In Defense of Bio-Socialism as Foundation of Family Formation — Free & Bad vs Unfree & Good — Pitfalls of Christian Sanctimony

Marriage of Feminism and Consumerism was bound to lead to miscarriages of biological justice.

In tandem, they go against nature and upset the organic balance of life and society.

To better illustrate this, imagine 4 people: 2 men and 2 women.

Suppose there are 2 well-paying jobs.

First, we need to take human nature into consideration: Men will marry women without jobs, but women don't want to marry men without jobs.

These are the possible outcomes.

Scenario 1. Two men get the jobs. Each man can afford to raise a family, and each is willing to marry a woman without a job. So, each man marries a woman. As a result, two men have jobs and they have wives with whom to raise a family. Everyone gets something. Men have jobs and wives, women have husbands, wives have family. Two incomes support two families.

Scenario 2. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman with the job. In contrast, the man without the job cannot a find a mate because women don't want men without jobs. So, the woman without the job doesn't marry the man without the job.
As the man with the job and woman with the job married, both of their incomes serve just one family. Meanwhile, the man without the job has no money and no family. And the woman without the job doesn't want to marry the man with no job, so she has nothing too.
So, we have all the good stuff in one family and nothing for the other man and woman. Also, because both the married man and married woman work, there is a chance that they will have no kids or just one kid. All that combined income goes to serve very narrow interests. Two get it all, the other two get nothing.

Scenario 3. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman without a job. In contrast, the woman with the job remains unmarried because she doesn't want to marry the man without a job. Under this formulation, three get something while the man without a job get nothing. The man with a job has a wife, the woman without a job, and they can have a family. The woman with a job has money even if no husband. She has no family but she has money to have fun with. But, the man without a job has no money and no wife. Such a man is destined for something like White Death.

Scenario 4. Two women get the jobs, and that means the two men have no jobs. Since women don't want to marry men without jobs, the women blow all their incomes on themselves in unfettered consumerism. They don't want to have families with 'loser' men with no jobs. Since the two men got no jobs, they lack status, pride, and hope.

Of the four options, only #1 offers something for everyone.

#3 isn't so terrible since 3 out of 4 get something.

#2 is awful because 2 get everything while 2 get nothing. Still, its saving grace is there is the formation of at least one family.

#4 is horrible because 2 get everything but there is no family. All that money is spent on fleeting vanity and hedonism.

Now, one might hope for a world where 4 people can have 4 good jobs, but such a world doesn't exist. There is only a limited number of jobs that can support families.

When women entered the work force in big numbers, they took away lots of good jobs from men. Every woman who got a good job robbed a man not only of a job but of a family. When a man takes a job from a woman, he doesn't take away her chance of having a family because men with jobs will marry women without jobs.
When women take jobs from men, it leads to men losing their market value as marriage prospects. Women not only take the jobs from men but also the hope of marriage and family, the most important thing in life(because people, as life-forms, are created from families and pass down their genes and memory by forming their own families); after all, it's no big deal to quit one job to take another, but it'd be terrible to dump one's family and go off with someone else. Also, in one's golden years, what does a man or woman think back on? Family(children and grandchildren) OR some 9-to-5 job he once had, some consumer item he once owned, or something he once ate at a restaurant? True meaning of human life comes from family, through which the continuity of life, culture, and memory is preserved.

When women have high-paying jobs, their standards go up in the mating game. But since fewer men will have good jobs because women took them, the 'ideal man' will be harder to find. So, women with jobs face a drought in marriageable men. Since they only want to marry successful men and will not settle for anything less, many women would rather blow all their earnings on vanity and self-indulgence. So, the income that, in the hands of a man, could have supported a family ends up serving the vain piggery of a woman hooked to SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle.
Capitalist Feminism is not about the equality of anything EXCEPT the equal(even preferential)opportunity for intelligent and/or attractive women to rise as high as possible to find superior men to be with or submit to. It's about the elitism of seeking liberation from 'beta-males' to be with 'alpha-males'. The psychology of capitalist feminism is essentially quasi-polygamist. Women are encouraged to feel that most men are not good enough for them and seek out the super-male as depicted in FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. Capitalist Feminism is less about liberation per se than liberation from the 'average guy' in search of the 'superior guy' to submit to. It is, ultimately, profoundly hierarchical and exclusionary. Given that people do want the best, such psychology among women is not surprising, but the social consequences of Capitalist Feminism have been devastating to the Modern World.

How did we end up like this? It's because we forgot the lesson that we are, first and foremost, sentimental organisms or life-forms. The role of life-form is to sustain itself. Everyone will die one day and so will his/her loved one, the partner in life. So, how do they 'survive' after death? Through their children who, as continuations of their forebears' genetic lineage, are cultural/personal torchbearers of the community. That's what Judaism has been about, indeed how it got started. It was about remembrance of ancestors by descendants, and it all went back to the Covenant.

Now, we are more than mere life-forms like animals. We have advanced brains that produced and have a need for ideas, values, and culture. Still, all those precious things exist and matter because of the living. All the books in the world mean nothing without people to read them, and every person is the product of a man and a woman(unless we create a BRAVE NEW WORLD scenario of cloning operations by the state). We are more than biology, but it begins with and is made possible by biology. Without biology, there is no being.
And the main source of meaning is in the family since every person was created by a father and a mother and since every person can only 'live on' after death through the DNA passed down to his/her kids who are also the cultural/personal torchbearers of their parents' memory.

But for some reason, the cult of narrow individualism made us forget that every individual is a 'continual', merely one link in the long chain of life. He didn't pop out of a book or materialize out of thin air or come into existence as a figment of someone's muse. Every person is born biologically and become human emotionally.
Because we are surrounded by books, movies, and fantasy, we seem to think reality can be constructed via imagination, 'creativity', or wish-fulfillment. Look at all those families where kids are raised to care more about Disney movies and HARRY POTTER books than about real people around them and those who came before them. (Or, too many people assume that, even if they don't have families and create the new generation, SOMEONE ELSE will. But the chances are, other people think the same way, leaving it up to OTHERS to pass the torch of life and culture.) We've replaced creation with creativity. It's no wonder we've come to accept something like 'gay marriage'. We confuse reality with fantasy, as if the world is created and sustained by Peter-Pan-ism. We confuse production of fantasy with reproductive fact. So, if two lesbians want to believe that they 'had a kid' together, we better go along with this charade. If a man says he is a 'woman', we are expected to agree. After all, how care we pop his bubble of desire? If a bunch of freaks want to turn the study of sexes into a hair-splitting game of ever-multiplying 'genders', we are supposed to accept it as cutting-edge 'science'.

As for consumerism, it divorced pleasure from purpose. Life-forms feel pleasure of food and sex because they must eat to survive and must have sex to produce new life. But consumerism created technologies that allowed wanton eating and wanton sex for pleasure alone. So, gluttony became the New Normal, as with fatso Lena Dunham who gorges on cakes while sitting on the toilet. It's as if she has to eat and excrete at the same time. And like an animal, she humps everyone, and she can sustain such behavior because there are contraceptives, pills, and abortion. Gluttony and Sluttony gone out of control in this one gross woman. This kind of porno-propaganda or 'pornoganda' has become America's main cultural message to the world. America is an exceptional country? Or an excessive cunt-ry?

Also, the idea of freedom has become nihilistic. It's good to be free, but for what purpose? In the end, we must make use of our freedoms. And in making any decision, we are choosing one freedom and losing the others. If we choose to study medicine, we don't have much time to study other things. We must commit to mastering the practice of medicine. If we study chemistry, we must neglect many other fields. If we decide to read a book, then we can't read another book. We have only so much time and energy at any given moment. So, even though we want freedom, every choice 'imprisons' us within one endeavor and locks out all the rest. It's like the scene in the first SUPERMAN movie. If Superman is to save one bunch of people, he can't save another bunch of people. He can't do everything. He fails to save Lois Lane and brings her back to life only by cheating.

So, we must raise the question as to what is more important than freedom. We must ask, what is the main purpose and meaning of life? Is it better to be free & choose not to do what one must or be unfree & have no choice but to do what one must? To the extent that prisons exist, we obviously don't believe in unfettered freedom. Those who use freedom badly go to jail as they are deemed unfit to enjoy freedom as a right. Of course, a libertarian would argue that a criminal must be locked up because his misuse of freedom violates the freedoms of others. In contrast, a man or a woman who commits his/her life to idiotic fun than grows into a mature person and has a family hasn't committed a crime or interfered with other people's freedoms. If we take a narrow individualist view, that is true enough, but if we take a deeper & wider civilizational view, such a man or woman has done a grave wrong to society. If such selfish people are few and far between, it's not a problem, but when they come to comprise a vast proportion of the population, the result is the demographically declining West and dying Japan. Freedom is good, but it is not the highest good.

After all, suppose there's a society where everyone is forced to be a husband or a wife. They are all forced to have families and to devote their main energies toward taking care of their children, the next generation.
Next, suppose there is another society where everyone is free and uses his/her freedom to only indulge himself/herself and not have families.
In the end, isn't the former society ultimately better off since it has families that create new life to carry on the torch? It lives on and sustains itself.
In contrast, what good is the other society in the long run? Sure, freedom is nice and individuals(esp in their youth) can have a good time, but if people used their freedoms to mainly indulge themselves and leave behind no legacy(like so many hedonistic white folks are doing today), is that a meaningful life? And how can there be meaning in the future if there are no new people to strive for meaning?

Now, we want freedom, but we need to use that freedom responsibly, soberly, and wisely. Sadly, everything about our ideology and culture fills our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds with the wrong lessons and vile temptations(designed to lead to addictions). If Lena Dunham, madonna, Emma Sulkowicz, and Ashley Judd are the 'role models' for womenfolk, it's no wonder our society is so diseased and dying. Indeed, even Stalinism or Sharia is better for women. After all, the Muslim Order, repressive as it is, has lasted for over one thousand years. For how much longer can the current debauched and degenerate West last? No matter one's elaborate theorizing about justice and the good life, if those ideas result in a civilization that fails in the most basic tasks of life-making and cultural preservation, they are BAD ideas.
In the end, the worth of a civilization isn't measured by trending ideas or fashionable values. It is measured by its ability to survive and continue. The current West smugly(and sometimes shrilly) pontificates about 'Western Values' as the 'most evolved', but if they lead to socio-demographic decline and demise, the test of time will have proven them to be the wrong values. It's like medicine. No matter what the researchers and doctors say, if it kills the patient, it's more poison than medicine. (Also, keep in mind that 'Western Values' are like the 'Constitution'. Those with the Power get to define what they mean. Jews who currently control the world say 'Western Values' are about Diversity, Homomania, Jungle Fever, Jew-worship, and hating-whitey. It's like Jews say the US Constitution guarantees 'gay marriage'.)

Now, we are not saying that the only viable choices are Western decadence/excess and something like Sharia Law. There is something sane, healthy, and balanced in between. We don't need to see the world in stark terms of either Sharia or Gayria/Whorea. It's like Aldous Huxley in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED called out his mistake in the novel BRAVE NEW WORLD of having presented only two possibilities: Either neo-primitive brutality or orgy-porgy techo-hedonism.

We can have both freedom and meaning.
As life-forms, we are made by biological processes that allow for families to pass down the genetic code, keep alive the memory of ancestors, and preserve the culture/heritage. Family is bio-socialist. The essence of socialism is the subordination of absolute individualism to serve the greater need of the whole community. So, even though taxing the rich at higher rates than others is 'unfair' by libertarian principles, it is deemed necessary by socialism because the rich can afford to pay more for the GOOD of society. Socialism takes into consideration the difference between being rich, being middle income, and being poor. It doesn't just regard everyone as an individual. In a similar vein, bio-socialism takes into account that men and women aren't identical and/or interchangeable individuals on the basis of abstract theories, no more than atoms are individual-and-independent actors in chemistry. Atoms, as parts of a molecule, are always interdependent with other atoms, each of which has a specific role in any chemical combination. If not, there would be no difference between CO and CO2. If atoms are merely independent players, the only difference between CO and CO2 would be that the latter has MORE atoms. But in fact, the chemical formula for CO is deadly to life whereas C02 feeds life.

It's not just about individuals and choice. Men and women are life-forms born into existence by a certain biological process, develop ideally in a sound family environment, and whose legacy is assured by forming families of their own and having children(who will, in time, do the same). So, family must be recognized as the foremost bio-socialist unit in our formulation of what is best for society. In the aforementioned four scenarios of 2 men and 2 women competing for jobs and love in society, bio-socialism will favor the scenario of 2 men getting the jobs since everyone will get something. 2 jobs held by 2 men can support 2 families.

But the family has come under attack by capitalist feminism and other nut-job ideologies. Also, the role of mother has been mocked as 'having babies' as if that is all a woman does: Laying babies like a chicken laying eggs. In fact, babies soon grow into children, and raising a child is about molding him or her into a human with mind, heart, ideas, values, and etc. Every day, millions of new neurons are added to children's brains, and the process of their growth is amazing. Besides, what is ultimately more rewarding for a man and a woman to create than another thinking & feeling human being with heart and soul? Besides, all the products and services offered by professions and jobs exist only to serve human beings. So, creating and developing a new human being is the richest experience in life. It is the foundation of everything. The fact that the current West suppresses the creation of new life and relies on OTHER parts of the world to supply more life goes to show how decrepit our society has become. What good are 'Western Values' if they can't even encourage the creation of new life to carry on with the civilization? Progs say non-Westerners will come to the West, take on Western Values, and carry on. Even if we tell ourselves this is true(though it is not), won't Western Values eventually destroy the newcomers as well because they will be similarly affected and quit creating new life as their white predecessors? Globalist logic of 'Western Values' is like a death cult. You can have more freedom and more stuff to enjoy yourself, but the chances are you won't produce life and will die alone in misery. Therefore, newcomers from the Third World must be taught to carry on with Western Civilization, but then, even if everything according to plan, they will become just as non-productive as whites and fade away, requiring yet more newcomers to take up the slack. It's sort of like the scenario in LOGAN'S RUN where people can have a real Good Time as youthful citizens but must die before they get old so that a new batch of young people can take over. There is no sense of continuity. There's a reason why most of science-fiction offers dystopias than utopias. Technology is no substitute for life.

Life matters. It is why Michael Corleone says at the beginning of GODFATHER III that the most precious things in this world are children. "The only wealth in this world is children, more than all the money and power on Earth. You are my treasure." No matter how much wealth and power Michael accumulates, he will one day die, and then the ONLY people who will remember and care about him are his survivors, his children and grandchildren. His money, mansions, cars, and jewelry have no mind, no heart, no nothing... just like all the dead objects collected by Charles Foster Kane, after whose death, they will be disposed of or sold off to strangers. Only life loves, values, and remembers life.
But in our world, the Ideal is for a guy with well-paying job to marry a woman with a well-paying job(which means one less man with a well-paying job who can afford a family), and since both are too busy with work, the moral-and-mental development of the children is left to PC ideologues(teacher hacks) and the Mammon of Pop Culture that corrupts children from a young age.

The modern world is great for giving us freedoms that our ancestors didn't have and didn't know how to have(or what to do with them). And initially, modern people had both freedom and meaning, a sense of liberty and purpose. They were freed from traditional bonds but still morally and culturally informed by those bonds and values. It's like Michael Corleone has freedoms that his forbears didn't have in Old Sicily, but having grown up in a culture of family and values his sense individuality is informed by those bedrock values centered around family, life, and tradition. He has freedom but also cultural compass.

But as the cult of freedom took on a life of its own via ideological arrogance and hedonistic excess, the connection to a sense of purpose was lost.
Ideology gave people a sense of permanence through ideas when, in fact, ideas only exist in the organic minds of people as life forms. No people, no ideas. Ideas are nothing without minds to appreciate them, and minds are bio-mass of living matter.

If ideology filled people with a false sense of permanence via books & arts, entertainment made people feel that the Moment is Forever. Thus, people lost sight of the larger sense of time and history as they became hooked to pop music, TV, and movies that glorify the orgiastic hysterics of the moment. Humans went from organismic to the orgasmic. So, even middle aged men and women still feel like teenagers as they listen to pop music, watch Hollywood movies about caped heroes, or play dumb video games. And abortion has turned into child sacrifice on the altar of Orgasm-over-Organism.

We need to find a way to reconnect freedom with meaning and purpose.
The pussyhat feminists bitch and whine about 'freedom', as if Trump is going to turn them all into chattel slaves. But in fact, the real problem women face today is the sheer lack of meaning and purpose with all their misguided freedoms. They have freedom, but the choices they've made are terrible, not least because our reigning ideology and culture encourages women to act like tramps in SEX AND THE CITY, Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Emma Sulkowicz, or one of those trashy shallow pseudo-intellectuals who write for NYT or yammer on NPR.

In a way, the oddly perverse alliance of feminists and Muslims suggests at something repressed within the modern feminist psyche. There is something deep inside that is crying out for meaning, order, purpose, and continuance. Is it any surprise that Lindsey Lohan and Sinead O'Connor are leaning toward Islam?

The history of mankind has offered people four basic choices:

1. Forcing people to do what is the right thing.

2. Forcing people to do what is the wrong thing.

3. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the wrong thing.

4. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the right thing.

The best of all possible worlds will have most people in #4 mode.
The worst of all possible worlds will have most people in #3 mode.

Now, why is #3 worse than #2? Why is a world where people are forced to do the wrong thing better than one where people freely do the wrong thing?
Because in the #2 scenario, there is still a political/social power that can make people do the right thing under a new policy. It is currently forcing people to do the wrong thing, but with a change of course, the system can correct its ways and force the people to do the right thing.
In contrast in the #3 scenario, the people have the freedom/power to do the wrong thing, and there is no higher power to stop them or correct them. This is why black problem today is worse than black problem during slavery. During slavery, whites forced blacks to be slaves, the wrong thing. And slavery had to end. But since whites still had the power, they could make blacks do the right thing with the end of slavery. In contrast, the corrupt and free blacks of today won't listen to anything since they got Agency and Power. But to do what with them? For many blacks, freedom means turning cities into more Detroits and Baltimores. Since the 1960s, blacks used their freedom to turn entire communities into neo-jungles and to bitch, whine, and holler like mad baboons. And since they have all the freedoms and rights under the law, they can just go on acting loutish.
In contrast, blacks in Cuba are in scenario #2. Cuban-style Socialism premised on Marxism-Leninism doesn't really work. It is the wrong thing. It keeps blacks doing what is economically backward and inefficient. However, the state still has control over the blacks, so if state policy were to change one day for the better, blacks can be pressured to do the right thing. In contrast, a lot of American blacks are hopeless. They got the power and freedom, but they use it for total lunacy and jungle behavior. And there is no power above them to say NO. Freedom can liberate but also corrupt, and there is nothing worse than corruption-under-freedom. Unlike corruption-under-tyranny where the people can't be blamed(as they must do as told), corruption-under-freedom means the people themselves freely chose to be vile and venal.

One might say #1 and #4 have same results and so are equally valid. Whether people are forced to do the right thing OR use their freedom to do the right thing, the end result is people doing the right thing. Still, we want freedom. We don't want to be forced to do things. We want liberty(or at least its semblance) than tyranny.

Under system #1, even those who want to do the wrong thing have no choice but to do the right thing.
Under system #4, those with the freedom to do the wrong thing still choose to do the right thing. That is true morality, but it's increasingly harder to come by these days because of family breakdown, cultural decadence, moral degeneration, and etc. After all, in order for people to freely do the right thing, they must be inculcated with good, sound, and healthy values, outlook, and understanding. But just look at the state of PC and Pop Culture. We are raising kids to be self-absorbed tards and snowflakes and loons. Why do so many kids get tattoos? They have no sense of time, of tomorrow and the long-term. They don't think, "Years will pass, and I will regret putting this ugly shit on my skin." No, all they care about is the NOW. If they think it's cool NOW, they must get it and the hell with tomorrow. And if they come to hate their own tattoos, they thinking adding more will fix the problem. What idiots.

In order for #4 to work, we need a society that promotes culture and values of maturity, sobriety, dignity, and integrity, like what Vito Corleone had(except for his role in organized crime, but then he was pressured into that life by thug Fanucci who was fleecing the neighborhood).
But if #4 is rendered impossible because our culture creates tons of idiots with PC and junk culture, then the only option is to go back to #1.

#1 is unpleasant even if it forces people to do the right thing because we want to be free and want people to do the right thing out of moral sense than out of social coercion. Still, #1 is the only option when #4 fails and slides us into a state of #3. The black American community, at this point, can be fixed only through the #1 option. Too many blacks have freely chosen to be total tards and stupid chillun.

Life is a form of energy.
The modern world has tons of energy made possible by electricity. Look at Earth at night from space, and entire areas are lit up with vast networks of electricity. We see the most lights in Western nations and East Asian nations. So much industrial and recreational energy... and yet, so little life energy, so little energy of reproduction. Modern folks are like moths before an artificial light. They are addicted to the false life of industrial energy that fills them with bright light, convenience, and entertainment, but they have lost the sense of real energy, that of life itself, the source of all things. Because industrial energy is so powerful and dazzling, those huddled around it feel so alive, but it's all an illusion. Watching TV filled with flashing images or playing some roller-coaster video-game may feel vibrant and alive, but it's all an illusion. Being around all that industrial energy has sapped modern man of life energy, that of family and creation of new life for legacy.

In contrast, the dark continent of Africa is having lots of kids and producing lots of life. They lack in industrial energy but they have something far more valuable: life energy.
And they will eventually move to the modern world with its aging and dying populations who prefer the artificial 'life' of industrial energy over the real energy of life around family and culture. The problem with black Africans is they have much in life energy but little in moral-and-mental energy that can shape life energy into meaning and purpose. Black behavior is in the mode of hump-and-jump, hardly different from those of chimpanzees and baboons.

Some people say we need to return to Christian values, but it's complicated. For starters, Christianity has always been a mixed blessing.
Christianity is like coal. It offers lots of spiritual heat and moral warmth. But it has to be handled with care with good ventilation. Why? What does coal produce? Carbon Monoxide or CO which is odorless and lethal.
The Church needs a good ventilation system. Yes, the Church teaches white folks to love mankind and be forgiving, and etc. That is a good message to warm the soul. But too much of anything is never any good. And excessive utopian save-the-world sermonizing of Christians can have the effect of CO.
So, we need to ventilate the Church. Give us the sermon about love and forgiveness, but air out the excess sanctimony that 'toxifies' people with holier-than-thou pied-piper-ism of racial extinction. Also, Christians need to be reminded that Jesus never said the world of man could be saved. He only said that man should try to be good and seek the Lord's grace in the afterlife.

Righteousness > Tribalism? — How Self-Righteous Flames Can Burn More Brightly than the Tribal Fire, at least in the Short Term.

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/walt-whitman-mass-media-and-jewish-power/#comment-3111068

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’.