Elitarianism, not Egalitarianism, is behind the Current Craze for 'Equity' — Cool/Fool Complex regarding Blacks as 'Godpets' of White Afromaniacs

It's not Egalitarianism that energizes the Glob(the mob of globalism). In a way, Populism is far more egalitarian. Why? Because your average Populist is content with his or her station in life. Whether middle class, lower-middle class, or working class, he accepts life for what it is. Populists don't mind working as waitresses, factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers. They are not obsessed with being among the cream of the crop. Of course, they are not egalitarian in the communist sense as they don't want the state to dispossess rich people or herd the 'bourgeoisie' or class enemies into gulags. But they are egalitarian in outlook in that they don't believe you must be among the elites or have special privileges to have worth as a human being or an American. Populism says, whatever class you belong to, you're a Good American if you're patriotic. When it comes to being a good American, it's not about money or class. A country boy is equal to a Wall Street banker when it comes to being a Good American. HANK WILLIAMS JR- "A COUNTRY GOY CAN SURVIVE" In contrast, all those who clamor for 'equity', especially for blacks, should really be called Elite-tarians or 'Elitarians'. They are not arguing that regular black folks with 'lowly' jobs have value. Their worldview is premised on the prideful conceit that only elitist, rich, special, cool, famous/glamorous positions have value in life. It is utterly different from communism and true socialism. Communism was radical egalitarian in crediting the Worker as the backbone of society. So, if you labored in a factory, you were special. If you worked with your hands, you were noble. You actually did things and made useful stuff. Karl Marx's point was that the Workers create worth BUT the bourgeoisie take this surplus value from them. Communism was also about making the privileged folks do real work. Turn them into workers and farmers, people who create actual thing of value. 

But, that is NOT what the current 'equity' craze is about. It's not about pressuring the elites to recognize the worth of workers. It's not about persuading children of the privileged classes to forsake their conceited status and work with their hands. Rather, it's about the dream that all people, especially magical Negroes, should reach the top and have 'cool', 'creative', 'colorful', 'meaningful', 'glamorous', or 'special' jobs. Supposedly, everyone has the 'right' and 'potential' to become a rich lawyer, successful doctor, high-tech engineer, famous artist/entertainer, respected bureaucrat, wealthy entrepreneur, financial analyst, innovator, or etc. Egalitarianism, radical or populist, prizes the masses engaged in 'honest' labor. That is not what all this talk of 'equity' is about. 'Elitarianism' is the illusion that, somehow, everyone has a 'right'(and innate ability, all too often thwarted) to succeed and have a 'cool' position in life. It doesn't say, "Those without college degrees have equal value as citizens and workers" but says "everyone should go to college and be guaranteed a fabulous career." But how many 'fabulous careers' are there to go around, especially when immigrants snatch up so many of them from Americans with deep roots in the nation? 'Elitarianism' is the ludicrous but appealing dream that the pyramid could be turned upside down, i.e. most people would make it to the top with a college degree. It is a total pipe dream. 

Now, many people have enough sense not to fall for the hype. The real problem is, of course, blacks. Why? They under-perform at elite levels of most endeavors. This is why companies need stuff like 'Diversity Management' offices to hire more blacks. As not enough blacks are worthy material for brainy work, they are hired as symbols. It's like Michelle Obama held some 'diversity manager' position raking in a quarter million dollars a year. (The office disappeared with her when she took off to D.C.). Barack Obama was sold as an 'elitarian' model. You see, if you're a clean-cut black guy who goes to college and smiles at white folks, you can be successful too and become president and rake in tons of money. But how many people get to be president? How many people, even with affirmative action, get admitted to Ivy League Schools? It was a false dream to sell to blacks, most of whom remained as they are. The fact is, even if most young blacks try to follow in Obama's footsteps, they won't get very far because they aren't smart enough. Obama's no genius but smart enough. Also, even if all blacks were smart enough and applied themselves, there are only so many slots for 'cool' jobs. Even if everyone had Einstein's IQ, someone would still have to do 'lowly' labor because not everyone can work at high-end jobs, which are relatively fewer. Traditional socialism and National Socialism said everyone who works has value. Traditional socialism regarded such a person as an honest laborer, and National Socialism regarded him as part of the larger ethno-family. But such views have faded from the discourse. In the Current Year, there are the Cool People, the 'winners', and the 'losers'. Most people with regular jobs are 'losers', and only the 'winners' matter. The problem is not enough blacks are 'winners'.

Now, it's true that most people of any race or ethnic group don't reach very high. Whites and Asians are more successful than blacks(and browns), but most whites and Asians(yellows and Hindus mostly) aren't anything special. They are middle class folks, small businessmen, government workers, or working class. Some are poor. And yet, why isn't it a problem that MOST whites, yellows, and Hindus aren't all that special? Because enough of them are successful, and political psychology is generally 'identifist', or people identify with the successful among their own kind; thus, they feel psycho-empowered by the sense their own kind is well-represented among the successful. So, even if most white people aren't rich and most rich whites don't do anything for the white masses, white people as a whole still feel that their kind is generally successful because there are so many white doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and etc. Same with Asians. Most Asians aren't special, and most successful Asians do nothing to help less successful Asians. Still, most Asians feel psycho-empowered by the fact that their own kind have done well. It's like the psychology of sports. Even if you yourself don't play the game and get no financial reward(that only benefits owners, media moguls, and athletes), you feel psycho-empowered by the fact that 'your team' won. 

The problem with black political psychology is that not enough blacks make it to elite domains of science, finance, law, medicine, technology, and other prestigious fields. This leads to resentment among blacks and frustration among non-black progs & Afro-maniacs. Indeed, black failure in most elite fields is made worse by the spectacular black success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression. In a nation obsessed with celebrity and sensationalism, blacks have become demigods to many Americans whose top heroes are athletes, rappers, and big-donged studs & bouncy-bootied skanks. That is why it seems ESPECIALLY unfair and unjust that blacks don't do so well in all areas. How can such a super-cool and badass folks not be great at EVERYTHING? I mean, MLK had a boombox godlike voice, so surely, he could have been da best at everything, right? Oprah is so wise, whimsical, and wonderful, so she'd be outstanding at everything, right? Obama's so 'cool' and 'slick', he must be the greatest prez of all time, right? And with Neil deGrasse Tyson, an illusion has been created that blacks are the greatest geniuses. Black Einstein. All you need to do is give them a chance, and they be badass in everything, sheeeeeeeiiiiit. (Yeah, and every Chinese kid has a Michael Jordan in him just dying to come out.) 

Such a mindset has led to the Cool/Fool Complex among blacks and Afromaniacs. "How can a people so 'cool' be a 'fool'?" The real basis of the gripe is not about racial equality. I guarantee, if black IQ were higher and if blacks were way over-represented in elite institutions and industries, NO ONE would complain. Blacks certainly wouldn't, and Afromaniacs would believe all is well with the world: A in Cool = A in School. 

Of course, there is also the 'white guilt' thing about past discrimination, so there is historical precedent for special sympathy for blacks. (But the fact that such sympathies aren't comparable for American Indians and browns, who were also conquered and oppressed by white imperialists, suggest that Afromania is the product of idolatry for blacks success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression than historical oppression.) No one complains there are too many blacks in sports, too many blacks in pop music, or too many blacks in whatever. Too Many Blacks is never a problem. If racial equality were truly what this is all about, people should be clamoring for more Diversity in Sports as expression of national multi-color identity. But, it seems Too Many Blacks is never a problem but Too Few Blacks is.

Another problem is the Negro is like a 'godpet' among whites. Many whites see jesus in the Negro. Why? Jesus was an eloquent nobody who got killed but turned out to be the Son of God. Negroes were brought to the New World as stupid savages only good for picking cotton and saying 'Yessuh Massuh'. But, as US was founded as a profoundly idealistic and Christian nation, blacks eventually came to be seen as pitiable folks of meekness who must be emancipated from bondage. Back then, naive whites were blind to the innate savage nature of blacks because the South had been pretty successful in taming the Negro into a slave/servant. (Whites were more aware of the danger from American Indian savagery because 'Injuns' ran wild and scalped pale-face. Indians, prior to being quelled, were fearsome warriors. In contrast, blacks set foot on in the New World as slaves, and so, many whites were never fully aware of the savage nature of blacks.) Black subservience was taken as a given as it had been drummed into them by white dominance. So, there was great sympathy for Southern Negroes among the naive Northern Abolitionists. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN imagined a noble-hearted suffering and dying Negro for the sins of white folks. And this eventually led to the Civil War. 

UNCLE TOM'S CABIN laid the first foundation of the black-christ or blachrist myth. Just like Jesus died helplessly, so did Uncle Tom. But compassion and sorrow alone don't complete a myth. There had to be something extra. After all, plenty of noble-hearted souls died in history. Sainthood isn't enough to uphold a myth. What is necessary is godhood. And blacks achieved godhood with predominance in sports, pop music, and later sexuality, the stuff that Modern America is most obsessed about, and of course, sports, music, and sex are interrelated. Once blacks began to dominate all three, they weren't seen only as victims of history but victors in what matters most in the modern era that elevates celebrity to godhood. So, it turned out that Uncle Tom wasn't just some Scatman-Crothers-like-dude in THE SHINING but badass King Kong mofo who done whup the white man into white boyhood, create music that make white asses wiggle in pathetic imitation, have boombox voices that sends chills up white folks' spines, and have big dongs that turn white women to jungle fever & white boys into benchwarming dork-boys. 

That's how blacks became the godpets of whites. On the one hand, there is a long progressive history of looking upon blacks with great sympathy like one would a homeless dog or cat. Blacks are figures worthy of condescension, people to patronize with good will. They be Noble Negroes with hearts of gold, and they deserve white compassion and help after slavery and being called 'dumb lazy ni**er'. This mentality is still alive, the view of blacks as pets of whites. Blacks-as-pets must be taken care of. 'Black Lives Matter' for some white folks is akin to 'Anti-Cruelty Society'. Save the stray dogs and cats. Or something like GORILLAS IN THE MIST. Save the poor gorillas from evil humanity. Or consider SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, where a clever black guy exploits this very aspect of White 'Liberals'. But as black got oratorical power, sports supremacy, rap stardom, and dong-bun dynamism, whites have come around to looking upon blacks as some kind of a god-race. And this completes the myth of the 'blachrist'. In Christianity, Jesus, the pitiable figure of sympathy, turned out to be the mighty Son of God. In blachristianity, Uncle Tom, the pitiable figure of compassion, turned out to be Mighty Joe Young and King Kong who be hollering up a storm, beating drums, punching out white boys in the ring, and rapping about 'my ding-a-ling'. 

Where will this 'godpet' lunacy lead us? To a bad place, I imagine. It's the big myth of the Current Year, and it's just as powerful in Europe that looks upon blacks as both pitiable pets of impoverished Africa — "oh, look at all those poor blacks without enough food and clean water in the Dark Continent" — and awesome demigods of sports, rap, and sex who deserve to conquer Europe full of lame white people whose women need to be Afro-colonized and whose men deserve to be dorky cucky-wucks to blackness. 

Blacks and Jews share one thing in common. They are figures of both pity and awe. That means, no matter what Jews and blacks do, they are seen sympathetically. Thus, their power/prowess goes un-criticized, and that means whatever they do is awesome. It's like colleges hardly do anything about black athletes who rob and rape. They are sports 'heroes' after all. And the West hardly does anything about tremendous amounts of Jewish abuse of power and privilege. As Jews are objects of pity(premised on Holocaustianity), their power can only be good, and if you disagree, you are an 'anti-Semite'. And since Jewish Power goes unchecked, it grows and is regarded as awesome. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - DR. MATTHEW RAFAEL JOHNSON (MYTH20C - EP148)

Commentary on "Mr MAGA and the end of Western Civilization"(by the Saker)

https://thesaker.is/mr-maga-and-the-end-of-western-civilization/

Alas, it also has a darker side: imperialism, racism, genocide, slavery, religious and political persecutions and, of course, two world wars.

Hardly different from rest of humanity.

By the way, race + ism should be defined as belief in reality of race and racial differences. ISM means belief, after all. Using 'racism' to mean 'mindless or groundless racial hatred of supremacism' is to fall into the trap of the enemy. Everyone is race-ist, explicitly or implicitly, because it's impossible not to notice racial differences.

But what the so-called “collective West” (aka the AngloZionist Empire) is showing today is the exact opposite of what the West is supposed to stand for. Here are just a few examples

When has the West, or any civilization, ever practiced what it preached?
I will grant that the hypocrisy is louder than ever under globo-homo Zionist control, but it's a matter of degree than substance.

International law: with the US/NATO aggression against the Serbian nation, a major feature of western civilization died: international law.

True to an extent. Serbia was targeted because it was the strongest state in Yugoslavia and because it was closest to Russia. Also, Jewish power, by coming to the 'rescue' of Muslim Albanians, wanted to propagandize itself as 'pro-Muslim' so as to prepare for wars against Muslim nations. Nice shtick: "Gee, how can WE AMERICANS be anti-Muslim when WE bailed out the Albanian Muslims?" Of course, Jews were being rank hypocrites. Jewish logic says the West had to help Jews take back the Holy Land BUT Serbians had no right to take back their ancient homeland from Albanians who'd come invading under Ottoman rule.

That said, US/NATO intervention in Serbia was a mixed bag. For most of the 90s, NATO had done little or nothing to stop the slaughter, just like the UN did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. There was a sense that SOMETHING had to be done to end the bloodshed and cycles of violence.
In retrospect, it was handled badly, but INTERNATIONAL LAW means that nations around the world must work together to stop excessive mayhem in a part of the world. In a more perfect world with a better superpower than the US, maybe something good have come of it. But the US had no credibility as it had used sanctions to kill 100,000s of kids in Iraq.

Law of War and Geneva Conventions: same here, the US is gleefully ignoring many of the most sacred provisions of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions

What of massive civilian bombings in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and etc. US support of right-wing death squads during the Cold War. 100,000s, possibly millions, slaughtered in Latin America.
It was always like this. Soviets backed their own bloody regimes in Asia and Latin America. Chinese backed the loathsome Khmer Rouge. The world didn't suddenly suck just now. It was always a mess.

Respect for alliances and partnerships. The AngloZionist Empire has no allies – only vassal states, puppet regimes and comprador 5th columnists.

One of the benefits of being an empire. Puppets are more reliable than allies. Allies can break off he alliance. Puppets always do as told. In that sense, we can't blame the US for preferring puppets to allies. Better off owning a trained dog than partnering with a lone wolf with a streak of independence.

When the Neocons finally came out and showed their true face, they did more than just affect the image of the US abroad, they also gave a signal to their colonial administrators that all pretense of decency could now be dropped.

Jewish tribal supremacist takeover of US empire has been most unfortunate. Though both the US and USSR got their hands dirty and bloody in the Cold War(and supported murderous proxies), there really was a clash of big ideas and visions relevant to much, even the majority, of humanity. It was a world conflict for world-ideas. Big power engaged in big action for big isms.

But, we now have the US as lone hegemon using its immense power and influence to serve the narrow interests of a single tribe(allied mainly with homo supremacists). There is so much tensions around the world to indulge the Jews, a tiny percentage of world population, and homos(the cherry-picked allies of Jews): Jewish King and Homo Queen. Since Jews know that it's too much to ask all the world to risk WWIII, IV, V, and etc. for Jewish interests, they couch their chosen conflicts in terms of 'human rights' and 'spreading democracy' and etc, but it rings so hollow. Or Jews try to spin the conflicts as holy crusades to spread homomania, which actually goes over well with many people in the West for whom queertianity is their new missionary-fairy faith.

Many Russians living in the West (such as Dmitri Orlov) have noted the numerous similarities between the late Soviet Union (especially the so-called “stagnation years”) and the modern US . I myself made such a list of similarities as far back as 2014 when I listed the following:

A bloated military budget resulting in an ineffective military

I dunno. US seems to be pretty effective in smashing nations. Just ask the Libyans, Iraqis, and Syrians. Maybe US sucks at nation-building, but it is an expert at nation-wrecking.

A huge and ineffective intelligence community

Ineffective? It seems very effective. US was able to mess up computer systems in Iran. It has hidden devices in computers all over the world. Also, Intelligence works closely with Jews and Israel, which means all the political dirt are known to Jews who can blackmail anyone.

A crumbling public infrastructure

Depends on where you look. Certain big cities are richer than ever. And even now, most roads in the US are better than roads in Russia or China.

A world record in the per-capita ratio of incarcerated people (US GULag)

Blacks. Evolution made them meaner and tougher. Have blacks, will have lots of inmates.

A propaganda machine which nobody trusts any more

I wish this were so, but plenty of morons trust every word of snakes like Rachel Maddow and S.E. Cupp. And all that anti-Russia hate news must have worked because the great majority of Americans now hate and fear Russia more than ever.

An internal dissident movement which the regime tries to keep silent

True of any society.

An industry whose main exports are weapons and energy

Isn't that Russia NOW? In contrast, the US is also a huge exporter of high-tech, medicine, media, entertainment, chemicals, foods, and etc.

A population fearful of being spied on by the internal security services

Sadly, most Americans have learned to stopped worrying and love the spying. There was some fuss from progs about the Patriot Act during the Bush II presidency, but when Edward Snowden spilled the beans, the entire elite and proggy class denounced him. Conservatism Inc, the arm of the war state, didn't defend him either. It took mavericks like Glenn Greenwald and Oliver Stone to come to his defense. Progs claim to stand for ideology, but 'idology'(idolatry as replacement for ideology) is bigger among them. One of their main 'idological' obsessions is the Magic Negro. As Obama was a Magic Negro, progs just venerated him as a 'historic president' and turned a blind eye to all his warmongering. Progs are more 'Catholicist' than 'Protestantist'. They are more dazzled by 'idolic' symbols and spectacles than true to the letter of progressive ideology.

A financially catastrophic over-reach of the empire across the planet

US is financially over-stretched, but I don't think its overseas empire is the main problem. It's bankers privatizing profits and socializing losses, and it's the masses hooked to entitlements.

An awareness that the entire planet hates you

Nothing new here, but there was always love/hate between US and the world. After all, the world still wants to come to the US and become Americans. Few Americans want to move to Russia, but plenty of Russians want to come to US and become Americans. Even Muslims whose nations have been blown up by the US want to come to US and become Americans into rap and burgers.

A young generation which believes in nothing at all

That wouldn't be so bad. It would at least mean that young people are skeptical. But in fact, too many young people truly and really really believe in globo-homo, Afromania, and Jew-Worship, or the Holy Three. Young people worship MLK, Diversity, Inclusion, 'gay' rainbow, and etc.
In this, they are different from latter-day Soviet youth who really were jaded and felt that they were being lied to about the richer and more advanced West.
In a way, the sheer superficiality of current Western ideology and 'idology' makes them more effective. One problem with Marxism-Leninism was that it just seemed boring, dull, worn, same-old-same-old, and tiresome as the years went by... like someone reading Church dogma for the umpteenth time. In contrast, even as current Western ideology and 'idology' are pretty idiotic, they are always changing color and shedding (snake) skin according to fads and fashion. The conceit of novelty, newness, and 'change' keeps young idiots excited and thrilled: 'gay pride', 'slut pride', BLM, Pussy March, MeToo, tranny-mania, Green New Deal, climate change, 'migrants welcome', 'microaggressions', etc. It's 31 flavors ideology/idology. In contrast, Soviets had only one flavor: Red. Most young people are idiots and care more for pizzazz than meaning. As idiotic as the current Western ideology/idology is, it knows how to hook people to a 'vibrant' sense of 'celebration' and 'happening'. The Revolution has been Advertised. This is why so many youths are indeed 'passionate'(or childishly excited) about whatever flavor they're obsessed with at the Moment.

An educational system in free-fall, (the Soviet one was much better, btw)

Many schools are a mess because of blacks and maybe some browns. And of course, lower-income whites do poorly. But US education is pretty solid for Jews, Asians, and white middle class. If we compare US whites with whites in Europe and Russia, they usually come off better.

A massive and prevailing amount of corruption on all levels of power

This is problematic, mainly due to blacks and Latin Americans/Muslims/Asians who bring their norms to the US. Also, diversity increases distrust.

Anyway... one big difference between US and old USSR is this: The MAIN reason why USSR collapsed was not due to all those problems listed above. It was because its elites got tired of managing the system and taking care of the 'lazy' masses. They wanted to end communism and become super-rich oligarchs. And THAT is why the system collapsed. It was blown up from the top.
In the US, the top elites are super-rich oligarchs. Why would they collapse the system when they already have it so good? During the days of USSR, the Soviet elites envied the capitalist elites of the West who were richer, freer, and had more stuff. The only way they could have it all was by ending communism, which was destroyed from the top than from the bottom.

The elites have it better than ever in the West. Why would they do anything to end the system? Trump made noise about draining the swamp, but it looks like he's been totally co-opted by now. Trump is Scump, saying nasty shit about Queen Ann(Coulter).
Also, as problematic as diversity is, it is actually to the advantage of the elites(esp minority Jewish elites) because diversity makes it impossible for the various racial/ethnic folks to unite to challenge elite power. Also, as at least 50% of whites are totally for diversity & homomania and see 'white supremacy' as the biggest threat, they work with Diversity and globo-homo elites to suppress any effective white mass challenge to elite power.

Did the Rise of Educated Parents Lead to Political Correctness?

We generally associate more education and higher learning with expansion of discourse and thought. The idea is that educated people tend to be liberal(in a good way) and more open to new ideas and contrasting perspectives. Such assumption is surely valid to some degree.
But, we must ask... Is current education-in-general more about open-mindedness and critical-thinking or about ideological dogmatism, secular idolatry, and political conformity? If the former, it’s very possible that more education will lead to greater exchange of ideas and honest discussion of power. But if the latter, more education could very well make people closed-minded and judgmental in their conformity to the prevailing Political Correctness.

Prior to the boomer generation, only a small section of Americans got higher education. Even the Greatest Generation, with their G.I. Bills, focused on learning skills to get jobs. It was with the boomers that a burgeoning number of young people went to college to expand their minds. However, the 60s were a time of extreme ideological and racial polarization, and many boomer students spent their college years getting radicalized than intellectualized. Their youth became defined and qualified by the level of commitment, determination, and self-righteousness. Even though they were more libertine in their socio-cultural attitudes(in regards to church, manners, and sexual mores) than their parents, they were more judgmental in their ideological views. In contrast, their parents were more uptight about sexuality and more likely to respect traditional manners, but because they were less educated, their views on politics tended to be less radical. Sure, parents of boomers could be political like Archie Bunker in defending the flag or hating communism. But because of their relative lack of education and ‘sophistication’, their attitudes were more about patriotism and sentiment. It was knee-jerk stuff. Because they didn’t have elaborately intellectual rationale behind their political views, they were less likely to be radical about it. After all, radicals are ideological extremists. For one to be truly ideological, there has to be intellectual pedigree behind one's commitments. The parents of boomers simply didn’t have a complex thought system behind what they believed. Also, even as they disagreed with their boomer kids radicalized by college and media, they thought maybe the kids knew better with their superior education. After all, they worked hard and raised their kids to get the kind of college education that they didn't get or got an inferior version of during the Great Depression or the crude era of G.I. Bill mass education. Parents of boomers felt patriotic feelings but lacked a thought-system. In contrast, their boomer kids were instilled with mind-systems to support their radical views. While political emotions ebb and flow, the cold steel of ideology is always present among those who've adopted an intellectual(or pseudo-intellectual) thought system. Even though both Archie Bunker and Meathead are prone to outbursts, the difference is Archie runs on emotions & sentiment whereas Meathead is energized by an ideology & agenda. Also, because Meathead is better educated, he is so sure that he ‘knows everything’. His intellectual supremacism leads to moral supremacism. In contrast, even though Archie Bunker is very sure about some things, he sees himself as a servant of God, nation, and tradition. He doesn't think HE himself knows everything.

Even though Archie Bunker disapproves of much that Gloria says and does, he left her alone to develop her own mind. Not being a thinker or intellectual, he played the conventional role of father, letting Gloria to develop as a person on her own by way of education, entertainment, and experimentation. Bunker trusted that the institutions would do a good job filling his daughter with the right kinds of ideas. He didn’t hover over her at all times. He saw himself as a undereducated man, so his main role was to provide for Gloria so she would get real knowledge from school and media. So, despite his cantankerous nature and abrasiveness, Gloria didn’t grow up under his shadow. She developed on her own.
In contrast, well-educated Meathead believes he knows all there is to know since he read so many books, got a college degree, and settled in an intellectual position as teacher. As such, he plays a much bigger role in the raising of his child. He’s not content to play the role of father who tells funny stories and provides food on the table. He wants to steer his son to think like him and judge the world as he does. And since there is no God as higher authority, there is only the power of ideology as the final word.

Thus, we end up with a conundrum. It’s possible that more free-thinking kids will come from undereducated parents and less free-thinking kids will come from overeducated parents. Undereducated parents don’t know much and leave their kids to learn stuff on their own. Now, it’s possible that these kids will come under power of PC at school. But because they are not under ideological domination at home, they are likely to develop a more libertine attitude about things. In contrast, kids of overeducated(which is to say over-indoctrinated) parents will get PC not only from school but at home from their parents. So, they got double-whammy PC. One thing I noticed is that many of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s were left alone by their parents when it came to ideological matters. Most of their parents were around 30 yrs old in 1967, so they were too old to be part of Counterculture(though too young to be part of WWII generation). These parents were not overtly ideological(for the most part) and left the kids to develop freely.

But things have changed over the years with new batch of parents, especially among the upper-middle-class and above, being very well-educated(which is to say well-indoctrinated). These parents are not content to just provide a nice and loving environment for their kids. They insist on instilling their children with their own self-righteous ideology and iconography(mainly around Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Wonderful Jews). This ideological domineering is all the more effective because of the passive/aggressive style of parenting. Parents prior to boomerism weren’t very ‘nice’, huggy-wuggy, and friendly with their kids. So, kids grew apart from their parents with the passing of years. But, the PC parents want to be ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’. This bonds them closer to their children and makes the children want to please their parents more. So, if the parents are boo-hoo weepy-poo about MLK and ‘racism’, the kids want to play along to please their ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’ parents.

And things have gotten much worse due to the rise of PC. At least throughout the 70s and even 80s, the prevailing value among many Liberal parents and teachers was freedom of speech. Consider the Liberal support of Salman Rushdie when Iranian clergy put a Fatwa on him over SATANIC VERSES. Back then, despite the campaign against ‘racism’, Liberalism was strongly defined by ACLU-style libertarianism that defended free speech and expression as a good in and of themselves. (Also, culture hadn't gone totally bonkers with stuff like 50 genders and homomania.) But with the rise of PC, the correctness of views became more important than freedom of speech or individuality. Also, because PC has become such a determinant in careerism — consider the fate of James Damore at Google — , ambitious parents who want their kids to attend elite schools and have successive careers apply extra pressure, consciously or subconsciously, to make their kids assent to the rules of PC.

So, what is the solution? The ideal of the less-educated parents? No, that would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, we need to create a new intellectual culture that favors freedom, honesty, and truth over correctness, self-righteousness, and craven opportunism.