What Happens When the Weak-of-Survival Are Favored over the Strong-of-Survival? The Western Conundrum under Jewish Supremacism.

Suppose there are organisms in a certain environment. They compete with other organisms and even face the invasion by foreign organisms. Within these native organisms, there are those that react strongly to threats and act accordingly. They fight or build defenses. And then, there are those that are passive, weak, or even welcoming of rivals or invaders. Over time, what will happen? The Law of Survival will weed out the weak members as they'll be conquered and devoured by rivals or invaders. Meanwhile, the strong members will survive with their tenacity and fighting spirit. In time, the organisms will be defined by the survivors with the spirit of warriors. That way, the organisms will remain strong.

But what if a different set of dynamics takes hold of this environment? Suppose there is a Power that coddles and protects the weak-willed members of the organism while hampering the strong-willed members that are exposed to constant attacks and invasions. The weak-willed survive because they don't have to fight under the protection of the Power. In contrast, the strong-willed come under ceaseless pressure. Furthermore, they are prevented by the Power from using all means at their disposal to counter the attacks and invasions. What will happen over time? The strong-willed will wither, fade, and eventually be forced to cower before the enemy. After all, even the strongest bear or biggest bull can eventually be brought down by a pack of wolves; even a giant lizard succumbs to a massive killer ant attack. Meanwhile, the weak-willed members survive and even thrive... but as pathetic puppets and minions of the Power that protects them(and subverted the defensive capability of the defeated strong-willed members).

Imagine an environment with lots of chimps. Among them, there are strong-willed chimps and weak-willed chimps. Strong-willed chimps are vigilant, always on the lookout, and ready to fight for territory, females, and food. Weak-willed chimps, on the other hand, are passive and kindly toward outsiders, be they rival chimps or dangerous animals(such as leopards). Now, when crisis breaks out, the strong-will chimps will prioritize survival and go into fight-or-flight mode. Fight those that can be defeated, take flight from the stronger, and set up a wall of defense. In contrast, the weak-willed members will be slower to flee from danger. They may even move toward danger as a 'friend'. They'll act like the dufus scientist in the 1950s sci-fi horror THE THING, a naive brainiac who seeks to commune with and 'understand' the fearsome and ruthless creature from another planet. Over time, as the weak-willed chimps will be weeded out by murderous enemy chimps and predators, the chimp community will have more strong-willed members.
But suppose a Power takes over the chimp community. It creates a well-stocked sanctuary for the weak-willed chimps that thus become favored in the game of existence. Despite possessing traits disadvantageous for survival, they are favored and coddled by the Power. The strong-willed chimps get no such protection and are therefore disadvantaged in survival. They must fight and struggle to survive, and tough as they are, some are destroyed or devoured by rival chimps and predators. But there is worse. The Power decides to make things more difficult for the strong-willed apes. Their fangs are ground down so their bites are far less effective. Also, they are supplied with narcotics, and many succumb to addiction. Under such organizing principles, the weak-willed members survive(but essentially as chattel dependent on the protection/mercy of the Power) while the strong-willed members dwindle in number and eventually become destroyed.

In a way, the favoring of the weak-willed over the strong-willed is the story of civilization. It is also a strategy of power. It can be advantageous to a people if they control the terms of 'domestication', but it can be disadvantageous(and eventually fatal) if the terms are controlled by another group.

There are parallels between humans and dogs, though some human groups and certain dog breeds became more domesticated than others. The Golden Retriever became more domesticated than the Alaskan Husky that, despite living with man, still came under tremendous natural pressures in freezing climates and in proximity with dangerous predators such as polar bears and wolves. Dogs are weaker and smaller than wolves, their ancestors. They are also weaker-willed and more prone to trust and be friendly with other organisms, especially humans. As such, humans favored and protected dogs. But humans also owned dogs as property, as pets and servants. Thus, even though countless dogs led far safer and happier lives in the protective human realm than wolves did in the wild, they were at the mercy of their human masters. But humans didn't merely favor dogs over wolves but made a concerted effort to make things difficult and often deadly for the wolves. Therefore, even though wolves have greater survival skills than dogs if both were placed in the same wilderness — indeed, it's likely that most, even all, dogs will be destroyed in the wild — , the Power of Man has made it so that weak-willed dogs have far greater chance of survival than wolves in the wild(that has been limited to wilderness preserves). The interference of the Power made it so that the wolf's natural advantage became a disadvantage whereas the natural disadvantage of the dog became an advantage under Man. After all, mankind naturally prefers the trusting, submissive, and friendly dog to the ferocious and proud wolf. Dogs have done better under humans than in the wild but at the loss of all pride, autonomy, and independence. Still, as they are animals, pride doesn't matter much to them. But what about people who've lost pride and independence?

But then, can real pride and independence exist in civilization? After all, if people, as truly free individuals, decided to do as they like, civilization would fall apart. Imagine a world run over by Alexes of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Despite all the talk of freedom and individualism, the main reason why modern civilization holds together and continues is because most or majority of the people support or serve the hierarchy and adhere to the 'values' and 'narratives' pushed by the Power. Also, the Power enforces the same sets of laws, language, and lore over the vast populace. Under communism in the Soviet Union, the law was Marxist-Leninist. The language of the empire was Russian. And all children were raised on the lore of communist saints and heroes. There's been far more freedom in the West, but the system cannot be sustained unless enough people submit to the existing Power Structure. For most people in the West, there is a measure of freedom in their personal lives but hardly any freedom or means to change the workings of the existing power structure. Only a handful of people with the means to enter the inner sanctums of power can make a real difference. Also, even personal choices are shaped, even dictated, by a handful of big players. Most movies are made by Hollywood, or Movie Inc. People choose from what is offered to them by mega-corporations, just like voters choose from a bunch of politicians vetted by the ruling power, i.e. people vote for puppets, not leaders. People may select from various media outlets that create the impression of choice, but most of media are controlled by a handful of Jewish oligarchs. People may choose the kind of music they like, but pop trends are dominated by a few entertainment oligopolies. There was talk of how the internet would unleash an era of citizen journalism and alternative views, but the biggest platforms are dominated by Zionist Jews who shut down what they deem as 'hate speech'. Jewish oligarchs at Google also manipulate algorithms so that Jew-run news are favored in search results over voices critical of Jewish Supremacism. Therefore, what is called 'free press' and 'free speech' are highly proscribed and controlled in the Free West. Indeed, paradoxically enough, people in a democracy might be even more clueless as to what's really happening because the conceit of 'liberty' and 'freedom' blinds them to the fact that they aren't so free. At least, people in Iran and China know their freedoms are restricted by the State. In the West, many are still under the delusion of living in a 'liberal democracy' when, if anything, they are minions of a Jewish Supremacist Oligarchy. Labels can fool a lot of people. It's like the 'fat-free' label that fools so many people who don't realize that the fat has been replaced by more sugars. Same with 'progress' and 'conservative'. So much of what is nowadays labeled as 'progressive' or 'conservative' is anything but. So-called 'progressive' Democrats are totally in cahoots with Wall Street that push globo-homo to replace May Day with Gay Day. And so-called 'conservative' Republicans are now into chanting 'gay marriage and trannies-in-washrooms are conservative values.' How the world loves a label than the reality.

In a way, this loss of true freedom and independence is the price we all paid for civilization. A civilization can be more free or less free, but when push comes to shove, it must be about most or the great majority submitting to the power, the status quo. Those in power may change — American Power went from Wasp Rule to Jewish Rule — , but regardless of who are on top, most people must go along. So, Russia went from the people obeying the Czars to obeying the Commissars to obeying the oligarchs. And most Germans went from obeying the Kaiser to obeying the Weimar Republic to obeying the Nazis to obeying the bureaucrats in West Germany or East Germany. Even if many people are cynical about power and disrespect the ruling elites, they've no choice but to go through the daily motion of working for the system. In other words, even the disobedient find they've no choice but to obey to make a living.
And even when the people do rise up and overthrow the existing system, as in the case of Shah's Iran, the only way civilization can continue is if most people support or comply with the new order. Civilization cannot tolerate too many wolves. It needs lots of dogs. As for controlling the power, it usually goes to the weasels. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM illustrated how the banishment of humans only led to the rise of Pig Tyranny. But then, as bad as the pigs are, can the animals govern themselves? Besides domestication means to become part of a system, an order based on organizational principles. It is then the nature of domesticated organisms to long for the iron hand, albeit so-called Liberal Democracy learned to cover it with a velvet glove. As individuals, we can only be so free. After all, we don't want to live in a world of chaos where everyone, as an independent maverick, makes up his or her own rules. This is so many manifestations of 'rebellion' and 'difference' in a 'liberal democracy' are manufactured as a chimera by the Power. Have the 'rebels' conform to officially tolerated or approved forms of 'rebellion', like cheering loudly at Rock concerts, piercing one's nose, or turning one's hair green, all of which are harmless to the Power(while harmful to the pride of resistance). All these 'differences' lead to new conformist communities than truly independent turns of mind and spirit. It's like the Power's idea of 'dark web dissident right' turned out to be Zionists like Ben Shapiro & Dave Rubin and shills of Zionists like Jordan Peterson. But then, even if dissident rightists were to come to power, wouldn't they prop up their favored Norms and Sacraments as the governing principle in the new order?

Civilization must favor the mild-willed over the strong-willed. While weak-will is too sappy, strong-will is too contentious. While society gains something by having some strong-willed leaders and alphas, most people must be less-strong-willed if people are to get along and go along. (Also, if two civilizations are defined by mild-mannered-ness, they may find ways to co-exist and cooperate than remain locked in terms of conflict. Mild-willed outlooks can serve as roads and bridges between civilizations.)

If everyone were strong-willed, it'd be an endless battle of egos. Therefore, most people must be mild-willed, somewhere between weak-will and strong-will. And the meritocratic system is geared to favor mild-willed over strong-willed, that is unless the strong-willed happen to be particularly gifted in intellect, creativity, or leadership qualities. After all, what is required to do well in school, gain credentials, and find good jobs? One must be patient and diligent. One must be reasonably obedient to teachers and authority figures. Despite the American mythos of the cool rebel, most people who succeed play by the rules. No wonder women and Asians are favored in the current order. Both are more mild-willed than white males who tend to be a bit more adventurous and cantankerous in spirit.
Obama certainly understood who's boss(the Jews) and did as told to be handpicked to be president, or cuck-in-chief of the Jews. One reason why Jews can't stand Donald Trump is the way he became president. He howled too much like a wolf than acted the well-heeled canine in a dog-show. Though a total dog to Jews in substance, he was wolf in style, and the Jewish Masters of America took this very badly, and the whole Russian Collusion Hoax and other nonsense were a means to punish the Bad Doggy.

Anyway, precisely because civilization favors the mild-willed over the strong-willed for most of its managerial positions, there is the real danger of a survival-deficit in elite ranks of society. Consider nations like Sweden. Well-ordered and well-run, peaceful and prosperous Sweden elevated mild-willed individuals to upper levels of government and institutions. Indeed, its military is run by a bunch of mild-willed women who did the homework and did as told in their student days. So, is it any surprise that the Swedish state is so soulless, gutless, and bland? Its managerial class may be well-educated, diligent, and competent on the technical level, but they lack patriotic passion, survival instinct, and requisite ruthlessness toward potential threats and enemies. If anything, it is most 'triggered' by the emergence of strong-willed Swedes who see what is happening and demand that something drastic be done to stop the invasion and great replacement.

Since individuals can't be truly free and independent within a civilization, the only way for a people to be free is as a collective. While Me-the-Person can only be so free within the Order, We-the-People can be free from the control of Other Peoples. It's like Asian Indians gained independence by rising up against British overlords and expelling them. The Vietnamese gained national liberation by resisting French Colonialism and then American Neo-Imperialism. And it was as a collective that Russians pushed back against Napoleonic France in the 19th century and Nazi Germany in the 20th century. Freedom for the Motherland couldn't have been won by Russians as individual wolves. They had to cooperate and fight as Russian dogs in defense of the Order.

While ideally the freedom of we-the-people should expand the freedom of me-the-person within the Order, it hasn't always been so. Textbook examples are Tokugawa Japan, Red China, Castro's Cuba, Islamic Iran, and North Korea. Though politically independent and relatively free of foreign influence, their suppression of me-the-person either intensified or hardly eased despite the autonomy. The reason was either for the survival of the Order or survival of the elites. In certain cases, the Order had to suppress considerations of me-the-person because it was under threat and at a great political-economic-military disadvantage. After all, patriotism and willingness to die were essential among the Vietnamese IF Americans were to be driven out. With excessive freedom of me-the-person, too many Viets might choose not to fight or even join with the other side as collaborators. In Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS, David Sumner(Dustin Hoffman) decides he must force his wife to obey him if they are to defend the house from marauders. She is forbidden from collaborating with the Other side. She is forced to choose we-the-people over me-the-person despite her temptation otherwise.

Castro's Cuba also had to be repressive in order to survive. As the US had so much more money, it could have bought off so many Cubans to do the bidding of US interests. Indeed, Cuba had essentially been a CIA-mafia-Jewish-run plantation/casino before Castro led an army of spartan patriots to take power. But, of course, the downside of repression in favor of we-the-people over me-the-person has been downright Orwellian. The system threw the baby out with the bathwater in its purge of turncoats, traitors, spies, and collaborators. Worse, over time, the invocation of we-the-people can become an excuse to perpetuate a system of we-the-elites.
This is why a system has to find a balance between me-the-person and we-the-people. One thing for sure, history has shown time and time again that an order that is independent of foreign tyranny can be rife with domestic tyranny.
While all systems must maintain order with some degree of repression and control, some take this to extreme measures due to radical ideology, excessive paranoia, or just plain greed of rulers who stingily hog all the power and privilege. As profoundly different as North Korea and the US are in just about every way, if they have anything in common, it's that both are ruled by elites who will do ANYTHING to maintain their supremacist or absolute grip on power. Even though North Korea seems like a fossilized hermit kingdom whereas the US seems a dynamic country constantly reinventing itself, both are essentially governed by the principle of elite-stasis. In other words, the reason why Jews are trying to make America so different is to keep same the power equilibrium, i.e. Jewish Supremacism must define American Power. As Jews are a minority-elite, they fear that stability in America will eventually lead to people realizing they're ruled by Jews. For that reason, Jews stir up the impression of constant upheaval and transformation to misdirect the American Gaze from the one true constant in American Power Politics: JEWS RULE, JEWS GET RICHER, JEWS EXPAND THEIR CONTROLS.

Anyway, if civilization ordains that people must be servile dogs than defiant wolves, at the very least human-dogs can be ruled by their own kind than by another kind. In other words, English dogs should be ruled by English masters, Japanese dogs should be ruled by Japanese masters, German dogs should be ruled by German masters, Italian dogs should be ruled by Italian masters, Russian dogs should be ruled by Russian masters, Iranian dogs should be ruled by Iranian masters, Jewish dogs should be ruled by Jewish masters(though, to be sure, every Jew feels as a master than dog), and etc. After all, there is greater likelihood that master A will feel greater affection and sense of obligation for dogs A, and master B will for dogs B. Granted, it may not always be so. Master A could be cruel and abusive of Dogs A, and it's possible Master B has more sympathy and heart for Dogs A. But generally, rulers of Nation A will have more feelings for the people of Nation A than for the peoples of Nation B, C, D, E, F, etc. Do Jewish rulers in Israel have more feelings for Jewish people or the Arab people, the Palestinians?
Now, one may point to white elites who seem to care just as much, if not more, for non-whites as for whites, but his anomaly is the result of Jewish conquest of the white mind/soul. Jews made it anathema among white elites to care about fellow whites because they want white elites to primarily serve and obey Jews. In other words, to convince white elites to favor the Jewish Other over the White Brother, Jews indoctrinated white elites(and even many among the white masses) that there are few things as evil in the world as whites caring for whites. It's NOT OKAY to be white. Another problem with elites of one nation excessively caring for other peoples than for their own is they will end up ill-serving both. After all, it is a full-time job to govern and take care of a nation. A national elite that tries to save the world as well as govern its own people is like a dog that loses the bone in his mouth for the one reflected in the water. It's like a parent who tries to take care of all the kids in the neighborhood. He'll just fail with all the children, including his own. Also, it makes the elites of other nations lazy and corrupt. Suppose if the elites of Nation B came to depend on elites of Nation A to provide food and aid for the people of Nation B. Why would the elites of Nation B clean up their own act when Nation A is providing Nation B with free stuff? And why would the people of Nation B try to replace the existing elites when they get by on handouts from Nation A?

While all of us must be more dogs than wolves within civilization, the ideal should be for the dogs and masters to be of the same identity. English masters for English dogs. That way, even if civilized man cannot be truly free and independent like a wild wolf, he can still be part of a people that are free and independent of rule by other peoples. The problem with the current West is that white folks are not only dogs of civilization — a necessary condition for social order — but dogs of a foreign master, the Jews. Worse, Jews are not even good masters over the Other. Jews look upon goyim as mere cattle, commodities, or cuck-dogs. The way Jews look upon goyim is far more contemptuous than how British Imperialists looked upon Hindus and Africans. At the very least, the Christian element of Western Civilization reminded whites that non-whites are also precious children of God. In contrast, Jews look upon goyim as barely human. Jews believe a single Jewish life is worth more than a million goy lives. Just Ask the Palestinians! Under Jewish rule, whites don't even have the freedom, pride, and power of We-the-People. They've been reduced to We-the-Cucks.

The black African threat to Europe makes things much worse. Blacks are barely domesticated as dogs; they are more like wild dogs, almost like wolves. As such, a sane West will do everything to protect European mild-willed dogs from African wild dogs. But three factors are forestalling this most necessary course of action. (1) Jewish globalist supremacists who control (((Western))) media and academia have elevated Negroes to god-like status. So many whites worship MLK and Mandela more than their own national/racial heroes, even over God and Jesus. And Jewish Power vilified 'racism' as the worst of all sins, and 'racism' is deemed most wicked when harboring negative feelings about blacks. Political Correctness demands that whites must love and honor blacks NO MATTER WHAT blacks do. (2) Even though blacks have thug supremacy over weaker whites and cause havoc in white nations, the fact remains Europe is rich while Africa is poor. Therefore, many Europeans still have this image of themselves as all-powerful and of blacks as helpless/harmless children. Thus, they fail to grasp the threat posed by black thugs on Western Civilization. (3) Even though civilization did wonders for non-black mankind, it also turned robust human-wolves into less impressive human-dogs. Though civilization can be maintained only by human-dogs, there is still the wolfish element in human-dogs that hankers for wolf-like glory and excitement. Because blacks are more impressive in sports, dancing, hollering, and fist-shaking, many white dogs are in state of awe of the wild black dawg that seems so badass.

The result is that the Current West not only favors mild-willed white dogs(those who go-along to get-along) over the strong-willed white dogs(those with the most survival instincts and fight/flight reflexes, problematic in peace time but essential in times of crisis) but also favors wild black dogs over strong-willed white dogs. This fatal alliance of mild-willed white dogs(and weak-willed white dogs) with wild black dogs against strong-willed white dogs will be the lethal formula that will bring down the West. In times of crisis, the strong-willed dogs must come to the fore to defend the order. In such times, the mild-willed dogs must look to the strong-willed dogs. (However, beware of the ultra-strong-willed dogs like Adolf Hitler. While Hitler's strong-will led Germany in its recovery of lost lands and resurgence in pride, he wasn't content with German affairs and embarked on wolf-attacks on OTHER nations to create a Greater Germanic Empire. This is why strong-will must be limited by Universal Nationalism — respect other nations as you expect them to respect your nation — and humanism that reminds people of their all-too-fragile humanity. Fascism elevated man to mythic hero while communism reduced man to a unit of History. In World War II, the German ubermensch rediscovered their humanity in defeat and humiliation. And the story of communism is the danger of sacrificing human lives as so many units in the service of History.)

Psychology of Social Justice Warmongers — The Addiction to the Hunt — The Predatory Nature of Mankind — Positive Identity of Jews, No-Identity of Whites, & Controlled Identities of Non-Whites — Ways of Empire in Suppressing Subject Peoples

People like peace and order. But as humanity evolved from hunters and warriors, there is also the side of us that exults in violence, craves the hunt, and thrills over the kill. And like hunger, it can never be satiated out of existence. Just like hunger returns, the hunting instinct returns... which is why hunters eagerly await the next hunting season. It's like sports fans soon forget about the trophy won the year before and look forward to the new season. And as horrible as war is, we are drawn to stories of men in combat. One of the foundational literature of Western Civilization is The Iliad, a poetic paean to war and glory. Even so-called Anti-War Movies draw in the audience with their explosions and mayhem that are as riveting as repulsive. APOCALYPSE NOW was presented as an anti-war statement by Francis Ford Coppola, but it was written by pro-war John Milius. Despite Coppola's best efforts at moralism, what came across most powerfully was the epic scope of war, its rapturous reveling in domination and destruction. The most famous scene in the film, the helicopter raid on a Viet Cong village, closed with Colonel's Kilgore's lamenting sigh that "Some day this war will end." Apparently, he's having such a great time that he wants it to go on indefinitely even though a side of him surely knows that war is hell. In the movie PATTON, George C. Scott as the great general admits that he loves war. It is the presence of death that makes one feel most alive, most intensely engaged with the world. The sentiment is surely understandable to those who risk their lives by mountain-climbing or jumping off cliffs with wing-suits. For them, merely being alive is boring. It's just sitting around with a pair of lungs that suck air in and out. They feel truly alive only when they dare death. In HURT LOCKER, the bomb-defusing expert feels bored at home and seems to want to return to battle in the final scene.


Regardless of one's ideology, there is inner drive within human nature that longs for the hunt, the fight, the struggle. It makes life exciting. Why do people go to drama or movies? Because storytelling is about conflict, the battle, the mutual-hunt between various forces deemed 'us' and 'them', 'good' vs 'evil'. We've all been told that the most important element of plays, novels, and cinema is 'conflict'. In that sense, all movies are 'war movies' though the conflict is usually resolved in rooms, streets, and halls of power than in the battlefields. But then, even men-in-combat are little more than pawns of men in quiet spaces, like the War Room in DR. STRANGELOVE or the palatial quarters where generals plot in PATHS OF GLORY. Jews dwell on mental combat; the goy pawns die in metal combat, shooting bullets and getting torn apart by shrapnel.
As Jews control the US, they control the world. Not only do Jews control the goy cuck puppets who direct foreign policy, but Jews decide which nations have access to the vast US goy market. Even though US is mostly goy, it is Jews who decide whom the American goyim can sell to and buy from. Jews have control over our purchasing power. Goyim don't decide whom Jews can do business with, but the vice verse is all too true. Jews do as they please, goyim do to appease... the World Jewry. If any nation is deemed threatening or displeasing to Jews or Israel, ALL of Goy America is directed against it by sanctions, encirclement, or threats of wars devised by Jewish puppet-masters. And as US puppet-allies depend on the US for economic and military support, they too must comply with Jewish demands. Jews not only control the media and finance but get to decide the economic choices of American goyim. If Jews say America can't do business with Russia or Iran, all goyim are made to comply as US policies are decided by goy cuck-whore-politicians of the globo-homo-shlomo Jewish supremacist overlords.

And yet, on some level, many goyim get their thrills in world conflicts cooked up by Jews. They are too craven, stupid, ignorant, and/or dumb to decide on their own as to what is good or bad for their own people or the world. They crave action but lack agency and vision. It's like dogs don't decide what and where to hunt. They are just eager to hunt ANYTHING, and as long as the master lets them hunt, they are happy whether they are running down rabbits, raccoon, badgers, foxes, or wild pigs. The master decides what is to be hunted, and when and where. He has agency and vision. Dogs just care for action and are satisfied as long as SOMETHING is to be hunted. Jew-Goy relations are much the same. Jews have a grand vision of the world. They know what they are all about and what they want. They see themselves as a proud ancient Tribe with Covenant with God or History; they see the world in terms of "Is it good for us Jews and our power?" Jews are more than 'identitarian'. They are 'covenantarian', a far more potent consciousness for it associates identity with history and destiny. Any tribe can have an identity, but it'd be just another identity among many others; an identity could be nothing special; every individual has an identity, but most of them mean nothing to the world; they are not world-shakers. In contrast, being a 'covenantarian' means your identity is special and has a unique place in the world by the blessings of God or design of history.
Now, as Jews are small in number, they naturally need OTHER peoples to serve the Tribe, and it means goy servants must have no identities or, at best, controlled identities. Because white servility to Jews is most crucial to Jewish Global Hegemony, the Jewish Agenda says whites are to have No Identity. Whites are to be 'Nodentitarians' or 'Zerodentitarians'. No-Identity or Zero-Identity for whites. After all, if whites do have identity, they are likely to become white-centric and try to make the world revolve around white interests(as in the past when the Jewish minority had to serve white elites and white nations/powers; there was a time when Jews served European kings and American Wasp elites). To make whites revolve around Jewish Power, white identity must be turned into 'nodentity'. But since humans crave an identity, whites without identity will still seek one to serve, and this is where Jews make deracinated & disoriented whites serve Zionism, Jewish pride, and Jewish holiness. Jews want whites to become like Charlie Kirk. If you want to visualize the essence of Jewish-White relationship in the Current Era, consider Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk side by side.

As for non-whites, Jews allow controlled identities. Jews don't want blacks, yellows, browns, and Muslims to have core identities, or autonomous identities independent of PC dogma. Take the identity of Palestinian-Americans for instance. If their identity were like that of Jews or current Hungarians, Palestinians would emphasize Palestinian nationhood(rooted in a particular history and territory), Palestinian power, and Palestinian future(especially by resisting Zionist supremacism). Such an identity could compete with Jewish identity, especially troubling as Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map. Jews would rather have Palestinian-American identity be defined in terms of grievance toward white 'racism' and 'Islamophobia'(despite the fact that Zionist Hollywood did more than any institution or industry to spread anti-Muslim tropes). Political Correctness is, of course, a game of Grievance Envy where various non-white groups claim to be bigger victims of whites or at least on the better terms with blacks and homos, two groups that, along with Jews, are favored above all others by the Jew-run media. Thus, Palestinian-ness becomes a negative-identity than a positive one. It's an identity of opposition to Evil Whitey than an independent identity that has value regardless of its relation to white folks. Instead of thinking, "I am first and foremost a Palestinian with deep history and national aspirations in the Middle East", the controlled identity of Palestinian-Americans becomes, "I'm first and foremost a victim of White Power & Privilege, therefore defined mainly by my commitment, in alliance with other non-whites, against Evil Whitey." Thus, Palestinian-Americanism becomes a matter of virtue-signaling about 'white racism'. Instead of focusing on what is essential for Palestinian survival and revival, Palestinian-Americans come to focus on forming alliances with non-Palestinians against the Evil Right or 'white supremacism'. And this alliance effectively dilutes and weakens Palestinian consciousness by directing the emphasis of Palestinian politics toward an identification-of-shared-grievance with blacks, yellows, browns, and etc.(against Evil Whitey of course), with whom Palestinians have nothing in common except for the Jewish canard that all non-white groups are oppressed by Evil Whitey in the West. Jews would rather have Palestinian consciousness be generic as just another voice in the anti-white PC mantra than remain distinct & autonomous in calling out Jewish Power for having wiped Palestine off the map and stealing the remaining land from Palestinians in West Bank. BDS Movement that represents the true national interest of Palestinian Identity is to be suppressed. As far as Jews are concerned, Palestinians can have negative identity as anti-white Palestinian-Americans but NO IDENTITY as Palestinians longing for Lost Palestine, i.e. Palestinian Identity can hate whites but not love Palestine. Only Jews are to have a real identity in the US. Whites are to have No Identity, and non-whites are to have Controlled Identities that are essentially negative-identities as they have 'worth' ONLY IN OPPOSITION to whiteness(as orchestrated by Jews).
After all, PC and multi-culturalism never remind non-whites such as Palestinians to cling to their history and culture; rather, non-whites are urged to identify themselves in opposition to whiteness.

Ultimately, the rule of America is that whites and non-whites must, above all, serve Jews and homos. Imperialists have always had problems with the politics of identity because Other peoples with their own identities are less likely to serve the power of the dominant people, the imperial hegemon. Empires could be tolerant and let other identities & cultures survive but only in loyalty & service to the Core Power of the Empire. In some cases, the Imperial Power Dynamics took on a game theory logic of its own. Though the empire expanded from a core ethnic group, the main purpose went FROM the use of power to make the World serve the Core TO ensuring that everything(even the core) be sacrificed to expand the imperial power. There was the danger that the Imperial-power-for-imperial-power's-sake could become the main obsession of the empire. Thus, it no longer mattered if the original Core Group maintained grip on power or not; even if members of OTHER groups gained dominance, it was acceptable as long as the empire continued and expanded. The Roman Empire became like this. The surviving Byzantium or Eastern Roman Empire was mostly ruled by non-Romans. And the US has also become like this. It went FROM an Anglo-American empire that brought over non-Anglos to serve Anglo-American Power TO a World Empire where it no longer mattered which group was dominant AS LONG AS the world was turned into Pax Americana as envisioned by the enthusiasts of the American Century(or American Millennium as the case may be). If not for Jewish Power, the US might indeed have turned into a World Empire without a Core Group at its center. But the decline of Wasp Power wasn't followed up by the rise of colorblind elites but by Jewish-Supremacist takeover; as a result, the US as lone-superpower is now about making the world serve the Jews uber alles. Still, it is interesting how the American Empire went from mainly serving the power and glory of one racial-ethnic group(the Anglos) to serving those of another. Instead of the Anglo-American Empire falling apart like the Western Roman Empire, its reins were handed over to nouveau overlord Jews, much like Roman power eventually went over to non-Romans in the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. But just as the meaning of 'Roman' became meaningless as non-Romans became New Romans, the meaning of 'American' has become meaningless except as access to riches and power, either as lords or servants.

There are various cultural strategies employed by the empire to suppress, control, or manipulate the identities of subject peoples. The empire can paradoxically pose as a 'liberating' agent for the subject people. This is especially useful when the subject people happen to be caught between two or more empires. Then, Empire A can claim to defend the rights and freedom of the subject people from Empires B and C. Or Empire A, B, or C can claim to have liberated the subject people from their own tyrant. It's like the US justified its invasion of Iraq on grounds that Iraqis had to be 'liberated' from tyrant Saddam Hussein. Same rationale was proffered in the destruction of Gaddafi's rule in Libya.
If the empire has much cultural capital, it may entice its subject peoples with the fancy benefits of remaining within the imperial tent. The French Empire was advantaged in this regard as there was much that was glorious about French arts, culture, food, & wine. Use cuisines-and-sticks than mere carrots-and-sticks to seduce the subject peoples into compliance. Use the fist but also the feast. Consider the sheer effect of French cuisine in BABETTE'S FEAST.
Or, the empire can degrade the culture of its subject people into something small and humdrum. Ottoman Turks allowed Greeks to keep their culture, but it had to be humble than proud. Greeks could have their folklore, food, and dance, but they couldn't unite to politicize Greek culture as a national identity. Japanese went further and decided to erase Koreanness by forcing Koreans to take on Japanese names and speak Japanese as if they, as fellow a Yamato people, must forget they were ever Korean. Another imperial strategy is Mass Migration and Diversity. By moving peoples all around, the empire can undermine and weaken the connection between a people/culture and their ancestral soil. Stalin was an expert at this, moving entire populations from all around to replace tribal consciousness with ideological uniformity and his cult of personality.

In the US, Jews use many time-tested Imperial methods to weaken white power. Like Japanese in Korea, they wage war on White Identity and say it never existed. Or, if it really did exist, it was 'racist' & evil and have no reason to exist further. It was so wrong for British and French histories to have been almost entirely white. So 'racist'! Such historical injustices must be rectified with mass-immigration & mass-promotion of non-whites and by retro-fitting the past whereby the great white heroes and historical figures are re-imagined as non-whites, especially blacks.
Jews use 'restaurants' to entice whites into surrendering their nations. Let the foreign hordes with their cooking pots to create the melting pot. So what if you lose your nation? You will have 'better food'? And make white nations 'include' tons of non-whites to boost Diversity, now a Magic Word that has so many idiots believing that Diversity is a magic panacea for everything when, by and large, less diverse nations are much better off than diverse ones around the world, the only exceptions being homogeneous black nations like Haiti and those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Granted, just like Turks tolerated humble Greek culture, Jews do tolerate humble whiteness like the Amish who have NO chance of power or influence.
In a way, the Jewish Empire is more problematic than goy empires of old. At the very least, White Imperialists were willing to embrace non-white subjects as 'fellow Christians'. Communist Imperialists(like Russians for example) of one nationality were willing to accept communists of other nations as fellow comrades. And white Americans came around to a compromise, whereby both White Americans and Non-White Americans would primarily be 'American' and meet in the middle as 'fellow countrymen'. Furthermore, there were British and French Imperialists who were willing to regard non-white subjects as Fellow British or Fellow Frenchmen.
In contrast, Jews are NOT willing to regard non-Jews as New Jews or Fellow Tribesmen. And yet, they want total control over other peoples. As brutal as imperialism often was, there was still a generosity of spirit in Christian Imperialists willing to regard the conquered as fellow Christians. Or in the cases of the British and French imperialists willing to accept loyal non-white subjects as 'British' or 'French'. Or in the Japanese acceptance of Koreans as 'Japanese' even though Koreans weren't give a choice in the matter. But Jewish Imperialists don't regard their subject peoples as Fellow Jews, and the only time they invoke the meme of 'fellow white people' is to berate white goyim about 'white privilege' when, if anything, it's the Jews who got the most power and privilege. Jews are totally stingy with their own identity. Israel is for Jews only, and Jewishness is a closed club. And yet, the Jewish-American Empire expects non-Jews to serve Jewish glory unconditionally and wholeheartedly, indeed like the faithful are supposed to serve God. On some level, Jews surely sense this is a tall order that reeks of hypocrisy as well as tribal supremacism.

And this is why Jews have promoted Globo-Homomania as the main proxy of Jewish Hegemonic Power. While only Jews can be Jews, there are homos in every nation and group, and those homos can serve as agents of Jewish Global Power. Jews know that homos in every nation feel some degree of alienation from their core culture and tend to be vain & narcissistic in their nihilistic self-aggrandizement, therefore willing to betray their own people, nation, and culture for their own 'pride' as neo-aristos. Jews also know that homos have special talents and tend to be more driven, making them more successful than on average, like the homo guy in NO WAY OUT who always has a facial expression like he sucked cock in the washroom a minute before. And homo collaborators around the world know there are rich rewards for sucking up to Jews. Consider Palestinian homos and trannies who work with Israel because Jews finance the celebration of globo-homo. Homos of all stripes are so diva-like that they will even sacrifice their own nation & people for catwalks at fashion shows and the attention of paparazzi.

Anyway, what can be said about the human nature that thirsts for the hunt? When American Indians were forbidden to hunt and turned into farmers, many of them no longer felt alive. In BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, the men are glad to be back home but realize they are 'nobodies' back in civilian society. War was hellish but they were heroes and tough guys. But in the world of peace, they are clerks and salesmen selling sodapop to teenyboppers. It's like retired boxers often hanker for life in the ring because, as brutal as it was, it made them feel most alive as warriors who held nothing back to the cheers of the masses.
Even though Oliver Stone's trilogy of Vietnam films are considered to be Anti-War, the fact that he revisited the subject repeatedly suggests that he felt most alive in war. Besides, his SALVADOR is less anti-war than pro-revolution, a form of war against the existing order. And his works such as ANY GIVEN SUNDAY and ALEXANDER leave little doubt that he is as obsessed with the Hunter Nature of Man as Patton was. And it's telling that George Lucas, who considers himself a Political Liberal, made his mark on Movie History with the series STAR WARS, which is about nonstop warmongering in outer-space. And for all their rhetorical denunciations of 'fascism', all those Hollywood Jews now rake in most profits from movies that exult in mega-violence carried out by cool superheroes and supervillains, both of whom revel in what could easily be characterized as 'fascist tropes'. And for all the association of blacks with 'social justice', the dominant black expression is Rap Music that is all about the thug-hunter and neo-jungle-warrior obsessed with guns, fighting, murdering, and raping. And even though Jews tend to loathe traditional military culture of America, they sure love to sign up for the Israeli Military and gun down Palestinians. Jews also denounce the Gun Culture of America but have no problems with gun-ownership in Israel because it means the Jewish majority population are armed against Palestinians.

Serving in the US military is for White Goy Suckers who aren't allowed to fight in the name of European-American Identity. Jews, such as David Brooks' son, join the ISRAELI Military, and they explicitly serve Jewish Identity & Interests. No problem with Jewish militarism and Jewish gun ownership.

Just because the hunt is over doesn't mean that the hunter-instinct is gone and done with. Just because the war is over doesn't meant that the warrior-instinct is over. Granted, there is no single human nature. Human nature is both individual and social. It is both aggressive and defensive. It is both self-interested and selfless. Every man can be greedy and generous. Some people have more of a certain nature than another, but few people are entirely one thing or another, which would be pathological. Some people are clearly more greedy than generous, while others are the reverse, but even greedy people can be remarkably generous, and even generous people can be overcome with greed.
Dogs have been bred to be far less aggressive than wolves, but wolf-nature is always there in the dog. Even the mildest dog can lurch into predatory mode and suddenly chase after rabbits. Cats and dogs may feel close to their masters/owners and appreciate the comfort of home, but they are also eager to go outdoors and run around in hunter-mode. Granted, as pets, they are allowed to act out their predatory instincts in ways that are acceptable to and approved by the human community. As such, we may think of them as 'good dogs', but they are still acting out their bloodthirsty wolf nature. Jews regard goyim as human dogs, and they've trained scum like Antifa to act out their hunter-instincts by going after 'nazis', which is just about any white person who says NO to cuckery to Jews. Even though the aggressive hunter-nature of Antifa dogs is being exploited by Jewish Power, they are too stupid to realize they've been led around on a leash and believe themselves to be devotees to the higher cause of justice. Antifa is essentially a sports club for weaklings like Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. The kind of people who join Antifa could never cut it as alpha males in athletics or get the best girls. So, they cover their faces and pretend to be tough guys at war with 'Nazis' when they aren't even smart enough to realize they're tools of the Establishment.

There seems to be a similarity between people characterized as warmongers and those who are called 'woke'; they could be called 'woke-mongers'. Both suffer from an addiction to the endless hunt, endless conflict, endless conquest. A warmonger hates peace even as he claims the next war is necessary for peace and order around the world. Even when wars end and their objectives have been met, warmongers must find new reasons to wage more wars, cold or hot. The military establishment seems to be full of them, the New Pattons who never say NO to prospects for new conflicts. It's their chance to go globo-hunting again around the world. Wars for them is an endless hunting season to bag new trophies. They are Game Theory Hunters. Granted, there are plenty of sane men in the military who understand the tragedy of war and regard war as an 'evil necessity' of the last resort. Still, many people who join the military tend to be the type with a penchant for aggression and destruction. Chickenhawks in civilian government can be even worse. At least military men feel pangs of conscience about needlessly expending the lives of their men.

But the hunter-instinct need not be restricted to use of lethal weaponry. Power manifests itself in myriad ways, and the Warmonger Mentality is alive and well in all fields. Just like there is no Final War for the warmonger who is always eager for more wars, there is no Final Progress for the Woke-mongers. They feel this obsessive need to find the New Evil and stamp it out. An extreme form of this was the Trotskyite Theory of the Permanent Revolution, whereupon there would be infinite new upheavals even after the triumph of communism. Mao Zedong unleashed the Cultural Revolution in 1966 on grounds that, without new campaigns and renewed vigilance, the reactionaries will regain power. But, such fanaticism often leads to a kind of cannibalism. After all, if all the bourgeoisie have been destroyed, whom should the new campaigns target? In communist nations, it often led to one bunch of communists accusing other bunch of communists of being the 'bourgeoisie'. Communists came to devour other communists, a bloodier replay of radicalism gone off the rail in the French Revolution. Worse, such blood-thirst fails to consider that, maybe just maybe, there is some value to the bourgeoisie in the development of modern economies, a fact that Karl Marx himself admitted in his observation that the industrial revolution was the product of the bourgeoisie. But then, fanaticism abhors complexity and ambiguity, insisting that history and the world be divided into Simple Good vs Simple Evil. Even Marx, for all his deep thinking, succumbed to the simplistic formulations of radicalism.

Some may argue that Woke-mongers or Wokesters are motivated more by ideology than by instinct, but this is doubtful. After all, if ideology premised on logic & principles matters most to Woke-mongers, why has 'progressive' thought been so malleable, illogical, contradictory, and childish especially since the end of the Cold War? It seems the new 'progressivism' is more about animal-like emotions of Outrage than cerebral understanding of reality and the world. The what and why of human events hardly matter to these Wokesters. And notice that they don't decide on their own as to the terms of their so-called progressivism. Rather, they are told what to be outraged about and then run after it like dogs after rabbits. The only 'agency' they have is in the tendency to be MORE outraged than the next person. So, if they are told that 'homophobia' is bad, they never question the validity of 'homophobia' as a concept but only go the extra mile to dig up another bone where others failed to. It's like the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution never questioned Maoism itself. Instead, they only competed among themselves on who was more 'woke' on Maoism. It's so much like dog behavior. When made to chase after rabbits, they never ask why they should chase rabbits or why they shouldn't chase after other animals. They just compete among themselves to hunt down the most rabbits.

If there were a core logic or principles to current 'progressivism', it wouldn't be so easy to manipulate or alter. Indeed, old manifestations of progressivism did have some core logic or meaning to them. And the radical socialism of Marxism also had its core tenets. In contrast, current 'leftism', 'progressivism', or 'woke-ism' seems to have no rhyme or reason except What-the-Jews(and-their-Homo-Allies)-Want. So much of what goes by the name of 'leftism' has no relation to classic leftist principles or broadly defined goals. We are to believe that Wall-Street-funded-homos working for the Deep State to wage wars with the Pentagon against nations hated by super-rich Jews is about being 'woke'. The new 'leftism' is about Jewish-funded Antifa serving as the thug force of Wall Street and capitalist oligarchy to shut down peoples who dare voice opposition to globo-corporatism.

In a way, the instinct came to override ideology because we live in a post-literary and post-intellectual age. With the rise of Image Culture via Electronic-Idolatry, people's sense of the world are shaped more by celebrity, adulation, pageantry, and hype than by books, theories, and ideas. Specious is favored over the serious, the trivial
over the trenchant. Communists in the past had serious blind-spots, but they still knew what they stood for in terms of core ideology, and for sure, they were not about celebrating homo vanity backed by Wall Street and the Gaming Industry. Given their core principles, such was unthinkable. The same could be said of Christian Churches in a more serious and devout time. The very thought of desecrating churches with homo 'pride' flags would have been deemed sacrilegious, like the vandalizing of the Madonna statue in THE EXORCIST(though one could argue that William Friedkin's horror classic was really a desecration of Christianity under the guise of sanctimony). But beginning with the rise of youth-centrism and mania for pop culture(especially with TV in every room) in the late 50s, we ended up in a world where most people's idea of Good or Evil came to be determined by hysterics of fad and fashion. Without serious ideological or philosophical underpinning, the worldview of the majority is entirely at the whim of media-manipulators. Given the sign of the times, if THE EXORCIST were released today, people are likely to see the devil-possessed girl as 'woke' and 'empowered' like the many 'amazing' child trannies now promoted by the sick Jew-run media.

Another problem is that Jews went from ideology to identity. While identity was always a key factor among the Tribesmen, many Jews in the past never thought they would come to rule the US(esp as the sole superpower). As such, Jews thought they had a better chance at power, protection, and influence by championing certain universal ideas and principles. But as Israeli-Zionist Pride and the Holocaust came to define Jewishness, Jews came to favor identity over ideology. Also, as they grew in power and gain hegemony over the US, they began to think less in terms of "We-the-People against Wasp Privilege" than of "How do we Jews remain on top?" Granted, Jews continue to employ the Old Progressive Narrative of Non-Wasp Diversity united against the White Privilege of Wasps, and enough dummies still fall for the trick, but such has no resemblance to reality. Jews are no longer a bunch of Spartacuses leading the unwashed masses against Wasp Privilege. If anything, they are the 'New Wasps', the new ruling elites. Amusingly enough, the Wasp Elites have attached themselves to Jewish Power as total cucks like the Romneys and the Bushes. In the past, Jews were likely to side with the White Working Class(of all ethnic groups) against the Wasp elites, but today, they are more likely to work with cucky-wuck Wasp elites against the White Working/Middle Class who are demeaned as the 'deplorable' representatives of 'white supremacism'. (For one thing, white 'deplorables' are not 'white supremacist' in their thinking. Unfortunately if anything, too many of them are more likely to support the Jewish Supremacism of Zionists than think of their own people. Secondly, even if they were 'white supremacist', why should it matter when they have no power? Supremacism without power is like a palooka pretending to be the champion. Why should it bother anyone? Of course, what Jews really fear is not white-nationalism-as-the-latest-manifestation-of-white-supremacism but white nationalism as insistence on white national liberation from Jewish Supremacism that insists that white goyim serve as Janissary for the hegemony of World Jewry. What a strange world we live in when so many 'conservative' Christians practically worship Jews, the very people hellbent on desecrating Christianity with Homomania or Queertianity. Christian 'conservatives' are so reverential toward Jews that some are even coming around to waving the 'gay pride' flag as what conservatism and Christianity are all about.)

Because of vast demographic changes, the replacement of literary/ideological culture with an electronic/idolatrous culture, Jewish elites' refusal to admit their supremacist control of America(while pretending that the 'white privilege' of the 'deplorables' is the main threat to justice & peace), and general vulgarization of society, ours is a truly chaotic time in terms of reality vs perception. So much of what people think and 'know' is at odd with the truth and how things really are. But many seem not to mind, especially among the 'progressive' or 'social justice warrior' types because what they really after is not the truth and understanding but constant rushes of righteousness. They are all about feelings, with which they are satisfied in their convictions of right and wrong. (In the past, liberals were more likely to question the prevailing morality, the official dogma, or the social norm, whereas conservatives were more likely to accept it on habit or faith. In the present, conservatives are more likely to reflect on and resist what the Power commands as the Good. In a dominantly conservative order where most people stick with tradition, the liberals stand out as relative free thinkers who are willing to deviate from the established norm. But in a society where constant change has become the norm, the liberal-minded are likely to conform to the latest trends without thinking. As liberal pride is premised on enthusiasm for change, liberals face the danger of losing their critical faculty in their gushing adoration of the New. In contrast, the conservative, being less enthralled with the conceit of change as progress, is more likely to question the existing power and its agenda. In a way, liberal conformism in a liberal age is more dangerous than conservative conformism in a conservative age. While tradition can be foolish, it has the pedigree of deep history and experience over the ages. Thus, the core tenets of conservatism are often fundamentally sound. In contrast, liberalism's faith in change overlooks the fact that its truisms have yet to pass the test of time. So, if conservatives at least bet on what has been proven to work, liberals place their faith in new ideas in uncharted territories. Faith in experience is usually a better bet than faith in experimentation. Liberal experimentation is valuable ONLY IF done with caution as, after all, every new hypothesis in science or idea in technology is approached with caution, like wandering through a minefield. Furthermore, while one can be a true conservative in a ultra-conservative world, one cannot be a true liberal in an ultra-liberal world. If the essence of liberalism is critical thought, skepticism, and acceptance of controversy, such cannot survive in an ultra-liberal order where liberals are expected to forgo their individuality and critical acumen in favor of conformist commitment to the cause of change for change's sake. This is why Norman Mailer said freedom is truly endangered when even liberals give up freedom for dogma. If the great value of liberalism was the will to break out of the conservative shell in the name of freedom, what freedom is left when liberalism turns into a blind quasi-totalitarian commitment to change as decreed by Big Brother or Big Money?)
So, as long as the Social Justice Warmongering or NPI types are given something to feel outraged or angry about, they are content. It's like dogs are content as long as they are given something to bark at, something to chase after, something to bite and maul. Some on the militarist right are the same in their basic psychology. Men like John McCain and John Bolton don't really care about the What or the Why AS LONG AS they are given something to be outraged about, beat the drums of war, and flex their muscles as 'tough guys' or 'men of importance'.

If Jews were weak while the US were ruled by Arab-Americans, these cuck-dog white men would be barking for their Arab masters and beating the drums against Israel. While all people are capable of moral outrage and finding righteous emotional satisfaction, there are those who need to really understand what is going on and why. They want to feel righteous about WORTHY matters and causes in the Real World. They don't want to waste their passions on something as dumb and trashy as the Pussy March where a whole bunch of spoiled privileged brats played at being 'oppressed' because Monster Bitch Hillary, the favorite of the Deep State and War Department, failed to become president.
When the US was a more serious nation with men and women grounded in deeper creeds like Christianity or concerned with genuine intellectual ideas, they were less likely to be at the whims of fashion. Passion rooted in deep faiths or big ideas are less likely to bend to every new social trend that comes along. But religious roots have withered away. Cultural traditions and customs are almost non-existent. And the so-called End of History means that the Age of Ideas are over. All that is left for people to do is, "Don't Worry, Be Happy." But the so-called End of History didn't bring about the End of Human Nature that craves something to 'hunt' and something to feel excited over, be it politics or pop culture(though the two are increasingly difficult to tell apart). But without religion, roots, or deep ideas, what are people supposed to get all excited about? What great cause can they believe in? What noble value can they defend in a world defined by vapid consumerism? Well, the Jewish Power decided that the deracinated and 'devaluated' population can be manipulated by propaganda, pop culture, and advertising into moral outrages over just about anything. As most Americans have no Core Values or Essential Understanding of anything, their 'truth' is whatever happens to be hot at the moment. As unthinking dogs, their idea of Good or Bad is about turning their ears to the latest signals from central command and seeking the approval of like-minded drones. Since most of them are dogs and sheeple, few have the agency to decide what is Good or Bad on their own. They are like TVs with antennas that can pick up signals but cannot produce autonomous programs. The 'programs' are concocted and controlled by the mavens of mass media, entertainment, and state propaganda, and needless to say, the most important contingent of this power is Jewish and Homo.
The current Wokies are so stupid that they are utterly unawares of the contradictions of all the nonsense they spout. And this is true of Wokies in elite institutions as well as in lower ones. Elite institutions have plenty of people with intelligence, but high IQ is useless without emotional maturity and core virtues such as courage and integrity. Being emotional children, even high-IQ Wokies are easily swayed by the passion of the moment without questioning. They just love the FEEL of being swept along on the waves of righteous indignation and preening self-regard. Granted, righteousness can be as vexing as comforting. If one is outraged 24/7, he or she will have to pay an emotional toll, no matter how justified he or she may feel. Furthermore, self-righteousness can easily turn into a pissing contest of who is MORE righteous. Also, as righteousness is now so wedded to identity, white wokies must try ever so harder to be 'righteous' because whiteness is blamed for just about anything. But black wokies can become frustrated too. On the one hand, the official dogma says blacks are noblest and coolest... but the reality says blacks lag behind other groups in so many fields. How is it that intrinsically cooler and nobler blacks are less accomplished than other races in everything but sports and pop music? This discrepancy drives many blacks crazy. Also, black males are far more prized by pop culture than black women are, a reason as to why so many black women are 'angry'. Also, the so-called 'intersectionality' tends to lead to political gridlock than unity. After all, what happens to an intersection when cars come from all directions? The traffic drastically slows down. There could even be crashes. Indeed, 'intersectionality' has to be one of the dumbest ideas in politics as the identities, values, and leanings of the various ethnic, cultural, and sexual groups have little or nothing in common. PC says we must respect Islam and Globo-Homo both. It says we must be feminist but also support tranny men beating women in sports. It says Jews and Muslims are united against Evil Whitey, but in fact, Jews are eager as ever to make Evil Whitey destroy Muslim lands while whispering into Muslim ears that Jews and Muslims must work together to destroy white Europe and white America. We are told that race is just a myth, a social construct, but it is the so-called Liberal Media that disseminate so much of 'racist' or 'progracist' propaganda whereby the various races have been pigeonholed into familiar stereotypes. Consider the black-male-white-female pairing in popular culture. It's not about colorblindness but based on the perception/proposition that black males, as the top males, are most deserving of white women as the most desirable females.
Also, PC's clampdown on free/honest speech has less to do with attempts to eradicate 'racism' and supremacism than to conceal them as practiced by the globalist elites. After all, even honest 'bigoted' speech is more revealing of the truth and in waking people up to reality. For example, suppose someone in the Deep State said, "We admire Jews as the high-IQ superior race, and we will serve Zionist power to bash and destroy all those dumb worthless 'Muzzie' Arabs, a bunch of subhuman camel jockeys." That would be nasty stuff, but it would expose what US foreign policy is really about. And then, the American people might wake up and stop supporting Zionist hegemonism around the world. In order for the Jewish-controlled Deep State to make the American foreign policy palatable, it pretends that the US respects Muslims and that American power is a fair arbiter to all sides in the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, that is a fiction. US foreign policy IS Jewish-Zionist-supremacist, but that fact has to be covered up to justify Wars for Israel against Muslims. And in order to mask the Jewish Supremacist nature of supporting Israel over Palestinians, the US must pretend that pro-Israeli policies are not about Jewish supremacism but about protecting poor poor Jews from 'another holocaust' at the hands of 'Anti-Semites'.
Likewise, the anti-black policy of urban gentrification is most effective when anti-black rhetoric is suppressed. To DO the anti-black thing, one must suppress anti-black speech lest people realize what is REALLY happening. For instance, suppose gentrifiers spoke HONESTLY about their agenda. They'd say something like, "Too many blacks act like crazy niggers. They commit too much crime and mess up entire neighborhoods. Blacks are the biggest destroyers of cities. Just look at Detroit or Baltimore or any place where blacks gained the upperhand. To make urban living amenable to affluent whites, Jews, and Asians, there must be ways to drive urban blacks out of many parts of the city. And there must be ways to lock up many black males because, out in the streets, they have a tendency to act like louts and thugs." That would be honest speech, but it would also give the game away. White/Jewish gentrifiers would no longer be able to conceal their true agenda, and blacks would wake up and realize what is really being done to them. So, in order to gentrify and drive the problematic blacks out — the Black Nakba or Blakba — , the Power must suppress free/honest speech that spills the beans and gives the game away. Speak BS and Carry out the Plan, a more effective way than 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick'.

Anyway, the so-called Social Justice Warriors might as well be called Social Justice Warmongers. Just like warmongers feel stifled and constricted in peace time and crave more wars to feel truly alive, social-justice-warmongers can never feel at ease because they feel alive only when AT WAR against some evil. As most Social Justice Warmongers are pretty dumb, stupid, or insipid, they are incapable of assessing what is really wrong with the world. Thus, like dogs, they are vulnerable to manipulation by those who hold the whip-hand in media, academia, and deep state. Incapable of seeing with their own eyes or hearing with their own ears, they need to be told what to be outraged about, what to bark at, and what to bite in the ankle. Thus, they have far more in common with the likes of John Bolton and John McCain than they would ever realize. McCain, Bolton, and the Social Justice Warmongers crave the hunt, the fight, the crusade. But being feeble-minded, they have no way of surveying the world and seeing what is really wrong with it. Rather, they depend on their Masters to tell them what to growl about. And in both cases, the Masters are Jews. Jews order the likes of McCain and Bolton to wage Wars for Israel. "White dog, go attack Muslims and Russians." And Jews order Social Justice Warmongers to bark and bite at white identity and white pride. In a way, both sets of dogs are complementary in service to Jewish interests. After all, in order for Jews to make whites suppress their own identity & interests to serve Jewish Power, white identity must be disparaged and vilified. Thus, the likes of Bolton and McCain(and Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney) have been well-trained and groomed to never do anything that is in the interest of white people. By fanning anti-white rage among the Progs, Jews effectively castrate white identity. Then, without an identity and interests of their own, whites have no choice but to be dogs to another identity and its sets of interests, and of course, it is Jewish and Zionist. Yes, the world spins around the axis of Jewish supremacist neurosis, and white goy warmongers and Social Justice Warmongers are two sides of the same shekel.

In Response to Fred Reed’s Observations about the Military and Conservatism - Of Jews and Dogs

The Military instinct: The Human Race as Feral Dogs

https://fredoneverything.org/the-military-instinct-the-human-race-as-feral-dogs/

Fred Reed: Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

WHY? Well, which group in the US has (1) elite control over institutions and (2) special animus against Russia, Iran, and any nation that happens to be disliked by Judea and/or Israel?

Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Hindu-Americans? Greek-Americans? Eskimos?

The answer is simpler. It’s World Jewry or Jewish Globalist power. If Jewish Power had never gained supremacy in America, the US military would not have invaded Iraq, would not be foaming at the mouth at Iran, wouldn’t have engineered a coup in Ukraine, and would not have triggered a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, a nation with an economy on par with Italy!

True, there is a male-warrior instinct, but if US military ventures are primarily motivated by Male Aggression Principle, why isn’t US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe? Or with Israel? After all, the UN has a long list of human rights violations committed by Israel.
The real issue revolves around the question of "Who gets to choose the targets(as outlets for male warrior aggression)?" ‘Male’ or ‘conservative’ aggression is satisfied with hunting and destroying ANY enemy, therefore real power rests in those who get to choose the target for destruction. It's like chefs will cook anything: fish, fowl, meat, or vegetables. It all depends on who's holding the menu and making the order. The US military is a kitchen of destruction. It waits for orders from those who are looking at the menu. And it's the Jews who got the menus.

It’s like dogs will happily hunt any animal. The real question concerns who gets to decide what is to be hunted? Should the hunt be for rabbits, foxes, wild boars, deer? Dogs don’t decide. They obey the master. In America, those who get to choose the prey for the predatory military are ethno-tribal in nature. They are Jews.

Fred Reed: Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts.

But dogs lack agency. They look to their master for orders and approval. So, even though dogs naturally love to fight, hunt game, or just growl at other animals, they rely on the master to decide what should be hated, hunted, fought, or growled at, as well as what to be gentle with, showered with affection, protected, and/or loved. A dog can love or hate another animal or particular person... depending on the wishes of the master.

If dogs are ordered to attack, they will. If they’re ordered to show affection, they will. If you rouse a dog to attack and kill a cat, it will gladly. But if you admonish the dog to befriend the cat and treat it nicely, it will do just that.

Yes, the US military is like a dog, and it lacks agency. It follows orders. And its masters are in organizations like AIPAC. John McCain the militarist only hates nations and peoples hated by Jews. John McCain is McCanine. If Judea told him to be nice to Putin and treat Russia as a friendly nation, he will change his tune overnight. People like McCain not only crave an enemy to hate but a master to serve. As World Jewry are the current master of the West, dogs like McCain do their bidding.

Or consider the Wehrmacht. Sure, there were German generals and soldiers who relished a good battle and the blood-and-guts ‘heroism’ associated with war. But their animus or amity depended on the Fuhrer. When Adolf Hitler told them that USSR is an ally, they were happy to shake hands with Soviet troops. When Hitler ordered them to attack Russia, they did so at the drop of a hat and killed millions.

Fred Reed: Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

Actually, conservatives have more sympathy for people within the group, community, or tribe. Liberals feel less kinship sympathy for their own kind. Also, ‘empathy’ isn’t necessarily sympathy. It means the ability to read other people’s thoughts and feelings. The reason why some conservatives lack sympathy for certain other groups is precisely because they are empathetic in reading their minds. For instance, a keen conservative can read the mind of a Negro and see through the BS about ‘social justice’. They look into the Negro male mind and hear, “Where da white women at?” and read the Negro female mind and hear, “My booty be da center of everything.” And keen conservatives are empathetic in reading the minds of Jewish Neocons and their dirty tricks.

Liberals may appear ‘empathetic’ because they claim to be more open-minded about OTHER peoples, but this has less to do with genuine empathetic understanding of others than a naive conceit in their trust or superficial interest in the Other. Most Libby-dibbers who open their hearts and borders to Muslims have NO IDEA what Muslims are really after. Most Libby-dibbers who get all mushy about homos have no idea how the homo mind really works. Homos are vain, narcissistic, self-centered, and bitchy. But libby-dibbers see them as the New Saints who materialized out of ‘rainbows’. True empathy requires the keenness of mind to read the hearts of others. It’s like what Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER PART 2. He tries to see things as others see things.



Now, it’s true that many Conservatives are mere morons into ‘Muh country, muh God and muh guns, and etc’. But then, so many libby-dibs are into ‘Muh self-righteous vanity, muh Diversity and muh Inclusion, and etc’. They are enthralled with silly slogans and pat chants.

Fred Reed: Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily.

True, but the imperialist mindset can be construed as libby-dib. Most conzo-wonzos are content with what they got, what they are familiar with. It’s the libby-dibs who want more and get tired with what they already have. This leads to an imperialist mindset. (The ultra-conservative systems of Byzantine and East Asia were not interested in conquering or converting the entire world.) Also, libby-dibs believe they are intellectually and culturally superior, and such attitude leads them to believe that they have the moral right to remake the entire world in their image and ideal.

So, the US empire is a fusion of doglike conzo-wonzo soldiers and birdlike libby-dibby imperialists. After all, isn’t it odd that the US is now an empire that sends its soldiers to invade and transform other nations to… raise the Homo Flag?

So, aggression principle has both a conzo-wonzo aspect and a libby-dibby aspect.

Conzo warrior mentality is more defensive and preservative. Pre-Modern East Asia was very conservative, and its military was all about defending the realm from foreigners. This changed only in the 19th century as the the libby-dib West forced Asia to open up to world trade... or get blown to smithereens. (The two times Japan went into imperialist mode owed to Western influence. Hideoyoshi got guns and backing from the West. And modern Japan modeled itself on European and American empires.) Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA is about the wisdom of cautionary conservatism in war. Be like a mountain and preserve the domain. Don’t risk losing the domain with vain ambition. But the reckless son wants to win it all and gambles everything, even losing the domain. (Ironically, the ‘far-rightist’ Hitler was more of a libby-dib warrior in ambition, and ‘far-leftist’ Stalin was more of a conzo-wonzo warrior in caution.)



Libby holy crusader mentality is more offensive and transformative. The West became the most progressive part of the world and waged offensives to conquer and transform all the world with Christianity, free trade, ‘human rights’, and etc.

Same goes for religion. The conzo spiritual mindset is more orthodox, more about preserving tradition and dogma. The libby spiritual mindset is more about spreading the gospel or the Truth to all of mankind, even if it means killing countless heathens and infidels. Communism was a secular version of the libby missionary mindset.

Now, there is good and bad side to both conzo mentality and libby mentality.

Conzos are less aggressive outwardly and therefore less likely to conquer other peoples. But this ultra-defensive posture can lead to isolationism, stagnation, and fear of new ideas that might bring forth progress. This is why the Ottoman Empire and East Asia fell behind the more dynamic and liberal West.

As for Libbies, they are more aggressive, adventurous, and ambitious. So, unlike the conzo Hindusphere and East Asia, the more libby Western Europe discovered the world and created new trade routes and made advances in every field. But it also meant conquest, imperialism, slave trade on massive scale, genocide, and etc. And today, the cult of Tolerance among Western libbies is leading to mass invasion by the Third World that could very well mean the end of Western Civilization.

Ideal is a kind of balance of conzo and libby tendencies. But in the US, both the conzo and libby tendencies of gentiles are harnessed to serve the ethno-ambition of Jewish globalists who manipulate and command gung-ho US conservative soldiers to invade and destroy nations(hated by Israel) and also to ensure the spread of Homomania and Hollywood values. Instead of a meaningful balance of conzo-ness and libby-ness, both are perverted to serve ethno-supremacist ambitions and homo-negro degeneracy.

Now, the US could play a responsible role as the policeman of the world. After all, there’s always the chance of dogs around the world getting out of control and barking and attacking one another. If a responsible person were to wield the stick and command the field, the dogs would know who’s boss and learn to behave. US could play this role if it were ruled by sane and sensible leaders.

But instead, the US is like a demented master that trains and encourages some dogs to attack other dogs. Indeed, American Power is now like Jews-as-masters abusing and exploiting goy Americans as bulldogs. US has become the master of New World Disaster. It used Jihadis to tear Libya and Syria apart. It encourages Saudis to raise tension levels with Iran. It used neo-nazi elements in Ukraine. It provokes North Korea with military drills with servile South Korea, a yellow dog that takes orders from American dogs who take orders from the Jewish Master.
Even US allies come under US bullying. So, even if a nice nation like Hungary wants to be friendly with the US, Russia, and Iran, the big US bully steps forth and says YOU CAN’T TRADE WITH THEM BECAUSE WE SAY NO(AND WE SAY NO BECAUSE JEWS SAY NO); IF YOU DISOBEY, WE WILL DESTROY YOU THROUGH SANCTIONS AND INTERFERENCE VIA CIA.
It’s how the current world is.