as Jewish Power relies on white obeisance.
So, next time BLM is promoted, remember that it’s really WOM or White Obedience Matters.
BLM = WOM.
The history of India illustrates how crucial it is to control the gods. The Ancient Aryans who invaded India made sure they controlled the gods. They made themselves the Brahmins, the elite spiritual caste to revered and consulted by the rest. Thus, their authority over the brown natives wasn’t merely military, economic, or political but spiritual. Likewise, the Spanish remained as overlords in Latin America because they converted the brown natives to Catholicism. The browns came to worship the God brought to them by whites, who also dominated the clergy.
In contrast, the British ruled over India with political, economic, and military might. Spiritually, the British allowed for Hindus to remain Hindu and for Muslims to remain Muslim. So, while the natives admired and feared the British for worldly/material reasons, they didn’t look to the British as holy. Unlike the Ancient Aryans, the British didn’t make their authority SACRED in the eyes of the natives. And so, it was only a matter of time before they were expelled.
This is why Jews are so eager to control the gods, to weaken white identity and undermine Christianity. They must colonize the SOULS of goyim, especially of whites.
In Soviet Russia, Jews went about wrecking churches. In the US, Jews destroy Christianity by rotting its soul with BLM and globo-homo, whereby the faith is associated with worship of punkass Floyd and reverence for homo bung-donging. Any religion that goes that way becomes soul-dead. A religion losing its soul is worse than losing its body. After all, Jesus was killed in body but not in soul. Soviet Russia killed Christianity in body but not in soul. But under Jewish control, Christianity is turning into cucktianity where the new clergy put on globo-homo garb and praise trannies who cut their dicks off.
Jews seek to spiritually colonize white souls with globo-homo and BLM. And what’s truly shocking is how many whites fell for this. It goes to show that White Individualism was largely a myth. Whites were mostly conformist and obedient. Individualism only mattered at the top among the talented and creative. Most whites were suckers and schmucks. Just look at the Covid hysteria, especially among Anglos. What a bunch of cuck-tard conformists.
US is a ‘liberal democracy’ in name only. It’s a mere shell. At its core, it’s an Ethno-Oligarchy. Even if we can’t do anything about Jewish supremacist power(for the time being), we need to see it for what it is. US is a Jewish Ethno-Oligarchy, an empire of lies. And despite all the Jewish-fomented crises since 2000, things will only get worse unless the Jewish Power is named and outed for what it is. The key motivating factor behind so many recent disasters was insatiable Jewish Supremacist greed and ethno-mania. Jewish Power will never stop unless it is called out for what it really is.
If Jews bitch about ‘antisemitism’, it needs to be pointed out that their behavior gives most credence to ‘Anti-Semitic’ tropes. With so many lies spread by Jewish Power, it’s only a matter of time before people begin to question the Holocaust. If Jews lie so brazenly about so much, who's to say they didn't lie about the Shoah as well? Should we trust Jews on history when they pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax, Covid Hysteria, and BLM bullshit?
Finally forced myself to see the whole thing. Not my cup of tea but I can see the attraction and understand its high esteem among film lovers. Martin Scorsese for one always lists it in his top five or ten of the greatest films.
A happy ending seems, however, to be in the offing until the screenwriter contrives a perversely tragic finale in which Vicky Page dies. Both Lermontov and Craster live on, but they are utterly destroyed as human beings.
Not true. As RED SHOES the movie is based on a tragic tale by Hans Christian Andersen, it was designed to end madly; 'Red Shoes' story serves as a darkly romantic metaphor for art as tragedy(and transcendence). RED SHOES isn't just about the people involved in the production of the ballet but how its tragic themes leap out into life itself. At the end, Craster is certainly heartbroken, but Lermontov, though shaken and saddened, triumphs in a way in the creation, both inadvertent and destined, of the ultimate dancer. It's like the jump-to-the-death by the priest in THE EXORCIST signifies both death and victory. RED SHOE's ending isn't 'contrived' in the conventional sense of the term: implausible, arbitrary, ludicrous, overly clever, gratuitous, etc. Rather, it's a necessary coda within a story idea that is itself one big contrivance: The Tale of Red Shoes as story, as performance, and ultimately as life itself. It has to be appreciated like Alfred Hitchcock's VERTIGO where every character operates within a logical construct of doomed love and tragedy. In such stories, characters live out their fates without any recourse to free will.
(RED SHOES) actually puts ballet on the screen, most spectacularly in the form of a 17-minute original ballet based on Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale “The Red Shoes,”
It is impressive but also full of gimcrackery. It's fancy high-toned kitsch but kitsch just the same. Garishly arty and overdone with razzle-dazzle, rather like the later films of Federico Fellini. It's all too much. Also, Powell lacked the subliminal savvy of someone like Orson Welles whose images slipped through sensory crevices. The deft Welles was always two or three steps ahead of the viewer. With every stroke, he drew us into his hall of mirrors that reflected both classic order and cubist incongruities. In contrast, Powell was nothing if not obvious, and every trick is right in front of us, plain and simple. For all the complexity of production, the effect is rather crude, like a more elaborate version of the cinema of Jean Cocteau whose trickery was merely updated version of outdated silent cinema techniques.
The dance would have been so much more effective if Powell had relied solely on editing, lighting, sound, and pacing to convey mood shifts between art and reality. That truly would have been dreamlike and hypnotic, weaving a new way of seeing. But the bag-of-tricks-photography is so glaring at all times that it feels more like pictures in a gallery than a flow of imagery. A more effective use of cinema would have sensorially drawn us in than made us all too keenly aware of what's on the screen. It remains apart, in front of us than enveloping us. How more artful it would have been if Powell moved between reality and fantasy without laying so obviously bare the shifts. Then, we would have been lulled INTO the dance than merely looking AT it. It would have been magical than mechanical, evocation than affectation.
No doubt a great deal of care and preparation went into the much celebrated dance sequence, but it isn't quite cinematic. The overall effect is superficial than substantive because it amounts to glittery trickery than wholeness of visioin. It's like playing with fonts than with words. While pretty fonts are nice in poetry, the decisive factor is the use of words to conjure imagery and moods. Mastery of words than their stylized presentation on the page(as font) is the real heart of poetry.
The heart of cinema is composition, movement, and editing(montage). And even though Michael Powell knew the language of cinema, he had a tendency to fall back on trickery and superficial effects that cheapened his works — the kind of tricks that got tiresome already in the era of George Melies. In the case of A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, the effects were soon badly dated and now seem gauche. The effects in RED SHOES fare better but are still register as effects, over-done, imposed, and at odds to the trance-like aspects of the dance number. The tricks are so obviously tricks(no matter how well-crafted) that they keep reminding us that it's a bag of tricks than a call to magic. They amount to fonts than the grammar of cinema.
The Red Shoes is about the relationship between art and life. Early in the film, they are likened to one another, because they are both compulsions:
Lermontov: Why do you want to dance?
Vicky: Why do you want to live?
Lermontov: Well, I don’t know exactly why, but I must.
Vicky: That’s my answer too.
Not exactly because Vicky and Lermontov see life differently. Vicky doesn't see dancing nor life as compulsions. She sees them as natural. She's happy to be alive, and she's happy to dance. She dances for joy. She dances when she wants to. It gives her pleasure. Dancing is something she's willing to give up if she tires of it and finds joy in something else. For her to say that dance is like life means it's good to be natural. It's like animals run around because it comes naturally to them. They don't run to win races or to be the fastest animal. Even though Vicky isn't without ambition and hunger for fame, she dances for joy and pleasure. It is a natural extension of her view of life. For her, life and art/dance are not in conflict. This accounts for the misunderstanding between Vicky and Lermontov.
To Lermontov, art isn't merely like life or its extension. After all, most of life is routine and humdrum. One must do what one must to live: Eat, sleep, work, and etc. Life as necessity is about going through the motions, true regardless of whether one is genius or idiot, king or serf. At any rate, art isn't necessary to life. One could live without reading a serious book or watching a single ballet and live to a ripe old age. Indeed, many people with no interest in the arts lead pretty good and happy lives, which is the story of most of humanity. So, whereas life is about necessity, art is about obsession with the unnecessary.
For Vicky, dance is an extension of her view of life: pursuit of happiness. She came to love dance, and she sees dance as an expression of her joy. So, dance need not be a compulsion with her. But for Lermontov, art/dance is a pursuit of perfection even if it means agony and torment. It must be pursued to the very end. He is the dark and extreme side of the Red Shoes as metaphor, which represents both the joy of dance(as favored by Vicky) and complete intoxication(as envisioned by Lermontov). Same goes for sports. Most people play sports for recreation and fun. It's an extension of our natural need to run around and play. For most people, sports is merely a part of their life. But for those who seek to excel in sports and possibly be the very best, sports becomes life itself. It becomes all-consuming, even to the point of self-destruction, as when any boxer steps into the ring. This is also true of spirituality. For most people, a bit of piety is enough. But what differentiates the saint is the willingness to devote one's life entirely to God. No wonder Martin Scorsese loves RED SHOES. It can seen as yet another false-messiah parable paralleling the life and death of Jesus who went all the way.
Anyway, there is a misunderstanding between Vicky and Lermontov. When Vicky says she dances for the same reason Lermontov lives, she assumes he is like herself. Vicky is naturally a light-hearted person. She feels joy in life itself. She would have been happy even if she'd never come upon dance. In her mind, life and dance are one and the same, an expression of joy. In contrast, Lermontov seems to find little joy or zest in life itself. He lives not for life but for art, for ballet. Without that, he would find life gloomy, absurd, and meaningless. For him, life is fallen and pointless, a world inhabited by no-talents and idiots. It is through art that human ability rises above commonness and reaches for the summit of beauty and sublimity. For Vicky dance reveals life, whereas for Lermontov dance redeems life. One might say Vicky's view is more pagan, more in tune with the natural way of things, whereas Lermontov's perspective is christo-homo, i.e. nature/reality is ugly, plain, loathsome, and dull EXCEPT when elevated toward transcendence and redeemed.
Lermontov is apprehensive about affection between lovers because everything becomes soft and fuzzy between them. It weakens the sharpness and takes away the edge. He watches with an eagle's eye as his only love is perfection. In contrast, human love means unconditional acceptance of someone despite his or her flaws. So, when Craster and Vicky fall in love, they become indulgent of one another. Craster can love Vicky the imperfect dancer, and Vicky can love Craster the flawed composer. Love, in all its mushiness and forgiveness, fills in the gaps. Lermontov, whose vision remains unclouded by lovey-dovey, can see with clarity what is necessary for perfection. Purely from an artistic vantage point, Lermontov is correct that the three had an ideal set-up before the love happened. Craster devoted himself to composing, Vicky devoted herself to dancing, and Lermontov had his eyes on the prize. It was a perfect triangle, but love got in the way. It's sort of like Merlin in EXCALIBUR sensing that love will bring it all to ruins among Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. (And it's Noodle's sentimentality that fogs his vision of what Max and Debra are really after in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.)
Part of life is love, marriage, and family. Lermontov is particularly dismissive of ballerinas who allow these considerations to interfere with their art. First, it leads him to dismiss his prima ballerina Irina Boronskaja
This is only partly true as it's not a general principle with Lermontov. He knows very well that most ballerinas in his troupe will not reach greatness. They will merely be adequate, and it's doubtful that he would have fired any of them for getting married. Indeed, he doesn't expect much from most people in the business. But he has the dream of creating the ultimate dancer, and SHE must be totally devoted to the art. Thus, Lermontov has a double-take on creativity. At the basic level, art has its conventions and role in society. It is entertainment and business. But at the highest level, it is for the few who can break through the barrier of conventionality. As a businessman, he's content with the basic art that brings in the paying customers. But as a visionary, he must have total devotion from the chosen few.
It is tempting to believe that Lermontov was acting out of sexual jealously. His body language with Vicky in one scene is quite intimate... Craster accuses Lermontov of jealousy. He agrees, but says it is not sexual. He may be telling the truth.
It's obvious Lermontov is a toot, especially when he dons those 'gay'-looking sunglasses. In a way, his personage is instructive as to why homos gained such power and leverage in society. Unlike straight people whose careers and pursuits become weighed down by marriage and children, homos (especially back then when it was scandalous to be outed) were always working. Homos put in more hours because they had fewer conventional burdens of family life and sentimental attachments. Of course, today some homos do get 'married' and have semblance of 'family life' with adopted children, and homosexuality is even associated with 'pride', but in the setting of the movie, homos would mostly have been secretive figures. Also, because homosexuality was regarded as a perversion, sickness, or sin, even most homos grew up with a degree of self-disgust, doubt, and anxiety for having particular peccadillos. Lermontov certainly isn't a 'pride-homo'. His sexuality is thus repressed. So, it's true that Lermontov is jealous but not in a sexual way. He jealously wants to pull Vicky into his orbit so he could fulfill his dream of turning her into a total work of art. For Lermontov, whose repressed homosexuality has been channeled into total devotion to art-as-religion, it is sacrilege to allow Vicky to remain merely human in the fleshly role of wife and mother. Only through art can she reach the 'spiritual' level of transcendence. Such jealousy also crops up in Chen Kaige's film FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE. The Leslie Cheung character, being homo, does feel sexual attraction to his male performer-partner, but the jealousy goes beyond that. He wants both of them to belong totally in the realm of art(the Chinese Opera). It seems like a waste for his partner to get married to some harlot and fritter his talent away as a hubber. Lermontov resembles another character, the old man in Otto Preminger's LAURA, who is so taken with Laura's beauty that he wants to construct her into an ideal and loathes the notion of any lowlife male coming near her. Another character that comes to mind is Kirk Douglas's role in THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL where Douglas plays a S.O.B. but also an indispensable one-of-a-kind personality with the magic touch.
In a way, RED SHOES offers a glimpse into the homo-god-complex. Homos have traditionally been more into art(ifice), design, and fantasy because they were denied(and rejected) the humdrum conventionality of conjugal bliss. On the one hand, they didn't want to get married and do the normal things. On the other hand, society would have punished them(or even executed them) for acting all 'gay' and indulging in sodomy. So, homos created an alternative universe in art, decor, fantasy, so much so that it caught the eye of the privileged aristocrats who came to patronize homo creativity. In a way, Lermontov is to Vicky what God is to Jesus. Lermontov's god-complex wants Vicky to forsake human life and totally commit to art and beauty... even if it means madness. Life is about growing old and dying. Art is forever and eternal. Likewise, in Martin Scorsese's adaptation of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, there is a part of Jesus that wants to be normal and live as a real man and experience intimate joys. He wants a wife, family, and children. He wants to grow old and see his grand-children. But God has other plans for him. He must forsake what is human to reach a higher plane. He must become the messiah, which entails pursuing spiritual truth to the end, even if it means crucifixion, humiliation by the mob, and agony of death. Only thus could he reach immortality. And in RAGING BULL, there is much about how a true boxer must repress his sexual pangs before the bout to be strong and focused in the ring. Scorsese the renegade Catholic surely drew parallels between RED SHOES and the Christ tale. Though fascinated by these parallels, he believes there is only one true Messiah, and the rest are false messiahs as their pursuits, however amazing or inspiring, are expressions of vanity, sensuality, power-lust, or egotism than of the deepest wells of the soul.
In another brilliant, brooding scene, Lermontov comes to the realization that he has been a fool. Then Lermontov decides to approach Boronskaja, who is still happily married, and lure her back on stage. Boris has obviously concluded that art and life—in particular, married life—need not conflict. A year later, he manages to lure Vicky back on stage to dance The Red Shoes again.
That's a misreading. Lermontov never feels he was wrong. Luring back Irina was essentially a business matter. After all, he can be practical and diplomatic. With Vicky gone and his dream turned to dust, he needed someone for his company, and Irina just happens to be the one, and he had to make do. He knows the show must go on. He has to pull in the audience, make money, and pay the bills. But if he was truly content with Irina, he would not have gone out of his way to reconnect with Vicky. She is the key to his ultimate dream. He's had many successes, but he never created the perfect dancer, and he feels it in his bones that it must be her. Indeed, he recruits her not merely to perform RED SHOES but to persuade her to leave her life behind and commit totally to dance. He means to drive a wedge between Vicky and her husband Craster.
Then Emeric Pressburger’s script goes seriously off the rails.... Fixated on contriving an ending that is both gruesome and unhappy, Pressburger simply forgets about Lermontov’s character development toward accepting that his ballerinas can have private lives. He also turns Julian Craster into a petty, jealous villain—something not foreshadowed in the least. Then they drive Vicky to suicide.
This is totally wrong. First of all, the story is not a realistic portrait of people in ballet. Rather, it's been specifically constructed so that life imitates art. The story of Red Shoes must be lived out by the particulars in 'real life'. Its ending was fated to be tragic. It's almost as if their reality becomes possessed by the fantasy.
Also, there was no character development in Lermontov toward accepting the 'private life' of Vicky. Rather, Jekyll-and-Hyde-like, he can shift back-and-forth between art and business. When he re-hired Irina, it was the business side of him in action. It's the same with priests. At times, they must be political and pragmatic, even shake shady hands and take money from questionable sources. But before God, they must be pure. Likewise, while the business-side of Lermontov could seem agreeable and compromising, he never abandoned the 'religious' side of his devotion to ballet. His intention wasn't merely to hire the married Vicky to dance Red Shoes again but to ultimately wrest her from Craster and make her devote her life 100% to art.
Also, Craster doesn't come across as a petty jealous villain. His emotions are utterly understandable. He senses correctly as to what Lermontov is really up to. If anything, Lermontov comes across as the calculating villain(yet a sort-of-noble one because his vision is genuine). Craster rightfully fears that he may lose Vicky to Lermontov for good. Also, she is absent on the very day of the premiere of his opera. It is a big day for him, and he naturally wanted his wife to be with him as partner and support. In a way, both men are possessive of her in different ways. With Vicky as wife, she will play a supportive role to Craster as the artist. Her dancing will merely be a hobby, something on the side. In contrast, with Lermontov she can reach the height of her profession and win acclaim in her own right. But she will have to give herself totally to Lermontov. He will possess her like the red shoes possesses the dancer in the Hans Christian tale. Dance as celebration will have to give to dance as tribulation. The shoes will become her cross to bear.
The fact that Vicky feels guilt in Craster's presence is proof that he isn't a villain, at least not in our eyes. In Lermontov's eyes, yes, but the full extent of Lermontov's deception emerges in Craster's presence. Earlier, he enticed Vicky as if he'd mellowed since their breakup, but he spells it all out when Craster pleads with her to return home with him. Lermontov admits it was his plan to come between them and pull Vicky totally into the dance world. The fact that Craster accepts this and walks away makes him a sad sympathetic figure than a villainous one overcome with petty jealousy. It's doubly sad for him because the movie began with his discovery that the man he admired had plagiarized his work. Once again, something of his is taken from him. In both cases, he is resigned to lose.
The whole setup is absurd. Vicky has come to Monte Carlo on vacation. On the spur of the moment, she agrees to dance The Red Shoes again. We are asked to believe that Craster’s new opera is to premiere in London the same day that Vicky dances The Red Shoes again in Monte Carlo. Why was Vicky in Monte Carlo on her husband’s big night?
Actually, it wasn't on the spur of the moment. In the back of her mind, there was always a wish to return to the stage. Despite severed ties, there was always a thread connecting Lermontov and Vicky. He wanted her back, and she wanted to be back. So, while ostensibly it seemed like a spontaneous decision, dance was always something she wanted to do and regretted walking away from, at least in part. She genuinely chose Craster out of love but also gave up something she loved. Lermontov queries as to whether she kept her body in shape and senses in her affirmative that she'd always wanted to return to ballet in a big way.
Now, did Vicky arrive in Monte Carlo ON THE DAY of her husband's opera debut? Isn't it more likely that she arrived some days earlier and planned to return before the opera date but chose to remain and dance the Red Shoes? And it was her failure to return before the opera that spurred Craster to make his own journey to confront Vicky, whom he rightly senses has been drawn into Lermontov's web?
Indeed, when Lermontov and Vicky met in the train, Vicky says the opera is only in rehearsal, and Lermontov tells her that he is PREPARING a ballet. There's no indication that both the ballet and opera will be performed on that very day. It's my understanding that the performances will take place about a week or two AFTER Lermontov and Vicky meet on the train. The reason why Craster appears so distraught is because he's been (1) worried sick and (2) surmised, correctly, that Lermontov somehow got his meat-hooks into her. He calls Lermontov jealous, but he too is jealous. Even if he knows Lermontov may be a tooty-toot after all and has no sexual interest in her, he knows she is drawn to his artistic gravity. With him, she is a wife, a mere partner and fan. But with Lermontov, she can be the star, and no one gets more love than the star in the performing arts. Lermontov, though a person of artistic sensibility, is essentially a manager, not a creator in his own right. In that, he is a bit parasitic of everyone, though he can be said to be as selfless as selfish. He's selfish in demanding that others bend to his will yet selfless in total devotion to ballet and in wanting the best of his star performers. Craster as composer can be considered a star in his own right, but a composer doesn't take the stage. It is the dancer, and Vicky-as-star is something that only Lermontov can offer. Vicky feels guilt as a wife who isn't there beside her husband in his moment of glory, but Craster feels guilt as a husband who took her chance at stardom away from his wife. As in STAR IS BORN, love-and-art is complicated.
Then Vicky, who is trying on the red shoes for that night’s performance, goes mad and hurls herself off a balcony, then gets hit by a train. The train seems like overkill, but there’s still enough life in her to beg a distraught Julian—who just happened to see her plunge to her death, even though it would have been impossible from his vantage point—to take off the red shoes. I can’t think of a more arbitrary, ramshackle, and dissatisfying end to an otherwise great movie. It is a testimony to just how good the rest of the film is that viewers put up with it.
I'm assuming she didn't fall on the railroad tracks and was run over by the train. Rather, it seems she fell ON the moving train. Now, if she'd landed on the tracks and her legs were cut off by steel wheels, it would have more or less duplicated the grisly details in the original Hans Christian Andersen tale. But too gory for cinema, especially at the time.
Is the train overkill? Maybe, but everything in the movie is overkill, which was either Powell's strength or weakness(depending on one's taste). And yet, given the train's motif in the movie, it sort of makes sense. It was at the train station that Lermontov bid adieu to Irina. It was on the train that Lermontov and Vicky met again. Train represents both separation and union, the transience of life. Indeed, Lermontov is very much a man without a country. Though Russian in origin, he moves from place to place like a high-class gypsy.
Did Craster actually see her plunge from the balcony or did he turn his head because of the commotion of the crowd?
How is the ending arbitrary? Vicky's death and the removal of the red shoes evoke Andersen's tale. It makes total sense within the concept. Also, her death is not the final scene of the movie. The final scene is Lermontov announcing Vicky's death to the audience and the performance of RED SHOES going on without her... or with her in spirit. In that sense, Lermontov finally got what he really wanted. He turned Vicky into a spirit. It's like Jesus died on the Cross and was resurrected as Spirit with eternal life. Indeed, even had Vicky become the dancer of Lermontov's dreams, she would eventually have aged and slowed down with injuries. Even as the best dancer, her flesh and bones would have grown weak. She would have faded. But as a spirit, she is young forever and forever tireless.
Also, the manner of her death suggests she didn't merely perform the Red Shoes but lived and died it(and transcended it). Like the heroine in the tale, she was torn between the need to dance and the wish to return to reality. The pull from both sides was so overpowering that the only solution was a kind of heightened death. It's like the Christ story. Jesus on the Cross felt all the pain of the human flesh, and He also reached out to Heaven. At that moment, He was neither just a man or just God. He was in that limbo world, the between world, and He had to die to finally cross into the spirit realm. It's tragic but also triumphant. And the same goes for the ending of RED SHOES. In a way, Vicky's real role of the Red Shoes was not on the stage as a dancer. Rather, it was her struggle between personal attachment and artistic vanity; and to play this drama to the very end, she had to end like the heroine in the story. She had to take an inspired leap from art into reality, and what is more real than a moving train? And finally, the shoes could be taken off. And yet, her death has released her spirit that can forever dance the Red Shoes.
But above all, I love The Red Shoes as a portrayal of the world of European high culture: an aristocratic, inegalitarian world devoted to the pursuit of beauty and excellence—a world whose basic principles contradict those of democracy and mass commercial entertainment.
But don't you like STAR WARS and TV shows and lots of commercial entertainment? Also, Lermontov is aristocratic-like only in part. His nomadism suggests a gypsy-like existence. He's a hustler and businessman as well as artiste and connoisseur. All said and done, his is a business enterprise.
By the way, aristocrats were mostly dummies, hardly different from today's elites. Few created art of their own and relied on others to tell them what was hot and what was not. Most imitated the ludicrous fashions coming out of French courts, with powdered wigs, face paint, and snuff. And oh those pansy-ass dresses. Just imagine. Noblemen started out as warriors. Tough hardy men. But they amassed fortunes and got used to privilege, and their children were raised spoiled with luxury. They became obsessed with status and conformed to whatever was put before them as the latest thing. No wonder so much of aristocratic culture became 'gay' and whoopity-poo. Homos came up with all these candy-ass dresses, wigs, and make-up and whispered into idiot aristocratic ears that it was so fancy-poo to dress like fairies and strut around like girly men and speak in high-toned accents(which made British English so 'gay' sounding). This is why it's refreshing to see semi-barbarian elites of the Russian court in IVAN THE TERRIBLE. Them fellers have yet to put on pansy airs... like the Westernized Polish court in the opening of IVAN THE TERRIBLE Part 2.
Get a load of the tooty-ass Polack on the throne in this scene:
As if the culture of the Western aristocratic elites weren't tooty enough, we now have globo-homo fruits running all the culture and making 'gay' crap compulsory. This is why I can't get into ballet. Sure, it's a great work of art and a beautiful dance form... but it's also so 'gaaaaaay'. I prefer folk culture to aristo culture. Manly Russians dancing on tables is better than a bunch of pansies tip-toeing around or prancing about. It was a huge mistake for the Soviet Union to prop up the Bolshoi Ballet and make Russian guys prance around like a bunch of fruits. Chechen Lezghinka is a better dance. Though I don't like guys dancing in general(with the exception of Gene Kelly in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT), people of Caucasus have manlier ways of dancing. Ballet should only be for girls. Any guy in ballet tights should be paddled in the butt.
Europeans emerged from 'faggy'-looking aristocratic culture with the rise of the bourgeois and the masses. It was bourgeois culture that led to the English three-piece suit that was at once stylish, economic, and modest(lacking in the aristocratic dictionary). And I'll take the cowboy look over the aristo-fruit-look any day. Those guys in dusters in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST look real good. But the Three Musketeers look like a bunch of pansies.
There are two ways of responding to the world around us, two ways of feeling about who we are and how we relate to others, near and far. They define much of our lives as a constant struggle and/or exertion(and even excitement). One is about self-preservation and the other is about self-justification(that can easily turn into self-righteousness). Most ideal is when self-preservation is aligned with self-justification. Most dangerous is when self-justification comes to malign self-preservation. Consider Body and Soul(or Spirit). Consider Health and Sensation. Though the soul/spirit is an extension of the body, excessive indulgence of the body or excessive purification of the spirit can lead to misalignment of the two. A person who prioritizes only the needs of the body will neglect the spirit, and a person who seeks spiritual perfection will neglect the body. The narcissism of the body will conflate physical beauty with sanctity itself. The purist strains of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity have led to problematic, even pathological, rejection of the needs of the body. And even though sensations exist to preserve life and health — hunger makes us eat, cold leads us to warmth, pain alerts us to seek relief, sexual desire leads to birth of new life to perpetuate the species, etc — , they can take on a life of their own and deviate from their original/main purpose. Normally, pain and strain alert us that something is wrong, and pleasure assures us that health has been restored. Hunger is a kind of strain/pain and makes the organism seek out food that provides pleasure and ensures its preservation. But what if the organism overly fixates on pleasure of eating and keeps eating beyond what is necessary for health and preservation? Consider all the fatsos who keep eating and eating when they don’t need all that food. They’ve fallen into the Pleasure Trap where pleasure no longer serves its primary purpose of preservation but exists for its own sake. We see such behavior with sex, drugs, and leisure of all kinds. These kinds of pleasures aren’t correctives to Pain Alarms that something is wrong but sensations that demand more and more stimulation, titillation, and scintillation for an organism that has become addicted to excessive jolts of intense pleasure. This is most problematic with drugs such as crack, meth, and heroin. Pleasure offered by such drugs do NOTHING for preservation of health of the organism, but it is sought out by the organism that finds itself increasingly divorced from reality. It’s like the 1980s commercial of the monkey that became so addicted to cocaine that it neglected everything else to get more highs from the drug... even unto death. Same could be said of pleasures offered by vice industries such as gambling and prostitution, real-life or electronic(aka video-pornography).
Ideally, body and soul are united in purpose. Though body and soul are different, they must be complementary, like negative and positive charges of electricity. Likewise, pleasure associated with eating should primarily be associated with needs of health. When hungry, people should seek out good food and consume essential calories and nutrients. While a bit of junk food snacks like cookies and ice cream are okay in small amounts, they should be avoided as main course or staple diet. (Consider that much of the obesity and diabetes problem in the West has to do with people constantly munching on snacks of all kinds away from the meal table.) Even healthy activity such as exercise must be in sound coordination with the needs and limits of the body. Consider all the people who end up with chronic aches(or even debilitating injuries) because they pushed their bodies too hard in search of pathological narcissism or egotistical glory. Unless one is a professional athlete or adventurer, one should never push too hard. No sense in pushing oneself to become tougher and stronger only to end up crippled or dead.
The same rule applies to self-preservation and self-justification. They must be balanced and aligned with one another. One must serve the other with an understanding that they aren't synonymous. Just as it’s wrong to conflate self-preservation with self-justification, it’s wrong to risk self-preservation for sake of self-justification(morphed into self-righteousness). Nazi German soldiers fought to preserve themselves in Russia, and to that extent, they were working in the mode of self-preservation. But were they in the right to invade and terrorize another nation? At least on Russian soil, didn’t Russians have the priority of self-preservation against the German invaders. Thus, Russian self-preservation was aligned with Russian self-justification whereas, by normal standards of universal nationalism, German presence in Russia was not justified. Of course, there were Nazi radicals who argued that Germans had the racial right to invade and conquer Slavic territories since ‘Aryans’ are the superior and more deserving race. To be sure, it’s been a common justification all through the ages. For example, Latinos and Anglos certainly felt justified in conquering and taking the New World from the natives who were seen as savage, primitive, backward, inferior, or satanic(especially with the massive human sacrifices in South America and Mexico). Nazi Germans felt likewise justified in their invasion of Russia to create lebensraum for the Teutonic ubermensch. Humans certainly feel this way about animals and nature in general. Human races the world over have wiped out entire floras and faunas to create safer and securer habitats for themselves as the premium and more deserving species. And the West says the Jews were justified in carrying out Nakba Pogroms against lowly Arab Palestinians who were colonized, conquered, and expelled from their ancient homeland. Still, while mankind has always been invasive, the defenders of blood & soil were always more justified in protection of homeland from invaders. And in cases where invaders did take over and put down roots, they went into defensive mode to protect their acquired territory from further invasion. And after many years passed, the descendants of the invaders came to regard the land they were born on as their homeland of blood and soil. History has always been complicated in this respect. Invaders become defenders, and defenders can become expansive and invade territories defended by others. History of imperialism has been like a football game where the only meaningful boundary is the latest scrimmage line. That said, the persistence of homeland often survived despite the anarchy of borders. For instance, even under Roman Imperial rule, the Jews regarded Jerusalem as their sacred city. And even after Poland was effectively wiped off the map, most Poles between Prussia/Germany and Russia had a general sense of their heritage and territory, which is why it was relatively easy to reconstitute Poland once Russian and German empires fell in World War I. And despite the vastness of the Soviet Empire, various ethnic groups maintained a sense of territorial integrity that emerged into full-fledged nationhood once USSR came to an end.
A people are most justified when their sense of self-preservation is paired with a powerful sense of self-justification. Indeed, such a people tend to be the fiercest fighters with the highest morale and determination. Take the Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh. They believed in Vietnam as their motherland to take back from foreigners, be they French or Americans, and this sense of national self-preservation(or self-restoration) was almost synonymous with their sense of self-justification. They felt 100% justified in fighting for defense of their homeland. Justification = Preservation. They felt this so powerfully that they were willing to fight the French and then the Americans against all odds and despite losses of millions of lives. The Irish too were a fierce people at one time because their sense of self-preservation was one with their self-justification. They believed in national liberation and independence of Ireland from British Imperial rule. Their sense of nationhood was justification enough. Their sense of national memory & territoriality was powerfully wedded to their sense of political morality, historical necessity, and ideological commitment. Ireland for the Irish, the Irish for Ireland. Thus, despite the great military advantage of the British Empire, the greatest in the world at the time, the Irish independence struggle remained a major thorn on its side. And of course, the reason why Jewish Power and Israel/Zionism are so mighty has to do with the complementary relation between Jewish self-preservation and Jewish self-justification. Jews don’t need to invoke GDP numbers or variety of -isms(and catchphrases and mantras about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’) to justify the existence of Israel. The fact that it is the homeland of the Jews is justification enough for Jewish national self-preservation. Jews don’t need to ideologically defend their identity and territory. The mere fact of preserving Jewishness and Jewish homeland is more than sufficient. Then, it’s no wonder that Israel is so powerful and confident. (Granted, Israel was created by destroying Palestine. Indeed, Jewish-European imperialism kicked into gear just when Christo-European imperialism was beginning to recede from the Third World following the end of WWII, but Jews do have ancient roots in the land, the holiness of which wouldn’t make sense apart from Jewish ethno-spiritual narratives.) In a way, Israelis today feel as Irish did a century ago. Or, as the Vietnamese did as they struggled against the French & Americans. Algerians and Cubans also had a unity of self-preservation and self-justification in their struggles against imperialism/colonialism, respectively, of the French and Anglo-Jewish-Italo-Americans. And both Algerians and Cubans prevailed.
Still, it seems national identities have been fading all over the world, that is except for Jewish Identity. Part of the reason is Jewish Globalist agenda of weakening goy identities to make it harder for various goyim to unite into particular nationalities against Jewish globalist-imperialism. After all, even though Jews prize Israel as their sacred homeland, they also operate in neo-imperialist mode and derive most of their wealth and power from manipulating and exploiting goyim. Jews seek to flood the entire goy world with mass global migration while Israel alone remains afloat like Noah’s Ark in a mixed sea of miscegenationist confusion that shall engulf all goyim like the Sea of Reeds crashed upon Pharaoh’s chariots. Jews keep the crown and the rest of us drown. But, there is another reason for the fading of goy national identities. Many goyim around the world have artificial constructed identities, and ironically enough, their sense of nationality wouldn’t exist if not for European imperialism. After all, what is an ‘Indian’ or ‘Indonesian’? How did some Arabs end up as ‘Syrians’ while others ended up as ‘Saudis’ or ‘Iraqis’? How did some Kurds become ‘Iraqis’ while others became ‘Turks’, ‘Iranians’, or ‘Syrians’? While Arabs and Kurds pre-existed the coming of European Imperialism, they ended up in nation-states that resulted from often arbitrary lines drawn on the sand by the imperialists. To be sure, the line in the sand in the Middle East wasn’t certain even prior to European Imperialism.
What is the crucial difference between Israel and Ireland today? In Israel, there is virtual synthesis of Self-Preservation and Self-Justification whereas in Ireland the passion of Self-Justification has come unglued from Self-Preservation. There was a time when nothing was more just, necessary, and sacred in Irish hearts and minds than the independence and self-preservation of Irish people, land, and culture. But the great majority of Irish no longer feel that way. Indeed, many feel that the notion of Irish Self-Preservation is offensive, immoral, ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, and even downright evil. Their primary sense of Self-Justification comes from raving about Globo-Homomania, celebrating Diversity, welcoming ‘immigrants’(who are really invader-colonizers), Afro-worship(as Irish women got jungle fever, Irish men worship black athletes, and all Irish regard black music as the highest and deepest expression of soulful truth), and Jew-worship. (Many Irish still tend to be pro-Palestinian as legacy of past struggles when IRA and PLO were allies, but their anti-Zionist stance is ironically the consequence of their mindless Jew Worship. The Irish are so morally awed by Jews as the greatest victims of all time — the holy holocaust people — that it bothers their sensitivities to see wonderful Jews acting like a bunch of bullies against a powerless people such as Palestinians. Indeed, many Europeans have similar views. They are so committed to worshiping Jews as a holy people, the new christs who died for the sins of white folks, that they simply can’t digest the fact that powerful Jews in US and Israel are acting rather like Nazis.)
Because of the divergence between self-preservation and self-justification, the Irish are now a very schizo people. At the gut level, all organisms(which includes humans) instinctively want to secure their existence and ensure their continuance. So, even among Irish progs, there is some buried organismic want for survival. This side of them, no matter how repressed, is present in their drives and passion. But as Irish self-preservation has been ideologically and ‘idologically’ pathologized as ‘racist’, ‘far-right’, ‘exclusive’, and ‘xenophobic’, the majority of Irish now feel ashamed to harbor such nationalist passions. But because the feeling is there(as it’s natural), the Irish go out of their way to condemn it with even greater fury. If society deems something as sinful and if this sinful something happens to be ineradicable(as all natural feelings are no matter how repressed), extra measures must be taken to attack and condemn it day in and day out. It’s like the vilification of sexuality led to especially hysterical attempts to suppress natural passions in the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages. And communist societies had to be endlessly vigilant and alarmist about ‘greed’ precisely because self-interest is a permanent feature of human nature, even in the so-called New Man of Marxism-Leninism. Repressive hyper-virtue that runs against nature wants to be rid of all temptations and anything that reminds them of temptations. Then, it’s no wonder that campaigns against nationalism are so hysterical, relentless, fervent, and dogmatic. (Granted, human nature comprise opposites. Just as nationalism is natural, so is internationalism. Human nature is both naturally conservative and liberal, both cautious & wary and open & exploratory. Though the term ‘xenophobia’ is thrown around a lot, it should really apply only to societies where the order hysterically tries to suppress the natural inclination of humans to be curious, adventurous, and open to new experiences. North Korea would truly be a xenophobic nation. It is the mirror opposite of current Ireland. If North Korea ruthlessly suppresses the natural tendency of a people to look beyond their own domain, New Ireland fervently suppresses the natural tendency of a people to protect and preserve their own domain. Both are out of balance.) When people are pressured to do what goes against their nature, they must be drummed with constant reminders that the inquisition or purging is most necessary, desirable, and justified. Take the ritual of Seppuku in Japan, aka Harakiri. Suicide goes against organismic nature since life wants to live. People dread not only death but the pain involved. So, if samurai listened to their nature, they would have run like a mothafuc*a if expected to rip open their bellies. In order to counter such natural reaction, Japanese society devised an elaborate rules of duty and redemption whereby one’s honor could be restored ONLY BY MEANS of ritual suicide. To make the unnatural seem most natural and necessary(if circumstances demanded it), samurai from a young age were conditioned and tasked with an outlook that reminded them day in and day out that it was glorious to die an honorable death and that they must have absolutely no fear of it. The unnatural was made palatable through poetics and spirituality.
There is this sense in the death of Jesus as well. According to Christian mythology, the human side of Jesus feared pain and torture of Crucifixion as any man would. It went against human nature for Jesus not to be like a Negro and run like a mothafuc*a. More human/natural would have been for Jesus to go with the ‘last temptation’ of Martin Scorsese’s film. So, why was Jesus willing to surrender His body to such agony, humiliation, and death? He spun a myth about Himself whereby self-justification demanded His body be sacrificed for the redemption/salvation of mankind. A powerful sense of mission for humanity. And there was the matter of His massive Jewish ego. Still, He agonized all night, even panicking at moments and bewailing God for having putting Him in a bad situation. Finally, He was able to go through with the plan because His sense of self-justification overpowered His sense of self-preservation. His spiritual sense convinced Him that His physical demise would open a way for spiritual resurrection and everlasting glory. He needed an elaborate mythology of spiritual justification to overpower the physical demand for self-preservation. And something similar happens in wars too. Every soldier knows he could get killed or horribly wounded in battle, and a part of his human nature tells him to take flight than fight, especially if the war happens to be imperialist in nature and has nothing to do with national defense or survival. (No wonder so many Americans were demoralized in Vietnam. Why did they need to fight rice-eaters to protect the American Way? While most didn't desert, few felt eagerness to put their lives on the line for the sake of foreigners.) Still, most soldiers pick up their guns and charge into battle because there is also the fear of court-martial and/or contempt as a coward(and being killed by the other side of course). As humans are social animals sensitive to how others feel about them, their natural fear in one area could be overcome by natural fear of social opprobrium or legal sanction(that could even lead to execution. e.g. Soviet troops who retreated in WWII were summarily shot by commissars — more honorable to be killed a hero by the Germans than killed a coward by one’s own side). In a similar way, there is a natural Irish will to survive. It wants to preserve the people, culture, and land of Ireland for the Irish. But the elite Irish powers-that-be, especially the media and academia that take cues from the US as the metropole of the Empire of Judea, have inculcated generations of Irish children that the highest goods are Diversity(created by mass-immigration), Homomania, Afromania, and Jew-Worship. Now, some degree of cosmopolitanism is good and natural — as humans are naturally expansive as they’re naturally defensive — , but current Political Correctness goes far beyond a healthy balance of nationalism and internationalism. Rather, it calls for total eradication of traditional nationalism in favor of turning one’s own nation into an interchangeable bloc in the World of Glob, world where globalism runs rampant like the broomsticks in SORCERER'S APPRENTICE with Mickey Mouse. As current globalism is utterly radical and crazy, the natural response among the Irish should be for More Nationalism and efforts at Self-Preservation. But this is proving difficult and even near-impossible as the ‘Poz’ has utterly disconnected Irish sense of Self-Justification from Self-Preservation. So, if past Irish felt most justified in struggling for preservation, they now feel most justified in working against it. And precisely because the current National Suicide(or Irish Harakiri) goes against human nature, the delusional Irish must make an especially rabid effort to convince themselves that it’s ALL FOR THE GOOD to turn Ireland into New Africa-India-Arabia. (It's like whites cheer with artificially heightened enthusiasm for the Great Replacement to drown out their natural fears that it will turn out to be disastrous as the 'evil racists' have warned. Or, it's like gamblers get especially excited as they place big bets to suppress the very natural fear that they will lose everything. Consider Julie Hagerty's delirium in LOST IN AMERICA as she hangs all her hopes on '22'. It's like the globalist whites are collectively betting and shouting for '22' while the odds are totally against them. Crash-22 here it comes.)
Just like a samurai on the eve of Seppuku mustered all his energy to convince himself he felt no fear and welcomed this most honorable death, the Irish are forcing themselves to believe they’re having the grandest time in utterly transforming their nation into the Third World. This is all very ironic considering that Ireland was once one of the poorest nations in Europe, indeed its own little bit of ‘third world’. Irish had to work extra hard to turn poor Ireland into a genuine First World Nation, but they now seem hellbent on turning it literally into a Third World nation by importing tons of blacks, Hindus, and Muslims at the behest of globalist intellectual elites who take their cues from Jews. And yet, it all makes sense in a way. Due to centuries of deprivation and backwardness, the Irish had always felt an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the most advanced nations of Europe, and once they really began to make money, they(like the Spaniards) went out of their way to prove that they are just as intellectually, culturally, and politically advanced as the most modernized nations. So, a mindset developed whereby status-seeking Irish elites came to crave, above all, the approval of the elites of nations like Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, the US, and even UK, its old enemy. If Irish Celtics and British Anglos now have one thing in common, it’s that they are both neo-colonial subjects of the Empire of Judea and, as such, desire nothing more than to win the approval of Jewish overlords and super-elites who rule the world. So, if Jews say Globo-Homo and Diversity are the highest goods for white goy nations, both Anglo and Celtic cuck-elites are eager to prove that they are more ‘pozzed’ than the other. It’s a race among dogs before the Jewish Master. But then, the Irish mindset was always compromised as the Irish were both the biggest victims and biggest beneficiaries of Anglo Imperialism. They were the first victims of British expansionism and often treated harshly, not least because the British were appalled by all the drinking, wife-beating, and brawling among the ‘micks’. But, no non-Anglo people benefited for as long and as much as the Irish in sharing the spoils of Anglo imperialism. Wherever Anglos went, the Irish followed along as soldiers, traders, adventurers, and pillagers. The Irish sure gained a tremendous deal from the US, essentially the product of Anglo Imperialism and Colonization. So, the Irish were both tough resisters against and happy collaborators with the worldwide Anglo Empire. Then, maybe it’s not so difficult to understand why UK and Ireland are going down at the same time in the same manner for the same reasons. The Irish and Anglos have been more joined at the hip than any Irish or Briton would like to admit.
Any nation of people, culture, memory, and territory must have unity of self-preservation and self-justification if it is to secure any long-term survival strategy. It is simply not possible for a people to preserve themselves as a nation IF their main sense of self-justification is at odds with the demands of self-preservation. The danger could be spiritual, ideological, or ‘idological’. While spirituality lends deeper/higher meaning to a people, it can also divorce them from worldly demands of survival. Consider all the Hindu yogis who dropped out of society to beg for alms while they stuck needles into their noses and arses. If one takes Buddhism to its logical conclusion, he should cut all his ties, duties, & attachments and just meditate to reach Nirvana. This is why Buddhist societies that survived restricted the scope of Buddhist influence or somehow managed to associate Buddhism with tribalism, like the Tibetans. Likewise, if Christians decided to become spiritual purists and live by every letter of Jesus, they will end up dead like the hero-priest in Roland Joffe’s THE MISSION. Without spirituality, life becomes too mundane, but excessive spirituality can lead to loss of reality. This is why Judaism is favorable in many ways to Christianity. Its universalist spiritual content is balanced by the tribal element of the Covenant, and its moral concerns are tempered by demands of the real world is understood not to be a place for saints. Judaism is about conviction and commitment but not about sainthood that came with Christianity. It is moralistic but not sanctimonious, the element that makes Christianity insufferable at times in its holier-than-thou piousness.
Of course, even as Jews feared the power of Christianity, they closely examined its psycho-spiritual anatomy for its Achilles Heel and found it. Jews realized how they could own and manipulate the Guilt Complex of Christianity for their own ends. Manipulating the nerve centers of Christian Guilt was as effective as toying with erogenous zones as a means to gain sensory control over goyim. Is it any wonder that Jews are both masters of Holocaustianity and Pornography? Jews understood that there is a kind of spiritual-erogenous or ‘spirogenous’ zone within Christian Psychology, not least because Christianity, far more than Judaism and certainly more than Paganism, was repressive about sexual matters, what with the Catholic Church even saying you will burn in purgatory if you masturbate. So, sexually repressed Christians had to transfer their repressed sensual passions over to the the spiritual realm, and this explains why so many churches developed services where people go into fits of rapture that are like spiritual orgasms. Rapturous Christian bliss results from friction of guilt and redemption. The faithful arrive at church and feel as sinners who need saving. To be washed of their sins for the week, they holler and shake their bodies to be rid of the Devil, and they feel joy when the angels shower them with God’s glory. It’s about connecting with God, but it doesn’t work without the element of guilt, the sense that one’s body is filled with Devilish temptations. Likewise, sexuality gains its power from friction of shame and release. If all people were naked all the time and could have sex with anyone anywhere anytime, sex would be nothing special. It’d be about as interesting as eating a bag of potato chips. But even in a libertine society, there is the fear of rejection, shame of reputation, suspicion of betrayal, and the reality of exclusion, especially by the most desirable members of society. So, when an average person finally arrives at a sexual union of sufficient quality, the sense of release is far greater than if sex were so easy all the time for all people. Jews understand the usefulness of controlling the ‘spirogenous’ and erogenous zones, and that’s why they pushed for Globo-Homo and Pornificaition of society. Via Globo-Homo, they’ve replaced inherently ‘antisemitic’ Christianity with Queertianity where one feels redeemed and most justified for having washed oneself of ‘homophobia’ and ‘transophobia’. Also Homomania is far easier than Christianity because it makes no arduous demands for sanctity other than waving the ‘gay’ flag and regarding trannies as new angels. And via pornography(and pornification of society in general), Jews gained direct control of erogenous zones of countless goyim. Also, by peddling stuff about incest and the like, Jews charge sexuality with that potent combination of shame and release. While pornography has been made readily available(even to young ones), it still maintains the aura of being forbidden fruit filled with dark themes of humiliation, incest, and miscegenation.
This is where the neo-spiritual meets the ‘idological’ where idolatry eclipses ideology. Idols can be either beneficial or harmful to the self-preservation of a people. Ideally, the idols of a people will feature heroic or vaunted members of the tribe. Greeks had Achilles as their hero. And Greek Olympics were limited to Greeks who became champions among the Greeks. When white people have white champions who become the basis for white idols, idolatry can become a potent symbol for the nation. But if, say, black idols replace white idols in a white nation, it will undermine self-preservation as white people will come to admire and even worship blacks as their heroes, champions, and top studs. It will lead to cuckery among white men and spread jungle fever among white women, and THIS is precisely what is happening all over the West under the hegemony of Jews who regard blackness as their surrogate body conjoined to the Jewish head. Jews could outwit whites but couldn’t beat them physically to win top trophy of manhood, but Jews could use blacks to beat down white manhood. Thus, whiteness could be both outwitted and out-muscled by a combination of Jewish brains and black brawn.
We’ve been told endlessly that blacks need BLACK role models in prestigious areas because people identify with their own kind. If this is true of blacks, it must be no less true of whites. When white idols are replaced with black ones, it leads to white demoralization and white death, which has now reached near-genocidal levels in the West. In order for whites to feel self-justification in the name of self-preservation, they must write their own ideology that rejects the mindless mantras of ‘Diversity’ handed down by Jews as would-be-overlords. Whites must have their own idols in a world of their own that excludes other races, especially blacks who can beat up white men in sports and streets in an integrated social order. Just like human physical pride can exist only apart from wild animals — as humans are no match for wild boars, bears, tigers, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, etc in physical confrontations — , white pride of manhood can ONLY EXIST apart from blackness that will defeat and humiliate white men because black men got longer limbs, harder muscles, faster reflexes, and bigger dongs. The world is truly diverse in that there are different races with different attributes and advantages. And every race should be wary of other races that pose a potential threat to them. This mania for Diversity is leading to a world of Universal Imperialism where every people, even the imperialists, are being drowned in non-stop floods of invasion, confusion, and alienation. But then, it all happened before with the Romans long long ago. The greatest conquerors the world had ever seen were overwhelmed by those they conquered, and in time, the empire was about every people conquering and being conquered by every other people until finally it all fell apart. If Jews get their wish, all nationalisms will be washed away EXCEPT for their own as the Noah’s Ark nationalism of all eternity. The US used to be a nation where white imperialists conquered others and then demanded that newcomers assimilate into Anglo-Americanism or accept its authority. There was once a sense of who the real masters and owners of America were. But now, non-whites come to America to lose their identities and heritages along with white American cucks who’ve lost all sense of identity, roots, and heritage. Indeed, their only concern regarding nationalism is "Muh Israel". What did Nancy Pelosi say? Even if the walls of Congress come tumbling down, the US will always be there for Israel! How pathetic can you get?
They say tribalism is a powerful force, but so is self-righteousness. While tribalism may win out in the long run(that is if the tribe survives), self-righteousness or outrage mentality has short-term advantage. Being self-righteous is like a cocaine high, something you can’t get from tribalism which is about sober hunkering down. This is why the Power works very hard to define and control the terms of self-righteousness. As most people are dull, they are incapable of defining the terms of outrage on their own. It must be handed to them like a bone tossed at a pack of hungry dogs. Look at China during the Cultural Revolution. Mao threw the radical bone of ‘to rebel is justified’ to the youths, and they ran riot for a few years smashing everything in their path. It felt so awesome to be self-righteous. As Jews rule the US, they get to define what people should be outraged or self-righteous about. Self-righteousness is intoxicating, a means of insta-self-aggrandizement as a ‘woke’ person. Jews decided it shall be globo-homo, so there are lots of dummies who get all weepy and wild about holy homos and transcendent trannies. In the long run, Cultural Revolution petered out and Chinese tribalism won out over ideological radicalism, but when it was on fire, it really burned hot and scorched everything it its path. Tribalism is like the soil + rain from which stuff grows. Self-righteousness is like wind + fire. It can’t last forever, but when it does, it is an awesome force that can burn down entire forests. This is why any side that wants power must seek to control the terms of outrage and self-righteousness. People claim to be rational and individualistic, but, in truth, often governed more by emotions of righteousness & rightness(fed to them by media and academia controlled currently by Jews). James Watson is factually right about racial IQ differences, but it doesn’t matter for a lot of people because PC idolatry says Blacks are holy and cannot be ‘demeaned’ in anyway. So, righteous chest-beating about blacks trumps factual rightness about race and IQ. Just like more people get excited over emotive astrology than factual astronomy, it’s the manipulation of emotions that often count for more.
It’s often said people are naturally tribal, even that tribalism is the most powerful force in the world. But is it? If so, why did so many tribal identities fade? Jewish Identity survived, but what happened to the Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, and countless others? If tribalism is so powerful and resilient, why did those identities and cultures fade away? While some peoples/cultures may have been wiped out in genocides, most identities and cultures just faded away without mass deaths. Instead of people clinging to their identities, cultures, and languages, they abandoned all that for something else. In some cases, the changes were forced under the sword. Many peoples had to convert to new faiths and rituals, or else. Consider all the pagan cultures that were eradicated in Europe and Near East as result of the spread of Christianity and Islam. But then, many tribes willingly abandoned their own cultures and beliefs to adopt something deemed better or more pleasing. Granted, tribalism is deeper than credo or faith. After all, a Russian was a Russian before communism, during communism, and after communism. One could be Greek in the ancient world and choose from various schools of philosophies. But whether one was a stoic or an epicurean, a Greek was a Greek. A people can keep their tribalism even as they change values and beliefs. Modern Chinese have adopted much that is Western in ideology and economics, but they still feel as ethnically Chinese. But, there seems to be many more extinct cultures than living-and-continuous ones. And most of them went extinct because the people gave up on their core tribal identity. In some cases, it was a case of 'take on or assimilate to new identities'. Or, people just gave up on high culture & complex identity and receded into subsistence living, like what happened to peoples who scattered into the jungles after the fall of the Mayan civilization(prior to the arrival of Europeans) or Khmer civilization(that left behind Angkor Wat but not much else).
It seems Jews have been the exception than rule in human history. Among ancient identities, Jews are one of the few that managed to survive to the present. While today’s Egyptians have genetic links to Ancient Egyptians, there was a decisive break from the past. Indeed, it took Western archaeology to rediscover much of the lost ancient world and reconnect the natives to their forgotten pasts. Also, the spread of Christianity and Islam had the effect of ‘cultural genocide’ on both Near East and Europe. As the coming of the One God demanded the destruction of pagan culture, the baby of tribal ancestry was thrown out along with the bath-water of pagan ‘superstition’. However, histories of both Europe and Near East have been, more or less, continuous since the time they came under the power of monotheism. In contrast, medieval Jews didn’t have to undergo a 'radical' break from their ancient origins because, from the beginning, they had faith in the One God. The story of Jews illustrates how, despite credo and ethno not being the same thing, one can deeply affect the other. Even though the coming of Christianity didn’t wipe out the white European race, the change in credo led to the destruction of indigenous pagan culture rooted in blood-and-soil, in effect eradicating certain strains of tribal consciousness. And much the same happened in the Near East with the spread of Christianity and then Islam. Also in the Byzantium, the Christian East, which, though not sacked by Germanic barbarians, underwent profound changes as Christianity suppressed and even destroyed much of the glories of pagan culture that held within them the markers of tribal identity. Monotheism was both the greatest destroyer and greatest enabler of tribal identity. On the one hand, it could wipe out indigenous pagan cultures and beliefs that were so crucial to tribal identity. And yet, a people whose spirituality was imbued with monotheism of the all-powerful Being of truth, goodness, and mystery were more likely to possess a culture of continuity and constancy, a kind of 'rootedness' to heaven and 'footedness' in destiny. After all, the one true God is bound to offer a deeper sense of moral uplift and spiritual truth than a bunch of imperfect pagan gods who, however colorful or ingeniously conceived, tend to be vain, fickle, and/or amoral in their desires and demands. Monotheism surely played a crucial role in sustaining continuously organic identities and cultures in both Europe and the Near East.
Anyway, even though tribalism is a real force in nature and history(which is, after all, the story of human nature), it must not be over-exaggerated. There are plenty of counter or related(but distinct) forces that can work against tribalism. Materialism and individualism are but two. If indeed tribalism is the most powerful force, why have so many people been willing to move to another nation, especially the United States, to start anew as ‘Americans’? Why so readily betray and dispose of one’s own people, culture, and land to come to the US and take on a new identity, especially for one’s children who usually forget their ancestral language, culture, & sense of history and eventually assimilate into Americanism? This is all the more jarring when we consider that the US has been at war for much of its history. After all, there is a chance that the American nation you assimilate into will make war on your nation of origin, in which case you, as New American, will have to support directly or indirectly the American War on your blood kin in your ancestral land. Consider the German-Americans who fought in World War I against Germany. Consider Muslim-Americans who took part in the invasion of the Middle East that led to deaths of 100,000s(or maybe millions) of Muslims. Indeed, the ONLY nation that the US is unlikely to wage war on is Israel as Jews totally control the US. So, why did people come to the US and give up their identity and culture of origin? They were tempted with materialism(as US is obviously richer than most nations) and freedom(which US has more of than most non-white nations though PC is making this ever less true; granted, non-white immigrants are likely to support suppression of free speech, at least for whites, because Jewish media/academia tell immigrant groups that unfettered free speech could lead to 'white supremacism' that will close the gates to further non-white immigration, in which case immigrant groups won't be able to bring over their relatives via chain-migration). Material interest and individual freedom trumped tribalism. It’s been said Chinese are proud of their culture and history, but look at all those Chinese who not only flock to the US, Canada, and Australia but readily lose their identity to become ‘New Americans’ and ‘New Canadians’. And in our Age of Cool, so many people find the real culture of history, heritage, and community to be ‘boring’ & ‘lame’ and chase after the siren song of pop culture and fashion. And even though the US makes threats on Iran and Russia all the time(even to the point where it may lead to war), there are plenty of Russians and Iranians who are willing to drop everything and come to the US and become ‘Americans’ even though their tax dollars will go toward hate-mongering against their nations of origin and may even declare war. The power of tribalism is real, but it can be surmounted or circumvented by other factors, such as pleasure. Why do black men chase after white women and vice versa? Because jungle fever is pleasurable to both parties. Black men find white women to be fairer, and white women find sex with black men to be more pleasurable because black men are more muscular and have bigger dongs. And why do so many Asian women choose white men over yellow men? Again, tribalism loses out to the pleasure principle, as Asian women find white men to be more attractive and masculine than Asian men.
Furthermore, tribalism can lead to strange alliances that actually undermine tribalism. In World War II, Nazi Germany was allied with Imperial Japan against the UK even though Hitler actually admired and respected Anglos while having a rather low opinion of the Asian race(as unoriginal and inferior). Instead of white vs yellow, it turned into white-and-yellow vs white. But because of the Anglo-Germanic conflict, Germany made an alliance with an Asian nation(just like it allied with Muslim Ottoman Empire in World War I). And Anglos recruited lots of non-whites from around their empire to fight the Axis powers. During the Cold War, white America came to an understanding with yellow China against white Russia. And from the late 19th century to now, Japan has been allied mostly with the West against Asia. It was only during World War II that Japan invoked Asian Brotherhood as a ploy against European and American Imperialists. But prior to the falling out between Japan and the US, both were ‘partners-in-crime’ in their aggression against the Asian mainland. And after WWII, Japan was once again allied with the US against much of Asian mainland, especially Red China. So, yellow tribalism sided with white tribalism against another yellow tribalism. And when the US and China drew closer under Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, it was white tribalism(of US) siding with yellow tribalism(of China) against another white tribalism(of USSR). Granted, one could argue that the US and USSR were not motivated by ‘white tribalism’ as both empires professed grandiose universalist ideologies, but for most of US and USSR history, one cannot discount the white political element as a key player in foreign policy(just like current US policy makes no sense unless we take Jewish ethno-centrism into account). Until relatively recently, US power was essentially white and Christian. And in the USSR, people of European stock had most of the power compared to Central Asians and Muslims. Perhaps, one difference is that, during the Cold War, Anglos increasingly lost power in the US(mainly to Jews), whereas ethnic Russians increasingly gained power in the USSR(mainly from Jews). When the Cold War began, US was still solidly in the hands of Wasps whereas Soviet leadership was varied, especially under the leadership of Georgian Stalin. After Stalin, the new leader was Khrushchev the Ukrainian. But as years passed, Russian nationals increasingly dominated the USSR(especially with the suppression of Jewish power that came under suspicion with rise of Zionism), whereas power in the US increasingly shifted in favor of Jews. Of course, capitalism was bound to favor Jews in the long run because sky is the limit when it comes to profits in a market economy. Even though Jewish radical intellectuals played a key role in the communist takeover of Russia, the system of machine politics and ethos of equality(and mediocrity) were bound to suppress the power of Jewish ingenuity, drive, and ambition(for good or ill).
Another way tribalism can be used against itself depends on programming. Now, this doesn’t apply to solitary animals that even shun others of their own species EXCEPT in mating and mothering, but among social organisms, the tribal instinct can be reprogrammed to serve another tribe. Among certain species of ants, there is the mass theft of larvaes of another species that hatch to serve the very ant colony that ‘enslaved’ them. Humans can toy with canine 'pack' nature to make dogs serve man against other dogs. Thus, tribal nature isn't suppressed or extinguished but, instead, attached in service(and possibly identification) to another tribe. Among human communities, this happened with the creation of the Janissary. Ottoman Turks scoured Greece and Balkan territories to conscript young boys who were deemed especially attractive, healthy, and intelligent. These boys were initially traumatized in being torn from their own families and tribal cultures, but under intensive Muslim training, they became fanatical servants of the Ottomans. Their tribalism was reprogrammed to serve the Ottomans and Islam against Christendom, their ancestral homeland. Another useful example is the fate of Korea under US hegemony. The US divided Korea and gave half to Stalin. Since then, one people have been made into two peoples, and Korean tribalism has been set against one another, brother against brother. One might expect Korean tribalism to call for unity of all Koreans against non-Koreans, but South Koreans are essentially reprogrammed minions of the US empire that would rather serve the US than reunite with their ethnic brethren in the North who are seen as the ‘mortal enemy’. As wanna-be-Americans, they welcome the occupation of their nation by a superpower for ‘protection’ and dream of moving to the US to become ‘New Americans’ than preserve their identity and culture. And in the US, consider how white tribalism has been reprogrammed to serve Jews and Israel. PC trained many whites to feel that white identity & white interests are intrinsically ‘racist’, ‘supremacist’, and evil, and therefore white tribalism must emotionally attach itself to something else(without the mark of Cain)... and it is Israel, Israel, Israel. It’s no wonder that most US politicians would rather be dead than be caught with white pride or interest, BUT they will go out of their way to shout Hallelujah for Israel, the nation that means most to them. This is because tribal feelings are not necessarily loyal to the tribe. Even among wolves on rare occasions, a lone wolf might join a pack that was once an enemy pack. Among Europeans, some Frenchmen settled in Germany and essentially became Germans and fought against France in World War I. And there were French Jews whose tribal loyalty was to France, and there were German Jews whose tribal loyalty was to Germany. And oftentimes, people would rather be allied with winners of another tribe than be stuck with losers of their own kind. Consider all the non-Romans who joined and fought for the Roman empire. And this is especially true of women for whom tribalism is less important than put-out-ism to victor-ism. When Germans defeated and occupied France, so many French women went with victorious 'alpha' German men. After the US destroyed and occupied Japan, many Japanese women became war-brides of Americans. And when black guys began to beat up white guys in boxing and other sports, so many white women put out to winner black men and felt contempt for loser white men. But winner-ism is strong among men too. Jews won the elite competition for top power in the US, and the result has been all these white cucky-wucks pledging their loyalty and offering their services to Jewish Overlords. It's like Sal switching his loyalty to Barzini upon sensing that Corleones are finished in THE GODFATHER.
Even though many of these whites are Christians, they would rather serve awesome winner Jews than their own communities. Also, they dare not oppose anything that Jews want. So, if Jews say ‘Globo-Homo is the future of the West and Homomania must be the new mass cult of white folks’, even white ‘conservative’ Christian politicians dare not lodge complaints lest they displease the winner-Jews. Tribalism is further complicated because life is the product of union of two sexes. If mankind replicated itself by individuals creating copies of themselves, then sexual politics would matter far less. Suppose there’s a tribe of people where all the women are taken by another tribe or willfully go off with it. If the men of the tribe could produce doubles of themselves by fission or budding, the tribe could continue without the women. Perhaps, if cloning becomes the New Normal in the future, nations will survive by creating new life from laboratories like in Aldous Huxleys’ BRAVE NEW WORLD. But as of now, a tribe or nation can only survive by creating life from the union of its men and women. This is why a tribe where women lose respect for the men or where men lose the means to support families is a dying tribe. And this is why Jews are especially pushing black African invasion into Europe and Jungle Fever among whites. Jews know that the black race and only the black race can effectively destroy white manhood because black men have harder muscles, bigger dongs, more aggression, and stronger voices. This leads to white male cucky-wuckery and jungle fever among white women who become ‘thots’. Capitalist Feminism is defined as ‘empowerment of women’, but it is predicated on female search for submission to a higher power. Women are not happy just being ‘liberated’. They use the freedom to find the ideal man to submit to. In that sense, feminism, or at least capitalist feminism, is a form of elitism. If anything, traditionalism was more egalitarian when it came to sexual politics because the moral order stressed chastity, reputation, marriage, fidelity, and family. Also, as most well-paying jobs went to men, women had to find some nice guy and settle down. Most men are not ‘alpha’ and not super-successful. They are middle class or working class. And in the past, most middle class and working class men could find a woman and have a family. And women had to be content with ordinary men. But with ‘liberation’ of women, the great majority of women want the ‘best’ because the cult of ‘empowerment’ says women should ideally have it all. We went from Patriarchy to Bratriarchy, a world of spoiled brats who think they are too good for the ordinary and middling. Capitalist feminism turned into a game of women seeking ‘liberation’ from ordinary men to seek out and submit to the superior or ‘alpha’ men. It’s no wonder that so many women are hooked to stuff like FIFTY SHADES OF GREY where an every-woman meets a man who is handsome, strong, and super-rich.
While all women may have had such fantasies all throughout history — all those fairy tales of princes and princesses — , they lived in the real world with real culture of family, church, and community. But with the rise of Pop Culture as the main culture for the great majority of modern folks and with delusional toxicity of PC ideology taught in schools, people no longer have realistic expectations of life. Too many males see the world through the prism of superhero comic book fantasies, and too many females model their lives on the diva-mentality of celebrities who seem to have it all. (Is it any wonder that the hottest ‘moral’ topic in our Age of Vanity is Homomania?)
In the long run, however, tribal-transference is most effective among those within the same race. After all, if a bunch of Poles transferred their tribal loyalties to Germany and decided to become Germans, their descendants would become Germans like other Germans. There isn’t much genetic difference between Germans and Poles, and most people wouldn’t notice the difference if a Pole claimed to be German. Many modern Turks are not Turkish in origin — some are actually Greek or Lebanese in blood — , but one would hardly tell the difference because there isn’t all that much difference between Greeks and Turks(at least those who are essentially European in blood). But tribal-transference can be problematic among those of a difference race. Notice how most European ethnic groups became assimilated into Anglo-America. In time, Poles, Swedes, Germans, Irish, and even Italians became Anglo-Americanized and came to pledge their main loyalty to the Wasp-made America. But it’s been far more difficult with blacks because of race. They say Slavery was the big problem, but maybe not. If whites had enslaved other whites, freed whites would likely have just mixed with other whites, just like emancipated Russian serfs just became fellow countrymen with other Russians. Likewise, if American Indians had been white, they would likely have just assimilated fully with invading European whites. But because they were racially distinct, they kept to their own identity. If a bunch of Chinese moved to Japan and made a sincere effort to become Japanese and if Japan accepted them as such, they would likely just meld in. But if a whole lot of non-Asians went to Japan and tried to fit in, they would still stick out from the native population because they look different. Japanese would notice, as would the non-Japanese newcomers. Looks do matter. If one could push a button and turn all black people in the US into whites, the two communities would likely meld together.
Anyway, is there a force more powerful than tribalism? In short-term behavior, there might be. If tribalism is about "I am", idealism is about "I am right". In a brutally savage or barbarian world, the concept of "I am right" is hardly existent. Who has time for higher morality or abstract ideals in a world of tooth & claw or of sword & spear? The only thing that matters is survival and struggle. It’s about live-or-die. One’s main focus is on "I am". "I am alive, I am part of this tribe, I am willing to fight to live for another day." It’s like wolves are fixated on survival, which is justification enough for struggle. But once a people develop civilization and learning, the elites become guided by laws, ideas, and principles. And the power of principles eventually come to imbue society as a whole. In time, elites justify their power on something more than ruthless might, the Fear Factor. Rather, the elites argue that they have the divine right to rule or have the mandate of heaven under just gods. And they justify their rule on the basis of sacred laws and theory of justice. People should obey them for their right-to-rule than mere might-to-rule. By gods or laws, the elites of high civilization want to be perceived as representatives of the noblest laws of the universe than merely fellas with most wealth and weaponry.
In an advanced society, "I am" is never enough. People need to feel "I am right", a need for moral/spiritual justification. Granted, there could be more to tribalism than "I am", which some might characterize as individualist and ‘libertarian’. One might say tribalism is less about the ‘I’ than the ‘we’. Also, it’s more than about "We are"(in the moment) because deep tribalism is about the past and future. It’s about memory and vision of "We were, we are, and we shall be." In that sense, tribalism can be noble in sentiment and meaning. It is about much more than the immediate needs of the present as is the case with animals who have no sense of history or heritage. Of course, not all forms of tribalism have such depth. Jungle tribalism among primitive folks lack deep memory in the absence of written language and bodies of literature. Such tribalism is mostly about belonging to the tight-knit community of the all-important moment. It is the tribalism of sports-teams or street gangs where bunch of guys stick together against rivals. Like the gangs in the movie THE WARRIORS. The main unifying force in such tribalism is the constant threat of danger and/or thrill of adventure. It’s about the need to stick together in fight-or-flight mode, indeed not much different from the pack instinct of wolves. In contrast, deep tribalism is not just about unity of the moment but unity of past with present and future. As Merlin admonishes the Knights in EXCALIBUR who are exulting in the thrill of the moment, "That's it... and look upon this moment. Savor it! Rejoice with great gladness! Great gladness! Remember it always, for you are joined by it. You are One, under the stars. Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' For it is the doom of men that they forget."
Without memory of and reverence for the past, the power and prosperity in the present lose meaning. Also, people are less likely to make sacrifices if they won’t be remembered and if what they sacrificed for is not defended by their heirs. And people are less likely to guard what they have IF they don't appreciate the struggles and sacrifices of their ancestors or if they'd been made to disrespect them by alien propaganda or ethno-masochism. This is why War Memorials are so important. In the noble sense, it is a way for a people to remember and honor the fallen who'd died in defense of or service to the nation. In the cynical sense, it is a hook(of 'heroism') used by the Power to 'inspire' naive young men to serve in imperial wars. Individuals who are swept up in the heat of the moment may fight ferociously but rarely to sacrifice themselves for the higher good. It’s for the thrills, glory, or trophy, all of which are fleeting. Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves do so on the promise that their civilization will remember and honor them. And what they’ve fought and won for their side will be appreciated, defended, and kept by their followers. This is why it’s important for Jews to desecrate the memory and graves of white folks. As an advanced civilization, the West has deep memory and powerful sense of history, that of great triumphs and tragedies. When people in the present feel a deep connection to their forbears, they are committed to preserving and defending what their predecessors made of the land, the culture, and history. To sever these roots, Jews promote infantile youth culture, mindless hedonism, mania-for-moment, selfish individualism, white shame & ‘white guilt’(premised on the unique evil of whites throughout history), Afro-mania, homo-vanity, and retrofitting of white history whereby the New Narrative says European Medieval history was not white, European heroes & great men were black, and ‘diversity’ was the defining feature of the West. Whites have nothing to be proud of, but if they still hanker for memory and history, they should invest their emotions in the divine and noble history of the Jews, the Perfect People who were never wrong and always in the right in their relations with wicked goyim, especially white ones.
But then, this mental habit developed first with the spread of Christianity. As the Bible became the central text for all of Christian West(that search-and-destroyed most remnants of paganism that had been so deeply entwined with indigenous European history and culture), most white folks looked to Biblical stories of the Hebrews as a kind of meta-ancestral canon. It was as if white folks, as Christians, were more spiritual descendants of the ancient Hebrews than blood descendants of their direct pagan ancestors. At least with Christianity, whites felt spiritual-moral superiority(or at least parity) with the Jews, but since the end of World War II, the abandonment of core Christian creed has effectively surrendered moral and superiority to Jews(even atheist ones) because the new Christian consciousness put redemption-and-salvation-from-‘racism’(the biggest victims of which were Jews in the Shoah according to the Jew-run Narrative) at the center of its theology. Once Christianity thus cucked to Jews as the Holy Holocaust People, its destiny essentially became one of obeying the diktat of Jewish globalist agenda, which is why so many churches are now into Homomania, a proxy globo-cult concocted by Jewish supremacists. If white people are to survive, they must search for roots in the soil that have yet to be severed by the Jewish ax or poisoned by Jewish toxins. The fact that there is some push-back against globalism is proof that not all roots have been destroyed, and there is, as yet, some roots that still send water and nutrients in the soil up to the European Tree. Even though the James-Younger gang was wrong to carry out vengeful criminal acts against the North, one must respect their sense of kinfolk and culture.
Even if tribalism can be deep in rich meaning, memory, and mutuality, it doesn’t inspire instantaneous confidence and assertion like other kinds of consciousness and emotions. Indeed, deep tribalism is less intense than shallow tribalism. Street gangs will rumble and even kill/die for the thrill of the moment. It’s a way of showing off to one’s pals and gals that you’re made of tuff stuff. Also, tribalism among primitive tribes and street gangs tends to be emotionally intense because you are closely and even intimately associated with the fellows. Everyone knows everyone in a street gang or in a jungle tribe. It’s like the camaraderie among a platoon of soldiers in combat. In contrast, deep tribalism encompasses and embodies something much deeper and grander. It’s about a sense of connection with the line of one’s ancestors. It’s about a sense of unity and shared destiny with people who are strangers or whose existence one isn’t even aware of. After all, most Turks only know their family, friends, and co-workers. Most people they pass by in the streets are total strangers, and they will never meet tens of millions of fellow Turks. And yet, nationalism is about one’s sense of connection to every member of the Wider and Deeper Tribe. Deep tribalism is like a train. It takes more time and energy to get it going, unlike shallow tribalism that can roll into action instantly(like a skateboard), like in THE WARRIORS when the fellas know they have to stick together to make it back home. But just like a train in motion has far greater force and momentum than any skateboard, deep tribalism in action has power way beyond shallow tribalism. American tribalism was slower to enter World War II(as they figured Germany and Japan posed no threat to Americans), but once it gained critical mass and momentum following the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was an awesome force of a united nation out for vengeance. Same with Russia’s reaction to German invasion. Once Russians recouped and realized what was really at stake, they put on a massive show of force to defend the motherland. This is why deep tribalism is both an awesome asset and a serious liability. While most of us will jump into action to defend our family or friends, it takes much more for us to move into collective action as a national folk because it’s about combined action and shared sacrifice with people who are strangers with whom we have no intimate connection. Deep tribalism is all the more lethargic and dormant when the elites are useless or have been co-opted by another tribe(with imperialist stranglehold over the nation). If FDR’s problem was the difficulty of rousing up the populace to enter an overseas war, the current problem in the EU and US is the ruling elites(or the serving elites to the Jews) are unwilling to wake the people up to defend homeland and push back against the Great Replacement engineered by Jewish globalists. These Jewish globalists are over-eager to rouse up white people to go invade Iran or wage war on Russia, but they do everything to ensure that whites do NOTHING to defend the nations of their origin or founding. In other words, Jews have reprogrammed white tribalism as a tool for fighting Wars for Israel while doing nothing to defend white homelands from Diversitzkrieg. Because deep tribalism is like a locomotive that requires great energy, consensus, and unity to get moving, there is a chance that a people can fade as an identity & culture in their failure to summon up the forces of nationalism. It's like someone freezing to death because he fails to start a fire in time. The deep tribalism of nationalism is like a fire created by rubbing two sticks together. It takes time and energy, but once the fire gets going, it is a good fire. Jews have thrown water on white wood, and it is now difficult for the white race to start a nationalist fire. (In contrast, Zionism comes with lighter-fluid and matches, which is why white cucks prefer the Jewish fire for warmth without realizing they will eventually be gutted and cooked over it.) Jews have pissed all over the white logs of the West, and it seems no one can get the white fire going in places like UK, France, Sweden, and etc. Hungary and few other nations have been exceptions. Upon observing the massive invasion of Europe, Viktor Orban stepped up his game as national leader and inspired fellow Hungarians to unite to preserve the sacred nation of their heroes and ancestors. But in Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, and the UK, there's been a very different response, what with the leaders welcoming the invasion, suppressing national alarm, shutting off the diesel engine of the deep tribal locomotive, and silencing debate & criticism. But then, the problem is far more dire because, even if the national leaders had stepped forward to lead the defense of the realm, too many people will oppose them and demand that borders be flung wide open to endless waves of ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’. And to understand why this is so, we need to consider a force that is, at least in the short-term, stronger than tribalism.
We know that pleasure is a powerful force. People will cheat on their spouses for pleasure. People will use terrible drugs for pleasure and ruin their lives. People will blow all their savings and the house for the thrill of gambling. Students will fail exams in their addiction to TV, video-games, or pop music. People grow dangerously obese in their addiction to food. And it is for this reason that globalism pumps the entire populace with non-stop diversions that offer pleasure via pop music, blockbuster movies, TV shows, pornography, video-games, and all sorts of apps. The human mind becomes like a pinball machine that is always ‘ON’, bumping & bouncing & rolling & ringing. When we add up the number of people whose lives were ruined by addiction to stupid pleasures, it staggers the mind. Pleasure-seeking and pleasure-plugging — why seek out pleasure when all you have to do is ‘sign in’ or ‘log on’? — are such a mainstay of our existence that a new kind of 'morality'(or immorality as the new morality) has grown up around it. So, having loose sex isn’t just lewd behavior but ‘empowerment’ and ‘liberation’. And just about every other TV show is the ‘greatest TV show of all time, indeed a work of art’. Demented pop music is said to inspire us with ‘messages’. Football players who ‘take a knee’ to defend fellow racial thugs are supposed to be admired as moral exemplars. And killing unborn babies up to birth is about ‘women having choice’. It’s bad enough that so many people are addicted to excessive pleasures, but it’s much worse when it is ‘moralized’.
Still, except with the issue of abortion, there isn’t moral capital invested in current pleasures. Gambling has become mainstream, and libertarians have come up with philosophical as well as economic reasons as to why it should be legalized, but most people don’t take moral pride in gambling(even though it has been associated with ‘reparations’ for American Indians). But our current culture is full of Moral Outrage and Self-Righteousness, and this is another potent threat to deep tribalism. Granted, moral outrage and self-righteousness can exist side-by-side with tribalism, that is IF one’s tribe happens to be sanctified as holier-than-most for whatever reason. During the Westward expansion of Manifest Destiny, white people held this view that they were furthering progress and civilization whereas Indian savages stood in the way. So, in any struggle with the Indians, especially where the Red hostiles carried out massacres against white settlers/pioneers, white people felt moral outrage and moved into swift action to flush out the Indians as an act of vengeance, justice, and progress. Back then, being white and spreading white civilization were conflated with the moral progress of humanity. Jews associated Zionism with the Shoah, and so, the Narrative asserted that Jews have the right(and even an obligation) of pride of identity and nationhood to prevent another mass-killing of Jews. And in the Age of Anti-Imperialism(that ran parallel to the Cold War), non-white folks around the world felt pride of identity and morality in expelling the European(or American or Soviet) colonists or occupiers. But, in an earlier age, European Imperialists would have felt pride of both identity and morality in spreading the light of civilization and/or the blessings of Christianity to the benighted folks around the world living in darkness and stagnation. The dynamics between identity and morality depends on WHO gets to control the governing ideas, the narrative, and flow of information. If the prevailing idea says ‘the West is spreading the light of civilization to the darker parts of the world’, white identity becomes sanctified as the crusading race carrying the burden of uplifting the rest of mankind. If the narrative says ‘great progress has been made in the non-white world under white rule, and the lives of non-whites have improved greatly under the benevolent leadership of whites’, white imperialism is vindicated. The control of the flow of information — especially with the spread of mass media to the point of ubiquity in all parts of the world — is also important because no human enterprise is ever perfect. It may well be true that white imperialism did bring civilization or advanced ideas to more backward parts of the world. It may also be true that the lives of non-white natives did greatly improve in myriad ways. But there were also countless acts of white brutality and betrayal(of promises or principles). And there were surely white massacres of the natives. This is why the flow of news and information is of utter importance. Indeed, one reason why white-ruled South Africa failed whereas Jewish-ruled Israel thrived was due to Jewish control of the flow of information. Jews made South Africa out to be uniquely evil while covering up or rationalizing Jewish oppression over Palestinians(while also greatly exaggerating Palestinian terrorist violence against Jews). Indeed, sometimes the mere control of flow of information can justify even an especially murderous regime as the Lesser Evil. Given the nature of Nazi ideology, it was difficult for the German government to persuade the national volk that the war was about bringing liberty and progress to the Slavic population. So, how did the Nazi regime justify its aggressions and wars? They ran countless propaganda about how the Soviets were utterly beastly and monstrous. So, even if what Germany was doing in its invasion of the USSR wasn’t exactly moral, at least it was destroying a power many times worse, or so the news & propaganda said. Ironically, Jews are playing this game in the current Middle East policy. If Zionist globalists rode on high rhetoric as they led the US into Iraq War with big statements about vanquishing terror and spreading democracy, the viability of such justification collapsed with the utter implosion of their highfalutin project. Furthermore, as Jews came to fear the ‘Shia Crescent’ from Iran across Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, the main objective was to smash this bridge. Since the American public was dead-set against further deployment of US troops in major ground operations, Jews had to rely on proxies, and the only ones willing to do the job were Jihadis, exactly the kind of people involved in the 9/11 attack. If the official line on Iraq was ‘destroy tyranny to build a democracy’, the new line was ‘destroy to destroy to destroy’. There was no higher principle or noble objective to sell to the US public. So, how did the globo-imperialists justify their support of ‘moderate rebels’(euphemism for Jihadi terrorists) in Syria? It was like German propaganda about the Russian Slavs in World War II. Assad(and before him Gaddafi) had to go and their nations had to be destroyed because they are just... bad, awful, evil, and 'monstrous'. The US didn’t have an alternative to offer, but what did it matter? Bad people must be destroyed, and that’s that. So, the Jew-run media ran countless articles about how Assad was yet ANOTHER Arab Hitler who had to be toppled, and who cares if 100,000s of Syrians are killed and if millions are displaced?
Tribalism is reassuring in its sense of community, but it can also feel hampering. It can feel like a prison. Same goes for family. It’s nice to have a home with spouse and kids, but it also means your individual freedom must be compromised for the good of the whole. This is why so many people leave their own tribes and come to the US where they can feel free as people unshackled from identity and culture(which lend meaning but also place burdens). Abandoning one's culture may be alienating and lonely, but it is also liberating, especially in a place like the US where identity has become so interchangeable, superficial, take-it-or-leave-it, and do-it-yourself. It places few burdens except singing hosannas to Jews, Negroes, and homos. A Muslim, as an American 'nobody', has freedom to do anything, whereas back home he was confined by the mores and conventions of the Muslim community. So, abandoning tribalism is at once lonely and liberating, or ‘lonliberating’. Of course, some people want to have the cake and eat it too. They come to the relatively freer West and enjoy freedoms forbidden in their home countries, but they also maintain close contacts with people back home or form their own enclaves in the West so that they have both ‘our culture’ and ‘my freedom’. This uneasy duality was painfully dramatized in the film MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE by Hanif Kureishi and Stephen Frears. And of course, Jews are masters of this, what with their ‘liberal democracy’ and tribalism of Zionist nationalism & Shoah Exceptionalism. Barbra Streisand sees herself as both liberated woman and tribal Jew to the core. Think of YENTL that, perhaps more than THE JAZZ SINGER with Al Jolson, conveyed the Jewish duality of being 100% modern and 100% tribal. Loyalty and devotion to the Tribe even in defiance and rebellion. Tootsiwitz.
But it’s not just more freedom and individual liberty for which people take leave of their own tribalism. There are, after all, plenty of free ‘liberal democracies’ where people are afforded much personal freedoms. Furthermore, deep tribalism tends to be weak and fractured in diverse societies, especially if the nationalism happens to be artificially constructed than rooted in organic blood and soil. After all, what does it really mean to be a Colombian, Peruvian, or Bolivian? Does one trace one’s roots to Europeans or natives? If to both, how does one resolve the fact that Euro-Meso history has been one of conquest, slavery, ‘rape’, and ‘genocide’? Also, what makes Equador distinct from Venezuela? These are all made-up nationalities that have yet to form into meaningful identities. Now, if people with genuine national identities like Poles, Greeks, Hungarians, and Swedes were willing to abandon their homelands-and-cultures to become ‘Americans’, imagine how people in fake nations feel? They wouldn't be giving up anything to take on something new. At any rate, especially with the spread of American-style democracy all over the world, there are now plenty of nations where individuals are free to spout off their views and indulge their personal fancies. And even people in China are free to do most things as long as it’s not overtly political or ideologically opposed to the state. Then, why do so many people want to abandon their tribalism and come to the US? It’s because tribalism or familism feels much better when you’re part of a superior tribe or family. Uber-tribalism is more awesome than unter-tribalism. It’s like people prefer to be part of a uber-family than unter-family. Why do men, upon making lots of money, drop their homely wives & children with her and go off with some gorgeous chick and have kids with her? Why do women leave their ‘inferior’ husbands for the ‘superior’ man who is either more handsome, more manly, more intelligent, and/or more wealthy? Even though people are born into tribes, their tribal feelings may be dissatisfied with a sense of inferiority. After all, what does it mean to be a Kazakh? By global standards, it means NOTHING. What does it mean to be a Peruvian? Or a Bangladeshi? Granted, people with feelings of tribal inferiority may exaggerate their sense of pride, but such outlandish displays betray signs of inadequacy. Puerto Ricans are a perfect example of this. They will not vote for independence from the US. 80% of them would rather live in the US than in Puerto Rico. They are total leeches and dependents on the US empire, but they try to mask their inferiority with National Pride Celebrations of Puerto Rican culture and history... which are what exactly? And look at all those Mexicans who left Mexico for the US but wave the Mexican flag. In a way, it’s proof of the resilience of Mexican tribalism but also a sign of inferiority complex and inadequacy compensation. After all, if Mexicans are so proud to be Mexican, why didn’t they stay in Mexico? Now, if Mexicans say they came to the US because gringos stole the SW territories from Mexico, then why don’t they limit their residence in those areas? But instead, they spread out all over the US to look for jobs and better conditions under gringo. In contrast to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, it seems Turks do have a genuine national identity and pride, BUT their flag-waving antics in the West do suggest a deep-seated sense of inferiority. They left Turkey and resettled in Western European nations, but they make a big noise about how they are so proud to be Turk. Still, at least the Turks do maintain some degree of national distinctness even as they move to other nations. In contrast, certain groups almost entirely drop their original tribalism like a hot potato or dead cat and take to the new uber-tribal identity, indeed like a person who converts from one faith to another. Even though identity and spirituality are different — identity is what you are by blood whereas spirituality is about what you are by heart — , identities too have been often mutable throughout history. Perhaps, becoming ‘American’ has been the biggest phenomenon of Identity-Conversion. It is different from being a mere member or citizen of the empire. Being a Roman citizen didn’t mean you were Roman. Being a member of the British Empire didn’t mean you were British. It meant you, as an African, Arab, or Hindu, were part of the empire dominated by Britons. You could take part in the empire and even greatly benefit from it, but you were still not British but a British subject. In contrast, becoming ‘American’ is about more than citizenship. It is about abandoning your identity of origin to be reborn as a 'new man' called ‘American’.
Now, with ‘multi-culturalism’, some might argue that immigrants can be both ‘American’ in the generic & ‘inclusive’ sense and culturally distinct in the sense of origin, but this does not pan out in practice. Actually, the spirit of multi-culturalism is to be found more in Europe because distinct identities still exist over there, making it more difficult to assimilate to native cultures are deeper in particularities of identity and history than anything in America. As such, newcomers are more likely to cling to their identity of origin as European identities are less mutable. In contrast, the ‘genericizing’ impact of Americanism has been such that even the founding stock of Americans no longer have any distinct identity, and besides, Anglo-Americanism at its core tended to be blander, for better and worse, than other cultures. (Indeed, that very blandness was part of the reason for greater progress as Anglos were less hampered by the burden of Heavy Culture.) When foreign peoples come to Europe, both sides embolden the other to be more cultural. Presence of foreigners makes Europeans feel more distinct, and particularities of European-ness makes newcomers cling to their cultures. Indeed, the arrival of non-Europeans is making many Europeans dig deeper into their roots and history for identity, not least because they can no longer take the survival of their culture for granted. But when peoples with distinct histories and culture come to America that no longer has any discernibly dominant narrative or culture, they take cues from established Americans to just become ‘good Americans’ or ‘cool Americans’. That ‘cool’ factor is crucial because immigrants generally don't assimilate to the new nation IF they regard it as inferior or ‘uncool’. For example, Chinese are far more likely to assimilate into Western-ism that they consider superior than to Southeast Asian cultures that they find to be inferior and ‘uncool’ even though Chinese are racially far closer to Southeast Asians than to whites. I don’t think people who move to Mexico are eager to become ‘Mexicans’. If anything, they regard Mexico as a mere way-station before they can ultimately make it to America to become ‘Americans’, which is a helluva ‘cooler’ than being a ‘Mexican’. Cool-Supremacism really counts for something in the pop-culture-drenched world.
But it’s also a matter of might, wealth, and power. Just like a woman in a poor family feels so much better to leave her husband and children and start a new life in a big mansion with a rich man and have kids with him, plenty of people are willing to run from their unter-tribes and join the uber-tribe of America. Due to the nature of ‘Americanism’, one could argue that it isn’t real tribalism and, if anything, is anti-tribalist. And yet, if we expand the concept of tribalism to mean a sense of belonging to a power-system, one could speak of a meta-, supra-, and inter-tribalism of America. It may not be organic or stable(much like the Soviet Union), but it is the greatest Power System to which so many people around the world are drawn. Just like athletes want to leave inferior teams and be recruited by superior teams with chance of winning the championship trophy, so many people want to leave their weaker & ‘inferior’ nations and be part of the Lone Superpower. That said, all such peoples find PC useful to mask their sense of inferiority and act of betrayal. Even though they ran from their own non-white kinds to be in a superior political and economic order created by whites, they spout PC to hide their shame of preference for whiteness and pretend that they came to the West to teach white people the important lessons of ‘diversity’(even though so many non-whites flee from nations filled with diversity to go live in white majority nations). In truth, they want to be part of ‘winner’ superpower America than be stuck in their ‘loser’ nations. Tribalism is about loyalty to one’s own kind, but it can also be about betrayal against one’s own ‘loser’ kind in favor of transferring loyalty to the ‘winner’ kind. This is especially true of women. Look at all those white women who dumped ‘loser’ white males and ran off with ‘winner’ Negroes and had children for them. Look at all those non-whites who came to the US and serve in the US military EVEN THOUGH the US kill bushels and bushels of their kind. Ideally, every tribe wants to be #1 and the best, just like every team wants to win the championship. But when one feels that one’s own tribe is hopeless and bound to always lose, there is a temptation to join the winning side and offer one’s services to it. There is organic tribalism of belonging and psychological tribalism by association. When all those white college kids root for black athletes, they are psychologically associating themselves with the winners. In contrast, when blacks root for black athletes, it is a tribalism of unity and belonging. Blacks think 'blacks win for black glory'. Psychological tribalism can be employed by everyone. Asians and Mexicans don't win in sports in the US, but by rooting for and psycho-associating themselves with the blacks of their local team, they too feel 'we won'. So, a Vietnamese guy in Detroit can root for the Pistons and feel 'we won' by association. Needless to say, psychological tribalism of association is delusional and even pathetic compared to tribalism of belonging. But so strong is the urge for people to feel connected with winners that they will psychologically associate themselves with the Winner Group despite lack of blood ties and the harm it maybe causing to one's own people. Notice how blacks cause tremendous harm to whites, but white retards go through the same cycle of cheering for 'our black team' as if their lives depended on it. A black guy can beat up a white guy and take his girl, but the white guy, come superbowl season, will be howling and cheering for blacks with whom he has psychologically associated himself.
Identifying with the Winner Tribe over one's own Loser Tribe begins with collaboration but can even lead to assimilation, especially if the ‘loser’ side and ‘winner’ side are racially similar. Granted, a truer kind of tribalism is where one sticks to one’s own kind, win or lose. Such a person finds value in his tribe and identity for their own sake. Jews were the biggest practitioners of this kind of tribalism, and they were able to do so because of the power of the Covenant. Though surrounded by far mightier powers on all sides in the Ancient World, Jews believed that (1) the one and only God was on their side and (2) every Jew, from rich to poor, was blessed with this Covenant. The Covenant made Jews feel as winners even in their defeat because they had the blessing of the one and only true God. Such a mindset was able to stave off the temptation of surrendering one’s own ‘loser’ identity in favor of the ‘winner’ identity. This is why Jews were different among the various groups in the US. Many Jews arrived with just shirt on their backs like other immigrant groups. But if others, in great awe of Anglo-Americanism, were eager to give up their own puny identities and become out-sized winner ‘Americans’, such outcome wasn’t enough for Jews. Even as Jews did become Americanized, they felt a strong need to be Jewish first and American second and then gain control of the American ship and steer it toward blessing, favoring, and serving Judeo-centric interests.
Anyway, let us return to the original topic as to what force can be more potent than tribalism, at least in the short-term. After all, if tribalism is the most powerful force, why couldn’t Russian tribalism suppress radical communism? Granted, in the long-term, Russian tribalism reasserted itself and ‘nationalized’ communism and then outlasted communism, but for several decades, the radical ideology of Bolshevism swept across Russia like a wildfire. In a moral-spiritualized culture such as the West, people feel most justified and superior with holier-than-thou emotions. The need to virtue-vape may be most pronounced among whites in the current year because they’ve been denied tribal worth. In contrast, Jews and blacks have the most potent combination of tribal nobility and moral sanctity. Because their identities have been stamped with ‘noble victimhood’, their "We are" is synoymous with "We are right". Just by being a Jew, you’re a member of the Holy Holocaust Club. Just by being black, you’re a member of the Slavery Cruise or (Jim)Crow Crew. For most other non-white groups, their identity is neither noble or ignoble but neutral. Still, they can score some pokemon points by constantly attacking whites for ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘patriarchy’, and ‘homophobia’(which is rather odd since the white world has done most to advance PC). In contrast, white identity is not only unholy but lacking in neutral value. It is tainted and diseased with all sorts of nasty -isms, which really sound like a bunch of -itises or disease. When whites are accused of ‘racism’ or ‘antisemitism’, it’s almost as if they’re infected with diseases of racistitis or antisemititis. Indeed, discussions of ‘antisemitism’ often characterize whites(and some Muslims and blacks) as ‘infected’ with ‘delusions’ and other ‘mental disorders’, as if it's entirely a virus-infested hallucination that Jews have lots of money and pull strings to further Judeo-centric interests. (Palestinians must have been suffering from a mad-fever all along that Nakba happened.) Because whites cannot rely on identity for moral credit or even moral neutrality, they must make an extra effort to come across as GOOD people. Imagine three people at sea. Jewish guy’s identity is a life-jacket. Even without moving his limbs, he remains easily afloat. Not needing to swim constantly to stay afloat, he can just berate and mock others. Next, imagine a Mexican. His identity is like a shirt on his back. It doesn’t do anything to keep him afloat. So, he has to tread his arms and legs regularly to remain afloat. Now, imagine white guy whose identity is extra weight anchored to one of his legs. The weight keeps pulling him down, so he has to make an extra effort to keep his head above water. As his identity is an hindrance to his being, he must try extra-hard to prove his worth. Then, one can understand why some of the most deranged TOM(the outrage mob)types are white. TOMs cannot rest on the laurel of favored/ennoble identity. If anything, they’ve been told from cradle that their identity is tainted and soiled by historical crimes, especially against Magical Negroes and Wonderful Jews. So, it’s not enough for them to be reasonably good(especially in regards to Jews and blacks). They must go out of their way to show that they’ve been redeemed and saved. It’s sink or swim for whites. But then, such whites have found out that their virtue-virulence actually feels good. It gives them a high like a drug. Also, if they are ugly, unattractive, or uncool — and not having fun with the cool kids — and missing out on the pleasures of life, they can feel pleasure from hits of virtue-vaping. They get high on Cuckaine. Those who can’t get off on physical narcissism get off on moral narcissism. This is why Rock concert and Evangelical services have something in common. The partying people at Rock concerts get off on 'cool' fun, and ecstatic people at church raptures get off on feeling holier-than-thou and ‘saved’. Or, if you’re not invited to a house party, join a political party. If you can’t afford a cruise, join the crusade. It’s not surprising why so many of the most vociferous TOM types tend to be physically ugly, gross, or unpleasant. They are the kind who are unlikely to attract members of the opposite sex. Many of them have personality problems. They aren’t athletic, and of course, few people have creative talent. Now, there are plenty of people who count as ‘losers’ and just go on with their lives. But certain ‘losers’ have narcissistic personalities even though they have nothing to be narcissistic about. It’s like some guys think they’re gals and some gals think they are guys EVEN THOUGH men are really men and women are really women. Some narcissists-without-anything-to-be-narcissistic-about(sort of like being poor-but-feeling-rich) just lose themselves in delusion and pretend they are hot stuff. Lena Dunham was maybe the most famous case of this personality type in recent years. A homely Miss Piggy lookalike, she nevertheless pretended to be some hot stuff and was indulged by the media. And there are people who look even worse but just can’t get enough of themselves. This seems especially true of fat trannies like Divine. On some level, they really seem to think they got sex appeal even though they look utterly ludicrous and laughable. Behind the camp is the desire to be champ. In contrast, there are many ‘loser’ types with narcissistic complex who really know they aren’t cool and never will be. But their narcissism still drives them to be 'somebody', and the EASIEST and QUICKEST way is to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou about moral crusade. So, they adopt a sense of outrage about some 'great' wrong in the world and cop an attitude that they are oh-so-very angry and care so very much(more than rest of mankind). To an extent, TOM behavior is like athletics for SJW-NPC ‘losers’. Even though PC has spread the culture of ‘moral outrage’ and ideological purity-spiraling far and wide — everyone picks up some PC signals from TV shows and public education, and there are plenty of attractive and successful people who virtue-signal too, though more for status than anything else — , the most extreme and committed types tend to be ‘losers’ who need The Outrage to compensate for the lack of anything happening in their lives. Now, some of these ‘loser’ types can actually gain success if they have talent and work ethic. Certain successful figures in the Rock scene would likely have been nasty SJW types if not for the talent. Though I’ve no use for Kurt Cobain, he seems to have been a classic neurotic ‘loser’ type who shot to stardom because he had a natural knack for music. But because of their ‘core’ angry-loser personalities, even their success never makes them really feel like winners. The chip never goes away from their shoulders because, minus their special talent, they were socially destined to be unattractive losers burdened with narcissistic complex. Perhaps it explains why Kurt Cobain ended up as he did. Despite all the success and wealth, his essential being was that of the angry loser who never got the love that he craved. Even when he finally got the love, it wasn’t on his own terms. People loved him as a glamorous Rock Star than an angry & wounded soul, a victim of cosmic injustice.
Anyway, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of righteousness, especially self-righteousness. While it has a shorter life-span than tribalism(and especially deep tribalism that is often in a state of hibernation in a world where individual pursuit of happiness dominates the moment), it burns brighter and can burn a lot of things while it’s hot. It’s like what Eldon Tyrell says in BLADE RUNNER: "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long."
The radical fire of communism didn’t last a century, but the conflagration was unstoppable for a time in certain parts of the world where hearts and minds were lit. It’s like youth comes and goes all too fast, but it is the most exciting time of one’s life because it is time of energy, dreams, and ideals. Even as people grow older and realize much of the foolishness of their younger days, they remember how exciting it had once been. This is why tribalists shouldn’t rest on the laurels of tribalism as the default position of humanity. While tribalism may win in the long run over idealism(often fanciful or delusional), the sheer fury of the righteous vision may alter society SO MUCH that the original tribalism becomes difficult to regain or restore. This is especially true if the righteous ideas goes about transforming the demographic character of a nation. Suppose Nation A undergoes the radical-righteous assault of communism while Nation B undergoes the radical-righteous assault of globalist multi-culturalism. Both communism and multi-culturalism wage war on traditional tribalism, but the impacts could be profoundly different. Eventually, once communism fails and is discarded, Nation A still exists as a people and culture to restore traditional tribalism. Communism may have wrecked the economy and repressed lots of people, but it didn’t replace the native folk and culture. In contrast, multi-culturalism and Diversity-mania, as radical-righteous crusades, do go about demographically transforming the nation. So, when the righteous radicalism of multi-culturalism finally dies down in and the native folks realize what a dumb idea it’d been, the sad fact is Nation B’s tradition and tribe can never again be reconstituted. Some radical ideas pass like the wind. It does a lot of damage, but the things of the land remain. But some radical ideas have the effect of a massive mudslide. It uproots and washes away the very things of the land. Communism was like a terrible hurricane that passed without destroying the core foundations of the nation. It led to much ideological madness and killed a lot of people, but when it was over, Russians still had Russia, Chinese still had China, Poles still had Poland, Hungarians still had Hungary, Vietnamese still had Vietnam, and etc. In contrast, globalist mass-immigration and multi-culturalism are like a massive flood or tsunami that is wiping away the very demographic and cultural foundations of nations. The most threatened are Western European nations, but the danger is spreading all around the world.
Then, why are so many white people obsessed with Diversity and Multi-Culturalism? We need to understand that ideology is something more than use of political reason or a logical discourse about politics and the world. Rather, it is an impassioned, fanatical, and/or dogmatic commitment to a system of ideas as quasi-sacred, infallible, and finalizing. Ideology lends the impression of being the ultimate destination of all threads of history, morality, and progress. It is regarded as the Answer following the = sign after a lengthy, difficult, and complicated formula. Marxism wasn’t presented as just another idea or proposal. Rather, the idea was that Marx had figured it all out. He had peered into the hidden heart, mind, and gut of history and drew out the secret of what really animates human affairs. And based on that understanding, Marx offered his solutions. As such, Marxists weren’t merely economists with a socialist bent but more like the Christian apostles who, blessed with the Truth, were determined to change the world. Ideology is the product of thought, and it does invite further theorizing, but, more than anything, it demands adherence, commitment, and fanaticism. Ideology isn’t merely a hypothesis or theory but something that presents itself as the final solution. So, while its adherents can tinker with it, they are expected to fully accept its core tenets. It’s like there has been many sects of Christianity, but all Christians must believe in the One God and Jesus as His Son, the Messiah. Anyone who rejects the core canon of Christian theology cannot be a real Christian. Likewise, while Marxists might reject or reform aspects of Marxism, they must accept the idea that economics and class struggle are the most fundamental agents of history IF they are to be good Marxists.
If ideology is limiting and rigid, why are so many people drawn to it? Because unlike most ideas that, no matter how brilliant or fact-based they may be, are emotionally dry or neutral, ideology imbues its true believers with a sense of belonging, destiny, justice, and righteousness of Higher Truth(that is bigger than the sum of all little facts). Ideology allows for righteous supremacism, or self-righteous supremacism. Such emotions often seem ugly to outsiders, but they feel so good to the true believer. As far as they are concerned, they are BLESSED whereas non-believers are either pitifully benighted or blasphemous(and cursed). Amy Harmon of the New York Times is one vile bitch who peddles PC truisms and piles abuse upon those with minds many times greater than hers, BUT she feels so good with her PC self-righteous supremacism. Oh, don’t you know, she is so good, so very good, so signal-zealous with virtue, so holier-than-you-or-me. Who cares about facts that might be ‘racist’ and ‘hateful’ when the Truth is on her side? But, how can her ideology said to be the Truth when it overlooks so many facts and sidesteps intellectual integrity? Because ideology says the Truth is more about how the world should be than how it is. Utopianism may be delusional but is the dream of 'good people', whereas 'bad people' are content with or cling to grim 'fallen' reality. Just like people prefer movie reality to real-reality, ideologues prefer world-as-it-should-be to world-as-it-is. This is why leftist-dreamer Oliver Stone has been starstruck with John F. Kennedy as Mr. Camelot, though with NIXON, his crypto-conservative side admitted that Tricky Dick was closer to what America really is. But then, what if ‘good people’ pore over inconvenient facts and come to the correct conclusion? In that case, they too are suddenly denounced as ‘bad people’ for deviating from the Party Line. Or, if they want to save their reputation, they will state the facts as facts but, at the end of the day, still draw a conclusion that is consonant with PC. It’d be like Galileo laying out all his calculations that prove that Earth revolves around the Sun, but then saying that Sun revolves around the Earth just the same. That’s how people like David Reich play the game.
Even though ideological dogmatism can come across as off-putting, virulent, and crazy to neutral observers, it also has a certain appeal. After all, ideology isn’t merely about extremism or fanaticism for its own sake. There are people with extreme eating or video-gaming habits, but they don't win respect. (On the other hand, the extreme zeal of getting more tattoos does seem to draw positive attention in our deranged age. It's like how some primitive cultures measure worth by how many scars or bones-through-noses someone has. At least the primitives could be forgiven for their ignorance and savagery, but what is the excuse of advanced cultures?) Then how can ideological extremism be appealing? Because ideology can be about extreme self-righteousness and moral purity. Given that so many people lead compromised lives, there is a certain envy for those who seem pure and courageous of heart. After all, that is Christianity’s very appeal, the idea that Jesus never compromised and never ran from His challenges, stuck to His principles, and faced torture & death as ordained by the will of God. All Christians know they are far from perfect and, for that reason, greatly admire and revere Jesus Christ, the Man who played his strings out to the end. While ideological extremists often come across as nasty, difficult, and insufferable — even to members of the shared ideology — , there is always a grudging respect for and even envy of the purist and fanatic for his devotion, commitment, and courage. Granted, there is a sigh of relief when such a figure dies because people prefer purists as myths than as men. Take Che Guvera, a purist Marxist-Leninist who was willing to put his life on the line to spread communism all throughout Latin America. When he was alive, Fidel Castro and others felt very nervous about his aggressive and strident rhetoric and call to action. The more pragmatic elements of Revolutionary Cuba didn’t want to jeopardize their order and movement by going all in and risking the full wrath of America. And yet, they had to admit Che had the guts and balls to charge into the dragon’s lair. When he died in Bolivia and went from Man to Myth, Cuban leaders were relieved because the late Che would be more effective as propaganda and no longer dangerous as a hothead. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he called for all-out nuclear war.
While a person’s existence matters more than his feelings in the long run, it is his passions that make him feel justified. Sensations(from drugs, food, sex, games, etc) also feel good but without the righteous element. Also, many people without the ‘cool’ element aren’t very successful in getting the best kind of feel-good fun. How many men end up with the most gorgeous women, how many women end up with the most handsome men? How many people have the money to really live it up and afford the best things in life? Not that many. So, for all the millennials who majored in less lucrative fields or graduated from lesser universities, their best bet for feeling good is to take up self-righteous causes, especially as the decline of traditional religion in America has deprived so many people of feelings of redemption and righteousness. (If you have God and Jesus, you don't have to chase after every new cause to feel 'saved'.) That way, even a not-too-bright, ugly, and gross-looking person can instantly feel as a GOOD person, indeed a BETTER person than most. While their commitment to a certain cause could be sincere and genuine, one of the main attractions of ideological crusades is the sense that one is part of a great, glorious, and shining movement. These days, it doesn’t even have to be all that ideological as, indeed, much of PC emphasizes ‘idology’(idolatry, especially of the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Negroes, as substitute for ideology) more than anything. As so many young people were raised with quasi-sacred idols and relics associated with the Holy Three, their emotions are saturated with sanctimonious vibes about Wise Jews, Magic Negroes, and Holy Homos. So, if PC says ‘white supremacists’ dare to blaspheme the sacred iconography of the Holy Three, idiotic PC self-righteous supremacists get awful ‘triggered’. Jefferson Lee’s tweets hit pretty close to the mark as to why so people are the way they are. Most people are unthinking NPC’s whose psycho-politics of (self)righteous outrage has been instilled by elite forces of media, academic, and state power. It is then no wonder that so many white Americans are such clumps of clay molded by Jewish hands that control most of the institutions and outlets. (Jewish culture of self-righteous supremacism is beginning to split apart. When the US was less diverse, Jewish identification with Zionism was sufficient grounds for self-righteousness as Israel was regarded as a necessary haven for Jews who survived the Shoah. But in a more diverse America where BDS has become a thing and with a more stridently right-wing Israel so closely allied with the GOP, many libby-dib Jews are beginning to feel that their only way to sustain self-righteous supremacism is to abandon Israel and side with POC. How far this will go is uncertain at the moment.)
Anyway, we should never rest on the laurels of tribalism on grounds that it is ‘natural’ and will always prevail. It is natural to some extent but so are the emotions of righteousness. And in a way, we need righteousness because we wouldn’t have morality, ethics, rules, principles, and laws without it. We are not just about existence like plankton or bacteria. We are not just about might-is-right for that is the rule of thugs and gangsters. With the power of reason and sense of fairness, we want to do the right thing. It feels good to be righteous, virtuous, and moral(though, there is also a natural side of us that takes delight in being edgy, daring, and nihilistic; our culture of ‘cool’ tends to favor amorality or even immorality over 'square' morality). But, we need to ask if our sense of righteousness was arrived at by good sense, reason, and a true set of priorities. After all, righteousness that threatens existence cannot be good except in cases where one sacrifices one’s individual self for the survival of the community as a whole. If one’s righteousness brings about the destruction and demise of one’s own community, it cannot be good under any circumstances. In the Current West, so many whites think there is nothing more virtuous than supporting policies that are sure to lead to White Demise and think there is nothing more evil than the desire of white nations to maintain their racial, cultural, and territorial integrity. How did whites become so doggedly righteous about self-destruction as moral urgency? To understand that, whites must ask the question, "What people have the power, what are their interests & attitudes, how do they look upon my people(as fellow humans or as puppets/dogs/cattle), and how are they using elite institutions to manipulate us? Never trust the power. Never obey the power mindlessly. Always try to understand who has the power, how they feel about your people, and what they are doing and why. Even though a wing of PC arose from Critical Theory, its overall effect has been to shut down critical thought. Critical Theory doesn’t say that individuals, as free thinkers, should look upon all things with critical gaze and cautious skepticism. Critical Theory is not an individual pursuit but an institutional agenda. It is about a handful of intellectuals gaining control of elite institutions, deciding & decreeing WHAT should be ‘critiqued’ & ‘deconstructed’ in support of WHAT agenda(decided mostly by Jewish esoteric-supremacists), and compulsively guiding & nudging the students & followers to think in a certain way. It should really be called Collective Theory. Critical Theory will NOT tolerate those who use its ‘deconstructive’ methods of critique on Critical Theory itself or on Jewish Power. In this, it is different from the Anglo liberal tradition of skepticism and empiricism that favors, above all, the rational individual’s right to formulate his own questions and pursue his own queries. Most commissars of Critical Theory in colleges never had an original thought or observation in their life. Rather, from day one, they were handed WHAT to believe, WHAT to hate, WHAT to pursue, and WHAT to serve. Critical Theorists, especially non-Jewish ones, are hardly more than blood hounds given a scent to track. They are unable to deviate from the scent presented to them, especially by Jewish Power. So, despite all their learning and intellectual ‘sophistication’, it all comes down to promulgating the same old same old trite cliches about ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘white privilege’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘patriarchy’, and the usual suspects of 'thought crimes'. Those were the scents given to these hound dogs to track with fanatical single-mindedness. Critical Theory could also be called Critical Decree. It is especially effective as a supremacist tool because the supremacist power or the wanna-be-supremacist power(which now happens to be Jewish) directs the intellectual, journalistic, and political class to pour all their energies and rhetoric into exposing and denouncing the alleged ‘supremacism’ of OTHER groups. By making so many fools in academia, media, government, and activist groups feel oh-so-very-self-righteous about opposing and denouncing ‘white privilege’ or ‘white supremacism’, Jewish Supremacists successful divert so many people from the fact of Jewish Supremacist Rule of America. Jews invoke ‘antisemitism’ to shut people down and simply will not tolerate anyone to ‘deconstruct’ the notion of ‘antisemitism’. Jews had to destroy Joe Sobran who said antisemitism is less about people hating Jews than about Jews hating certain peoples. Whomever Jews hate are deemed as ‘anti-Semites’.
