The real moral outrage should be this: Why use 'Latino' or 'Latinx'(or Latin-whatever) to designate so many people of Mexico, Central America, and South America who are NOT of Latin identity, history, or heritage? Latin-whatever is an IMPOSED identity in Mexico-Central-America-South-America UNLESS one happens to be of European Conquistador or Immigration-Invader origin(or have substantial white blood). In truth, the native peoples of those regions had an existence going back 10,000s of yrs. And some of them had histories and unique cultures going back 1,000s of yrs. So, they had an identity BEFORE the arrival of the Europeans who came as imperialists and conquerors. And under Latin-American rule, they were not co-masters of Mexico-Central-America-South-America but, more often than not, subjects and slaves of the European Conquerors. So, referring to ALL the people of that region as 'Latino' or 'Latin-whatever' is deeply insulting. Imagine if we call Filipinos 'Latin-Asians' because they were ruled by the Spanish for centuries. Suppose we refer to Asian Indians as Anglo-Asians because of 250 yrs of British domination. And supposed we refer to black Africans as Latin-Africans, Gallic-Africans, Anglo-Africans, Dutch-Africans, Belgian-Africans, and etc. because much of Africa had been ruled by various European colonizers at one time. It is simply wrong to refer to the indigenous Meso-'Americans' as 'Hispanics' or 'Latinos'(or the utterly ridiculous and decadent 'Latinx', which sounds like Latin-Dominatrix).
At the very least in the US, we don't refer to blacks and American Indians as 'Anglo'. Even though they came under Anglo power and learned to speak English, they are still referred to as 'African' or 'Indian' or 'Native American'. That much of their true identity is respected. They are not labeled with the generic term of Anglo or Anglx. But for some reason, everyone( regardless of racial or cultural origin) in Mexico-Central-America-South-America is called 'Latino' and now 'Latinx' even if he or she(or 'they'?) has no white blood or little white blood. The deep identity of the indigenous folks are disregarded, and they are merely labeled with the identity of the European imperialists who conquered them. It's as if they had no history, identity, and culture prior to the arrival of Europeans. And blacks in and from that part of the world are also referred to as 'Latino' and now 'Latinx' even though they are really African in origin and were enslaved and brought by force by the Latin-European and Latin-Jewish slavers. Using this logic, I suppose Palestinians living under Jewish rule should be called Judeo-Arabs. (Slavery under Jews was especially tragic. If European Christian slavers and Muslim slavers were at least willing to share God and Jesus/Muhammad with the slave population, Jews didn't share the Covenant with their slaves. Via Conversion to Christianity or Islam, the slave was made the equal of the master at least in spiritual matters. But the Jewish Covenant was only for Jews, and Jewish masters never regarded the goy slaves as their spiritual equal.)
Another thing. This gender-bender ideology is just the latest in Western Cultural Imperialism(now gone decadent and degenerate under Jewish-capitalist globo-homo nuttery). Indeed, gender-ideology, Homomania, and LGBTQ-ism are essentially proxy forms of Judeo-globalism. It is the Jewish Imperialist equivalent of Christianity. Since Jews hate Christianity and no longer believe in something like Marxism, they need a neo-'spiritual' and missionary ideological agenda to unite all elites around the world. And their 'spiritual' weapon is Globo-Homomania. Why? Because gender-bender-ism poses no economic challenge to the ruling elites. After all, homos and trannies are naturally vain and narcissistic and suck up to the rich and powerful. Also, because homos and trannies everywhere are favored, lionized, and elevated by the power of the globalist elites, they become the most loyal servants of globo-homo world domination. 'Gay rights' turned into Gay Rites, the consecration of the homos and trannies by the Gay Ray of the sodomy 'rainbow'. Also, as every nation has its share of homos with grievances, those homos make ideal fifth-columnists who will be most willing to collaborate with globalist Jewish power. Jews and homos see eye-to-eye in favoring elite-minority rule over goyim and straights. Most Chinese are patriotic and stand with China, and most Iranians are patriotic and stand with Iran. But homos & trannies in China and Iran are likely to be disgruntled because they don't get the adoration & adulation that homos(and increasingly trannies) receive in the Jewish controlled West. So, they will be most likely to collaborate with Jewish globalists to subvert their own nations. After all, if Jewish globo-homo ideology takes over China and Iran, the homos there will be elevated and celebrated as saints, angels, and even gods. So, this 'Latinx' business is a double-assault on the indigenous folks of what is called 'Latin America'. Their true indigenous identity is (1) buried under the imperialist identity of the European conquerors and (2) pasted over with the decadent & degenerate consumer-capitalist cultism of Jewish globo-homo world order. It is total BS.
A real movement for a truer sense of identity for all the indigenous folks in 'Latin America' should call for the rejection of the term 'Latin' altogether. 'Latino' or 'Latin-whatever' should ONLY apply to people in 'Latin America' who are white or mostly white of Spanish or Portuguese origin(and maybe Italian origin). People who are brown or mostly indigenous should recover & revive their own indigenous identities and insist that they be referred to as such than being labeled with the imperialist identity of the very people who conquered them, 'genocided' them, enslaved them, and 'raped' them(to create the mixed-race Mestizo).
What is called 'Latin America' is the most tragic part of the world. At least in North America and Australia(and Siberia), the native populations were small enough to be easily conquered and pacified. In contrast, it is estimated that there were 60 million people(with reasonably advanced and complex civilizations) in what is now referred to as 'Latin America'. And around 55 million of them were killed, mostly by disease but also by guns and greed. At the very least, Asians, Middle Easterners, and Africans were immune to the diseases brought by Europeans. (If anything, a disease that began in Asia came to wipe out 1/3 of Europeans in the Bubonic Plague.) So, in time, Africans, Asians, and Middle Easterners all regained their territories and independence from the Europeans. But the indigenous peoples and cultures of Mexico-Central-America-South-America came under permanent domination by the European Imperialist elites. And this takeover wasn't merely political or economic but even in the area of cultural identity. By calling the indigenous brown people of Mexico-Central-America-South-America as 'Latino', 'Latinx' or 'Latin-whatever', they've been denied not only political independence(from European Conquistadoreans) but their own cultural and racial identity.
Sadly however, browns must be awful stupid because, instead of seeing the big picture, they think they won some great Culture War by being suckered by Jewish imperialism into embracing the globo-homo 'Latinx' idiocy as their true identity. No wonder they were so easily and permanently conquered by the Spanish and Conquistadors. They are estupidx.
Finally, it goes without saying that most Latin-Americans(of European background) prefer the vague and confused terminology of ‘Latino’(or ‘Latinx’) that obfuscates the identities of whites, browns, and blacks(and all the mixed-raced mestizos and mulattos). This way, white Latinos(of Conquistador background) can posture as ‘people of color’ and pretend to be ‘victims of gringo imperialismo’ and demand ‘affirmative action’. By posturing as people-of-color, they can pretend to have much in common with browns(whom they conquered and raped) and blacks(whom they enslaved and exploited). There are few things more disgusting than the sight of all those white Latin Americans(who still dominate most of ‘Latin America’ politically and economically) pretending that "race doesn’t matter in ‘Latin America’ because everyone is totally mixed" when, in fact, there are many color barriers and hierarchies in Mexico-Central-America-South-America. The loose terminology of ‘Latino’ allows white Latin Americans of Conquistador or Immigrant-Imperialist backgrounds to wash their hands clean of all their invasions, genocides, and acts of enslavement. After all, if a white Latin American and a indigenous brown person are both equally ‘Latino’(or ‘Latinx’), then it means they are one and the same or interchangeable. ROTFL. Most Latin Americans who gain favoritism via Affirmative Action in elite institutions are white or mostly white. Their ancestors pioneered the conquest of the Americas and carried out the first ‘genocides’ and mass-rapes of the natives. But now, they go around pretending to be ‘people of color’, poor victims of Yanqui Imperialismo, and take advantage of Affirmative Action programs that were designed to help black Americans and American Indians. Such a shameless people without an ounce of honor. Look at Guillermo Del Toro and Marco Rubio. They are white-as-can-be, but they pretend to be spokesmen for the People of Color. They call for mass-migration as a human right when, in fact, it was the mass-migration of European Conquistadors into the New World that set off the worst mass deaths and exploitation in human history. The story of mass migration has been about Human Might, not Human Right. The more powerful people migrated into other lands and took them over. Just ask the Palestinians what mass migration of Jews did to that part of the world. If people like Guillermo Del Toro and Marco Rubio really believe in mass-migration as a good, how about all the white Latinos in Mexico-Central-America-South-America migrating back to Europe and handing over the lands back to the indigenous peoples who were destroyed by the Imperialism? Restore indigeneity by removing diversity.
Guillermo Del Toro of European Conquistador background is a Latino.
This indigenous brown woman is a 'Latina'. ROTFL.
Cubano Marco Rubio of Conquistador background is a Latino.
Evo Morales of Indigenous Blood is also 'Latino'. ROTFL.
A good example of media manipulation of mass perception is the term ‘death squad’. It was an oft-used term in the 1970s and 1980s, and it almost always applied to ‘right-wing’ regimes. So, we heard of ‘right-wing death squad’ over here, ‘right-wing death squad’ over there. But we almost never heard of ‘left-wing death squads’ even though there were plenty of them beginning with Bolshevik Terror. NKVD and communist henchmen terrorized entire villages and executed many people. Millions died under Stalin. Communist lynch-mobs were assembled by Red China to wage class war. Mass terror and killings were carried out by both the Right and Left in the Spanish Civil War. The most horrific leftist mass-killings were carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And yet, ‘death squads’ only applied to ‘right-wing’ regimes(usually allied with the US in the Cold War) as far as the Media and Academia were concerned. Strange, isn’t it? (Back then, it was deemed okay for Liberals and Progressives to embarrass US neo-imperialist hegemony because Marxist ideology was still in vogue among intellectuals and elite power was still held by Wasps who were resented by Jews who were willing to push any narrative to discredit Anglo-American prestige. Today, with Jews as the ruling elites of US and EU, there is far less media condemnation of US hegemony that is now pretty synonymous with Jewish globo-homo domination. If anything, the Neo-Libs and Neocons in the Deep State seem most triggered when Trump threatens less aggression and more peace in US dealings with the world.)
Why were right-wing killers ‘death squads’ but left-wing killers weren’t designated as such? Was it because left-wing violence was motivated by a sense of justice even if horribly misguided or extreme? Thus, one could argue leftist violence was fueled by moral passion. In contrast, many right-wing regimes were perceived as concerned only with privilege, wealth, and power of reactionary elites. Thus, at least from the leftist perspective, right-wing killings were cold, heartless, and robotic. It was more like slaughtering animals. Right-wing elites recruited and trained killers to not think-and-feel but just follow orders and mow down any people who posed a challenge to the status quo of inequality and injustice. These killers were like the Terminator in the James Cameron movie. Mindless, programmed, and mechanical. In contrast, even if leftist killers often got out of hand, they were motivated by moral passion and sense of justice... or so the Left wanted to believe. At least in the hotbeds of political violence in Latin America from the 1950s to the late 1980s, such a view was not without merit. Though the Castro-Guevara-Mao-inspired guerrillas, insurgents, and radicals adopted an extreme ideology and were all-too-willing to indulge in terror & sabotage, they recognized the fundamentally oppressive and corrupt socio-economic systems that had taken root all across Latin America. So, they wanted to make a difference. They identified the problem as stemming from a cynical alliance of parasitic oligarchs, military-men, Yanqui imperialists, and the Church(even though there were left-leaning schools of Catholicism that sympathized with the Marxists). If the Left was struggling for justice, the Right seemed to be standing for power. It was idealism vs cynicism. Leftists were willing to kill for a cause. Rightists were willing to kill for control. Leftist violence had a human face. Rightist violence was faceless. Or that was how the Left conceptualized the conflict. It’s like Sergei Eisenstein’s use of Facial Politics in BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and ALEXANDER NEVSKY. Tsar’s troops that gun down protesters on the Odessa steps are faceless. They march lockstep like automatons and coldly gun down noble idealists with terrified faces. And in ALEXANDER NEVSKY, the faces of the Teutonic Knights are hidden behind helmets. In contrast, the visages of the patriotic Russian warriors are prominently featured. It’s like Mecha-Godzilla vs Godzilla.
The Left drove home the point that, even if its ideological comrades shed a lot of blood, their violence was generally more justifiable because it was based on a Theory of Justice that on that Greed-of-Power that supposedly animated the Right.
But when we look back on the 20th century, such conceit is difficult to sustain. While early communists may have been fired up by genuine idealism and commitment to justice, once in power the communists could be just as mechanical, brutal, and heartless in their mass slaughter of innocents. Violence that had been fueled by hunger for justice, shining idealism, and/or vengeful rage(against right-wing tyranny) became a mindless habit of destruction and terror to intimidate and control. This was especially true when the communists, after running out of class enemies to destroy, turned against fellow communists to be purged as ‘saboteurs’, ‘renegades’, or ‘capitalist-roaders’. It wasn’t long before politics in communist regimes came to be mainly about power and control, as George Orwell satirized in ANIMAL FARM. What is striking about the victims of Stalin and Mao was that they were so unnecessary. It was one thing for the Reds to have spilled a lot of blood during the Civil War and early campaigns. But the mass terror didn’t end and kept on expanding even against countless innocents who posed no threat to the regime. Indeed, most of Stalin and Mao’s victims were powerless peasants or fellow communists(who were purged and even executed in power struggles or out of sheer paranoia). Wherever communists came to power, there was a good chance of mass violence that became cold, mechanical, and ruthless. Even after their power was consolidated, certain communist regimes couldn’t get enough of more killing. It would not have been far-fetched to designate their killing machines as ‘death squads’. But they were hardly ever called any such.
The Western Media preferred to reserve ‘death squads’ only for right-wing regimes. It’s like the term ‘lynch-mob’ has been selectively used to especially vilify White Southerners even though the number of blacks lynched by white mobs over the century following the Civil War wasn’t that high. If anything, many more blacks die of lynching in any given year in black Africa than all the blacks were lynched in America. But the media almost never refer to the black African violence as being carried out by lynch-mobs. And black pack behavior in the US has led to many group-racial attacks on both whites and blacks. Blacks often run riot in packs and attack white people, sometimes resulting in fatalities. But the media never refer to such violence as lynch-mob attacks. And blacks often gang up on other blacks(especially of rival gangs or neighborhoods) and sometimes use extreme violence that leads to deaths. But again, the media don’t call them lynch-mobs. Same is true of the term ‘pogrom’. 99% of the time in media usage, it is mob violence used against Jews. But similar mob violence against non-Jews is hardly called a ‘pogrom’. And when Jews use such violence against others, there is zero chance of it being called a pogrom. Nakba, the mass-expulsion of Palestinians from what was soon to become ‘Israel’, had all the hallmarks of a pogrom, but when have you ever seen the media designate the Palestinian Tragedy as ‘Nakba pogroms’? Indeed, the Jew-run media hardly ever use the term ‘Nakba’ in relation to events in 1948. And of course, even though Zionists were among the innovators of Modern Terrorism, the term is almost never used in relation to Jews and Zionists. So, when Israel used explosives to assassinate nuclear scientists in Iran, New York Times put ‘terrorist’ in quotes, as if it was just a subjective and biased opinion of the Iranian government. Of course, if the Iranian regime had used similar violence against a scientist or engineer in Israel, it would have been called pure and simple TERRORISM(and would have been cause for war). But then, Jews also cynically use terms such as ‘paranoia’, ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘racism’, ‘supremacism’, and ‘privilege’ to their tribal advantage. So, anyone who speculates about the Deep State and Jewish power is suffering from ‘paranoia’ and fueling ‘conspiracy theories’, but any globalist who pulls the fire-alarm about ‘Russia Hacking’ and Trump-as-Putin’s-puppet is supposedly ‘woke’. And for some reason or another, whites are ‘racist’ no matter what they do, but blacks and Jews are always ‘anti-racist’ no matter how nasty and hostile they act at the expense of other groups. (Jews, both prizing black alliance and fearing black rage, do their best to channel most of black rage at WHITEY away from Jewey even though Jewey has been at the forefront of using tough neo-liberal policies to cut down on black crime to revive globo-homo Jew-run cities.) And the mere desire of white peoples/cultures to preserve themselves from the globalist onslaught of massive economic disruption, cultural degeneration, and demographic imperialism is denigrated as ‘white supremacist’ or ‘far right’. But Jewish globalists using their elite power to force Western nations to favor Jewish interests and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians is apparently not ‘supremacist’. And according to the PC logic of ‘privilege’, a poor white person working in a West Virginian coal mine has more advantages than Jewish oligarchs who rake in gazillions in ill-gotten profits in Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Wall Street.
Control of buttons on the Terminological Switchboard in academia, media, and the state means you can manipulate most minds. It’s like the power of RNA to regulate DNA. After all, why is it that so many suckers think ‘hate’ applies only to white patriots but never to Jews, blacks, homos, Mexicans, and etc.? Surely, everyone hates something, and all groups have their likes and dislikes, even strong hatreds. But when have you heard of Zionist attitudes toward Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians designated as ‘hate’? We are told by Jew-run Hate News that Palestinian children are raised to hate Israeli Jews, and that may well be true for historical and social reasons. But Jew-run Hate News overlook the fact that Jewish kids are also raised to distrust and hate Palestinians, Christian Arabs, Persians, and Muslims-in-general(even though Jews will cynically ally with one bunch of Muslims against another bunch of Muslims). So, why is it ‘hate’ ONLY WHEN Palestinians feel antipathy toward Jews? Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a more hateful people than Jews in our globalized world. Jewish Power has expressed rabid and virulent hatred for white Americans, white Europeans(too many are ‘far right’ apparently), Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Christians, Chinese, and etc. Now, Jews are not the ONLY people filled with hate, but their hatreds are more extensive because they have such over-sized ambitions all around the world. For example, Greeks and Turks don’t much like each other for historical reasons. But that’s just hate between two nations. And Chinese and Vietnamese don’t much like each other either. But again, it’s about one nation vs another. India and Pakistan still have simmering resentments against one another. There are certain tribes in Nigeria that harbor mutually hostile feelings, but those hatreds are limited to the borders of Nigeria. In contrast, Jewish globalist power extends its tentacles all over the world. (To be sure, nasty and clever Jews project their megalomania onto OTHERS and pretend that Putin and Russia, with the support of Iran, are about to swallow the world, LOL.) So, Jewish Power ends up hating all nations and peoples who dare to say NO to Jewish power in the way that some women said NO to Harvey Weinstein to no avail. Just like Weinstein’s sordid horniness, Jewish Power operates on the principle of ‘Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you’. So, even as Weinstein pressed himself on his female victims, he was acting like they were doing him wrong by saying NO to his ‘boing’-ish lust. Boo hoo, HE was the wronged party. Likewise, Jews go all around the world to peddle their brand of globalism, but if you say NO, they flip out and accuse you of being ‘far right’, ‘hateful’, and ‘not inclusive’. But because Jews control the Terms of Debate, they can get away with all their hatreds because their virulence is never called ‘hate’, whereas even the mere desire by whites to be left alone is smeared as ‘hateful’, ‘far right’, and ‘extreme’. But then, we are dealing with a people who call illegal invaders ‘dreamers’ and denounce American patriots who care about borders and Rule of Law as ‘nazis’. Never mind that Nazis were imperialists who had no respect for the borders of its neighbors. And never mind that Jews came to be hated in so many nations because they went from place to place without sense of roots, loyalty, and obligation to the host population. Too often, Jews acted like high-IQ gypsies. Imagine a Tribe made up of people with the personalities and attitudes of Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Maher. You don’t have to think much to realize why Jews came to be loathed in so many places. The problem with Jews is they were always pro-imperialist and piggy-backed on the aggressions of other peoples for opportunities to get theirs. So, Jews piggy-backed on British Imperialism to sell opium to the Chinese. Jews piggy-backed on Muslim invasion of Europe and served Arab conquerors to the detriment of Europeans. The main reason why Jews hated Russian Imperialism was because the Tsar limited Jews to the Pale of Settlement. Jews would have loved Russian Imperialism if they’d been given free rein to ply their trade all across the empire. (By the way, if Jews feel that the limiting Jews to the Pale of Settlement was so unjust, why do Zionists in Israel limit Arabs to the Palestine-of-Settlement in Gaza and West Bank? Why can’t those Arabs gain free movement and access to Israel that once used to be Palestine? Notice that Jews who bitch about how Russians had limited Jewish movement now have no problem with Zionists limiting Arab movement. Even though Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank who approach the Israeli borders are shot down like rabbits, Israelis act as if they have the right to invade or bomb neighboring territories of Lebanon and Syria.)
Anyway, we need to take the Power of Terminology seriously. After all, consider the term ‘terminology’ itself. It is related to the term ‘terminate’. The purpose of terminology is to terminate all competing interpretations and designations of reality by fixing a certain event, phenomenon, or conflict with a definitive term. Take a term like ‘witch’. A certain woman may be admired for her spiritual or magical powers in a pagan community, but Christians may decide she is simply a ‘witch’. That term terminates all competing meanings(that may be positive and admiring) and vilifies her as an agent of evil. Or consider the term ‘witch-hunt’. By designating the anti-communist investigations and purges of the late 40s and early 50s as ‘witch-hunts’, the Liberal Order and Jewish Power discredited the effort of conservatives as essentially paranoid. After all, witches, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, doesn’t exist. Thus, if HUAC and men like Joe McCarthy were supposedly hunting-for-witches, they must have been delusional paranoids like the characters in Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE. Thus, Liberals and Jews changed the Narrative from ‘US government teeming with Soviet spies, some of whom even sent Stalin the secret of the Bomb’ to ‘Crazy red-baiting right-wingers hunting for communist witches under the beds.’ Thus, a lot of Jewish radicals who should have been smoked out remained in institutions of media and the state. By toying with terminology via the power of media and academia, Jews dodged a bullet that could have really hit the bull’s eye of Jewish subversion.
Terminology is like the Terminator. Terminology is the monotheism of meaning. It purges and destroys all competing definitions that serve as basis for interpretations. It terminates anything and everything that stands in the way of the one and only meaning that serves The Narrative. Consider how Jews are so utterly unrelenting in their use of the terms ‘supremacism’, ‘hate’, and ‘privilege’ to portray White Autonomy as evil, evil, and evil. Jews know Jewish Supremacism cannot exist without White Submissivism to Jewish authority and sanctity. So, the Ziopoly(Zio-Monopoly) of Terminology commands and insists 24/7 that any white consciousness that longs for Freedom from Jewish Domination is about ‘supremacism’, ‘hate’, and ‘privilege’. And Jews do the same to Russia. Ever since Russia said ‘enough’ and ‘no more’ to Jewish-globalist financial rape, Jews have ‘weinsteined’ Russia with threats and defamation. Russia should join the #MeToo movement against Jewish Global Rape. After all, we now know that Weinstein employed a network of lawyers, rumor-mongers, defamers, and publicists to silence and destroy anyone who dared to blow the whistle than blow his willy. But then, the Deep Throat State works the same way. It hates whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden and loves willy-blowers who not only suck on the cock of power but gladly swallow as well.
It is about time that we go into #MeToo mode against the Terminological Monopoly of Jewish Supremacists who’ve been raping the English language to terminate all competing and corrective meanings that pose challenges to the narrow Jewish Globalist Worldview. What is most perverse about Jewish Globalism is there has never been a power so expansive and intrusive but also so petty and narrow. If Jews want to be nationalist or tribal and care mostly about Jewish affairs in Israel and some cities in which they are prominent, then fine. But, Jews aren’t content with just minding their own business. They want to rule the world and dictate their terms to all of humanity. But if a people want to play imperialist, there must be a spirit of give-and-take premised on the admittance of hegemonic power. After all, Roman imperialists, British imperialists, Ottoman imperialists, and Russian imperialists never denied that they had the supreme power over the their empires. They put themselves out there as the great rulers of others. But for that very reason, they were expected to be just, fair, and magnanimous. In exchange for the submission to their rule, they were obligated to show that their rule would be good for everyone in the imperial domain. When the US was led by Anglo-American elites, Pax Americana operated more or less along those lines, i.e. while the US empire would use ruthless means to maintain its power around the world, those who complied with the terms would be treated kindly and generously. It’s like Christianity. Historically, Christians(and Muslims too) were willing to use aggression and violence to conquer heathens. But once heathens accepted the Word of God, they too were to be accepted as fellow Christian brothers and sisters.
Thus, there are two morally feasible ways of existence. One way is to be nationalist, mind your own business, and leave other nations alone. Japan was like this for many centuries before the West forced it open. The other way is to seek world power and gain hegemony over others but also to give the others, the subject peoples, a chance to make something of themselves in the New Order. Thus, imperialism, though aggressive and brutal, partially justifies itself by allowing mutual give-and-take all over the world. The problem with Jews is they want to have the cake and eat it too. They want World Power but pretend they got no power. They want to create a Neo-Imperial New World Order but one where the only real beneficiaries are Jews. Look what Jewish-dominated privatization did to Russia in the 1990s. It was little more than Jewish rape of Russia. Or take Jewish-led globalist policy in the Middle East. It has been total hell for several Arab nations just so Israel could benefit. And there is all this hate against Iran simply because Jews want Israel to be the One and Only dominant power in the Middle East. While all empires were self-serving and hypocritical, Jewish globalism has been utterly pathological in its willingness to sacrifice entire swaths of humanity just to serve the megalomania of Jews who seem to regard most of goyim as cattle. Jewish hypocrisy and obnoxiousness are fully on display when Jews denounce Hungary and Poland as ‘far right’ even as they demand that all white nations support Israel’s right to secure its borders and survival as a Jewish State. It’s all the more sickening because all those Arab ‘refugees’ have been unleashed by wars generated by Neocons who work for the interests of Israel. Furthermore, Israel had also directly aided ISIS death squads and carried out aerial attacks on Syria despite the fact that Syria never fired anything into Israel. So, Israel not only gets to have 300 illegal nukes but gets to wage wars on its neighbors, thereby setting off a ‘refugee’ crisis that uprooted millions of people. And yet, Hungary and Poland are the ‘far right’ evil nations for not taking in all those people uprooted by Wars for Israel while, at the same time, they are expected to show full support of Israel’s right to be a Jewish state. Jewish myopia is as deranged as that of King Leopold of Belgium whose only interest in the Congo was to rape it as much as possible. To Jews, the whole world is one big Congo for Jewish greed. Jews didn’t care about all those destitute Russians in the 1990s. Jews didn’t care about all those dead Arabs and Muslims in all those Wars for Israel. Jews didn't care about 100,000s of Iraqi women and children who may have perished due to US sanctions under Clinton. And Jews don’t care about all those whites in the US, EU, and Canada whose lives have been turned upside down by Third World mass invasion, loss of manufacturing jobs, opioid & other drug epidemics, pornification of mainstream culture(soul-destroying of young kids), addiction to gambling, slut-pride feminism, and Homomania as Satanic-Jewish-christianity(or SJC). Jews have used globalism to mess up the whole world just so they could take over the bodies and souls of everyone who comes under Jewish power one way or another: financial, pharmaceutical, quasi-spiritual(homomania), cultural(PC & porny pop culture), military(like all those Muslims killed by Wars for Israel), and etc.
Anyway, the time has come for us to use Terminological Firepower against the Jews. We need to fire them off like Katusha rockets in WWII. Relentless and ruthless. We need to take all the Jewish filth-rockets shot at white peoples, Palestinians, Russians, Iranians, and others and shoot them right back at Jews. ‘Death squads’? We need to call Zionists and the IDF ‘Jewish death squads’. Every time IDF soldiers gun down Palestinians in Gaza and every time Israeli jets rain down bombs to kill scores of Palestinian women and children, we need to use the term ‘death squad’ to characterize Zionist Power. As for what the Jews did to the Palestinians in 1948, it must be called ‘pogrom’. Whenever 1948 is mentioned, call the event ‘Nakba pogroms’. And whenever Israeli settlers and IDF work in tandem to terrorize, brutalize, and kill Palestinians in the West Bank, we need to paint them as ‘Jewish lynch mobs’. And we need to constantly invoke the terms ‘hate’ and ‘supremacism’ in reference to how Jewish Power operates around the world. And if Jews bitch on and on about the ‘far right’, call them as ‘Far Jew’ or ‘Far Tribe’. We need our own Terminological Terminators against the Terminological Death Squads that Jewish Power has been employing against us. We need our own Letterman.
Many on the Right call for traditionalism, but what is traditionalism? There is a long history of traditions, and so much have changed over the eons. So, which tradition should we hark back to guide us in the present? The problem with invoking tradition is there is too much of it. It’s like a museum filled with all sorts of artifacts, relics, documents, mementos, and etc. Some may argue that we need to respect Living Tradition, but even a Living Tradition has undergone so many alterations, revisions, and reconfigurations. Also, the very longevity of traditionalism can be its weakness. Traditions have been strengthened via repetition through the ages. It’s like the celebration of Easter. But the seemingly endless routine makes tradition seem tired and boring, year in and year out and year in and year out again ad infinitum. It’s like Christmas for many has become just a time to shop. No one cares about what it means anymore. And Thanksgiving is just Turkey Day, just like Easter, if it’s remembered at all(not by Jews at Google), is about rabbits and eggs. After something is repeated over and over, people forget why it was commemorated or celebrated in the first place, and in time, rituals peter out to an end. Whatever happened to all the pagan celebrations of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans? And what meaning do Christian rituals hold anymore? Most Christians are so bored that they want to spice it up with Rock music, Diversity, or Homomania in the church as discoteque. When a tradition grows weak and weary, people add more color. It’s like if the meat is old and dry, you add more sauce and spice to make up for its lackluster flavor.
‘Traditionalism’ connotes rigidity, fixedness, dogmatism, predictability, and lack of spark. Perhaps, ‘Arsenalism’ is closer to what we need. An arsenal is filled with stockpiles of weapons, but what we do with them is incumbent on the needs of the moment. So, if there are guns, bombs, missiles, bazookas, tanks, trucks, and copters, there is no fixed rule that demands that such-and-such items be used in such-and-such way. Everything in the arsenal is of use, but we decide what should be used and how depending on the nature of the challenge.
In contrast, Traditionalism suggests that we stick to a successful strategy used in the past. But what if the times have changed, and the enemies have adapted to a new strategy? Suppose the once-successful strategy using certain weapons in certain way will no longer work. But the traditionalist will demand that the Proven Way still be used. What if it fails against the New-and-Improved enemy with new tricks up its sleeves? The traditionalist remains adamant and insists that the Old Way is the Only Way because it and only it is the right way. This is sure to fail in the long wrong because every method or system, however effective in certain ways, has weaknesses. It’s like the Greek phalanx system that worked so well for so long didn’t work against the Romans who came up with more effective and adaptive means of combat. When the once-mighty Ottoman Empire was faced with New-and-Improved Europe, its Old Ways of combat, which had once been so formidable, only led to defeat after defeat at the hands of Europeans.
If Traditionalism tends to stress the Proper Way of doing things with the available material, Arsenalism argues for a more flexible, creative, adaptive, and vitalist way of using and advancing the available material to take on the enemy. The problem with Conservatism Inc. is that it got stuck in the rut of playing by the same rule book over and over. Because of the great electoral victories from 1968 to 1992, throughout which the Republicans won every presidency except four years under Jimmy Carter, the GOP got stuck with the same tropes and themes. This was during the Cold War with relatively high taxes and troublesome labor unions. But with the rise of globalism & ‘free trade’, decline of Big Labor, massive increase of non-white immigration-invasion, and the Long March through the Institutions by 60s radicals, America of the 90s and thereafter was not the America of the 70s and 80s. Just like New Deal politics wouldn’t work in current America, neither would Reaganomics of the 80s. Thus, political traditionalism isn’t enough. There has to be political vitalism.
Arsenalism is vitalist. It’s like how a game is played in sports. Suppose your team won many games last season and took the championship. So, should your team run exactly the same plays this year? But the other teams will have studied all your tricks and will have adapted to come up with their own counter-tricks. So, even if you do the same thing again in the hope of repeating last year’s success, the chances are you will lose because the rivals have adapted their strategy to overcome your strategy. The only thing that is a constant between last year and this year is that your side must win. Now, it would be stupid to reject everything that was done last year. Indeed, many such plays will surely be executed again for their proven track record. But, they will have to be revised and adapted so that the other side won’t know the when-and-what of your strategy. The other teams that lost to your team last year have learned of their own vulnerabilities and have patched them, and furthermore, they studied all your strengths and devised ways to overcome or circumvent them. So, to win once again, traditionalism isn’t enough. You need vitalism. It’s like what Arthur says in EXCALIBUR: "There are no war tricks that will fool Mordred and Morgana." And so, Merlin comes up with an ingenious way to trick Morgana into filling up the battlefield with mist. Merlin is a classic vitalist. He remembers and knows more than any other man, but he doesn’t just rely on the Old Way. It’s not that he sees no value in past events or past strategies, in Tradition. It’s just that he knows every new challenge calls for a new, creative, and ingenious way to use that knowledge once again. After all, win-or-lose is decided in the Moment of the Now. One cannot rest on the laurels of the past. Victory and Power are about keeping it Vital. Tradition and Memory are important but only as a repository of ways and lessons. There is no guarantee that an old way will work again. Every situation has to be freshly assessed and dealt with. Also, thought process must be intuitive and instantaneous in the moment of struggle. Consider a boxer. Surely, he's trained everyday and has much experience. His intuitive skills in the ring don’t just come from nowhere but from many hours of practice and the bouts that he had. Intuition is the crystallization of experience, practice, and knowledge. A musician’s intuition isn’t possible unless he spent lots of time mastering music. Granted, there are those who study, practice, and play a lot but never gain much in the way of intuition and inspiration. But to have intuition/inspiration, one must master an art or skill. Intuition without experience and practice is hazy at best. Still, when the boxer is in the ring, he can’t THINK of all the years of practice and experience. He can’t intellectualize. He has to be IN THE MOMENT at all times throughout the fight. If he loses the sense of the moment, he could be knocked out or could lose the chance to knock the other guy out. Intuition is related to improvisation, which also requires practice, experience, and mastery. Before you improvise with a musical instrument, you need to learn to play it first. But when you’re playing, you must lose yourself in the moment of the music. You can’t think consciously in note-for-note terms. You must become one with the music’s beat, rhythm, and harmony.
While study, practice, and experience are crucial in storing our minds and shaping our bodies in a certain way, when the moment(of challenge) arrives, we need to be in vital than traditional mode. When we are taking the test, we must know IN THE MOMENT. Our minds have to work intuitively and instantly to make the connections and recall the necessary knowledge. We can’t be in the mode of someone in the library, looking through the card catalog, filling notes, and going through the material piecemeal by piecemeal. It’s been said that when the Iranian crisis spiraled out of control and hostages were taken, one of Jimmy Carter’s first reactions was to ask for books on Iran in the library. But it was not a time for reading books. He was president, not a librarian.
Even though we are part of a long line of evolution and history, we are always IN THE MOMENT. Any organism is part of an extensive genetic 'tradition' of life that goes back billions of years, but the vitality of his life doesn’t come from contemplation of that long connection. It comes from being IN THE MOMENT. If a gopher can't run and hide from a hawk in the Moment, it is dead. Humans are different in being able to remember more and ponder the meaning of things, but the Future is determined by those who are most intensely engaged with the Now. And even if actions in the Now are informed by past experience and knowledge, the vitality comes from the ability to intuitively and instantly engage with the world. Mere seconds determine all the years of our lives and, if possible, the lives of our children and their children.
Because conservatives tend to stress traditionalism, they lack in vitality. They understand meaning as all the material and knowledge in museums, books, and institutions, but the core meaning of life is in the power, and power derives from a vital ability to use knowledge IN THE MOMENT. Also, even though there is so much to learn from the past, Truth and Wisdom are sort of like Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar. Just like humans are hardwired to use grammar in a certain way, humans are hardwired to access certain meanings if their minds are activated and cultivated properly. If a child is never taught language, it won’t be able to understand it. But when he is taught, his mind almost instinctively grasps the principles of grammar. So, it’s not like something totally external is being programmed in the child but more like his innate switches are being turned on by external stimulation. Without education, those switches won’t be turned on(just like without sun and water, a seed will not sprout), but once the process begins, more and more switches turn on naturally. Same goes for Meaning or Universal Meaning. Even without reading too many books or hearing too much music, many switches automatically begin to turn on in the minds of young people when they are introduced to ideas and criticism. And then more switches turn on of their own accord, and the mind begins to make connections upon connections. Granted, this happens differently and more with some people than with others. Some kids pick up chess right away after playing a few games. Some kids get music pretty fast once the switches are turned on. Consider Mozart who grasped the way of music far more than even older masters who’s spent yrs and yrs of study, practice, and performance.
Now, clearly, Mozart or Beethoven couldn’t have been possible without the glorious tradition of Classical Music. It’s not like they invented the instruments, music notations, and the basic classical forms. But they were much more than mere traditionalists. In the East where traditionalism was stressed more than vitalism, the students and apprentices were trained to copy and master the correct way bequeathed by the old masters. Thus, even new works had a museum-quality about them. It had been the same with the Ancient Egyptians whose entire civilization just became a moribund funereal traditionalism of sticking to the proven way. Though there was a great tradition, it was petrified wood than firewood. But what is a bunch of furnaces if they can’t make fire. What is a collection of swords if no one knows how to use them? And even if one trains to use the sword in such-and-such choreography, what use are they in a real fight when there are so many unpredictable factors? In movies or choreography, the swordsman can repeat the motions over and over to make them seem impressive. But in a real fight, there is no telling what the opponent will do. One has to be trained to fight IN THE MOMENT. Indeed, that is the difference between a mere expert and an artist. Most smart people can become an expert at something. He can read up on literature or music and expound about why Shakespeare or Beethoven is so important. Or, he could even train himself to compose Shakepeare-like Sonnets or Beethoven-like melodies. But it’s all imitation, not inspiration. There is no creative spark there. He would be a traditionalist who remembers, knows, and expounds but not a vitalist who can make new things out of old things. In contrast, Shakespeare(or whoever may have written the plays) not only was well-rounded in the tradition of literature but drew inspiration from them so that he could intuitively and instantly produce new and amazing possibilities from the traditional material. It’s like a real musical artist not only learns how to play a classic tune but finds ways to revise, rearrange, and twist them to make new possibilities.
Now, there is a need for traditionalism. Some people have to be museum curators, librarians, pedants, and teachers. After all, most people just don’t have the stuff of spark and inspiration. But all real change is created by the vitalists, not the traditionalists. Traditionalists preserve the storage of knowledge and works from the past. But they lack the ability to use the storage like an arsenal of firepower for explosions to make for the new. While everyone draws from tradition, revolutionary power comes from those who make breakthroughs. Consider Bob Dylan. Why did he have a greater impact on music than other folkies? Most folkies were just traditionalists who stuck to the tried-and-true, and they were pretty good. But the tried-and-true is also dried-and-through. It only comes to new life when someone is inspired by it to make something new. Dylan revered the traditions of American music, but he also had the vital force to digest everything and mold it into something bold and different. He didn’t just rest on tradition but drew on tradition to create a new force in music, and he changed musical history.
The problem of Conservatism, high and low, is that it tends to lack this vitalist element. Low Conservatives tend to lack knowledge and interest in arts, cultures, and ideas. Their tradition is a simple one of faith and community. But with faith eroding and communities falling apart(due to decadence, globalization, and mass immigration-invasion), Low Conservatives are lost. Even Country Music is now just junky pop music. High Conservatives do care about arts, culture, and history but in the mode of librarians, curators, or admirers. Admiring great art, ideas, and culture is good, but admiration alone doesn’t lead to anything new and powerful. It’s like the minor character in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA who admires Lawrence as a great man but is clueless as to all the forces, internal and external, that made Lawrence ‘great’. Bill Buckley was a charming character, but his view of history was to just hit the brakes. He was uninterested in the accelerator and the steering wheel. He didn’t like where history was going, so he just hit the brakes on and on as often as he could until they wore off. It never occurred to him that the real power is about taking the wheel and stepping on the accelerator to where one wants to go. After all, even a reactionary can’t go back to the past he longs for by just hitting the brakes. He must take the wheel and accelerator and do a U-turn, like the Islamic radicals of Iran. Buckley dreamed of the 19th century when the 20th century was hurtling toward the 21st century. And then, take an online site like THE IMAGINATIVE CONSERVATIVE. It’s a rather odd name because there is NOTHING IMAGINATIVE about anything there. It’s mostly staid and respectable, and that’s all very nice, but that’s not the kind of mindset that leads to new possibilities and new creative explosions. Creativity is ‘bohemian’ than ‘bourgeois’ even though both modes have a symbiotic relationship, as epitomized by the Gail Wynand & Howard Roark partnership in THE FOUNTAINHEAD(though, to be sure, most creative types are and must be far more flexible than the purist Roark who is almost resolutely Taliban in his vision, even blowing up an entire apartment complex in the name of principles). Wynand the bourgeois makes the money and, via Ellsworth Toohey, promotes middlebrow values and conventions for the masses. But with his great fortune, he finances Roark who can go further. Now, by ‘bohemian’, we don’t mean someone who goes out of his way to be weird. Indeed, self-expression via tattoos and piercings is almost always a crutch for those without true creativity. Having nothing to say, they seek attention with body graffiti or mutilations. In contrast, a true artist doesn’t have to do funny stuff with hair color or tattoos to demonstrate his worth. Stanley Kubrick didn’t have a nose ring, Akira Kurosawa didn’t have an ass tattoo, and John Ford didn’t have purple-dyed hair. Most of the great writers, musicians, and dramatists proved themselves with worthy work, not with silly trinkets hanging from their noses or stupid pictures injected into their skins. I doubt if T.S. Eliot had a cock-ring. I doubt if Beethoven would have been more creative had he pierced his tongue. By ‘bohemian’, we mean in spirit.
An artist in action works differently from an artist in training. It’s the same with soldiers. Boot camp is necessary to instill discipline, increase muscles & stamina, and instruct skills. And soldiers are made to march in tight formation to develop a sense of bond. But in the actual battlefield, it’s not enough to go by boot-camp instructions. A soldier has to find his own way to fight and survive. He has to learn to adapt and improvise from moment to moment. Same is true in business. Business schools teach the A-B-C’s of business, but a businessman can't make it in the field by lugging around a Business Text-Book wherever he goes and flipping through the pages for instructions in every transaction. Rather, the essence of what he learned must be an intuitive part of him so that he knows instantly what to do and what to say at any given moment. So, despite the value of what he learned from traditional business education, he will succeed or fail depending on how he acts IN THE MOMENT. Tradition of anything is long & vast and useless as a whole in any given situation. Much of tradition continues has immense value but only in relevant use to the demands of the Moment. A boxer has a host of pugilistic arsenal at his disposal, but in any given moment, he has to pick the right move. If he lunges when he should be dodging, he will be smashed in the face. If he throws a left-hook when he should be going with a right upper-cut, he will miss the chance to KO the opponent. This should be obvious, but the invocation of Tradition among conservatives has had a way of nullifying(or at least ‘dullifying’) the sharpness of their senses. They often point to the Western Canon and take pride in the Great Tradition. But Power is about using ideas, and IN ANY MOMENT, the mind must pick the relevant ideas, retool and reinvent them, and then do combat. It’s like a chef has all sorts of utensils and pots & pans and sauces and spices, and they are all part of his ‘tradition’, but he can’t make something by using EVERYTHING at EVERY TIME. Depending on the demand or challenge, he has to find the ingredients and recipes that he needs. A conservative is like a chef who says, "Look at all the wonderful utensils, sauces/spices, knives, meats, and vegetables I got" but is lost as to what to do with them when crunch time comes. There was a Japanese TV show called IRON CHEF that demonstrated the importance of vitalism. Each of these chefs were steeped in mastery of tradition. So, one could be an expert in French cooking, another in Chinese cooking, another in Italian cooking, etc. So, each knew his thing. The real challenge came with the presentation of surprise ingredients that the contestants must use creatively in conjunction with their established skills. That is demanding. A man who learned to make good lasagna can make good lasagna with his eyes closed. But what if he has to work with unfamiliar ingredients. Then, he has to make creative use of his knowledge in Italian cooking to make something worthy. The challenge calls on his knowledge of tradition, but tradition alone isn’t enough. He must intuitively grasp and use only the aspects of tradition that may complement the ingredients at hand. And it is this vitalizing(and revitalizing) and reinventing skills that are woefully absent on the Right.
To be IN THE MOMENT doesn’t mean we must reject or devalue our tradition. Rather, vitalism means having a tradition isn’t enough... just like having a closet full of martial arts weapons isn’t enough. One must know how to use them and which one when and where. The mind has to be sharp and focused. Indeed, even human brains work this way. Depending on the task, the neurons flare up only in certain parts of the brains. Not all of the brains are working all the time. Rather, depending on the tasks, dangers, challenges, or necessities, different parts of the brains kick into gear. Consider the law student in THE PAPER CHASE. He claims to have a photographic memory, and he can memorize everything he’s read and seen. His mind is filled with a ‘tradition’ of memory. And this ability was good enough to have him enter Harvard Law School. But when challenged to think on his feet in the classroom, he is lost and flustered. He knows and remembers a lot but lacks the ‘vitalistic’ ability to focus on relevant facts for argument in the case at hand. To have traditionalism without vitalism is like that. It’s like holding a dozen swords instead of picking one, drawing it, and dueling with it. A man fine-tuned with one saber will defeat a man holding a dozen swords. Too often, Conservatives point to the Western Canon and say ‘Muh tradition’ but, in pitched battles in the Culture War, don’t know which weapon to pick and parry & lunge with.
Also, it’s not enough to inherit something from the past. It must be reinvented and revitalized. It must be re-created. Same goes with life. Life doesn’t live forever. It dies and new life is born that continues the life of its parents but also begins afresh. Now, ‘reinvention’ has negative connotations on the Right because Jews promote it to mean the West must be reinvented as a non-white mixed-race diversity empire controlled by Jews and homos. Who the hell wants Europe, the US, and Canada to become Brazil ruled by the likes of George Soros and Simon Schama? But there is another meaning to ‘reinvention’, and all great works of art are indeed reinventions. If an artist just learns from past masters and imitates, it will be the same old same old, and vitality will seep out. But if he not only absorbs the tradition but reinvents with his creative will and spark, he will make it seem fresh and alive once again. Thus, his work will have connection to the past but also to the future. Consider what John Boorman did with Arthurian legends on EXCALIBUR. He reinvented the myth to make it live and breathe again. According to PC globalists, the West must be reinvented into a Non-West. White women must have children with black men to reinvent Europeans into a people who look like Moroccans and Yemenites. White heroes must be recast with blacks. Lancelot and Achilles must be made black. PC says whites cucking out to blacks is the New and Improved West. Jews want to gain control of whites by castrating white manhood into cuckhood and by infecting white women with Jungle Fever. That is the Jewish idea of reinventing the West.
But there is a patriotic and True European way of reinventing, retelling, and revitalizing the classics, legends, and myths. John Boorman showed what could be done. And Richard Wagner took old pagan Germanic myths and reinvented them in grand style with his DIE NIBELUNGEN RING CYCLE. It’s not enough to brandish images of Old Europe like Identity Europa does. The real key is to take the tradition and revitalize and reinvent it with creativity and originality. Indeed, why did the fallen West overtake Byzantine Europe in which classical civilization continued? Partly, it was because the East got tired and bored with its moribund traditions whereas the West found the 'lost heritage' exciting one again through the creative reinvention of the Renaissance.
And it’s not enough to invoke a great tradition in dealing with the Globalists. What is necessary is the Weaponization and Arsenalization of Tradition into a gauntlet, sword, and shield to do battle with the heinous Jewish globalists. That is the only way to win.
