“Why Is Wokeness Winning?” asks veteran pundit Andrew Sullivan, recently fired by New York magazine for distressing its more fragile younger staffers by thinking for himself.
Why is 'wokeness' or PC winning? Because the Power gets to do as it pleases. So, it's the wrong question. A more sensible question is, "Jews won as the ruling elites, so what are they up to lately?" Another sensible question is, "Why don't whites take on Jewish Power as the main nemesis? Why not go for the queen and king? Why go after the pawns on the chessboard?" This BLM woke-wakanda is just a pawn on the chessboard dominated by Jewish Power. Jews won already. And that's why they keep doing stuff like this. So, unless whites address the question of power — which group has it, what is its attitude and agenda —, they won't get anywhere near a solution.
This is primarily about the power of Jewish Identity using black identity to browbeat whites with a combination of loopy ideology and obnoxious idolatry. Who spread this PC nonsense? Academia and media. And who dominate those? It sure ain't Eskimos. Arabs and Muslims may ask a similar question. After so many years of insane US foreign policy, why is 'Neo-Conservatism' still the guiding force. Russians may question also. Why after all the mess the US caused in Russia, Ukraine, and neighboring states, why is the US still in 'cold war' mode? What sense does it make? It makes no sense unless we factor in the role of Jewish Power. As Jews rule the US(and its allies and puppets, which are at least half the world), the policy of the US will be Judeo-Centric. So, what whites face in the US isn't all that different from what Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, Russians, Hungarians, and many others face around the world. Just like US foreign policy has backed, directly or indirectly, Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters in Syria & Iraq and backed quasi-nazi elements in Ukraine, US domestic policy supports blacks, diversity, and white cucks against saner and prouder whites. Jewish Power has already used homo power to subvert and desecrate Christianity. As Jewish Power controls the US, both foreign and domestic policy is about Jews pitting one bunch of goyim against others.
Blacks, idiotic or not, don't own the media. They don't command the academia. They do have idolatrous value due to sports and pop music. But as most Americans have short memory and a mentality geared towards fads than heritage/history, relevance is accorded to whatever is hyped most. In other words, if Jewish Power hadn't hyped MLK, Mandela, tropes of American South = Nazism, Emmett Till cult, BLM, and Civil Rights narrative, most Americans wouldn't be as into blackness. Most people don't think or seek out truth on their own. They passively accept whatever is pushed down their throats in school or beamed at them through TV and other electronic gadgets. It's the 'passive passion' of couch-potatoes. Watch all these PC-addled TV shows and become charged with 'woke' outrage. And Jews have virtual monopoly control of those things. And Jews do this not because they're so crazy about blacks. Jews know blacks are problematic. And most Jews, 'liberal' or otherwise, know all about IQ differences. Most Jews know they are smarter even though they won't admit it publicly. Jews pushed stop-and-frisk in NY for many years. Jews welcomed Bill Clinton as the new kind of Democrat who enacted tough law-and-order policies, all the while placating blacks with photo ops with black secret service men, lending the impression that white bubba loves black bubbas. True, Jews have a certain fascination for blacks as both groups have effectively subverted white America. Both groups have passion for basketball, a game Jews used to dominate when blacks were discriminated against. Jews took musical inspiration from blacks. Jews cashed in big time by controlling sports and music where blacks are prominent. Also, especially following WWII, many Jews sincerely sympathized with people who faced racial discrimination. That said, Jews privately know there are big differences between Jews and blacks. It's all there in the movie UNCUT GEMS. Brainy diamond merchants and monster-athletes & thugs.
Be that as it may, the real source of Jewish Power is control of whites, not blacks. By controlling blacks in sports and pop culture, Jews rake in lots of money. Also, Jews need some controls against black crime because it degrades quality of life. Still, if Jews controlled blacks but not whites, Jewish Power would diminish overnight. Blacks are good at 'cool' and 'badass' things but not most things. It's whites who are good at most things like managing, soldiering, engineering, and all the myriad things that make up civilization. Besides, whites are still the majority in the West. If blacks came to hate Jews but if whites still supported and served Jews, Jewish Power would be intact. But even if all blacks were servile to Jews but if whites gained independent spirit and racial identity/pride and refused to serve Jews, Jewish Power would effectively be over. Jewish Power can survive black hate and white love but not white hate and black love. White subservience to Jewish Power is the real key to Jewish Power and Hegemony. This is why Jews use blacks to morally browbeat whites. It is to rob whites of pride, confidence, and sense of independence. It is to make whites feel that they owe something to Jews and blacks. If Jews stressed white moral debt to JEWS ONLY, it might come across as too greedy and self-centered. Also, Jews are mainly famous as comedians and they don't command the respect and awe of music stars and athletes, the demigods of our age. That is why Jews need this alliance with blacks. Of course, this is a risky move on the part of Jews. Insulting and humiliating whites can be effective. We certainly see a lot of white cucks and wussies on their knees kissing Jewish toes and washing black feet. But it can also lead to backlash. Whip a horse, and it will usually obey... but there's always the chance that it will get angry and kick the man with whip in the head. When the Saxon begins to hate...
This is why Jews use both sweetness and bitterness to manipulate whites. Jews offer up figures like Oprah and Obama. They promise a new age is dawning where all will be well if whites cozy up to Magic Negroes. Also, chants like 'diversity is our strength' gives the impression that diversity is the greatest gift to whites. More restaurants, more vibrancy, more excitement. It's all to add color and flavor to the white world. And whites are made to feel that black athletes are playing for white fans. So, if the NY team wins, the victory is for ALL New Yorkers, white ones too. And black celebrities are coached to say nice things about white folks once in awhile. To be role models for white kids. But just in case such isn't enough to fool white folks, there is also the bitterness narrative. Whites have done terrible things in history, especially to holy Jews and magical blacks; therefore, whites are especially guilty and must atone. New generations of white kids must be taught that they are born with 'white privilege' made possible by white oppression and exploitation of Jews, blacks, and others(but mainly Jews and blacks as Jews don't want white remorse for Muslims and Arabs). And this is where PC 'wokeness' enters the discussion. 'Pokeness' for happy smiley feelies, and 'wokeness' for sad frowny faces.
So, this isn't about IQ, crime, or even ideology. Ideology comes with a certain logic, e.g. "if racial discrimination is wrong, then ALL racial discrimination is wrong." There is no inner logic to 'wokeness' except 'anything goes to make whites servile to Jews, morally and emotionally'. If 'wokeness' is an ideology, it would raise questions not only about 'not enough blacks in ice hockey' but 'not enough whites, browns, yellows, hindus in NBA and NFL'. But the moral outrage is always about 'not enough blacks'. Likewise, 'too many Jews' is never an issue. Even in Hollywood, the issue is couched in terms of 'so-white', not 'so-Jew'. When Jews are not using the Holocaust or 'You are Nazi' card, they use the MLK and Jim Crow card. We know 'wokeness' as ideology is BS because Jews, blacks, and so-called 'progressives' hardly mutter "Palestinian Lives Matter" and, if anything, actively suppress BDS. Palestinians are resisting Zionist apartheid policies, but most Jews are okay with what Israel is up to. And blacks overlook the blatant ethnic oppression and discrimination. And white 'liberals' hail Jews and Israel and say nothing about violation of civil liberties of Palestinians.
So, 'wokeness' is really about idolatry of Jews and blacks. Blacks are crucial because Jews feel that blacks have special juice, voodoo power. In a world where masses are obsessed with sports and rap music has become global, blacks have become 'iconic'. Anatoly Karlin says even Russian TV is filled with blacks. US Wars for Israel have been killing countless Syrians, but no one in Europe cared. But George Floyd dies of drug OD under police custody, and countless people in US, Canada, and Europe go crazy like black jesus was killed. Just like people ignore most deaths(even those of relatives) but get all worked up over celebrity deaths, people ignore the sufferings and plights of most groups and only care for the special groups. A group can be made special by media hype. Like the romanticism about the 'heroic Kurds'. But some groups have innate special qualities. Jews are especially adept with wit and brain power, blacks are dominant in sports and rhythm. Even though brains beats brawn in actual accumulation of power, brawn has idolatrous advantage over brains. Socrates and Aristotle were great minds, but we remember Ancient Greece through sculptures of muscular heroes. Jews own the NBA teams, but all the attention is fixed on the athletes. China is far away, but black NBA stars are among the biggest idols there. Europeans can't get enough of advertising with blacks. This is why Jews use blacks as the prominent faces and voices of 'wokeness'. Blackness is also useful because of the wishful associative tendencies of the mind. Certain advantages or forms of superiority make people associate them with all-around superiority. If someone is good at accounting, you don't expect him to be good at everything. It's just a skill, a profession. But when someone is dominant in a 'popular' field, it rouses idolatrous feelings about him. The cultism around him makes people want to believe he is a superior being either capable of superhuman feats or deserving of all the love/money in the world. This isn't rational, but the human mind often works mythically. It's like lions are romanticized as something more than predators. They are seen as 'kings of the jungle', thus deserving to rule over nature. Whites feel this way about blacks due to black success in pop culture and sports, the two biggest obsessions of the modern West. So, whites believe blacks should be great or extra-deserving in everything. It's the 'logic' behind advertising. Any commercial product is created by researchers and manufactured by workers, and yet, a box of cereal, for example, is associated with some athlete who is offered millions. So, the actual people who make the product make less money than the athlete who had NOTHING to do with its creation and manufacture. And yet, people have no problem with this because the athlete is a star, and that means he deserves to have more than anyone else. But rationally and factually speaking, just because blacks excel at rapping and dunking balls doesn't mean they are good at math, engineering, doctoring, accounting; it doesn't mean they are entitled to or deserving of trophies in every field. Now, people may rationally understand this, but they are usually emotional, sentimental, and 'mythic' than rational and factual. The irrational part of their being feels that the race of Muhammad Ali's, Tupacs, Long-Dong-Silvers, and MLK's(as blacks have booming voices) should have MORE, if not everything. But as it happens, fields such as sports and pop music are about winner-takes-all, and there are just few winners. It's like in pro-boxing, champions make most money, handful of top contenders make some money, and everyone else gets chump change. In basketball, few make it to NBA and all those 'promising' college players end up with nothing(like in HOOP DREAMS). But as white kids in countless numbers grow up time cheering for blacks as their heroes, they feel that blacks deserve more. And this is why it seems so unjust that blacks fail in so many areas. The hero is seen as deserving of adulation and tributes from all sides. Notice even 'socialists' aren't opposed to their famous celebrities and stars becoming ever richer. Now, when it comes to American Indians and brown 'Latinos', whites aren't so sentimental because those groups don't succeed in 'popular' fields; therefore, they don't seem 'heroically' deserving of MORE if not everything.
Jews understand this. They know about the sentimentality that accompanies white awe of black prowess as athletes, rappers, orators, sluts, and studs. Jews know white women try to sing black. They know white boys look to black rappers and athletes as top heroes. Jews know white girls got jungle fever and white boys got cuck worship. And this awe leads to white sentimentality because blacks don't do so well in all professions. In many areas, blacks downright suck. But because of the awe in the 'cool' areas, whites feel sentimental about black failure in other areas. When 'uncool' Mexicans fail in many areas, it's seen as par for the course: "Mexicans suck at 'cool' stuff, so why shouldn't they suck at everything?" But when 'cool' blacks fail in many areas, it's seen as an affront to white mythic adoration of blackness: "Cuz Blacks are so awesome in the coolest fields, it's totally unjust that they fail in many areas." And this sense of injustice and sentimentality leads to 'white guilt'. Now, Occam's Razor answer to this problem is simple enough: "Blacks are better at muscle-fields but less good at mental-fields." But such is hard to swallow because success in 'popular' fields leads to a kind of cult-worship. Once a people are seen as demigods, it seems wrong to feel they are inferior in anything. It's like the thing with movie stars. Movie stars actually suck at most things but faking it. They are not particularly smart, they aren't all that physical. But they play 'cool' and 'badass' action stars in the movies, and countless audiences want to believe Sean Connery = 007 and Sylvester Stallone = Rocky/Rambo. The actor and his roles dissolve into a singularity. Rationally, anyone knows that the actor and the larger-than-life character he plays are not the same, but emotionally and viscerally, a kind of psychological fusion takes place. And something similar happens with white psychology about blacks. Black domination in 'popular' fields has led whites to fuse black prowess in sports/music with all-around prowess in just about everything. And this is why Jews can exploit white psychology so easily by making whites believe that the ONLY REASON awesome blacks haven't been awesome in all fields is due to the legacy of 'white privilege' and 'systemic racism'. Of course, one wonders why the legacy of 'racism' hasn't prevented blacks from dominating sports and pop music. How is it that natural black athleticism overcame 'racism', but natural black intellectualism cannot? But then, reasoning questions about god will be met with the rage of the rapturous. In this sense, blacks aren't so much the pawns on the chessboard but the bishop. Jewish Power uses blackness as a neo-religion for cucked whites.
Still, Jews are the brains behind it all. If the media and academia were in other hands and fostered more free discussion of facts, public perception and policy can change. So, how does one deal with Jewish Power? There are two ways. One way is to honestly and accurately discuss the truth of Jewish Power in the West with data, statistics, and the like. But should one be entirely objective in a polemical battle? The other way is to do exactly what the Jews do. If Jews will use any group or any narrative to demean and undermine whiteness, then whites should do likewise to the Jews. Whites should defend, sentimentalize, and hype any group that can be effectively used to expose Jewish abuses, crimes, hypocrisy, and corruption. Whites can bring up the matter of all the Christian peasant folks fleeced by Jewish tax collectors. All the Slavs killed by Jewish communists. Palestinians who lost their homeland to Zionists. All the Arabs and Muslims killed by Wars for Israel. Whites can also use the black card. Jewish slavers were prominent in Brazil. Jewish agents ripped off countless black athletes and entertainers. Of course, Jews anticipate such attacks and invoke 'antisemitism' to smear anyone who dares to go on the counter-attack. In other words, Jews can smear whites, Russians, Iranians, Arabs, and etc. but no one better generalize about Jews. On the white right, a problem has been that many who have denounced Jewish Supremacism also defended white supremacism, making it easy for Jews to smear them as 'nazis', which some of them are. But if whites totally reject supremacism on their own side while attacking the obvious supremacism on the Jewish side, it can be effective, especially as the victims of Jewish supremacist violence have grown exponentially in the 21st century with Wars for Israel.
It's like THE GODFATHER PART 2. Sure, Rosato Brothers made the move on Frank Pantangeli, but who gave the go-ahead? Who gave the go-ahead to blacks to trash the white race? Big Media and Elite Academia are not controlled by blacks. And they aren't controlled by Eskimos. Anyway, UNLESS whites finally admit that Jewish Power is their nemesis and formulates a new political paradigm where whites unite with the likes of Palestinians, they won't have a chance. It's really that simple. When Jews beat whites with the black club but whites refuse to notice the Jewish hand holding the club, it's hopeless. But current reality is worse. Jews beat whites with the black club, but one bunch of whites, the 'liberals', bleat about Russia while another bunch of whites, the 'conservatives', whine about China. And I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. So, if the white race is over, the future will really be about how non-whites face Jewish Power. But even when whites become minorities in the West, Jewish Power may remain strong because white cucks, 'right' and 'left', will continue to serve Jews for naive sincere reasons or craven cynical ones(as Jews got the money). America in year 2100. Whites are 30% of the population and serve Jews. The great majority of non-whites are too diverse and divided to form a united bloc against Jewish Power at the top that is served by whites. What a future.
The term ‘existentialist’ is hardly heard anymore but we hear A LOT about how such-and-such is an ‘existential’ threat. Russia is an ‘existential’ threat. Iran is an ‘existential’ threat. Nationalism is an ‘existential’ threat. But mass invasion of Africans into EU and mass invasion by world into US are not ‘existential’ threats... so the GLOB tells us.
The real existential threats were best understood by Pierre Boulle and Jean Raspail than by heavy-duty French philosophers who obsessed over abstractions or committed themselves to ultimately bloody radical agendas.
PLANET OF THE APES and BRIDGE ON RIVER KWAI were about Role-Reversals, with the Other on top and with white man as the slave. And THE CAMP OF SAINTS warned of Cuck-extinction(or Cuckstinction or Cuxtinction) of the West by invasion of the Other. Amusing that writers of popular fiction were closer to the truth than abstract theorists and radical intellectuals.
I wonder why Jean Raspail made the invaders a bunch of Hindu Dotkins. Blacks are far more threatening because they take over the Face of the nation EVEN WITH VERY FEW NUMBERS. Every society is made up mostly of faceless people, and only a few people with faces. Take any sports spectacle. All those fans have no faces. They are just the mass of people cheering, part of the wave. Most in coaching and management have no faces. All those millions upon millions watching the game on TV have no faces. Even most athletes haven’t much in the way of faces. For example, in most football teams, many players are hardly known by name or face. Many are backup players. It is the few STARS who get all the attention, glory, and love. Michael Jordan got 90% of the attention during the heyday of the Chicago bulls. In boxing, 0.1% of the boxers, the champs, get 99% of the attention. As Jordan Peterson said in his book, few in certain fields get most while rest get crumbs. Communism tried to counter this, but it led to a few getting all the political power. The chosen few become the heroic, representative, and idolized FACE of society or nation. If lots of Hindus enter France, at the very least they won’t threaten the FACE of France. Frenchmen can beat Hindus in sports, and I don’t think Hindus would dominate pop music either. So, French men would remain as the Face of French heroism, manhood, aura, and pride... as Sports and Pop Music idolatry mainly define the representative and emblematic Face of a people. People like the notion of Idols and Champions. Most Ancient Greeks did not look like the idealized figures depicted in Hellenic sculptures, but those iconic images were prized as the preferred Image of the Hellenes. In the Golden Age of Hollywood, women across America(who were, on average, homely) looked to few Hollywood stars as the Idols. Most women were faceless and looked to the Idols & Celebrities to represent the Faces of America. This is why Harry marrying a mulatto is threatening to the Politics of Face of Britain. Royalty is more than a family. It is the Face of Britain. The Royal Face is worth a million common faceless faces. The fact that Jews put a face on a victim of Shoah made a huge difference. Anne Frank gave face to the tragedy, just like the appeal of Christianity was it added a Face to God. In contrast, the victims of the Ukrainian famine are faceless and nameless. They're just a boring statistic even if people know millions died.
In contrast to non-African non-whites who settle in the West, just a handful of blacks can upset the Native White Face because blacks are so much better at sports and sassier in music. Just a few blacks in Canada led to its top runners being black, its top boxers being black, and etc. So, even though Canada has a relatively small black population, blacks have become the FACE of Canadian manhood, heroism, pride, and etc. Same in the UK, France, Holland, etc. And the fastest runner in Japan is now some half-black guy. So, in a nation where blacks are tiny in number, a black guy has become the FACE of Japanese sports. (And Mongols have become the FACE of sumo. Japanese are becoming faceless in their own nation despite Japan being 97% Japanese. Again, most people are faceless, and the Face of a Nation is defined by few idolatrous fields such as sports and pop culture. When not ceding to blacks and Mongols as the New Face of Japan -- even Miss Japan was a black woman born of black guy humping a yellow woman -- , Japanese hide behind anime and manga depiction of Japanese as fantasy-whites.) The black threat to the National Face seems to be the one crucial thing Raspail overlooked by making Hindus the main invaders in his novel. (Do other races join the invasion? I haven’t read the novel.) While Too Many Hindus can surely cause problems, they won’t rob the French of the National FACE. In contrast, Blacks will do just that, indeed with just a small number. This is why black invasion is most dangerous. Black invasion isn’t just a matter of Demographics but an act of De-Facement of the Nation. (Imagine if whites are faster and tougher than blacks. Suppose only a few whites can upset the Face of a Black Nation. Suppose white 'migrants' enter an African nation where they become 5% of the population while blacks remain the 95%. Suppose whites come to dominate sports and black cheerleaders dance for white hero-idols while black cucks or blucks admire white guys as the representative symbol of manhood in a nation that is 95% black. They even believe tons of black women should put out to superior white guys. How pathetic would that be?) Just a few blacks can mean blacks taking over the areas that are most representative of the National Face, National Pride, and National Manhood: Sports and Celebrity mainly in pop music. With even just a few blacks, the new National Heroes become the black runner, black boxer, black footballer, black rapper, and etc. As idolized 'heroes', their Faces are revered by the faceless masses. The native masses no longer revere a hero/face of their own kind. They worship the black as the New Hero, the New Face. And that means blackness is prized, and this paralyzes the Will to say NO to more invasion by blacks since blackness has become a sacred icon of national glory. Consider France. After those blacks brought home the World Cup, can the admiring French say NO to more African invasion? The FACE of France is now black, while the masses of whites are just faceless cuckois fans who cheer for blacks. If Blackness is the New Face of France, then saying No to More African Invasion would be an Affront to the New Face of France... which is black. So, France can't say to Invasions such as this: (It’s getting to the point where white athletes increasingly cannot compete in a globalized sports world where superior black muscle is key to victory. So, not only the US but EU is becoming Afro-athleto-colonized. As for black Africa, they can’t win much globally because there is little in the way of infrastructure and funding for athletes. Africa has lots of raw talent but hardly any system of coaching, training, and funding. So, much of the talent goes unharnessed. But in the West, there is the combination of white-made-and-sustained infrastructure, management, & funding AND profusion of superior black talent. So, whites work and pay to maintain a complex system of sports facilities, media, and finance to promote and celebrate black athletic talent as the New Face of Afro-Aryan Manhood. White ants work to maintain a system to hail and honor the high-jumping black grasshoppers. Faceless whites as workers and fans sustain a system to give the Official Face to black stars. But if blacks keep invading Europe that becomes Afro-Colonized territorially and sexually, for how long will Europe be able to maintain the infrastructure and systems necessary for modern sports facilities and complexes? If Europe becomes too much like Africa, it will end up with African-level infrastructures, the kind too often found in Detroit and Lagos. Without white work and management cucking out to black sports glory, blacks can’t achieve much in sports. For blacks to succeed in NFL, NBA, & European soccer, those elaborate business enterprises must be run by people other than blacks.)
In the ILIAD, most of the characters are faceless. Only a handful of characters are given prominent faces and personalities. Achilles, Hector, and etc. And of course, the gods. The rest of the soldiers are rabble(just like we don't know 99.99% of people who fought in WWII and mainly focus on a handful of Faced commanders like Patton, Rommel, MacArthur, Yamamoto, and etc. The Alt Right may be 'based', but it's the blacks who are 'faced'.) So, most people don’t count in the national imagination. When Greeks heard Homer tell his tale, they didn’t hear details of EVERY Greek involved in the battle. The narrative centered around a handful of key figures. Same in Arthurian legends. Only a few characters represent the hopes and dreams of all. Even in the vast and sprawling WAR AND PEACE by Lev Tolstoy, only a few characters stand out. So, it really matters WHO is the face of heroism. To the Greeks, Achilles was one of their own, just like Hector was one of the Trojans. But blacks have a way of taking away the FACE from whites. Even a few blacks will lead to Athleto-Colonization-and-domination of a nation, and this will lead to cuck mentality of faceless white minions all slobbering over the Black Other as the New National Hero. Because blacks have become the New Face of manhood in the West, even historical white heroes like Lancelot and Achilles are being retro-fitted as black by BBC(which, in meme-o-sphere, has come to stand for big black cock) and other Western media. Colonization isn’t just about the numbers but about the idols. Black presence smashes white idols of manhood in white nations and replace them with black idols. Only blacks can do this to whites because only blacks can out-perform whites in athletic prowess, vocal volume, dance, and dong-booty-shaking. Indeed, the Black Face is winning not because black facial features per se are more appealing. Even today, most women prefer white face over the black face. But black muscle beats white muscle, black dong is bigger than the white dong, and black voice is more powerful than the white voice. MLK cult is built around the voice. So, black advantages in those areas have become associated with the black face. A France that is 20% white and 80% Hindu could still have a White Face as National Idol as the French could out-do the Hindus in sports and music. (Bollywood music has only camp value.) But a France that is 5% black can smash the White Face as the National Face and replace it with the Black Face. As white men cannot compete with black men in raw manhood, whites must seek total separation from blacks in order to preserve white manhood(so essential to white survival as women mate with men with manhood) and to Re-Face the West with whiteness. Re-Face-ment must be a key element in Pan-European Revival. Afro-imperialism must be stopped. Afro-colonization and Afro-imperialism work according to the same logic as Western Imperialism of old. In the past, the West's rationale and justification for invading and colonizing all the world were simply that the West was superior in industrial output, organization, management, military might, and etc. West was more powerful, therefore it had the 'right' to conquer and rule over inferior non-white powers. Based on raw meritocracy of power, this made sense. Power over the Cower. But the non-white world resisted and said non-whites should rule themselves even if they were in inferior in industry, military, and knowledge. They could restore national pride only by gaining independence from Western Superiority. So, meritocracy wasn't everything. In order for each people to have pride, they must choose their own kind as rulers, icons, and idols over those of the Other even if it is more powerful and accomplished. This didn't mean that one couldn't admire and learn from the talents and achievements of the Other. Still, the Other must be regarded as the Other than the New Ours.
Imagine a white society where immigration reduces whites to only 50% of the population. The newcomers are Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, Hindus, and etc but No Blacks. Demographically, whites will have lost a lot, but they still get to dominate as the National FACE because whites will continue to dominate the most symbolically rich areas of sports, music, and etc. (Now, some may argue that people are stupid to fixate so much on such things, but the fact is people do. It's a reality, not least because of the Western obsession with competition going back to Greeks who turned everything into an Olympics of sorts.) But suppose some blacks enter, and they make up only 5% of the population. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/sports/more-nigerian-americans-are-reaching-highest-levels-of-sports.html But that small number will pose an essentialist threat to the White FACE as representative of National heroism and manhood. Races are different. If you invite a race that is tougher and stronger than you, then even a small number can demote and destroy your kind as the FACE of your nation. That essentialist threat eventually turns into an existential threat because white women will look to the Black Face as the New Idol of Western Manhood, and this will lead to ACOWW or the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs by Blacks. Imagine how many white European women those Africans on the French soccer team will hump in the coming months. Also, even non-athlete blacks will benefit from the trickle-down effect of Black De-Face-ment of White. As white women come to associate blackness as Western Manhood, they will go with ANY black guy as being a member of the People of Real Manhood. It's like when Obama won the presidency, Europeans were suddenly nice to All Americans in Europe as the 'people who voted for Obama'. Fringe benefits of Idol Politics or Idolitics.
So many Mexicans took over California but they remain faceless because they can't make it as athletes and rappers. Japan and Asia make so many electronic gadgets used all over the world, but Asians remain mostly faceless in the global use of those devices because Asians can't compete athletically, pop-musically, and sexually on the global scale. China held the Olympics, but most Chinese remained faceless while few black faces hogged all the limelight on the track fields. Because Asians can't win in real sports, they rely on the pop fantasy of Kung Fu masters in movies. (Asian women do have sexual value but only as me-so-horny objects to be taken by superior non-Asian men.) Asians make the smartphones but people around the world use them to send back and forth far more images and sounds of blacks who as seen as cool grass(hip)hoppers in contrast to diligent but boring yellow ants. Blackness is prized so prized globally as superior in the 'cool' areas that even Japan and rest of Asia are cucking out to blackness in imitation of the still dominant West.
Idol-Colonization or Idolonization is worth looking into. Globalism isn't about all the world sharing all their cultures, powers, and values equally. It is about Whatever is deemed the Best, Most Powerful, Most Popular, and/or Most Pleasurable dominating all the world as the Sole Superpower. So, the US military must rule all the world. Jewish finance must dominate all the money. Hollywood must dominate all cinemas. Rap and Twerking must be the music culture of all. US fast food must feed and fatten everyone. Homomania must be the new world religion. Globo-Homo America can meddle in all elections, but no one better mess with the US. Mandela must be the father of all peoples(but never mind Arafat) because Jewish Media as the Main Media(and Jews control Google, Facebook, and most platforms) say so. Black sports must take over all nations. There is a raw kind of meritocracy to this, but it means a few Winners dominating all the world as the Only People Deserving to Win.
The Shoah is one of the great horrors of the 20th or any century. It is understandable why it has become central to how Jews define themselves. It is all the more frightening to Jews because so much of the world was ambivalent and even silent about the horrors when they were happening. And if the world did eventually defeat Germany, it had little to do with Saving Jews than with geo-politics. USSR ended up fighting Germany because it was invaded. And the US dragged its heels in the war to spare its own troops while the Germans and Soviets slaughtered one another(and Jews got slaughtered in between). And as the mass bombing of civilians in Germany and Japan showed, the US and UK could be pretty ruthless in wiping out entire parts of cities. Jews feel that if the governments of UK and US had been somewhat more pro-German, the Nazi regime might have prevailed and even become allies of UK and US. Then Jews all over the world could have been in big trouble. After all, the US was allies with many bloody regimes that killed 100,000s or even millions of innocents. There never was much moral consideration in foreign policy. And Jews themselves often looked the other way as they allied the Empire of Judea with regimes ruled by mass-killers. In other words, contrary to the Jewish Moral Narrative of the 20th century, matters were far more complicated than it would have us believe. If the subject of Shoah seems so starkly about Good vs Evil, it’s because the Nazis were so outlandish in their murderous ambition. The scale, scope, and specs of Shoah were such that we believe only a total evil regime could have done something like that. And because Jews were victims of such ghastly evil, there’s been a tendency to see Jews as the most innocent lambs among mankind. After all, why wouldn’t an utterly evil regime target the most wonderful and saintly people? But then, to be sure, Jews have been prone to turning EVERYTHING in their history as a matter of Evil Goyim vs Good Jews. The pogroms, for example, were far less deadly than the Shoah. Indeed, such pogroms had been happening all around the world, people vs people, tribe vs tribe, nationality vs nationality. The pogroms against Jews were vicious and brutal, but the victims were in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands. And even though many innocent Jews got slaughtered, there were legitimate reasons as to why the Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians were angry with Jews. But Jews overlooked all of that... just like Jews have, until recently, generally overlooked the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Jews would have us believe, Israeli Jews are innocent lambs who want to avert Another Holocaust whereas Palestinians are wolves filled with quasi-nazi ‘hate’. Never mind the 1948 Nakba pogroms that expelled Palestinians from their homes and towns. Likewise, Jews have turned Israel vs Iran conflict into a cartoon. Though Iran has no nukes and has complied with international inspections, it has been accused of harboring an Evil Plan to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, a gross distortion of what the Iranian president actually said. Meanwhile, Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons and bans international inspections, but we are told that we must do everything to protect poor little Israel(with enough nukes to blow up Iran many times over) from Iran(that has zero nukes and, unlike Israel, didn’t attack or invade its neighbors). So, Jewish hyperbole isn’t limited to the Shoah. Jews flip out and foam at the mouth about everything. Take the anti-communist crusade of the late 40s and early 50s. Joseph McCarthy overplayed his hand, but it was far from a ‘witch-hunt’ as there were plenty of communist spies and fellow-travelers in the US government and institutions. But because many of them happened to be of the Tribe, the Jews circled the wagons and pushed the Narrative of the ‘Red Scare’, ‘anti-communist hysteria’, and ‘McCarthyism’. In other words, we're supposed to believe communists and their sympathizers were few and far between, and even if there were some, they were just well-meaning people whose civil liberties shouldn’t have been violated. Never mind that those Jewish leftists and communists had been totally supportive of War Hysteria during WWII and the ‘internment’ of over 100,000 Japanese-in-America. Jews have been no less hysterical about denial of membership to their grandfathers in WASP golf clubs. And Jews have also vastly exaggerated the lynchings of blacks. In the 100 yrs from the end of the Civil War to 1965, only a few thousand blacks were lynched(and many of them were rapists and murderers), but the Jew-run media would have believe that totally innocent blacks were hanging from trees like apples in an orchard. You’d think EVERY black family lost someone to lynching. And Jews flip out about the US turning away illegal ‘dreamers’ or the EU saying ‘enough is enough’ to mass invaders from Africa and Muslim World. All such constitute ‘nazism’. One might argue that the Shoah was so traumatic to Jews that they tend to frame everything in terms of ‘nazis’ and ‘holocaust’. But Jewish obnoxiousness has been around long before Shoah. The Jewish Way has always been ‘my way or the highway’. Their long experience with Monotheism and the Covenant conditioned them to believe that their Truth is the one-and-only truth and that they and only they have a special relationship with the Truth.
A closer inspection of the 20th century would have to consider that the great tragedies that befell Jews partly(and crucially) resulted from tragedies that befell other peoples at the hands or puppet-strings of Jews. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around. It’s like we can admit that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible and killed many innocents of all ages — it could have been far worse as the American Plan was to nuke 10 or 12 more cities until Japan surrendered — , but Japan-as-a-nation-and-world-power was hardly innocent in the events that led up to WWII. Because of the especially horrific nature of the nukings, there’s been a tendency among many Japanese(and some on the Western Left, especially in Europe) to see the event in terms of ‘white racist America’ mass-exterminating poor helpless Japanese. But even if one were to believe that the nukings were great war crimes and unnecessary(making them more evil), it still doesn’t exonerate Japan’s own role in WWII and its horrors, some of which were as evil and depraved as humankind could commit. Likewise, the destruction of Germany in WWII was so horrific and cost so many innocent lives that there’s been a tendency among those on the Far Right to make Germans out to be the misunderstood victims of WWII. But despite the fact that many innocent Germans(especially womenfolk and children) were killed or brutalized, there’s no getting around the fact that Germany had played a key role in triggering the biggest war of all time. What goes for Japan and Germany also goes for Jews. Because Jewish control the academia and media, people aren’t fully cognizant of the perfidious Jewish role in modern history. Also, because Jews didn’t have a nation of their own and instead operated through a world-wide network, a lot of bad Jewish behavior came to be associated with non-Jewish nations or empires. For example, Jews were the main sellers of opium in China, but most people just blame it on British Imperialism. Jews financed many slave ships and invested heavily in the Western colonization of the world. But because Jews remained in the shadows as financial puppet-masters, their power remained invisible. The Jewish world-wide-networks presented themselves as ‘British’, ‘French’, ‘German’, ‘American’, ‘Austrian’, ‘Russian’, etc.
Not having a nation of their own was both disadvantageous and advantageous to Jewish power. It was obviously disadvantageous because Jews had to operate as a minority in every nation. Even with all the money and success, Jewish power was precarious because Jews were vastly outnumbered by masses of goyim who might unite top-to-bottom as a force to contend with Jews, even expelling them for the umpteenth time. But the absence of their own nation was advantageous to Jews because they could have an Invisible Empire. Because the British had a nation of their own called Britain, theirs was known as the British Empire. And same logic applied to the French, Russian, Spanish, Ottoman, and other empires. But because Jews didn’t have a nation of their own, their Empire of Judea(or EOJ) latched onto and hid behind the empires of others. The Empire of Judea moved in the shadows of other empires. Unless one knew the details of who’s-who and the inner-workings of worldwide power, one could easily overlook and fail to detect the full extent of the Jewish Empire. It was a global Stealth Empire that evaded many political radars of awareness, all the more so because the EOJ bought up many goy politicians(to serve as fronts) and the (apparently ‘gentile’)media that seriously distorted public consciousness. Jews didn’t publish only distinctly Jewish journals but purchased Christian/pagan-created newspapers & magazines to use as fronts of Jewish Narratives. Anyway, prior to WWII and Shoah, the fact is the Empire of Judea in all its branches had sunk its claws into world affairs that led to unnecessary wars, communist revolution & mass killings, and cultural degeneration(that reached its heights in Weimar Germany) that understandably angered a lot of people. Thus, the idea that anti-Jewish violence was always about Big Nasty Goy beating on helpless innocent Jews is false. Rather, it was the result of Clash of Empires. Jewish Empire happened to be one of them, and for the most part, Jews gave as well as they got. Indeed, considering the number of Christians/pagans who died as the result of Jewish meddling in World Affairs, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say the Jewish Empire killed many more of the Other than was killed by the Other. Even though Jews weren’t the ONLY people responsible for World War I's spiraling out of control, communism, and financial robbery that led to the Great Depression, they were among the key movers and shakers of history. Thus, the victims of the Empire of Judea in the 20th century would have to count in the tens of millions. For one thing, Jews played an instrumental role in getting both UK and US into WWI. And Jews were the main financiers of the Bolshevik Revolution. And after the Cold War, Jews were the main operatives behind US involvement in the Middle East and North Africa that has destroyed millions of Arab and/or Muslim lives. Of course, due to the rise of Israel as a Jewish state following WWII, it has been more difficult for Jews to maintain an Invisible or Stealth Empire. What with so many US politicians being bribed, blackmailed, and goaded into chanting, "Israel, Israel, Israel", people can’t help wake up to the extent of Jewish Power that is now linked to a particular geography and ethnicity.
But Jews will not settle for a complex reading of history in which they were as much perpetrators and aggressors as preys and victims. There are several reasons for this. Jewish personality tends toward self-righteous obnoxiousness. Jews fear that non-Jews are too childlike and dumb to understand complexity, and so, it’s better to push a children’s tale of history with Good Guys and Bad Guys(where Jews are the ultimate Good Guys and anyone or any people who counter Jewish hostility with hostility-in-kind are the Bad Guys). Jews are in supremacist mode despite their small numbers, and this means they must paralyze non-Jewish majority with a heavy dose of the Guilt Pill lest they wake up and stand up to Jewish Power. Also, the ebbing of anti-Jewish sentiments have made it easier for Jews to assimilate into the larger community, and certain Jewish elites fear the loss of Jewish identity as the result of Gentile Niceness. Since most Jews are secular and irreligious, the Shoah has become like a replacement covenant for Jews with History. For those reasons, Jews now define themselves mainly with the Holocaust. The Shoah Narrative informs Jews that they suffered more than any other people. Or, even if there had been comparable horrors around the world all throughout history, Shoah is still worse because (1) the victims were Jews, a very wise and wonderful people and (2) the perpetrators were Germans, among the most educated and advanced people on Earth at the time. It’s a matter of who/whom. Such is the reasoning why the Jew-run US media find it far more tragic for Jews to get killed by Palestinians than the other way around. Jews are special, Palestinians are not. Jews are a godly race of people, whereas Palestinians are humans-as-animals.
Of course, there’s an outrageous irony here. Jews say the Shoah was a great evil act because a certain people were killed by the bushel on the basis of racial supremacism. But the very notion that the Shoah was especially evil because JEWS were killed is premised on Jewish Supremacism. In other words, if Germans had been nice to Jews and killed millions of other people, it wouldn’t have been as bad because those victims, not being Jewish, weren't as precious. In keeping with such logic, Jewish Media have us believe that a bunch of Jewish Hollywood writers who were blacklisted for a few years suffered greater tragedy than over 100,000 Japanese-in-America who were sent to ‘internment’ camps. But such rationale can only be explained by a Jewish Supremacist worldview that posits that it’s worse to persecute Jews than other peoples. There wasn’t much outrage in the US about the 100,000s of Iraqis killed by US sanctions(under Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright). But imagine if the US had enforced sanctions on Israel that killed 100,000s of Jewish women and kids. Jews would freak out. So, Jews are indeed supremacist. Jews, religious and secular, believe that a single Jewish life is worth a million non-Jewish lives. Jews since the Shoah have acted like each and every one of them is a son-of-god or daughter-of-god. Better than the rest. And since Jews judge worth mainly by wit and intelligence, they were bound to grow contemptuous of other peoples as inferior and deserving to be ruled by Jews. Secular Leftist Jews suppressed such thoughts on the conscious level, but subconsciously they too harbored such feelings because, after all, when we assess Jewish attitudes by their actions than their words, they reek of supremacism and arrogance. In a similar vein, blacks are in supremacist mode because they judge worth according to the Junglometrics of fist, dong, booty, and volume.
Because Jews feel as they do, they’ve grown pathologically self-righteous, sickeningly sanctimonious, pompously holier-than-thou, nastily judgmental, and viciously inquisitional. Granted, Jews are not alone in being corrupted by moral arrogance. Those who are excessively moralistic tend to become blind to their own follies and hypocrisies. So full of themselves with an innate sense of nobility, they feel justified in all their hatreds, hostilities, and aggressions(as God is on their side). Christians and Muslims wre often like that. And of course, communists felt justified in wiping out millions in service to the Cult of Justice. People like Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and Pol Pot really thought they were the Avenging Angels on the right side of history. And the US and UK went to excesses too in WWII. Because they were at war with the vile empires of Germany and Japan, they felt justified in carrying out acts of destruction that could also be construed as evil. So, Jewish moral hypocrisy isn’t unique in history. But we need to worry about it more because (1) Jews rule the world through the Empire of Judea (2) Jews have ‘epigenetized’ the Shoah so that all Jews for all eternity shall be regarded as the Holy Holocaust People (3) Jews are carrying out the greatest acts of evil around the world — spread of Homomania, Wars for Israel(that has destroyed millions of lives), insane sanctions on Iran, ‘new cold war’ with Russia, push for Demographic Imperialism against the West, and spread of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Jews are behind all such. Jews are waging war on the white race, all of humanity, and the meaning of civilization itself. George Soros, a most vile and vicious mastermind of Globo-Chaos, isn’t alone. Too many Jews share his views and anti-values. Worse, unlike Nazis who were at least honest in their supremacism, arrogance, and aggression, Jews would have us believe that their Judeo-Nazi globo-supremacism is about ‘human rights’ and ‘justice’. Yeah right, conflating homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting with Marriage, Morality, and Spirituality is what Justice is all about. Jews push such nonsense on the global scale, yet so many morons around the world have fallen for it.
At some point, Holocaust Moralism turned into Holocaust Nihilism. Perhaps, such could have been avoided IF Jews hadn’t sought globo-supremacist power and/or didn’t have the means to amass so much power and wealth. Following WWII, imagine if most Jews had been content to just lead normal lives and get along with others. They might have stuck with Holocaust Moralism, i.e. they would have led lives guided by moral lessons from Shoah, and they would have, honestly and with good-will, tried to impart those lessons to others. But Jews didn’t seek normality after WWII. They obsessively sought domination in industry, institutions, ideology, and everything. Whether they were capitalists, communists, Zionists, or whatever, they wanted more and more power and control. So, as Jewish Power and Wealth kept on expanding(often through nefarious means and methods), Jews needed to whitewash and launder more of their violations and transgressions through the washing machine of Shoah. As Jewish power got bigger and fouler, there was the likelihood of increasing anti-Jewish criticism. Jews suppressed it by waving the Holocaust Flag over and over and over. Also, Jews knew that the Holocaust Cult could be effective ONLY IF the world accepted the Jewish Mythology of the Event. On the one hand, Jews wanted the world to never forget and look back again and again and again on what happened to Jews in WWII. Jews feared that the people would forget or not care anymore. So, every generation was placed on the Holocaust Carousel. At the same time, Jews didn’t want the world to pry too deeply into what really happened and WHY. If people looked too closely, maybe it wasn’t 6 million who died. Maybe it was 5 million, 4 million, or 3 million. Maybe most Jews were killed by gunfire than by gassing, a more sinister-form of extermination. And if we look more closely as to WHY so many people came to hate Jews, maybe Jews weren’t such innocent victims and saints. Also, contrary to the Jewish Narrative that says innocent and saintly Jews had been terrorized & brutalized by irrational ‘anti-Semites’ all through the ages, maybe Jews repeatedly did things to piss off just about every people. So, as horrible and evil as Shoah was, maybe it wasn’t only the culmination of rabid & virulent anti-Jewish hatred that had been passed down over many centuries but also the culmination of rabid & virulent Jewish behavior that finally unleashed the most extreme kind of reaction. Indeed, odds suggest that Jews were more to blame for anti-Jewish attitudes among non-Jews through most of history. After all, just how is it that Jews got kicked out of so many places? Also, if not for the protective shield of Holocaust Cult, ‘antisemitism’ could well return to the West in no time because so much of Jewish behavior is so appalling and disgusting. To better clarify the point, imagine there is a guy named Bob. Suppose Bob comes to be hated and rejected by a 100 people. What are the odds that Bob is a nice guy or an innocent victim while all the people who've come to hate him as the real jerks? Now, if Bob were well-liked by 90 people and hated by 10, one might think the problem may be with the 10 who hate him. After all, if so many people like Bob, the odds are he is a swell guy. Or, suppose 50 people like Bob and 50 people hate Bob. The odds here would be more iffy. Who are right? The 50 who like him or 50 who hate him? But if Bob is disliked by all 100 people, the overwhelming odds are NOT in Bob’s favor. And this logic applies to Jews in relation to goyim. They came to be so universally distrusted, despised, and hated that it seems unlikely that it was never the Jews’ fault but everyone else’s. Imagine there’s someone on Ebay or Amazon who has a rating of 0 Positives and 100 Negatives. Now, there is an infinitesimal chance that the person is really a good guy and it’s the 100 people who gave him negative marks who are at fault. But what are the odds that such would be true? The overwhelming odds are that the guy is rotten seller/buyer and cheated lots of people who gave him a negative mark for good reasons. Then, the same logic applies to Jews. If 100 peoples who dealt with Jews found Jews to be pretty vile and rotten, the chances are the fault was with Jews than with all ONE HUNDRED of the peoples. And this isn’t difficult to understand when we consider many of the prominent Jewish personalities. Some of them were talented and did great work in their fields, but so many of them were A**HOLES: Susan Sontag, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Woody Allen, David Mamet, Philip Roth, Pauline Kael, John Simon(Jewish in ancestry), Gene Siskel, Harvey Weinstein, Paul Krugman, Stanley Kubrick, Bob Dylan, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Leon Trotsky, Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Savage, Rob Reiner, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Katha Pollit, Tony Kushner, Martin Peretz, Adam Sandler, Bernie Madoff, Jennifer Rubin, William, Kristol, David Remnick, Sandra Bernhard, Lena Dunham, Barbra Streisand, Darren Aronofsky, and the list goes on and on and on. They are like the passive/aggressive homo-Jew-kid in MIDNIGHT COWBOY who gets a free blowjob, cheats people, but plays the poor victim. Jews have lots of talent, but dealing with them is like working with cactus. In a way, it's understandable why Jews developed social instruments like quills on a porcupine. Vastly outnumbered by non-Jews, they needed to be tough and have strong defensive strategies. But just like a porcupine always has its quills, Jews always got their thorniness even when they aren't in danger. So, even a person who wants to be friendly with a porcupine can be harmed, and even a person who approaches Jews with no ill intent can get pricked badly.
Anyway, when a people become so cocksure of their moral grandeur, they take on godlike attitudes. They think in holier-than-thou terms. They believe they and all their deeds are morally justified because of their holiness. As such, they effectively become nihilists despite or especially because of the moral sanctimony. It’s like Christians in the Middle Ages who tortured and killed a lot of people were blind to their own evil because they were so sure that God was on their side. Since everything they did was in the name of Jesus, how could it be wrong? Thus, there were bouts of Christian Nihilism all throughout Western History. After all, how did the Christian West grow so powerful? By adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ? No, by wars, invasions, greed, slavery, exploitation, and etc. Now, other civilizations and peoples did the same thing as history is one long bloody mess, but in some ways, Christians were more blind to their own evil precisely because they were so morally and spiritually full of themselves. When Vikings and Mongols went around bashing heads, they knew very well morality had nothing to do with it. They were out for plunder and loot. But when Christians also acted out of greed and conquest, they often failed to see the baseness of their interests because they were wrapped in the sanctimony of God and Jesus. Morality can make us aware of our failings, but paradoxically, it can also make us even blinder to our failings. Because morality makes us feel justified and sanctimonious, we can fall into the trap of believing that our acts of wanton greed and domination are in the name of serving God, Jesus, or some higher truth. This is how communism became so utterly blind to the horrors it committed all around the world. The Cult of Justice blinded the True Believers to all the violence and bloodshed. And in time, the new communist elites were mainly in it for the Power and Privilege, but they maintained the myth they were all about serving the scientific laws of history. (Science being amoral, why would a scientific reading of history favor a form of justice based on certain moral precepts?) In our secular time, the New Cult is the Conceit of Intellect. The reason why so many PC-commissars in media and academia are utterly blind to their own deceptions, betrayals, corruption, and evils is because they’ve been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe that they are intellectually and ethically ‘more evolved’; after all, they conflate the image of the rainbow with homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting. It’s a conceit of intellect because PC relies so much more on idolatry-of-celebrities and iconography-of-false-gods(such as MLK) than on true intellect that should be rational, skeptical, and critical of all official truisms funded and pushed by globalist oligarchs and their tribalist overlords.
There are three ways a moral-thought-system can be used. It can be used as a rule-book, a reminder & restraint, or righteous weapon. For the ambitious, morality-as-rule-book is difficult because ambition implies aggression, conquest, and domination. It’s about winning, and that brings out the barbarian in everyone. Especially if the moral-thought-system is something like Christianity, it is difficult to use as rule-book because Jesus’ teachings are so idealistic and impractical. And it’s many times more difficult if a people’s ambition is to gain the world. The Imperial West decided to gain the world through voyages of discovery and wars of conquest. It couldn’t act very Christian. If a moral-thought-system can’t be used as a rule-book, it can still have value as reminder-and-restraint. Christianity-as-reminder-and-restraint will not prevent wars and conquest. But it can still have value in limiting the levels of destruction and exploitation(and gradually leading to redemption and reform). It’s like Anglos, due to Christian ethos, pulled back from total extermination of the American Indians. And slavery eventually ended under Western Imperialism because of moral reminders of its unpleasantness and cruelty. Also, the US could have wiped Japan off the map in WWII but pulled back from total destruction, the kind Romans brought upon Carthage. There were Christian reminders and restraints that prevented the US from going all the way like Genghis Khan did(and Hitler planned to do, especially in Russia). Finally, there is the morality-as-righteous-weapon, and this is the most problematic. Those who come under this spell have no use for morality as rule-book. They just feel blessed and anointed by the righteous creed. So, whatever they do is justified because their moral-thought-system makes them feel so self-righteous. Consider the Teutonic Knights who could be ultra-cruel and ruthless. Christianity for them wasn’t a rule-book but a righteous hammer. And because they felt so righteous in their violence, there were few reminders and restraints on their behavior.
And this is what has become of Jewish Power. To be sure, there are some Jews who believe Shoah should serve as a rule-book for the Tribe, i.e. because Jews suffered so horribly during WWII, they should never forget the main lessons of Shoah and act accordingly. People like Norman Finkelstein believe Jews should not oppress other peoples because Shoah taught Jews what it is like to be oppressed and exterminated. Then, there are other Jews who aren’t as idealistic but still believe that Jews should be more cautious and contemplative in their behavior. Maybe, Jews should work for some kind of mutual understanding with other peoples and arrive at some kind of compromise. These Jews believe that Jews cannot rely solely on the goodwill of others for security and survival. Jews need great power, and great power means Jews having to do some unsavory things. Still, these Jews believe there should be some limits to Jewish behavior. Jews must be mindful not to become like the Nazis, the very people who did Jews most harm. And then, you got Jews who are only interested in using Shoah as the righteous moral hammer of greed, power, and vengeance. According to people like Abe Foxman, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, Jennifer Rubin, Paul Krugman, Chuck Schumer, Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, and etc., the Holocaust Cult gives Jews the Righteous Moral License to do just about anything. By such logic, Jews are forever Holocaust Victims no matter what they do. And whomever Jews hate and kill are the ‘new nazis’ simply because they happen to be enemies or rivals of Righteous Jews. Since Jews are the Holocaust People, all their ‘enemies’ must be ‘new nazis’ or ‘new hitlers’. This is truly a form of nihilism, but Jews are blind to this truth because they are intoxicated with the moral-spiritual conceit of being Eternal-Holocaust-Children. So, we have a perverse phenomenon of Judeo-Nazi globo-supremacists destroying so much of humanity morally, culturally, demographically, or physically but drunk with the demented conceit that they are forever the Righteous-Avenging-Angels-of-Holocaust. We have Holocaust Nihilism. It's no wonder Jews could love a movie as ugly and demented as Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.
It is ironic that the profound moralism of Shoah eventually led to the perverse nihilism in its name, but it all makes sense because elevated moralism can lead to god-think, and god-think makes people feel holier-than-thou and above the conventional rules of humble humanity. After all, the Greeks gods aren’t bound by human rules of right/wrong and proper conduct. They cannot be judged like humans are judged. And this was an even bigger moral problem in Judaism. Because the Jewish God is the one and only God, the God of supreme power and of all things, He must be beyond human morality far more than any pagan god is. After all, many pagan gods are recognizably human, and they aren’t said to be all-powerful. In contrast, the Jewish God is said to be the only God and all-powerful. With such total power, He must truly be beyond the realm of man. Human morality must be a joke to Him. He must be the ultimate nihilist, one that may even demand endless human sacrifices. But even as Jews made their God so far beyond and above human dimensionality, they also made Him a most moral God. So, the Jewish God is most removed from humanness yet most committed to issues of human good and evil. This contradiction cropped up especially in the stories of Abraham & Isaac, Job, and Jesus. All three tried to reconcile a God so beyond humanity with a God so closely bound to human fate. One conception of God leads Him to ever greater feats of nihilism. In the Book of Job, God plays with the hapless fellow like a child tearing off wings of a dragonfly. And when Job asks why, God’s answer sounds awesomely nihilistic. He says mankind shall not judge Him by their own petty rules of right-and-wrong. The human heart-and-mind are too feeble to understand the true designs of God. And yet, there is also the other conception of God that makes Him ultimately responsive to Job and provides recompense for all the hardships done to an innocent person.
However one may interpret the Bible, one thing is for sure. Mankind should not play God. Jesus is the only one who got away with it but only because He offered Himself as the sacrifice. If a man were to gain godlike powers, the natural tendency would be to become above-the-law, wallow in nihilism, and feel really high-and-mighty, like Tetsuo in the anime work AKIRA. After all, to be godlike means to be amass huge powers like the character in SPLIT by M. Night Shyamalan. Jesus was tempted by such powers but chose humility and service to mankind.
It was troublesome enough for mankind to try to reconcile God’s higher powers with human morality. After all, what would be the point of being godlike if one has to stick to human standards? It’d be like having wings but still walking on legs. It’d be like being rich but still being thrifty. To have more power means more possibilities, and usually that means more freedom to indulge one’s desires. So, it’s understandable why Zeus acted the way he did. On the one hand, Greeks weren’t too keen on his promiscuity and sometimes unscrupulous use of power. On the other hand, Greeks admired his brazenness and egotism... just like lower-fratboys admiring the Big Man on Campus who gets more girls and gets out of trouble as a 'popular guy' as 'golden god'. Many feel the same way about famous people, stars, and celebrities. On the one hand, we rebuke their self-indulgence and disdain for common morality. Yet, they are also objects of adulation for their means to fulfill their desires that are shared vicariously by ‘little people’. Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson had huge fan-bases to the very end despite or especially because they were above-the-norm in so many respects. With fame and money, they could live the dream life, and even when they did despicable things, there were always fans who either forgave them or loved them even more for breaking all the laws(that restrict the Little People). This is the dark side of the Randall McMurphy character in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. On the one hand, he brings life and spontaneity to the mental ward. But he soon becomes an object of cult worship, and others come to love him simply because he has the devil-may-care audacity to break all the rules. Because McMurphy, like Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE, is hemmed inside an 'oppressive' system, we tend to sympathize and cheer on his antics. But there is a streak of nihilism that grows ever more problematic.
Granted, there are People-of-Power who care about the Little People and prefer to use the considerable means at their disposal to make for a more just society for everyone. Not every person with great power or privilege wants to indulge himself and act like common morality doesn’t apply to him. Some People-of-Power find the antics of rich celebrities and pop stars to be childish and infantile. They want to do something truly noble and grand. But then, there are many Little People whose only dream is to rise high and gain the means to act like total pigs. After all, most Little People didn’t choose to be ‘little’ out of goodness or meek humility. They were either born ‘little’ or forced to be ‘little’ by circumstances, limitations, or oppression. There is a tendency among some on the Left to consider ‘little people’ as inherently good, noble, and humble. But in fact, many ‘little people’ are just celebrity-wanna-be’s and indeed care more about celebrities than fellow ‘little people’. Look at all those low-income Negro thugs who, instead of working to make for a better community, emulate big-name rap celebrities and only care about bling and will even kill for it. Little People have many pigs among them.
This was one of the problems with Jews. Many Jews arrived in the US as huddled ‘little people’, and some well-meaning progressive Wasp elites took pity on Jews as humble folks who wanted to be Good Americans. Now, many Jews were like that. They were good people looking for a nice decent place to live and make ends meet. But there were also plenty of Jews who started on the bottom but had insatiable ambitions of greed, lust, pride, and arrogance. They arrived ‘little’ by circumstances but wanted to be the gods of America. This kind of Jewish mentality was in plain sight with Jordan Belfort of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET notoriety. To be sure, it’s a universal trait among all peoples, but it’s been more problematic with Jews because they have chutzpah, more obsessive personalities, and greater ability due to higher IQ. So, Jewish ‘little people’ rose to great heights of power with more resentment, chip-on-their-shoulders, and knives hid behind their backs. And when these people with gangster-prophet mentalities wrapped themselves in the shroud of the Holocaust Cult, they became nearly insufferable. They became like the Mafia + Gypsies + Jesuits. Their limitless ambition, manic greed, and insatiable lust became conflated with self-righteousness and self-worship. The Jewish Logic went as follows: "Because we suffered the Holocaust, the greatest tragedy of all time, every single one of us Jews is a neo-jesus-christ, and because we died for the sins of mankind, those damned goy anti-Semites, we are godlike and above the morality of stupid goy little people. We, as the god-race of neo-jesuses, can do anything we want because we are above and beyond the laws and morality of stupid goy little people who lack the ability, depth, comprehension, and tragic souls of us great noble saintly awesome Jews." So, ruthless Jewish ambitions and appetites are all justified by Holocaust Nihilism. The Shoah elevated Jews to godly status. They are holy because NO PEOPLE suffered like Jews, apparently. (Or even if other peoples did suffer comparably or worse, their suffering wasn't as tragic because they weren't as special as Jews. It's like so many people were crucified by the Romans, but they count for less than Jesus because only He was the Son of God.) And this holiness is ‘epigenetically’ passed down from generation to generation for all eternity. And we worthless goy Little People must all get down on our knees and love Jews like Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother. We must never judge Jews just like we are never supposed to judge God. God’s laws are beyond human understanding, and the Jewish Way is beyond us because Jews not only have superhuman intelligence and prophetic vision but because they’ve been elevated to higher planes of spiritual-morality due to their neo-crucifixion in the Holocaust.
So, there you have it. Shoah, which could have been a great moral guide for Jews in their understanding of morality and history, became a cult with which Jews made themselves into a race of holy god-men whose truth, morality, and laws are so high above ours that they don’t need to heed to rules that apply to the rest of us. To be sure, Negroes and Homos also have this megalomaniacal mind-set due to natural and socio-economic reasons. Blacks and Homos are naturally more self-centered and uninhibited in their self-glorification. But this natural tendency has been amplified by Jewish Power’s favoring them over other groups. So, blacks now believe it is their right to attend good schools even when they fail. They believe they shouldn’t be suspended even when the act rotten in school. They believe they shouldn’t be arrested for criminal acts. Even when blacks act bad, they get angry with people noticing bad black behavior. We are supposed to avert our gaze from black badness. Or, we are supposed to pretend black badness is really goodness. Or we are supposed to blame whites or other non-blacks for black badness on grounds that black badness is just the product of historical trauma because NO ONE suffered as much as blacks(with the exception of Jews). And it is truly amazing that Homos never got the blame they deserved for the HIV epidemic, just like Jewish radicals never got the blame they deserved for spying for the Soviet Union and doing other subversive things in the Cold War. We are not supposed to notice reality when it comes to Jews, blacks, and homos. We are just supposed to believe in the miracles of Jewishness, blackness, and Homo-ness. It’s like fraudulent Christian charlatans don’t want you to see the fakery behind their bogus miracles. Don’t look behind the curtain. Just look at the ‘miracle’ and believe. Believe in the myth of the Eternally saintly and innocent Jew who’d been wronged through the ages. Believe in the myth of the Noble Negro who only sought freedom and dignity and wanted a pet a little white mouse. And lives in Wakanda. Believe that homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting are all about the homo-rainbow that now drapes every other church in the US and nearly all the churches in EU.
Shoah was a great tragic event, and it needs to be remembered properly. But Holocaust Nihilism is one of the great soul-sicknesses of our age. Indeed, it is on par with Nazism itself. Because Holocaust Nihilism makes Jews feel so sanctimonious and morally holier-than-thou, it blinds them to the ugliness of their greed, lust, hatred, and contempt. They act like vile pigs but only see themselves as poor helpless Jews because epigenetics tell them the Holy Holocaust trauma-DNA will forever inform Jewish consciousness. Also, we are to believe that because Shoah was so unbelievably evil(the work of Satan himself), its victims didn't merely survive but came to radiate with the aura of messianic holiness. They became superhuman and immune to the norms of humanity.
So, it doesn’t matter what Jews do. They can spread the ugliest hatreds toward Palestinians, Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Christians, and white goyim. Jews believe that even their most immoral, vile, and disgusting emotions and actions are holy and justified because they are the Holy Holocaust People. Just as God felt justified in killing countless people in His name in the Bible, Jews(in their self-worship) feel they are justified in playing ruthless games with humanity and history because everything about them is holy schmoly. Concerning God’s terrifying actions, we can at least theorize and rationalize because, after all, He is the all-knowing and all-seeing Master of All. So, maybe there is a mysterious rhyme and reason to the things He does that we sinners and Little People just can’t understand... in the way that a fish cannot understand the way of humans. But such mindset, when applied to Jews-as-gods, is pure nihilism. No matter how smart & capable Jews are, no matter how bold & ambitious Jews are, and no matter how tragic & traumatic Jewish history has been, the fact remains that Jews are people like the rest of us. Even if they are smarter people, they are not a godlike people. When Jews indulge in Holocaust Nihilism, it goes far beyond pulling rank. An officer in the military may demand respect from a person of lower-rank, but he too is bound by strict codes, and the rules apply only in the military. In contrast, Jews aren’t merely pulling rank but pulling realm. They are saying their souls exist in a realm of higher dimensionality above and beyond the souls of us inferior goyim. They are saying that the Shoah revealed every member of the Jewish Race to be a messiah over and above the rest of us. Jews no longer need to await the Messiah. Every Jew is the messiah. Around the time Jews experienced Shoah, they also built the atomic bomb. Just like Jesus suffered greatly and died but then rose to Heaven and returned as the Son of God, the Jews who suffered so horribly in WWII arose from the war’s end with the most powerful technology mankind had ever seen. It's like the atomic explosion was the resurrection of the Jew. With it, Jews demonstrated their godly genius and capabilities.
Usually, a people with great power need to be self-critical and criticized by others. In the 20th century, Jews demonstrated that they have the means to gain more power than any other people. In pound-for-pound terms, no people come remotely close to Jews in their ability to make money, gain influence, and advance science & technology. So, Jews are a great people but also a potentially terrifying people who can use their power for great evil as well as for good. If the Jewish lesson from Shoah wasn’t simply, "We’d been greatly wronged" but also "We too could act like Nazis IF we lose our way", Jews could have been a great force for good. Instead, so many holders of Jewish Power became essentially Judeo-Nazis who are all the more dangerous because they believe that Shoah both absolves them of all guilt and justifies whatever they do as the Holy Holocaust People. Humanity must wake up and work together to counter Holocaust Nihilism. The world will be destroyed if it continues to be dictated by Neocons, Wall Street sharks, Hollywood degenerates, Homomaniacs, Mass-Invasion peddlers, Big Pharma, and pushers of Afro-Pornification of Culture(even down to young children).
Lately, so-called ‘progressives’, who are really a bunch of Decadents, have waged a Culture War on Essentialism, by which a person is defined by his birth, sex, race, cultural background, religion, and/or nationality. According to Decadents, Essentialism is unjust in predetermining a person’s identity instead of allowing him or her to formulate, choose, and decide what he or she REALLY is.
This is obviously a vulgarization and degeneration of a philosophical debate between essentialism and existentialism. According to existentialism, a individual should accept his freedom, learn to think on his own, and arrive at his own meaning of life. It had more to do with credo than ethnos or any identity. An existentialist’s primary concern is man's cultivation of ethics and ideology. Instead of just receiving and obeying what is foisted upon him by the established system, he should question everything, learn as much as he can, think about his place in the larger world, and gradually arrive at a set of values and course of action based on his free will.
Whatever one thinks of existentialism, it has been part and parcel of modernity. And men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus didn’t so much invent as illustrate the modernist way of thinking and reacting in a rapidly shifting world where certainties could no longer be taken for granted. At the very least, this kind of existentialism was meant to be rigorous, and it encouraged, indeed compelled, people to be well-educated, well-read, well-conversed, and always questioning and seeking. After all, if people are to be free individuals is search of their own meanings and values, their moral reasoning has to grounded in erudition and sharpened by experience, the trials and errors of life.
But as higher education has grown more democratic and ‘inclusive’, Ph.D’s came to be handed out like flyers, and second-rate and third-rate academics now fill the minds of dimwit or neurotic students with all sorts of silly ideas appealing to the stupid who are incapable of thinking or soul-searching. Just like Modern Art degenerated into Pop Art, Modern Education degenerated into Pop Education. Thus, even philosophical concepts have been turned into pop fads for easy consumption by shallow dolts whose main cultural mode is ‘celebrity’.
So, what had been intended as an arduous journey of self-discovery and attainment of personal truth based on experience, learning, & logic has degenerated into a vehicle of fast & easy self-promotion as a darling freak. It’s been made especially easy by turning the focus away from philosophy to identity(as opposed to inheritance that is rooted and received than invented on a whim). Right or wrong, wise or foolish, every school of philosophy requires lots of reading, reasoning, and contemplation. One cannot declare oneself to be part of any school of thought just by making noise or hoisting a banner. One has to read essays and tomes on the idea and formulate one’s own interpretation of those ideas. One also has to be acquainted with alternative & opposing schools of thought and logically argue why he believes his chosen ideas are superior or more useful than other ones. Or, one must come up with a new school of thought by rejecting or radically reformulating previous ideas. Such an endeavor would require real devotion to scholarship, as well as tremendous discipline and diligence of mind. And of course, such thinkers still do exist. But how can masses of shallow idiots(addicted to trashy pop culture) be persuaded to embark on such a challenging, though ultimately rewarding, path? Also, given that so many professors are idiot ideologues than true thinkers themselves, their main objective is to amass or at least FEEL the power. It’d be difficult for a professor to FEEL the power if he or she must devote so much of his/her energies toward turning students into real thinkers. For one thing, if students do learn to think freely, they might think differently from the professor. So, in order for the professor to OWN his/her students, they must be fed PC nonsense whose emotional appeal isn’t much different from the childish Little Red Book or Quotations of Chairman Mao. After all, Mao’s main obsession was power, and he had no use for real intellectuals and philosophers who might disagree with him, better him in debates, and even see him as stupid and crazy. Whatever one thinks of Marxism, it was the product of much research and intellectual labor. Even though Marx was full of contempt and intolerance for those who disagreed with him, he did embark on a formidable intellectual journey to understand and explain how history really works and where it is headed. And he wanted others to understand and respect his elaborate and ‘deep’ ideas. In this sense, Marx was a true thinker who abhorred the idea of compromising his intellectual vigor with easy opportunism.
In contrast, second-rate thinkers like Mao(though a first-rate strategist in his path to power) couldn’t hold a candle next to real intellectuals and philosophers. He couldn’t even win debates against the cleverer colleagues in the Communist Party. So, his way of regaining absolute power in the 1960s was to appeal to the masses of young dolts who would be his Red Guards intoxicated with fortune cookie radicalism of the Little Red Book, a kind of Communism for Morons. If Marx was spectacularly wrong but intellectually profound, Maoism was just spectacularly and profoundly retarded. But the, stupidity is always far more appealing to the masses. It’s like people understand astrology better than astronomy. This is why 'progressivism' has degenerated into winning hearts-and-minds with new STAR WARS movies as SJW fantasies.
So, if ‘radical’ professors with chips on their shoulders(especially in second-rate colleges) want to FEEL the power and want to play at Little Mao, what better way than to dispense Pop Ideas to their none-too-bright or neurotic students? Appropriate certain ideas from philosophy & past ideologies and vulgarize & popularize them into bite-size cliches and slogans that especially pander to the students’ sense of celebrity.
Celebrity is about idols and icons than about ideas. Most celebrities are famous for their ‘star’ quality in sports, music, movies, humor, and etc. As it turns out, most people don’t have the talent to succeed in the ‘cool’ fields. Then, how can everyone earn their 15 minutes of fame/celebrity? By imitating the most vain and narcissistic group in the world, the so-called LGBTQ community filled a self-promoting self-worshipers. And so, the Culture War on Essentialism is now centered on the issue of gender.
Gender Wars say that LGBTQ people are holy, magical, noble, saintly, wonderful, and glamorous. The home team has to win the Superbowl or World Series to have a parade in its name. Musicians have to make hits to win awards. Actors must do good work in movies to win the Oscar. But, people just need to be homos or trannies to be showered with love and adulation every year in massive homomaniacal parades and festivals. Due to influence of the Jew-run media, the widely shared assumption is that LGBTQ = Celebrity & Glamour. Indeed, a bunch of homos or trannies need not accomplish anything in life. Homos are cool and holy simply because they are homo and do fecal penetration, a behavior that is now consecrated with ‘rainbow’ colors. And Bruce Jenner only needed to put on wig and dress to be showered with praise as ‘woman of the year’. Just like just being Obama got him the Nobel Peace Prize, just the fact of being ‘gay’ or ‘trans’ makes a person a cut above the rest. To be homo in our world is like being born an aristocrat in the pre-modern world.
This is why so many young people gravitate to LGBTQ worship and gender wars. As they grew up in a celebrity-saturated culture, they also want to be or be associated with celebrities. But most people just don’t have the talent to be good in music, sports, acting, comedy, and etc. Also, most of them have no access to famous people. So, what are they to do? Should they pretend to be ‘gay’, lesbian, or tranny? Some non-homos do gravitate in that direction because people are naturally emulative of what is considered prestigious or respectable. It’s like all those Chinese women got their feet bound because it was deemed the privileged and noble thing to do in pre-modern China. As most people are unoriginal, weak in individuality, and sheep-like, they are followers than leaders or rebels. Even their acts of ‘rebellion’ are usually just imitations of others who lead the way. Most hippies were just imitating the trend-setters of Counterculture. So, it’s not surprising that non-homos and non-trannies are now eager to be homo-like or experiment with being tranny. Even so, most non-homos can’t play that game for long. Non-homo guys will not want to experience fecal penetration. And most non-tranny guys will not want to get their penises and testes removed.
Still, so many straight men and women want to be associated with the ‘gay’ community and themes because mainstream media and pop culture have conflated LGBTQ stuff with glamour and even spirituality. Besides, while it’s difficult for a normie to come face-to-face with a famous star, he or she has a good chance of rubbing shoulders with a genuine fruitkin.
Still, because it’s too much for straight people to become homo or lesbian, the Gender Wars has made available something like 50 genders to choose from. Now, most of these ‘genders’ are just variations of homo or straight, but words are funny things. Words can create the impression of ‘fluidity’ even in things that are essentially fixed. If the only categories were homosexual, trans-gender, and straight, then 97% people would realize they are straight, and that’s that. Thus, they would have less reason to dilly-dally with the LGBT community. But if there are 50 genders, maybe all those straight people are not really straight but one of the many alternative ‘genders’, like the many ways of 'walking' in DEAD POETS SOCIETY. (Conformism is a problem when people are forced to consent to something stupid, retarded, or evil, like forcing young one to conform to PC. But, normal people doing what comes naturally is not 'conformism' but 'confirmism' of what they really are and are prone to do. So, the scene in DEAD POETS SOCIETY is a stupid lesson on 'conformism'. There is nothing wrong with people walking normally and properly because it comes naturally to them. If anything, willful non-conformism by walking like idiots is the real stupidity. If a society were pressure women to conform to foot-binding, that would be bad. But if women walk normally in a natural way, they are merely confirming their true selves, and there's nothing wrong with that. PC and Pop Culture pathologize what is healthy and normal while applying pressure to conform to what is deviant, demented, and degenerate, like getting body piercings, tattoos, and green-colored hair as false emblems of freedom and 'empowerment'.)
Anway, by feeling so preciously ‘different’ by adopting one of the 50 genders, maybe even people who formerly thought of themselves as 'straight' have far more in common with homos, lesbians, and trannies than with lame and boring cis-gender types. Cis are the new sissies. Such nonsensical logic is the gist of the Culture War on Essentialism. It rejects the notion that straight people are essentially straight. It says each straight person should seek out ‘his’ or ‘her’ own gender-identity among the 50 or maybe 500 genders. Or maybe an individual isn’t a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ but a ‘they’.
And this game is especially appealing to young idiots because there is nothing easier than gender politics. It’s all a game of genitals and pronouns. ‘Muh dick’, ‘muh pussy’, ‘muh dick is a pussy’, ‘muh pussy is a dick’, ‘muh dick is a dick and a pussy’, ‘muh pussy is a pussy and a dick’, ‘muh dick has been replaced by a pussy’, ‘muh pussy has been replaced by a dick’, and etc. It’s really on the level of Beavis and Butthead but in bogus intellectual packaging.
But then, this Culture War on Essentialism has huge contradictions. If indeed straight people are not essentially straight but must seek out their ‘true’ genders, why does the LGBTQ community argue that homos were born homo, lesbians were born lesbian, and trannies were born tranny and THERE’S NOTHING THEY OR WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sounds pretty essentialist on a biological and inborn level.
A key contradiction in the Cultural War on Essentialism stems from the positing of gender as both biological and anti-biological. Decadent ‘progressives’ prefer to use the term ‘gender’ than ‘sex’ because the latter denotes biologically determined differences that demarcate males and females. Now, both terms can have merit in this sense: While the biological sexes of male and female do exist in reality, sexual identity is very complicated because cultures define masculinity and femininity differently. So, in some cultures, it is manly to cry, whereas other cultures see crying as essentially a feminine trait. So, even if there are only two sexes and even if the notion of masculinity and femininity is generally sound, different cultures have their own ways of defining norms in the male domain and female domain. However, that is not how those in the Gender Studies Departments approach the matter. They tend to argue that the concept of sex must be discarded entirely and be replaced by gender theories that argue that all ‘sexual’ identities and norms are ‘social constructs’. (And yet, these same people argue that some boys are born homo and want to play with dolls because they are genetically predisposed to do so. So, while there is no female nature among girls that prefers to play with dolls than with guns, that nature suddenly exists when manifested in young homo boys who prefer dolls over toy guns.) But despite all the efforts of gender theorists, the fact is gender theory cannot be understood apart from the reality of sex. After all, if we were to imagine a sci-fi clone world where everyone is a copy of Hulk Hogan, could ‘gender theory’ even exist? How could there be femininity in a world where all the people are macho Hulk Hogans? And which members of this Hulk Hogan community would suddenly want to act ‘gay’ or girlish? No, gender theories are possible because biological sexual differences are real, and these differences go way beyond different genitals. Emotionally and cerebrally, men and women are different, and homos and trannies are different from straights due to biochemical factors related to hormones.
So, the entire field of Gender Theory that wages war on Essentialism is one big contradiction. On the one hand, it encourages young people to put aside ideology & credo as the core source of their identity and instead focus on their biology and genitals. Instead of "I think, therefore I am", go with "Muh dick, therefore I’m man" and "Muh pussy, therefore I’m woman." So, your core sense of self should be more about what’s between your legs than what’s in your brains. Biology over Ideology, or Biology is ideology. But then, as if Gender Theory realized its mistake of Essentialism(rooted in birth or biology), it argues that gender identity isn’t biological but ‘creative’ or ‘constructed’. It’s a strange kind of game where you tell some kid, "What’s inside your mind is secondary to what’s between your legs. If you got a ding dong, you are a male chauvinist pig and evil patriarch, and you can’t do anything about it(unless you’re a homo, in which case you’re excused)... but then, never mind, because having a ding dong doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a man because you might want to put on a wig and dress, in which case, you’re a ‘woman’ and suddenly have more pokemon points than real women..."
This is why tranny business is so essential to the anti-essentialists. After all, even homo men are still male, and homo women are still female. So, even homos uphold the essentialist template of the reality of sexual differences. Homos may have different orientations than straight men, but Gore Vidal was clearly a man, and Susan Sontag was clearly a woman. It is only with trannies and theories of 50 genders that the essential notions of sexuality are really subverted. So, if a man puts on a wig and dress, he is a ‘woman’ and even feminists better accept ‘her’ as such or else they are the essnentialist ‘bigots’. Ridiculous, eh?
There is also the Political War on Essentialism, and this has to do with mass colonization of the West by hordes-of-color. Again, this has nothing to do with ideas or philosophy. It’s all a game of labels and brands. In order for globalists to realize their radical agenda of turning all the world into one big mass of interchangeable consumerist units, all racial-cultural-national identities must be subverted, undermined, and eradicated. So, any essentialist definition of a culture and people must be denounced and discredited. So, there are no Real Hungarians, no Real Poles, no Real Russians, no Real Japanese, and etc. All national identities must be ‘Americanized’, especially as the meaning of American is no longer essentially European or Western. Even up to the 1980s, an American was quintessentially a person of European heritage due to history, culture, and demographics, but the massive rise of non-white numbers has effectively redefined ‘American’ as whoever wants to come to America. Thus, Future might-be-Americans are more ‘American’ than Americans with deep roots in America or racial ties with those with deep roots. After all, if the meaning of ‘American’ must be anti-essentialist and ‘inclusive’ of anyone, any notion of American identity based on history, culture, and roots must be rejected because it will imply that those with deeper roots in America are more American or have more claim to America than those just off the boat or those who have yet to get on the boat.
This is one reason why the globalists have lost all interest in American Indians. If people were to feel that American Indians have a special claim to America because of their deep roots, then it also follows that whites also have a special claim to America since they have deeper roots than most recently arrived non-white groups who have historically contributed little to America. Also, if indeed the main narrative of America is "whites took land from Indians", then the main moral obligation of white people should be to make amends to the American Indians, and surely massive colonization by non-whites is NOT any way to help the Indians. The result will be Indians losing their lands not only to whites but hordes of non-whites who can’t even make the claim of having founded and developed America as a modern nation.
But what do globalists care about real justice? Real justice is about a people owing something to the people they’d wronged. On this basis, one could argue that white Americans do owe something to the Red Man(who lost their lands) and blacks(who were brought over to work as slaves). But what do whites owe to the whole world when white Americans didn’t do them any wrong? Only demented globalist logic argues that white Americans(and white Europeans too) exist only to make life better for non-whites and Jews all over the world.
But even the Political War on Essentialism has its contradictions. After all, if indeed no race-culture-nation has any essentialist claims, why do Jews insist that Jewishness and Jewish nationhood cannot be negotiated? We are to believe that Jewishness exists as a fact, identity, culture, and history, and of course, Israel has a RIGHT TO EXIST as a Jewish state.
Another contradiction is the cult of White Guilt. If there is no essentialist history, culture, race, or identity, why can’t whites wash themselves of the social construct of the ‘original sin’ of ‘white guilt’? And why must ALL white people atone for the ‘sins’ of other whites? Why must Poles and Hungarians pay the price for what the Germans did? After all, if the argument is German people must commit national suicide for their crimes in WWII, why does this apply to other Europeans who were victimized or bullied by Germans? And why are Russians being compared with Nazis by Jewish globalists when more Russians were killed by Nazi Germany than any other people? And why are all white people in America made to feel ‘guilty’ about slavery when most whites never owned slaves and many came to America after the Civil War? And why does ‘white privilege’ essential-istially apply to ALL whites, even to generations of poor white folks who worked in coal mines or factories? In contrast, even the richest Jew whose ancestors had it so good get to flaunt his ‘essentialist’ identity as a member of the Holocaust Tribe.
It’s obvious there are no principles or consistency in the Cultural and Political War on Essentialism. Like most things pushed by Jews, the goal posts are changed ever so often to suit the agendas of people like George Soros and the loathsome Pritzkers. If one thing is for sure, Jewish Power is essentially hideous and vile.
