Communism's Appeal to the Third World & Russia prior to post-WWII New Capitalism that Allowed Greater Participation of the Non-West

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/plastic-recycling-and-jousting-jews/

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:

Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.

In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.

So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.

Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.

I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.

And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.

The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.

The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.

Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.

Commentary on "Cambridge gives role to academic accused of racist stereotyping"(by the Guardian)

Noah Carl, Social Scientist hounded by PC

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/07/cambridge-gives-role-to-academic-accused-of-racist-stereotyping

It seems the department of Social Sciences now works backwards.

Instead of gathering and analyzing facts & data to reach conclusions, it already has a mandatory set of correct conclusions that must be confirmed by all new research.

Should science work like this? “We have the Correct Answers already, and your job is merely to validate them(even if it takes tortured Procrustean logic.” What’s the point of science on such terms? It’s like saying “We know the sun revolves around the earth, so you better use your calculations to prove what we know already.”

Such wouldn't be matter of scientific invalidation but ethical disapproval based on ideological dogma or bias.

Apparently, according to the current PC system, certain observations are wrong no matter what the factual data-driven evidence says simply because they seem ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, and ‘xenophobic’, none of which are scientific terms, by the way.

It’d be like saying it’s been ‘discredited’ that men are stronger and more aggressive than women because such a statement would be ‘sexist’ and at odds with the dogma that 'gender is just a social construct'. Discredited by science or by ideology?

In reality, Objective Race-ism or Racial Objectivism prevails over Subjective ‘Anti-racism’(or Subjective ‘Racism’ for that matter). By 'race-ism', I mean the belief that races are real and racial differences are the real product of evolutionary divergences among the various races. After all, -Ism means belief, and Race-ism should properly be defined as BELIEF in Race and possibility of racial differences. Reality is what it is regardless of subjective dogmas or prevailing orthodoxies of coerced consensus. Ideologies, unlike true science, are subjective. They compel us to view and determine everything about the world through a single lens.

The fact that 700 academics signed the petition against a scientist who revealed 'uncomfortable' truths suggests that Social Science should now be called Social Silence, a kind of cult that demands ideological conformity and complacency(so easily 'triggered' and outraged into Justice-Hysteria or 'Justyeria' by the slightest whiff of wrong-think). And, it seems most of these preening and snot-nosed academics are mostly about status and peer-approval than courage and integrity.

Furthermore, even if a scientist is a ‘bigot’, it doesn't disprove his findings if they're factual and demonstrable. If a Jewish scientist arrogantly looks down on Gypsies as dumber than Jews, he may be a Jewish supremacist, but it still doesn’t invalidate his factually true observation of higher IQ among Ashkenazi Jews.
Or suppose a black scientist happens to be a black supremacist who says blacks can run faster. He may be an arrogant jerk, but it still doesn’t disprove his case that blacks are generally more muscular and superior in speed, coordination, and jumping ability. Or imagine there's a male 'misogynist' who looks down on women as weaker in body and emotions. Suppose he mocks women for their athletic inferiority and for being quicker to cry. We might agree that he's some kind of an ass, but his statement about sexual differences would still remain true.

Science that rejects what we can obviously SENSE in service of SENSITIVITIES is no science at all.

Commentary on "Why Do College Administrators Lie About Race?"(by Robert Weissberg)

http://www.unz.com/article/why-do-college-administrators-lie-about-race/

Keep in mind that private heresies are irrelevant; nobody cares about private options provided the PC gods are honored in public.

Yep, it's a 'religious' war. It's about 'gods' and heresies.

It all depends on what we mean by 'lie'.

If a rational person says he believes in evolution based on facts, he is speaking scientific truth. But, if he then says that he, as a good Catholic, believes in God, in the Divinity of Jesus, and miracles, would he be lying? After all, there are no facts that support the existence of God or Jesus as the Son of God or miracles.
Also, we may ask how a rational person who accepts modern science could also believe in God and religion that have no basis in factual evidence. And yet, we are okay with such a person because we tend to separate Reason and Faith. We tolerate and even honor people who are, at once, rational & scientific AND religious & faith-oriented. It's as if we feel that leading a fact-based life isn't enough; people need some kind of 'spiritual' meaning or purpose in life.

Now, such consideration may not seem to matter in the academia that is supposed to be about reason, logic, science, and study of truth. And yet, every society is 'spiritual' about something. It holds certain narratives, icons, and dogma as sacrosanct. Marxism and Leninism were holy in the Soviet Union despite its official commitment to Scientific Materialism. Marx was god, Lenin was a moses-figure. So, a university head in the USSR would have gotten in hot water if he questioned the wisdom of Marx and Lenin.
Then, the same applies in the West. While all these academics claim to be rational, factual, and logical, the fact is they are ideological and 'idological'. They cling to certain Narratives and Dogmas as all-explaining, near-divine or prophetic. And most likely, they grew up worshiping certain icons and idols as sacred and holy-shmoly. In the presence of certain ideas or images, they've been trained to talk in hushed reverent tones.

So, what are some of the sacro-idols & ideologies of the West? Much of it has to do with certain favored groups. Blacks are deemed a holy race. Much of it has to do with 'white guilt' and 'white fever'. Historical guilt over slavery and racial discrimination. But also white 'fever' for Negroes as superior sportsmen, singers, and studs & biatches. So, blacks are prized as both the American moses and the Golden Calf. White attitude toward blacks is both of reverence and revelry. "I worship MLK as saint-matyr... and I wish he would hump my wife." But there is also the element of fear. Because blacks are vocal, loud, aggressive, and demanding, white folks wet their pants in fear of black rage. So, they figure the best way to calm blacks down is to appease them at every turn.

But there is another reason for White Guilt & Fever. Jewish Supremacist Power. Jews are rich and powerful but only 2% of the US population. As such, Jewish Supremacist Power relies on white support. But it is not natural for white goyim to favor Jewish interests over white interests. It is not natural for whites to favor Jewish identity over white identity. But without the support of whites, Jewish Power is like a head without a body. After all, even as Neocons cooked up Wars for Israel, it required white tax payers, white generals, white managers, white bureaucrats, white soldiers, and etc to carry them out.
It's like British Power was both awesome and fragile in India. Brits had modern guns and could mow down lots of people. So, they could strike fear into the Hindus. BUT, without the collaboration of the native brown masses, what could a few 100,000 Brits do in India for the long haul? So, the Brits did everything possible to suppress Indian nationalism and persuade the natives that the true glory of India depended on it being the Jewel in the British Crown. To serve British Glory was the duty of good Indians. At some point, Indians said 'bullshi*' and demanded their own identity and interests. And then, the Brits were finished in India.

Jews feel the same way in the US. It was never natural for white goyim and/or Christians to serve Jews who are only 2% of the population. It was even more unnatural for whites to favor Jews over themselves. And now, it is totally unnatural for whites to praise and honor Jews who are the main force behind anti-white vitriol in the US. Jews in NYT are now calling for the polyglotization of the US to replace whites with. Jews look upon whites like Zionists looked upon Palestinians. A people to replace. In Palestine, Jews alone could do it. But in the West, Jews need the globo-numbers of Diversity to replace whites. Of course, Jews don't intend to get rid of whites entirely. Indeed, if all whites were to vanish and if the West were made up only of Jews and non-whites, Jews would be in serious trouble as they can't guilt-bait non-whites(who also happen to be less competent and more dependent). Jews want Diversity to the extent that future whites won't be able to form a solid majority bloc and use populist democracy to challenge and overthrow Jewish Power. Hungarians could choose nationalism and drive out Soros-ism because they are the solid majority. But it's increasingly difficult for the White Party to win elections in the US. Jews figure that Diversity will undermine white electoral power. And PC divides whites into two camps, with both camps sucking up to Jews. In the US, the 'right' vs 'left' among whites amount to progs calling conzos 'nazis' AND conzos calling progs 'anti-semites' because, supposedly, the Democrats are only 100% than 200% for Israel(like GOP cucks are). Jews must be laughing at the white tards. Anyway, as whites lose out to Diversity, Jews figure that one bunch of whites will embrace Diversity as their salvation(from past 'racism') and another bunch of whites(the nationalists) will lose heart and just surrender since their power is lost forever. (Look at the state of conservatives in California. They are like the Palestinian minority in Israel. They figure, "if you can't beat em, join em." They got the Stockholm Syndrome.)

Still, the Jewish strategy is paradoxical. Jews are weakening white power because they rely on white power. If Jewish supremacism relies on white power, it would seem that Jews would want white power to be stronger. After all, it would be stupid for a rider to weaken his horse. Naturally, he wants a fast and strong horse. And yet, he has to destroy the will of the horse. He has to weaken the horse's independent spirit because if the horse is not broken-in-spirit and has horse-pride, it would run off by itself than being a servant-animal to a human rider. Likewise, on the one hand, Jews prize white power like a rider prizes a powerful horse. But Jews fear white pride + white power. Jews want white power without the pride. That way, white power can be manipulated into serving something other than whiteness. White Power + White Guilt means whites will feel a need to redeem themselves. Since whiteness = guilt, whites can only find redemption by serving another people(deemed morally superior to whites). And this is why Jews have pushed the Shoah Cult. Whites have been made to feel like they committed the worst crime of all time against the finest people on Earth, the Jews. But while Jews are accomplished in wit, intellect, and comedy, they don't excite whites in other areas. In contrast, Negroes have loud voices, athleticism, and bouncy booties & bigger dongs, the kind of stuff that can be packaged as entertainment for white folks seeking instant thrills. Also, blacks are the ONLY people who can weaken white male pride. While Jews can bait White Guilt, Jewish guys cannot rob white men of manhood. If the US had no blacks, whites would dominate idols of manhood. But blacks are more muscular and aggressive. And they got bigger dongs. And so, white manhood has been crushed. And that means jungle fever among white women. So, whites are paralyzed not only by white guilt but white cucky-wuckery. Since white males lose their manhood to blacks in sports, song, and sex, they try to regain it by joining the military; and then Jews can use such whites to fight Wars for Israel. John McCain Syndrome. Notice how McCain was a total cucky-wuck when it came to Jews, blacks, and browns. But he was so useful to Jews as a barking dog against Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Russians(people hated by Jews), and white patriots. Serving as a growling dog of Jewish Power was the ONLY way McCain could regain his manhood.

But, Jewish strategy may lose out in the long run. True, Jews are smart to subvert white pride and manipulate white guilt to make white power serve Jewish supremacism. White Power minus pride and plus guilt will serve something other than whiteness. It will serve what is deemed sacred and redemptive in the West. But when white power is made to lose so much pride & confidence and go into pathetic cucky-wuck mode, might it not be useful any longer to Jewish supremacism? There are signs of this already in the British Labour Party. Whites in the Labour Party are such self-hating whites that they've surrendered to Mass Immigration and Diversity. And that means cucky whites sucking up to Muslims and Africans who feel no sympathy for Jews. British Jews pushed Diversity in the UK to guilt-bait whites, but now, the guilt-infected whites in the Labour Party feel more sympathy for Palestinians than for Jews. They are committed to serving Diversity at any cost, especially to the detriment of whites. But such weakened and self-loathing white power(lessness) becomes not only useless but dangerous to Jews. If indeed Diversity is the highest good, then cucky-wuck 'good' whites must side with 'poor' Muslims against rich Jews(whom are regarded as white by Diversity).

As Jewish supremacists control media and academia, the Holy Three are Jews, blacks, and homos. Diversity is a sacred dogma, but it isn't identity-specific. After all, it is permissible in the West to badmouth Muslims and scare-monger about Yellow Peril. Also, poking fun at Mexicans isn't a cardinal sin either though disapproved. Jews prize blacks above other non-whites because black guys are the only ones who can kick white butt and rob whites of manhood. Also, the bellowing voice of blacks(as with MLK) is more effective in filling whites with 'guilt'. It sounds like god hisself admonishing whites for their 'sinful' ways. In contrast, Jews can't rely on oratory to guilt-bait whites. Woody Allen or Adam Sandler giving a "I have a dream" speech just wouldn't cut it. Also, Jews prize homos because both groups are heavily involved in entertainment and vanity industry that are central to the current decadent West and its culture of narcissism. Also, homo poopchutzpah has the same kind of egotism as Jewish chutzpah. Homos aren't no longer content with tolerance. They demand to be worshiped, and Jews have promoted this side of homo-ness to finally destroy Christianity, a religion they loathe, by having it replaced with Homomania.

So, returning to why universities lie so much. They are controlled by Jewish supremacists who've turned Jew-worship, Afromania, and Homomania as the most sacred neo-religions of America. Religions cannot be questioned. It's a matter of faith. It doesn't matter if the object of faith is true or false. What matters is it's SACRED, therefore unquestionable. Since Jews are holy, we must love Jews and never criticize Jewish Power. We must even shut down free speech as 'hate speech' for its blasphemy against Jewish holiness. And since blacks are the holy race of MLK-as-new-moses and Muhammad-Ali-as-new-hero, we must admire them and believe they got the midas touch. So, any problem arising from blacks must be the fault of some other group... namely white goy! And homos, oh homos, we must worship the homos and drape church after church with 'gay' symbols.
Matters of Faith are immune to charges of lies and mendacity. The fact is PC isn't merely ideological or political. It is about hallowing certain ideas into mantras, certain narratives into canon, and certain idols/icons into gods & heroes.

Now, surely there are goy elites in academia who know the truth but play along. It's often about craven careerism, but then, no one wants to regard himself as a coward. So, they rationalize that they really believe in the official lies. But then, when certain lies have been elevated as items of faith, it doesn't matter if it is true or false. All that matters is that it is HOLY, and what is deemed holy is self-justifying and doesn't need to be backed by facts... just like it'd be absurd to insist that a man of faith present evidence for God. Even though the academia is ostensibly secular and rational, it just so happens that human psychology, being what it is, always favors 'faith' over facts. After all, facts are cold and hard whereas faith is warm and fuzzy. Just as people prefer a warm soft bed over a cold hard floor, even secular and rational people are emotionally drawn to the sacral glow over the stark truth.

Also, the flipside of the warm fuzzy sacral glow is the vanity of virtue. It's hard to feel virtuous over facts. Facts determine something as true or false, not as righteous or wicked. In contrast, faith is about feeling not only holy but holier-than-thou. And in order to feel morally supreme over others, there needs to be witches, heretics, blasphemers, and goblins. And according to PC, the greatest 'sins' are 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'. (Sometimes 'misogyny' is included, but this is an off-and-on thing because Jewish-controlled music, movie, and sex industries rely so much on treating women as a bunch of whores and sluts.) In a world without God, the ONLY way that secular people can feel holier-than-thou is to throw fits about the neo-sins of 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia', matters which are not to be discussed or critiqued but accepted, worshiped, and obeyed. So, even facts can be denounced as 'racist'(blacks commit lots of crime because they are naturally stronger and more aggressive), 'antisemitic'(Jews have the commanding power in the West due to higher IQ and tribal networking), and 'homophobic'(the reason why AIDS spread like wildfire in the 80s was because of mass orgies of fecal penetration within the fruit community). They are facts but they run counter to the favored holy-shmoly image of blacks as eternal saints, Jews as eternal victims, and homos as perfect angels.

So, to deal with the lies of academia, we must first tackle the fact of how PC turned certain lies into matters of faith, therefore immune to facts and truth.

Cultural Identitarianism versus Identity Politics — How White Identitarians differ from the School of Resentment of Political Correctness

It’s a truism that the Alt Right and related causes/movements constitute a reaction to Identity Politics of Jews, so-called ‘People of Color’, Homos, blacks, and even radical feminists. There is some truth to the assertion insofar as a group must uphold the banner of identity to have a seat at the bargaining table in the Diversity Sweepstakes. After all, if Power is increasingly about what-you-or-your-people-are-owed-because-of-your-interests-based-on-identity-politics, then it’s only right that every group must have an identity. It’s like, if the rule says, "You must have an identity card in order to purchase a car and drive", you won’t be able to drive unless you have a license. You will notice that everyone who is driving has an identity card that grants them the right to drive a vehicle. No card, no car. So, it’d be natural for you to go through the process of obtaining an identity card of your own so that you will be able to drive. Then, why should it be any different in politics and social competition. If the Current West says those groups with specific identities will be celebrated and favored in the Diversity Sweepstakes, then a people without an identity won’t amount to a plate of beans. They must always step aside and make way for those with identities that make them the favored of DIOS(Diversity Is Our Strength) Ideology. In the US, non-whites are allowed and even encouraged to have Identities. In contrast, whites are browbeaten into suppressing their Identity. Or, whiteness is invoked only as a Negative Identity that must be denigrated, impugned, mocked, shamed, and discredited. So, while most groups are made to feel Pride in Identity, whites are made to feel either numbness or shame. The only Pride allowed to whites is if they rise above Whiteness(as a toxicity) to be cleansed and redeemed by serving the Noble Identities of the Other, mainly Jews, Homos, and Negroes. (After all, Jews would be plenty pissed if whites who abandon their Pride of Identity decide to champion Palestinians and Iranians against Zionists as Evil Jewish WHITES.)

Because of the Name of the Game in our Age of Political Correctness and Diversity-Mongering, it’s been tempting for some white people to raise their own banner of White Identity and even White Nationalism. According to people like Jordan Peterson, it’s just a case of disgruntled white people picking up bad habits from PC and what Harold Bloom called the School of Resentment. (Jews praise Peterson for his criticism of White Identity, but of course, Jews are the biggest Identity Politicians in the world and insist that whites, upon rejecting their own identity, do all they can to support and promote Jewish Identity and Interests to the point of Jewish Supremacism.) But people like Jordan Peterson are overlooking a crucial difference between the rising tide of White Identity and the way Identity Politics is used by non-whites and the LGBTQP — P is for Pedophile — Community.

For starters, White Identity isn’t about White Innocence. Unlike the Identity Politics of other groups, White Identitarians don’t go around saying whites were always victimized, pure-as-snow, innately noble, and blameless. There is an understanding that the histories of all of humanity have been a brutal, violent, and destructive process. So, yes, white people were involved in wars, mayhem, conquest, oppression, and exploitation. Whites brutalized fellow whites and other races. But so did other races. Black African savages were conquerors, killers, and slavers too. Mongols were a fierce nomadic tribe that caused havoc in Asia, Near East, and Europe. American Indians and Aztecs where hardly salt-of-the-earth or star-children living in harmony with nature. Even as White Identitarians show appreciation for the awesome achievements of their forefathers, they are fully cognizant of the fact that history has been a brutal process and that much of human progress was the result of aggression and violence. It’s been noted by historians that the advancement of Western Europe owed to constant wars among kingdoms that prioritized innovation in weaponry and technology to stay ahead of rivals. It’s like Space Technology greatly benefited from the competition between the US and USSR to send the first man to the Moon. Thus, the Space Race happened parallel to the Arms Race. The very rocket that sent men to the Moon could have targeted a nation for nuclear destruction. (Furthermore, the best rocket scientists were the product of Nazi militarism.) History has been like that Sergio Leone movie THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. The good, co-mingling with the bad and the ugly, wasn’t pure-as-snow either. So, except for extreme idiots on the White Right who revere Adolf Hitler and/or refuse to acknowledge the dark side of Western Imperialism(that discovered & united the World and unleashed new possibilities for all of mankind but also unloosed havoc and upheaval in every continent and even led to near-total extinctions of civilizations in the New World), there is an admittance and understanding among White Identitarians that (1) History has always been tragic and (2) White people did their share of killings and mayhem.

In contrast, most Peoples-of-Color, especially the blacks, pretend otherwise about their own bloody histories. Blacks act as if (1) they were totally great but white folks stole everything from them or made it impossible for Africa to have lots of Wakandas because European Imperialism got in the way of African genius and shi* and (2) they are innately noble & wonderful, therefore, everything that is wrong with blacks in the West or in Africa must be the fault of white folks. Worse, some blacks feel that they be so ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ that even the bad shi* they do is justified on account of awesome black folks done it. The logic goes, "Blacks be wonderful, so whatever they do be wonderful too." Blacks regard their own black bodies as Midas-like and shi*. It’s no wonder Ta-Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates or The Hissy Coates) be always yapping about Black Bodies. You see, black bodies got this talismanic soulfulness, so it was much worse to oppress Black Bodies than any other kinds of bodies since Black Bodies be magical and shi*. (According to GET OUT, White Liberals worship Black Bodies for their harder muscles and bigger dongs so much so that they are even willing to murder blacks to take over Black Bodies. So, if a Negro isn’t being chased by KKK who done hate him too much, he be chased by White Liberals who love his black body so much that they want to kill his ass and take over his black body.)

The jury is still out as to whether Jews are white or non-white. Jews find it useful to be white as they can launder their Jewish Privilege as WHITE PRIVILEGE and blame the White Community for having too much wealth and privilege(that are actually disproportionately held by Jews), but given the mindless vilification of whiteness over the years(not least due to Jewish control of academia and media), Jews are increasingly troubled by being thought of as WHITE. Many Jews are now tempted to emulate White Latin Americans, the descendants of Conquistadors, who masquerade as People-of-Color, benefit from Affirmative Action, and blame Gringo for all the history of White Oppression of the Other, conveniently forgetting that it was the Spanish and Portuguese who spearheaded the Conquest of the New World and the destruction of indigenous civilization of Aztec cannibals and Inca human-sacrificers.
Anyway, whether Jews are white or non-white, they put on the biggest pure-as-snow & eternally-innocent act of all time. According to the Jewish Narrative, it is mental, moral, and spiritual sickness not to like, love, admire, respect, revere, and worship Jews. Goyim exist mainly to praise Jews, enrich Jews, protect Jews, fight for Jews, and massage Jewish ego(and suck the Portnonic puds of Jews).
Apparently, the fact that most people throughout history didn’t treat Jews as god-king-saint-prophets is proof that humanity had been soul-sick with ‘antisemitism’ and must finally redeem itself by sucking up to Jews at every turn. What ethno-megalomania!

One thing for sure, except for diehard 14/88 Neo-Nazi moronic types, most of White Identitarianism is nothing like Jewish Identity Politics(or Identity Theology). White Identitatarians are not asking the World to revere or even respect whites. All they are saying is that Peoples of European Origin have traits, cultures, territories, and histories well-worth saving. They are NOT asking non-whites to serve white interests above their own interests. They are saying white people should primarily preserve their own identity and serve their own interests in their own domains just as non-white folks all over the world should do likewise for their own people, power, and culture. They are the exact opposite of White Supremacists who believe that the White Race(as the Master Race) should rule all the World and force non-whites to kiss White Butt. The position of White Identitarianism is, "You guys do your own thing, and we will do our own thing." Ironically, Jews, non-whites, and White Progs who condemn and denounce White Identitarianism as ‘white supremacism’ pursue an ideology that is predicated, upon closer inspection, on White Supremacist precepts. After all, whereas White Identitarians expect non-whites to be independent and capable of reforming, developing, and improving their own nations, the outlook of Jews, non-whites, and White Progs is the exact opposite. Their pro-Diversity and pro-Mass-Immigration(which is really Mass Invasion) argument is premised on the notion that non-whites must be with White Folks in White-Made nations to have a better life. So, don’t expect Somalians to fix their own problems in their own nation. They must be brought to Sweden and Minnesota(and Ohio and Maine) to have better lives. By themselves they are hopeless and helpless. So, even as Jews and Progs condemned Donald Trump for his ‘shithole nation’ remark, in their heart of hearts, they really do believe that certain non-white groups can’t do anything on their own. Those non-whites are like children who must be ‘rescued’ by Mass Immigration to the West where they can leech off White Wealth. Same attitude prevails in regard to certain Mexicans and Central Americans. Never ever expect those people to fix up their own nations. Their ONLY chance of a better life is to come to the US and partake of the civilization created by Whites. It’s just a variation of White Man’s Burden, the beneficent Master Race ideology of British Imperialism. The only difference between Then and Now is that White Man’s Burden(WMB) was once invoked to justify colonization of non-white lands by whites but is now subconsciously embraced to justify colonization of white lands by non-whites. You see, white folks must welcome such Diversity because those folks simply can’t have Nice Things unless they come to live in white nations. Therefore, the underlying principle of the Jews, non-whites, and Progs is actually closer to White Supremacist ideology than the core conviction of White Identitarianism is. The position of White Idenititarians — Whidens or Whidents? — is like that Bob Dylan song, "Most Likely You Go Your Way And I’ll Go Mine". Or "You Can Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac.



Even as Jews, non-whites, and White Progs defame whites as ‘toxic’ and wicked, they believe Jews and non-whites must always have access to White Worlds. If white race is infected with the toxicity of ‘white supremacism’, why do Jews and non-whites feel so dependent on whites and the White World? Why are Jews and non-whites so eager to follow whites wherever they go. If Earth were to blow up and if humans had to evacuate to a White Planet, Black Planet, Asian Planet, Brown Planet, Muslim Planet, or Hindu Planet, it's most likely that not only whites but non-whites will all try to head to the White Planet. Even when black or proggy celebrities threaten to leave the US because it is too ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’, their destination of choice is a nation even whiter than the US, usually Canada, Australia, or Germany. This attachment and dependence on Whiteness implies that Jews, non-whites, and White Progs really do believe Whites are superior. Indeed, whites are so superior that Jews have long preferred white nations over all others(despite all the complaints about 'antisemitism'). And non-whites prefer to leave behind thousands of yrs of history and culture in their own nations to resettle in white nations and live alongside white people, live under white laws & systems, and even have children with white folks.
And the compassion of White Progs seems to be predicated on the notion that non-whites can only be rescued, taken care of, guided, and led by superior whites. Of course, PC ideology pretends that it’s all about Diversity-Equality-Inclusion, but if all the races are equal, why do non-whites prefer whites even over their own kind? And if Diversity is so great, why do non-whites run from Diverse nations in Latin America and North Africa to come to white-majority nations? Why do non-whites want to exclude themselves from their own nations and be included in white nations? The underlying assumption of Diversity is really the notion that Whites are the Best. Nobody-Does-It-Better than whites, and so, everyone, even in modern East Asia, wants to come to White Nations. ‘Diversity’ is really "I want to get away from my own inferior people and go live with superior whites." (Also, in order for Jewish Supremacism to be viable, Jews need the systemized support of the most capable race on Earth after the Jews, and that people happen to be whites. If Jews prize blacks most in sports, they prize whites most in management, bureaucracy, and leadership positions. The fact that Jews prize white talent above all others is sure sign that Jews don’t believe in the equality of the races despite their PC bullshit. Jews regard themselves as the most superior and want to be served-and-supported by the next-most-superior people who happen to be whites. This is why Jews obsess about shaming and taming White Identity. They want White Talent to serve Jewish Power than insist on its own power, White Power. Jewish Supremacism feeds on White Submissivism.)


At any rate, if the Identity Politics of Jews, non-whites, and Homos is essentially political, this isn’t true of the White Identitarian Movement. Granted, there are Real Identities in the School of Resentment — Jewish identity, Afro-black identity, Asian-Hindu Identity, and etc. are real identities with deep roots — , but the problem is a one-sided formulation whereby one’s own identity is whitewashed whereas everything about white people is tarred-and-feathered. And then, there are unstable and made-up identities in the School of Resentment, mainly because of the Rise of Gender Identity movement. While homosexuality is a Real Identity, it isn’t a stable identity because we never know from which couple the next homosexual child will be born. If a Greek man and a Greek woman produce a Greek child, a straight man and a straight woman can produce a homo child. And if a homo guy were to impregnate a homo woman, there’s no guarantee that the child will be homo; indeed, he or she is far more likely to be straight. Thus, there is a lack of continuity, certainty, and stability in homo identity. Still, homos are real enough.

In contrast, all this tranny business and related silliness have really mucked up Gender Identity Politics. Apparently, it’s Identity as Ideological Scrabble, a word game. Given that less than 0.5% of people are tranny, it shouldn’t matter that such folks cooked up 50 or more genders as a word game. The real problem is that this ultra-minority dysphoria has been promoted among impressionable children who are encouraged to gender-bend, not least with the enthused encouragement of their perverted teachers and wacky-proggy parents. So, the problem of Gender Dysphoria has spread like an epidemic among even naturally straight youths. Not only are boys told that if they feel a bit girlish, they might really be girls(and girls are told that if they feel a bit boyish, they might really be boys), but they are told it is a Great Sign worthy of celebration. (Proggy parents act as if giving birth to a homo or tranny kid is akin to Mary giving birth to Jesus. But then, Homomania was designed by Jews to be replacement faith for Christianity.) Just as people could be led to believe in witches and fairies, so many kids have been led to believe they may be something they are not. If you tell a roomful of kids that they may be afflicted with a certain condition based on vague symptoms, even kids without the condition could be made to believe that, gee whiz, maybe they have it too. Suppose you tell the kids about the symptoms of diabetes that, by the way, are NOT unique to diabetics. Then, many kids may be led to believe that maybe they too have diabetes because they have those symptoms like peeing a lot or feeling tired at times. Gender Fluid Identity works the same way. There are so many grey areas and vague suppositions that an impressionable child could easily be led to believe that, gee, maybe he’s really a girl or she’s really a boy... all the more so IF the authorities shower positive attention on the child who claims to be of the Other sex. This turned 21st century ideology in the Obama Era into a total farce. If Jews, blacks, and others(even homos to an extent) misused real identities for politics-of-resentment, trannies turned Identity Politics into a fantasy. Never mind misuse of identity; trannies just made up identities.
And yet, globalists were fine with this because, as proponents of Mass Invasion, they waged War on All Real Identities(except Jewishness in Israel). The Idea was, If a man is a ‘woman’ if she says so, then anyone is anyone if he or she says so. Then, an African is an ‘Englishman’ or ‘Frenchman’ if he says so. An Afghani is a ‘Swede’ if he says so. The Proglob(proggy-globalists) went from misuse of real identities to mischief with false identities. Bruce Jenner claiming to be a ‘woman’ is really a form of Identity Theft.

At any rate, something like Jewish Identity or Black Identity need not belong to the School of Resentment. Jewish Identity is rich in history & culture and could be valued as such. And even though Alex Haley turned out to be a plagiarist and fraud, the idea behind ROOTS was a noble and moving one. And it is this kind of identity that White Identitarians are primarily interested in. Though all identities have no choice to be politicized in the Current Year, White Identitarianism is essentially cultural than political. In other words, it would be deemed necessary EVEN IF white people in the modern world weren’t challenged by Jewish globalism, Homomania, Black Rage, and non-white Mass Invasion. Even if white nations were demographically stable and secure, White Identitarians would stress the need for conscious identity because modernity alienates people from their racial roots, cultural heritage, historical consciousness, and mytho-legendary narratives. Even if whites were not demographically or territorially threatened by non-whites and Jews, White Identitarians would argue that the Modern conception of meaning, purpose, and existence is not enough to lend real meaning to birth, life, and death.

Indeed, White Identitarians would argue that white people(and non-whites in their nations) must now make a SPECIAL effort to retrieve/recover, revitalize, maintain, preserve, and hand down their sense of family, community, blood, culture, and history because it cannot be taken for granted in the modern world that has no use for anything but materialism, consumerism, individualism, hedonism, utilitarianism, and profiteering. Whatever value McDonalds or Walmart may have, it has no concern for where you came from, who you are, or what you will leave behind.

In a traditional community steeped in a particular culture, one doesn’t have to make an effort to have an identity or roots. One is always reminded of who he is, what his values are, what traditions & customs he must follow, and how he must behave. He is surrounded, indeed saturated, with culture. There is no need to be consciously cultural because he has no choice but to be habitually cultural because he’s surrounded by the trappings of his people’s culture from morning to night. If anything, a person in such an overtly cultural community must make a conscious effort to be free as a thinking individual. And the general trajectory of Western Civilization has been to break out of the confines of particular culture & community and gain independence & agency as free individuals. And this is why the West achieved so much more than other civilizations in which people were mired in strictly ordained decrees & demands of their fixed and particular culture. For example, Islamic and local tradition permeated every facet of life in the Arabian desert. And a samurai or peasant in pre-modern Japan conformed to the particular cultural norms and duties of his community. He had no individual freedom to say no and do his own thing. Indeed, he was so deeply enmeshed in his culture that he could hardly imagine an alternative.

In contrast, the West developed the concept of individual conscience, freedom, and initiative on the basis of reason, evidence, creativity/inspiration, and personal morality. Instead of merely conforming to the larger culture, the secret was to confirm one’s individuality, free will, and potential as a thinking & feeling being. And this development led to explosions in science, technology, enterprise, philosophy, and the arts. Therefore, instead of being submerged in a Permanent Culture(like Ancient Egyptians were over millennia), the West underwent accelerating changes in styles, expressions, ideas, values, and means/methods. And these developments eventually led to the Rise of Modernity. Even so, until relatively recently, Western Folks didn’t, at least for the most part, revile or reject their identity, culture, and history. Instead, they steadily evolved from one mode to another, changing profoundly but also remembering and appreciating the organic links between the present and the past. Progress meant building upon the past than rejection of the past.

Furthemore, in some ways Modernity necessitated a strengthening of cultural-and-national identity. In the old days of Kings and Aristocrats, most people were mere subjects, barely educated, often semi-literate(or even illiterate), and knew little of the world beyond their local community. Their lot in life was to obey and serve their lords and masters. But with the emergence of the Modern World, especially with the French Revolution and great transformations in Britain, the People began to matter. They were no longer mere subjects or servants but the citizens of the nation. As such, they needed to be educated and instilled with a sense of national purpose, cultural identity, and historical continuity. So, even though one facet of Modernity promoted individualism, another side of Modernity promoted unity of identity and purpose. And in the case of socialism and communism, there was a sense of solidarity and unity based on economic justice and working class dignity. Indeed, Karl Marx had written on the alienating effect of capitalism where the workers toil away in factories in which they have no direct stake; they are mere wage-slaves who might as well be cogs in the machine.

Anyway, even though we can all appreciate the freedom, individuality, and sense-of-agency made possible by modernity, we must also recognize that there is a serious problem of meaning-of-existence in the 21st century, in many ways far more troubling time than the earlier century.
At the very least, even through most of the 20th century, the atomizing and deracinating(albeit personally liberating) aspects of Modernity were balanced by the unifying influence of nationalism. Frenchmen and the British became freer and more individualistic but also prouder and more unified as members of a nation-based civilization. For most of the 20th century, a Frenchman knew what was or wasn’t a real Frenchman, and a Briton knew what was or wasn’t a real Briton. Japanese had a clear sense of who was Japanese and who wasn’t. On the one hand, modernization infused greater individualism among the Japanese. But the effect of nationalism as a modern organizing principle was to instill all Japanese with a sense of shared blood and history. Prior to modernization, a Japanese peasant may have mainly identified as human property to his samurai lord. His cultural consciousness would have been local and village-centered. He was Japanese but had a weak sense of being part of the Japanese nation, history, and civilization. But modernity, in freeing the masses from their traditional stations in life(in which their forbears were bound to over many generations), needed to raise national consciousness in order to lend the uprooted and displaced masses a new sense of belonging and purpose. It was a huge challenge for someone to make the adjustment from a local agricultural community to a mobile industrial economy. Nationalism was the remedy for alienation resulting from one’s ‘exile’ from one’s local community.

But that balance of nationalism and individualism has been lost with the rise of globalism. Some may argue that nationalism was discredited because of WWI, Nazism, and WWII, but this is total nonsense. WWI was the result of clash of empires. Had the problems been resolved on the local-national level, there never would have been the Great War. Also, Nazism went truly wrong when its emphasis went from National to Imperialist. Also, it was nationalism that was the main motivator against both German and Japanese imperialism. Polish and French Resistance were nationalist. Russians fought for the Motherland. Chinese resisted Japanese aggression for national preservation. And after WWII, the Third World struggles were all nationalist and anti-imperialist. And it was nationalist pressures that made the USSR give up on empire. The Soviets knew their imperialism over Eastern Bloc nations was unpopular among the native folks. Soviets got away with crushing the nationalism of Hungarians in 1956 and Czechs in 1968 but grew increasingly anxious about maintaining hegemony via force of arms. Poland could have exploded in the 1980s, and the Soviets didn’t send in tanks only because the Polish communists managed to clamp down(mainly to avoid full-scale Soviet invasion). When the Soviet Union broke apart, the world breathed a sigh of relief and welcomed the emergence of newly liberated nations.
So, the main theme of the 20th century was as follows: Universal Nationalism as the primary force of freedom and dignity against Imperialism.

But then, Jews took power in the West(especially following the end of the Cold War) and rewrote history to make Nationalism the main culprit of the 20th century. As the new rulers of the US(and the EU and even Russia for awhile in the 1990s), Jews became addicted to supremacist hegemonic neo-imperialism and strove to undermine all nationalisms(as obstacles to the Empire of Judea or EOJ). Jews even promoted Homomania as the New Globalist Ideology and even crusading neo-religion. Thus, the West(and other nations emulating the West) grew weaker in national, cultural, and historical themes. No longer was there nationalist consciousness & solidarity to counter-balance the individualism and atomization of modernity.
In time, Pop Culture became the main culture. History was simplified to vilify whites and paralyze them with ‘white guilt’(to make them subservient to the Noble Victim Peoples such as Jews, Negroes, and Homos, aka the Holy Three). White Submissivism is necessary to serve Jewish Supremacism. Religion was distorted into Zionist warmongering among Evangelicals or Homo-worship among Mainline churches. National identity kept eroding with Mass Immigration, the effect of which was really Mass Invasion or Demographic Imperialism by the Other. In time, Parasitism was the New Normal while Classic Patriotism was vilified as ‘far right’ and ‘hateful’. So, an illegal invader is a ‘dreamer’ in the US while a gung-ho patriot is a ‘populist deplorable neo-nazi far-right hater’. So, a Briton who wants to keep Britain British is a deranged ‘hater’ and ‘racist’ whereas newcomers from Africa or Pakistan WITH ZERO ROOTS in the U.K. are welcomed as wonderful New Britons. When Parasitism is the New Patriotism, you know something is terribly wrong. Meanwhile, the globalists assure everyone that all will be fine because of... More Restaurants, More Exoticism, More Sex-with-the-Other, and More Vibrancy.

This is why white people(or any other people) must now make a conscious effort to cultivate, reinforce, and preserve their sense of identity, roots, and history. A Briton living in the U.K. in the 1930s needed not have made such a conscious effort. From a young age, at school and church, in the home, and serving in the military, he was educated, indoctrinated, conditioned, and encouraged to identify as British, share in British glory and pride, and defend British might, territory, and honor. He didn’t have to make a conscious effort as all the institutions, big and small, worked in concert to imbue him with national identity, spiritual sense, and ethics-manners-honor thought to be particular to British folks.
But now, all such are gone. If anything, the Jewish-Homo-Cuck-dominated institutions & industries of media, academia, finance, entertainment, sports, and the state all conspire to tell British kids that Africans-and-Muslims-are-the-real-Britons-because-UK-has-always-been-a-nation-of-immigrants, Homos-and-Trannies-are-holy-and-the-Christian-church-exists-primarily-to-bless-fruitkins-and-other-deviants, Jungle-Fever-and-the-Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs-are-the-greatest-thing, White-males-must-cuck-out-and-become-wussy-servants-of-Jews-Blacks-Muslims-and-Homos, and Pop-Culture-is-the-main-culture. When this is the reality in the U.K. and in the US, people are no longer possessed of meaningful identity, culture, or history. They must now find it on their own. They must ‘home-school’ themselves on what they are really about. The Jewish globo-supremacists who control the US use all their means to persuade white Britons and white Americans that their nations were always ‘nations of immigrants’, always about ‘universal values’(though one must always, for some odd reason, favor Jews over all others), and always harmed most by ‘racism’ that prevented sufficient Diversity that will really do wonders for UK and US. It’s all a crazy lie.

In fact, Race-ism was one of the best, soundest, and most essential components of what made UK and US great and outstanding in the past. Race-ism assured racial integrity, unity, continuity, and solidarity. A people who drop their race-ism either become confused/alienated or ‘cucked’ to serving other peoples who continue to cling to their identity. Is it any wonder that whites, who’ve been pressured to lose their own identity, are now so servile to the powerful identities and interests of Jews, blacks, and homos?

Identity and what might be called ‘culturality’ is like Morality. When and Where they are not remembered, reinforced, and preserved by institutions and community-at-large, they must be salvaged and secured by individuals themselves. It’s like, if there are no schools to teach you, you must educate yourself. If there are no established churches or temples to preach the faith, you must do so on your own. In a community with a strong sense of right-and-wrong, one doesn’t have to be consciously moral. In such a community, moral values are written into the codes of everyday life and being. If you’re a member of the Amish community, you are reminded by everyone and everything what it means to be Amish in identity and values.
But in the modern world of individuals and decadent/deracinated elites(who offer no guidance, leadership, and protection), every person must consciously think of right and wrong because he is surrounded by freedom and choice than by moral instruction and social pressures. (Granted, PC does exert much pressure on modern people, but it’s not about morality but about Power by supremacy-of-sanctimony. PC tells us to unquestioningly defer to Jews, Homos, and blacks. But morality is NOT about blind obedience to certain groups deemed divine. Also, true morality must apply to everyone. PC can’t be truly moral because it blames whites even when they are innocent and exonerates Jews, Homos, and blacks even when they are clearly wrong or problematic. Consider the Starbucks Negroes who were treated as saintly victims by the company and the media even though they violated Starbucks' policy... that, by the way, was soon altered to appease the black community. If blacks want to occupy a table without buying anything, it must be justifiable, even inspiring and noble, because they are black; therefore, the company must now allow ALL peoples to hang out at Starbucks without purchasing anything.) Just like one must be consciously moralist in a world devoid of clear moral instructions, guidance, and pressure, one must be consciously culturalist in a world that no longer provides clear guidance and meaning in the identity, culture, and history of a people. And this is where White Identitarianism is different from mere Identity Politics so common among the Progs. With Progs and their allies, Identity is simple. It comes down to feeling good-and-noble if one is Jewish, Homo, or black. If one is non-white but not one of the Holy Three, he or she must latch onto one or all of the Holy Three to gain Pokemon points. At the very least, non-whites of all stripes are at least not scapegoated for all the problems of the world. That ‘honor’ is reserved for the Wicked Whites who, unless they suck up to Jews-Homos-Negroes, are defamed as ‘far right’, ‘neo-nazi’, or ‘white supremacist’. So, that is Proggy Identity Politics in a nutshell. It’s so easy. Feel good and noble if you’re of the Holy Three or non-white. Feel bad and bow your head in shame if you’re white, especially straight white male. It’s really hardly more sophisticated than a game of Tag, ‘You got the cooties’, or Pin-the-Donkey(or Honkey as the case may be). Jews got the looties, homos got the tooties, blacks got the booties, and whites got the cooties.

In contrast, notwithstanding the political dimensions of White Identitarianism, it is essentially a cultural project of ‘home-schooling’ oneself of his or her true origins, history, and culture... and, based on those factors, forging a sense of destiny for one’s own people independent of the globalist project of subverting and destroying all nations and cultures(except for Israel that gets Passover privileges). In a world where white kids are raised on trash & degenerate Pop Culture as the Main Culture and on vapid & shallow Political Correctness as the Main Credo, there is a need for white individuals to think consciously, critically, and seriously of what it means to be part of a Real Folk, Real Culture, Real History, and Real Tradition.
If someone who does the cooking serves you healthy and balanced meals, you don’t have to think consciously about nutrition. It’s all done for you. You merely need to arrive on time and enjoy the meals. But if there’s no one to cook for you OR if the cook just serves you sugary & greasy junk food, you need to learn to cook for yourself and gain personal awareness of what real nutrition and healthy eating are. And the conscious will of ‘preparing our own meals’ is at the core of White Identitarianism. When the globalists just feed white people junk and garbage that lead to diabetes and cancer of mind, body, and soul, it is about time white people learn to ‘home-school’ and ‘home-cook’ their own servings of culture, history, and identity.

Reponse to "Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr-Cult of Stephen Lawrence" by Tobias Langdon

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/04/30/black-saints-white-demons-the-martyr-cult-of-stephen-lawrence/

Would there be such fuss if it were a dead Muslim or Hindu?

Negrolatry(or Negro Idolatry) has power because of combination of white cuckery and white guilt. White guilt alone doesn’t go very far. Spanish killed tons of natives in South America, but most people don’t care because the short brown indigenos are seen as lame.

It’s because Anglos are so taken with black music, black jive, black rhythm, black booty, black dong, black muscle, black sports, and etc. that they go for Negrolatry. In other words, it would exist even without white guilt about blacks though, to be sure, the ‘white guilt’ element gives it a certain glow.
Suppose there never was slave trade or imperialism. Suppose some blacks came to the UK and made funky music, won in sports, acted wild and fun, shook their booties, and swung their dongs. In a libertine hedonistic society, they’d get much attention bordering on mammonic love.

The Brits look back on their history and see repression, rigidity, inhibition, coldness, and etc.
So, Brit history is seen as ice, fog, and overcast skies. But the Negro comes along with the heat, friction, and warmth. It’s like the sun finally broke through, and there is heat generated within the body with all that grinding, bumping, and humping. It was the great liberation from frigidity of cold damp Britain. It’s like how the nuns in LILIES OF THE FIELD turn into Lilies of the Field Negro.

So, why does this Negro kid matter so much? Because of the Negro-as-metaphor of warmth, soulfulness, heat, and radiance brought to Brits. Modern Britain may have been saved militarily by Winston Churchill, but the Narrative is it was finally liberated from its own shackles by the Magic Negro. The subconscious narrative goes… If Anglos ended the slave trade and freed blacks from physical bondage, the Negro soul and rhythm liberated Anglos from the chains of repression, manners, and politesse. And this is why the Beatles and Stones were so significant. Britain, though highly accomplished in literature, had lagged in musical achievements compared to Italians, Germans, French, Russians, etc. Brits were too orderly and ‘bourgeois’ to have the passion.

But in pop music inspired by black music, the Brits once exploded all over and dominated the world for a couple of decades. So, in the British Mind, the Negro is holy. Negro is the booty-and-dong-messiah that thawed the white body from repression and made it boogie woogie like a Negro. And one must say it is true enough that black influence did wonders for Brit pop music. Consider Bee Gees ‘stayin alive’, a great song. And Clash and Sting took a lot from reggae.

So, to better understand Negrolatry, one has to look to Pop Culture and Sex.

Because of the role of the Negro in modern British cultural imagination, black are now seen as the natural royalty. Afro-royalty or Afroyalty is becoming the new trope in not only UK but in EU. Listen to Macron speak of Eurafrica. It will lead to the Othelloing of Europe without even an Iago to mess things up. If anything, the neo-Iago is there to help the Negro go around yelling ‘where da white women at?’

For most people, culture is about fun, thrills, and excitement. They love blockbuster movies, dumb TV shows, music videos. rap music, pornification of mainstream culture, pulp fiction, trash comedy, (look at the success of Stephen King novels and 50 SHADES OF GREY), etc.

So, for most people, blacks are the natural royalty because black women shake their booties so lasciviously. And there is the song-and-dong factor with black men. They sing rap about ‘muh dic*’, and most women think about sex than ideas at most times.

Chelsea Handler is a Jewish comedienne. She may be higher IQ and grew up with privilege, but she’s a song-and-dong girl.

https://zhiphopcleveland.com/3358992/wow-chelsea-handler-talks-about-sex-with-50-cent-why-ciara-broke-them-up/

Anglo-Saxons are turning into Junglo-Saxons because of these factors.
It could well be that Jewish power will be destroyed by black dongs. If Chelsea Handler is sign of future Jewishness pooterin passion, it will be junglowizc fever. It’s no wonder so many Jewish guys feel dejected and go with Asian girls. But that will lead to Jewish dissipation because of yellow mellow factor. Jewish power grew from high IQ, tribalism, and chutzpah. But if future Jewish kids are yellow-mellowed, they will be obedient than pushy. Look at Sean Lennon. John Lennon had a kid with Yoko, and the result is some dork-ass kibbler. (Incidentally, Cynthia Lennon, who was dumped by John, went off with a Negro).

Most people prefer to watch TV, movies, and listen to pop music than do heady stuff involving intelligence and ideas. More women talk about inches on puds than calculus of the universe just like most men are more interested in boob measurements than latest physics formulas about black holes.

This is why there is a real chance of the world turning black. Blacks got all of Sub-Saharan Africa. They will take over Brazil which is already 60% black. They are the majority of Cuba. Blacks are the main idols of US and UK and France. Canada worships Negroes. Jungle Fever is promoted all over EU. Japan promotes half-black kids of black fathers. They will take over sports and will become the ‘national heroes’ as athletes are the biggest heroes of any nation. Then, Japanese will cheer for black heroes, and more Africans will come and have kids with Japanese women, and Japanese women will be cuck-roaches. Few yrs back, Miss Japan was black child of a black father, and she attacked Japan of being ‘racist’ and called for open borders. She is now the new voice of Japanese national conscience.

In France, tons of black babies are being born, and lots from white wombs. And Macron the cuck is calling for 200 million blacks in EU to colonize white wombs.

Now, this could be stopped with race-ism. It’s obvious that nothing more destructive of civilization than black DNA. Too Many Blacks always means social breakdown: Africa, Brazil, Detroit, Baltimore, parts of London, parts of Paris, and etc.
But, all this Afroyalty mindset has white folks worshiping blacks like the animals worship the lions as natural royalty in THE LION BLING.
Also, white guilt about blacks have become so sacralized that it’s gone universal. So, not only must the West open up to more and more Negroes but Japan too is attacked as ‘racist’ if it has doubts about the blessing of having too many Negroes.

Homos and Negroes. There is a universalist cult around those two groups. All societies are expected to ‘welcome’, ‘include’, and celebrate them as special. And of course, the two groups have bee promoted mostly by Jews who seek to weaken and break down gentile(especially white and Christian) pride and defenses against globalism.

The Western elites like reggae, and ‘white trash’ are into rap.

In a poll, elites chose reggae as their favorite music.
They like chillbilly calypso music for some reason.

John Boehner’s daughter married a reggae guy. Song and dong factor.

Drasilist Principle of the Need to Grow Both Ways — The More We Move Forward, the More We Need to Look Backward

In the current state of political discourse, it’s as if we have only two choices: Conservatism that looks backward and Liberalism that looks forward. Looking backward has its advantages because the past is a treasure trove of legends, lessons, traditions, and heritage. Especially if a civilization is steeped in written memory, the past is indeed a rich country. But looking forward also has its advantages. It searches for new possibilities, discoveries, and achievements. If someone only learned from the past, he might do pretty well but he will be stalled in the status quo, like Ottomans under Islamic orthodoxy or East Asia under Confucian dogma. But if someone only looked to the future, he might become unmoored, lost, adrift, and disoriented. The problem of arch-conservative order is the fear of change lest it upset the sacred balance or the existing ‘harmony’. The problem of ultra-liberal (dis)order is the foolhardy embrace of fads and fashions until culture becomes vain, shallow, and trivial(like so much of the Current West where many grown-ups are obsessed with tattoos & piercings and where many educated people think the highest value is Homomania.
In contrast to such trivialism is the deep-rooted traditionalism of Iranian Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and zealously religious Jews. However, even though they are deeply rooted in tradition, they are prisoners of dogma and the fear of the unknown. The worst example of Liberalism gone bonkers was the crazy community of Jim Jones, a heretical Christian cult that practiced all the platitudes of Love, Tolerance, and Diversity. In recent times, a terrible example of Conservatism gone bonkers was the Taliban that demolished Buddhist statues in Afghanistan out of strict adherence to Islamic laws.

But why does everything have to be seen as a dichotomy? Why are so many people prone to thinking in terms of cops and robbers, as if one has to be either ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, only ‘backward-looking’ or ‘forward-looking’? This is even stranger if we consider that even most liberals are partly conservative and most conservatives are partly liberal. After all, even though universities are said to be ‘liberal’ or even ‘radical’ places, their functions are also profoundly conservative. Universities exist to store, preserve, guard, and transmit the glories of past knowledge. If you attend art school, you learn of the history of art. If you study literature, you read the great masters. If you learn history, you read and ponder about the past. If you study philosophy, you must understand the history of ideas. If you study science, you are taught not only the latest theories but how the history of science led to current conclusions. Also, colleges are inherently hierarchical because admission operates by restrictive standards of ability.
As for American Conservatism especially, it tends to be quite open to excitement, adventure, and opportunities. This is certainly true of Mormons, the majority of whom are socially conservative. But as heirs of the Protestant Work Ethic, they believe in hard work, achievement, new knowledge, and more opportunities. They have lots of ‘liberal-ish’ energies.

One of the strange ironies of American Political Ideology is that the ‘conservatives’ tend to be less knowledgeable of the past and even downright amnesiac. When they say they love heritage, it means just a few generations or loyalty to simpleminded symbols, such as good-ole Country Music, the roots of which aren’t very deep in America. Most American Conservatives have no sense of deeper roots in Old Europe. As more rural folks, they may feel close to the soil but they have little or no sense for their roots in the ancient soils of Europe in which their race evolved. As such, many American ‘conservatives’ are more about guns and anti-literate Evangelical faith. Or they are about the red, white, & blue, the military, and cliched symbols of what makes America the ‘greatest nation on earth’. They are ‘conservers’ of symbols and gestures than of real knowledge or rich tradition.

In contrast, ‘liberals’ tend to be better-read in history, literature, arts, and culture. (To be sure, your average ‘liberal’ is a moron addicted to pop culture, trash TV, dumb fads & fashions, and vanity, BUT, given the dominance of ‘liberals’ in academia and media, it’s fair to say more of them show interest in ideas and knowledge. Some might argue that ‘liberals’ dominate media and academia because both institutions are biased and favor their own kind, and that is surely part of the reason. But I suspect that EVEN IF media and academia were skewed toward favoring more 'conservatives’, they would still attract more ‘liberals’ because more ‘liberals’ than ‘conservatives’ show interest in ideas, arts, and knowledge.

Also, ‘liberalism’ tends to attract the more intelligent because they want to believe that they are changing society for the better. In their minds, ‘conservatism’ is either about being stuck in the status quo or moving the clock backward to the bad ole days whereas ‘liberalism’ is a tireless project of creating a better and more just society. Given the arc of the 20th century, this view of Liberalism wouldn’t be wrong.

However, both ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ fail due to dogmatic tendencies. Too often, ‘conservatism’ has this idea that something has value because it is traditional. It’s a sentimental or even hoggish attachment to certain attitudes or way of doing things. In contrast, ‘liberalism’ has this idea that something must be better because it has novelty value — it’s so exciting! — or represents ‘change’. But truth or meaning cannot be determined by sentimental attachment or want of thrills. Take the issue of ‘gay rights’. Certain Christian anti-‘gay agenda’ people failed because they based their sense of truth on the Bible. So, they never gave any thought to the issue. The Bible says ‘homosexuality is sinful or evil’, therefore, homosexuals must be devil-possessed or just infected with sin-germs. In fact, the truth is some people are BORN with homosexual tendencies. At its base, it’s not a moral issue but a biological one. Some people are born to be tootkins, tooters, fruitkins, or fruiters. But because arch-conservatives stuck to Biblical truth, the discourse on the matter became one of ‘conservatives irrationally attached to ancient texts’ versus ‘liberals rationally enlightened by secular science’. Naturally, intelligent people are going to choose to be ‘liberal’ on the issue of homos and trannies.

But in fact, even the ‘liberals’ were full of shi*. They didn’t stop at the fact that some people are born with homosexual orientation but insisted that, somehow, it is uber-‘rational’ and uber-‘secular’ to believe that a homo-man’s anus is just as legitimate as a sexual organ as a woman’s vagina. One produces poop while other produces babies, but we are supposed to believe this. Or, we are supposed to believe that homo fecal penetration is just as valid as sexual activity as the union of the complementary organs of men and women. More bizarre yet, we are to believe that if a man gets a ‘sex-change operation’, his penis and balls can be turned into a real ‘vagina’. Stranger yet, we are now told that even a man with penis and balls is a ‘woman’ if he declares himself as such. So, penis and balls are no longer strictly male organs. And for all their rationalism and secular acumen, 'liberals' decided to conflate homosexuality and tranny-business with ‘rainbow’ colors. What homo fecal penetration or tranny penis-cutting has to do with the rainbow, I have no idea. But it doesn’t end there. Theses supposedly rational and secular people love to push homo colors into churches, as if there is nothing more sacred to God and Jesus than symbols that celebrate homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting.

If ‘conservatives’ failed on the ‘gay’ issue by sticking to the Bible, the ‘liberals’ failed because they conflate ‘change’ with More Truth. Of course, it is also why so many were duped by communism. Hey, it promised radical change, and it must be TRUE because it will be so different from the existing or current system. So, how true did Marxist or Leninist economic turn out to be? The sanest position on the ‘gay issue’ would have been for both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ to acknowledge that some people are naturally born as homos. That said, it remains that homosexuality is a sexual defect and deviance that have no biological value. Sex is, at the root, a bio-reproductive process, and homosexuals are like automobiles that pass through the assembly line with faulty wiring. Surely, there is something wrong when a man wants to spend all his life having other men ram their dongs up their bungs. Still, it is a natural defect, and we can’t blame homos for having been born and ‘mis’-wired that way.

To be sure, there is a reason why homos have come to such prominence in civilization. In a rough warrior society, men who can’t be manly have little value. But in civilization with surplus food, leisure, and privilege, people seek out fancier things. Homos have an edge in creating such things because they love fantasy, artificiality, and vanity. So, even though homos rank zero in terms of biological creation, they rank rather high in aesthetic creativity. That aspect of homo also need to be addressed.

Anyway, we need to understand a certain paradox if we are have a richly meaningful society. The more we need to push forward, the more we need to push backward. It’s like a rocket rises only by blasting tons of force against the ground. The energy is pushed back in order for the rocket to propel forward. Better analogy is with a tree. A young sapling hasn’t reached very high, and its roots are shallow in the soil. For the sapling to grow taller into a tree, it must also deepen its roots in the ground. After all, without the firm entrenchment of roots deep in the soil, the tree will easily topple over. So, the bigger and higher the tree grows upward, the deeper and lower it must reach into the soil as anchor and source of nutrients. After the great Yggdrasil tree of Germanic Mythology, we might call it the Drasilist Principle.

In construction, taller the building, stronger and deeper its foundation must be. To reach higher, you must dig deeper. And in war, the further one advances, greater the need for a support system of logistics and supplies.
This lesson seems to have been lost in the Modern West. There’s been such an emphasis on progress, development, growth, and change that people have forgotten the lesson that the higher one rises, deeper one must dig. Or the more one wanders, the greater the need for a solid homeland. There is always a need for a base of operation. Once the connection between the wanderer and the base has been severed, the wanderer is on his own, lost and confused... like the Burt Lancaster's character in THE SWIMMER. Imagine Odysseus without a home to return to. A state of permanent exile.
Why did Western Man forget this lesson? Was it the effect of media, academia, entertainment, and political correctness(PC)? Granted, those institutions/industries weren’t always so hostile to moral and traditional civilization, but they’ve certainly become so in the last several decades. Media promote tabloid news, academia teaches vapid formulas, entertainment is degenerate & promotes Mammonic idolatry, and PC tells most people to reject everything but the fanatical fads of the Current Year. Fanatic infatuation with fleeting fashions may seem contradictory, but the human mind works that way. Today’s mania becomes yesterday’s mania, and no one ever learns.

But the problem is even more grave. In the past, the influence of modern academia, liberal media, trivial entertainment, and ideological fashions were countered by four steadying forces: Church, Family, Tradition, and Patriotism. While much of modern influence was good, it had its deleterious aspects as well. So, everyone, especially in childhood, needed more than information, entertainment, theories, and trends. One needed the grounding of something more permanent, deeper, and ‘eternal’. Church, Family, Tradition(sense of history and heritage), and Patriotism provided such emotional, moral, and symbolic needs. But they have all lost prestige and meaning, especially for whites. Churches now hang homo colors and worship homos & trannies over God and Jesus. Family is just a lifestyle option if you want it, so much so that we are supposed to tell ourselves that ‘gays can have kids’. We are supposed to believe that single-mothers are just as capable of raising the kids alone, and men don’t need to stick around. And men and women don’t need to mature and become adults. Even with kids in the house, parents can be about tattoos and piercings. Feminism and Homomania have had a terrible impact on the Family.

There is no sense of tradition when the only culture for most Americans is amnesiac Pop Culture. When people are addicted to constant barrage of new thrills(even if much of them are recycled and repackaged trash), they see little value in ‘lame old stuff’.
And whatever passes for patriotism today is utterly meaningless. It is not about roots and remembrance but smashing memorials, digging up graves, and knocking down statues. It’s about spitting on the graves of ones’ ancestors, a most terrible crime. It is about desecration, not consecration. It’s not about defense of the realm but inviting mass invasion and convincing oneself that it’s great to be replaced by peoples of different races and cultures. So, the very opposite of patriotism is the New Patriotism.

Did modernity grow so demented due to its own inexorable logic? Or was it engineered largely by Jews who wanted to weaken gentile sense of unity, continuity, and morality? After all, it would have been difficult for Jews to gain so much control over whites IF whites had retained a powerful sense of memory and pride in who and what they are. The result was the West as a tree that keeps growing taller and wider but not digging deeper with roots to secure the base. But without the complementary growth downwards as well as upwards, the tree will eventually topple and fall.

I suspect the Jews had something to do with this because they have long understood that the source of Jewish Power derives from Growing Both Ways. The more Jews moved into modernity, the more they had to look into history so as not to lose the sense of who they are and where they came from. Because modernity is so bewildering, hectic, breakneck, and fast & furious, one can easily become lost, alienated, confused, decadent, and/or disoriented. Without roots and remembrance, one could be swept away by the relentless tides of modernity. Therefore, one needed to hold onto a rope of identity, history, and heritage so as not to drift out to sea. Jews are big in real estate and know that taller a building, greater its foundation must be. Jews are big in finance and know that bigger the investments, bigger the reserves must be. Jews control the World Empire and know that the more US military expands overseas, greater the need for a expanding military-industrial complex in the US.
This is the secret to their power, and apparently, they don’t want to share it with other peoples who may become rivals and enemies. Is this a conscious strategy or do Jews subconsciously act this way due to evolutionary traits that evolved from savvy middlemen activities that sought to maximize one’s profits and position at the expense of others.

Anyway, the secret is to Grow Both Ways. The more we look forward, the more we need to look backward. And the whole point of looking backward is to gain insight and inspiration to move forward. If one’s ambition is petty and narrow, there is no need to justify one’s actions that are of little consequence. But if one’s ambitions are truly grand and transformative, they must be justified by the lessons of history.
Of course, this can be done in a bad way. Consider the ways in which the globalist neo-imperialists hark back to the Founding of the United States and the Constitution to justify their insatiable drive for more hegemony by EOJ or Empire of Judea. Globalism’s invocation of the past to justify its ambitious vision for the future is mostly a lie. We are told that American Founding was all about how whites should eventually embrace ‘diversity’ and replacement by non-whites. We are told that Western History teaches us that Western Values are about celebrating homomania, worshiping Jews, and welcoming ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The PC sophists and globalist commissars tell us that Hungary and Poland are against ‘Western Values’ because they want to preserve their race, culture, and territory, whereas nations like UK, France, and Sweden are all about ‘Western Values’ because they not only welcome tons of Africans but cast blacks in white historical roles. According to Globalism, ‘Western Values’ are mainly to lead the White West into extinction.

Cynical manipulators, charlatans, and Machiavellian rival tribesmen will always exist, and they will always misuse and corrupt essential ideas. Then, all the more reason for white people to master the art of Growing Both Ways. Consider a spaceship. If it is only orbiting Earth, it doesn’t have to make much effort to communicate with the world below because of its close proximity. But suppose the spaceship moves to Mars, then to Jupiter, then to Pluto and then heads toward a distant star. Now, its ambition has greatly expanded. But this makes it all the more necessary to ramp up its efforts to maintain contact with the home planet because, after all, its mission has no meaning apart from the plan on Earth. The spaceship is traveling far into the reaches of space because people on Earth want to know about the cosmos. Indeed, it’d be difficult to imagine something more terrifying than to be a spaceman adrift in space without knowing how to return to one’s own solar system and planet. Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR isn’t much of a film, but the dangerous mission makes sense only because it all comes back to Earth. And in INCEPTION, the ultimate goal of the main character is to find one’s way back home where the children are.

Now, it’s been said that the past is a foreign country, and in a superficial sense, it is. But on a deeper level of sentiments and symbols, they and we are the same. Jews know this. Even though today’s Jews are very different from ancient Jews in many ways, the big themes of family, community, continuity, and spirituality are the same. This is why Bob Dylan and Darren Aronofsky feel such great rapport with the stories of ancient Semites in the Bible. If we obsess so much about technology, fashions, and ideologies, we may conclude we have nothing in common with ancestors and the ancients. And in our shallow and stupid age, such attitudes are sadly commonplace. So, today’s idiot millennials cannot conceive of a time when people saw no value in ‘gay marriage’. Pop Culture addicts them to latest fads, and Political Correctness fixes their insipid self-righteousness to the Current Year. As such, lacking in true empathy and imagination, they find it nearly impossible to feel any deep bond with their forebears who were ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘antisemitic’. Jews would love to morally invalidate all of Western/Christian history on grounds that it was ‘pathological’ about Jews. But even if we were to agree that the Western/Christian World was often deluded about Jews, it isn’t very difficult to feel a connection to one’s roots and history.

Anyway, even if all the people of the past are dead and gone forever and even though we must largely live for today, it is a sense of continuity that lends meaning to why we are here now and why we are not only justified in but compelled to work for our people and the order. After all, why do Polish patriots defend their race, culture, and territory? They didn’t create those things. If current Polish people didn’t make Poland its culture and territory, why do they feel a passionate need to defend it and build upon it? Because they know it was made and bequeathed by their ancestors. Also, it was defended with much blood and sweat. And there were tragic periods when Poland faced the threat of being wiped off the map. It is by knowing all that and feeling deeply about it that the future Poland feels justified. If the connective threads of memory are cut off and if Polish people accept Pop Culture and Political Correctness as their main culture, they will no longer feel a sense of roots and remembrance, and then the righteousness claim to one’s own domain will fade. Before UK was invaded and cucked, its culture and ideology had to be weakened. It’s like an octopus will inject enzymes into the bodies of its prey before sucking up the resultant liquid. Thus, the meat of a crab is turned into liquid by the enzymes, and then it’s easy for the octopus to suck it dry. Jews and cucks did the same to Briton. Pop Culture was used to undermine real culture, memory, and mores. And then Political Correctness was used to instill Brits with ‘white guilt’ and with sophistry such as "Britain was always a Nation of Immigrants." Thus, the body of British culture and politics was turned into liquified jelly by the enzymes of PC and Pop Culture. Next, the Jewish globalist octopus can just suck it up easy.
But before Jews and cuck took over Britain, the Brits had a profound and deep sense of their race, history, culture, and territory. They understood that the British could travel so far and be so ambitious precisely because they had a rich sense of history and heritage to draw from as inspiration and guidance. But look at today’s UK. It has lost that lesson, and most white Brits are not even complaining about the looming loss of their nation because Pop Culture teaches them to worship the Negro and PC teaches them that they are the scum of the earth if they believe that Britain belongs to the native whites who have deep roots there. For those who seek to Grow One Way without Growing the Other Way, it can’t be sustained because a people without a powerful sense of where they are from won’t know where to go. If Jews abandoned their sense of history and heritage, they will go the way of Episcopalians who, for all their individual success, are like ship without a anchor, rudder, and mast that is adrift in the ocean without rhyme or reason at the mercy of other forces.