Smug Drug of Political Correctness

Why do people take certain illegal drugs. They want to get high and feel super. They want to be like insta-gods. Drugs — PCP, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, meth, etc. — elevate their sense-of-being with euphoria that fills them with delusions of grandeur. Consider James Woods in the movie THE BOOST where his coke-head character feels he can do anything when high on powder. Cocaine boosts his ego with Mood Supremacism. He feels like the greatest player that ever lived. He feels invincible, better than all the rest. Addicted to the sensation, he returns to the drug for the high over and over and over, and eventually he can't do without it.

Our world tends to associate ‘supremacism’ with ‘white racism’, but wanting to feel superior/supreme is a common trait among all peoples. Religions fill people with a sense of spiritual supremacism: "Our god or gods are better than yours", "God is on our side", "I am holier than thou". And the reason why women are so obsessed about cosmetics and celebrity is because they're drawn to the culture of Beauty Supremacism. Women want to look better than other women.
And men are obsessed with sports that are premised on masculine supremacism of the tougher guys lording over weaker guys, making big bucks, and humping ‘hot babes’.

So, despite all this stuff about ‘equality’, our society is obsessed with supremacism of all kinds. And one of the easiest kinds of highs is Moral Supremacism. Thus, Political Correctness or PC is really a kind of drug. Karl Marx called religion the ‘opiate of the masses’. PC is crack for the self-righteous. Certain terms like ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘homophobia’, and etc. have a drug-like effect on those who chant them. Though ostensibly used against bigots, chauvinists, and supremacists, the reason for their terminological appeal is the euphoric effect upon snorting, vaping, injecting, or popping doses of self-righteousness.
And this is why PC is dangerous. It really has to be treated as a drug addiction. Anyone who has observed so-called ‘SJW’ types will notice they are not amenable to compromise, understanding, and reason. They just love to repeat the mantras of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’(and sometimes ‘misogyny’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘Islamophobia’) because another 'hit' of virtue-vanity gives them easy highs.
Trying to communicate with such people is like trying to get through to those intoxicated on moonshine or flying on speed. The smug are more prone to preening self-righteousness, and the easiest way to feel holier-than-thou is by resorting to PC. This addiction isn’t limited to a single group. Even Conservatives are addicted to insta-virtue by preaching that the Democrats are the ‘real racists’. No one wants to discuss complex issues with honesty and reason since they care more about supremacist sensations of easy virtue.
Even cucking is a form of PC drug addiction. Sniffing Cuckaine makes one bunch of whites feel insta-morally-superior to other whites(those who refuse to cuck). Cucks feel as ‘good whites’ attacking ‘bad whites’. It’s near-impossible to get through to them with honest debate since the likes of David French are so full of themselves as ‘good whites’ who say the Magic Words of insta-virtue.

In this sense, media and academia should really be seen as Big Pharma of the mind. They are drug-dealers who push PC as Uppers and Downers to the confused and impressionable who, by abusing terminological substances of PC, get to indulge in self-righteous supremacism as a raging high.

National or Imperial Greatness is Overrated

GREATNESS is overrated in World Affairs. What’s essential is goodness. There is no need for a people to be GREAT in order to maintain a nice nation and find meaning and happiness. They only need to be free and good.

Consider the breakup of the Soviet Union in which the various peoples were supposed to share in the great glory of Soviet-Russian Power. So what if the Baltic States(among many others) were no longer part of a ‘great empire’? They gained national independence and reclaimed national sovereignty.

Today, the real threat to the Baltics comes from EU as another Imperial Power, albeit a puppet empire of the even more powerful Zionist-American Empire. Also, Western Culture and Values aren’t what they used to be. In the past, it was beneficial for Eastern Europeans to look westward and learn from the great Brits, French, Italians, and Germans who were ahead of the game in everything.
But what are the current Western Values under globalism dominated by Jews and their proxy homos? Homomania, Rap music, Jungle Fever, ugly feminism, slut pride, skankery, adultery, Diversity, and infantilism.

That is why Baltic States are vulnerable as member states of EU. It was wonderful for them to break free of the great but repressive Soviet Empire. But they are now falling under control of demented globalist empire. Baltic nations need to be free of all empires despite their promise of 'greatness'.
Better to be free and good than be puppets sharing in Russian Greatness. Better to be free and good than be puppets sharing in EU greatness(that amounts to homo decadence and Africanization).

Empires come with a host of problems. Sure, Soviet Union was very powerful and EU is very rich(and being part of their imperial order comes with a certain prestige), but, all said and done, Soviets stood for communist repression & Russian bullying, and globalism is ultimately about the megalomania of Zionist-Homo supremacist lunacy.

What Baltic States need is national sovereignty and security. They don’t have to be GREAT. They just need to be free and good.
Indeed, most people are not great. They are not great scientists, great artists, great thinkers, great tycoons, or great athletes. But do they not have value? They have value if they are good and decent, and most nations should aspire to be good, free, and independent.

Better to be free as a good man than be a slave of a great empire. The latter may be part of something great but he is still a slave. As part of the Soviet Union, those Baltic States were puppet-states. They gained freedom with the fall of Soviet Empire and reclaimed their right to be free and good.
But now, they face the danger of becoming puppet-slaves of globalism, an ideology even worse than Soviet Communism.

It's better to be free as a good modest person than a slave of a great lord? As a slave, you may share in the glory of your master, but you’re still just a slave, a dog than a man.

Did the Rise of Educated Parents Lead to Political Correctness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejection of the Biological Basis of Life is Stupid

So often in political discourse there are those who deny the biological basis of power and relations. It’s as if some people believe that humanity can be governed by ideas and icons alone. They pretend as if nations and communities are organizations formed on the basis of abstract principles. And it is as if everyone is just an individual defined by ideas & imagination in his or her head. It’s as if everyone materialized out of the thin air with total autonomy without ancestry, history, and heritage. So, parents exist only to produce self-centered individuals whose meaning-of-life is to be determined by ideologies, fashions, and entertainments. We can certainly understand the appeal of individualism. Who wants to be told by one’s grandparents and parents what to feel, think, and do? Each person wants freedom as an individual. That said, no individual, no matter how fiercely independent in will & determination, made himself. He was biologically made by his parents who were made by their parents and so on. Also, every individual, no matter how creative or visionary, was born into a ready-made world with history and heritage. Even the great Beethoven was born into a culture of music that he inherited and advanced further. Great individuals expand upon a rich heritage. Einstein built upon pre-existing scientific tradition. Richard Wagner advanced the language of opera. While some individuals have the spark of visionary genius that can achieve more in a single lifetime than most peoples in many lifetimes, they are nevertheless inheritors of pre-existing realities. Stanley Kubrick didn’t invent the cinema nor establish the basic grammar of cinema, but he could make his masterpieces only because others had been there before him.

Consider a soccer ball. It moves around in all directions, but it has meaning only because purpose animates its movement. If a soccer ball were to be randomly moved by wind or animals, it would have no purpose. If the soccer ball could move on its own, it would still have no meaning unless it’s part of a game. It has meaning only when animated for the purpose of making a goal. The purpose of a soccer ball is to be kicked into a goal at either end of the field. So, Team A will try to kick it into the goal of Team B, and Team B will try to kick it into the goal of Team A. Every individual is like a ball-animated-by-larger-intention. Without purpose, a ball is meaningless. A soccer ball or football has meaning in the game. Games are played to score points and win.
The world is always in a state of play and gamesmanship among all kinds of powers, purposes, and agendas. These forces try to either use individuals for their own purposes OR accept some individuals as ‘us’ or ‘good’ while rejecting other individuals as ‘them’ or ‘bad’. In the US, Jewish Power tries to use all individuals, Jewish and gentile, to serve Jewish supremacism. In Israel-West-Bank, the Power favors Jews as ‘us’ individuals(who are to be gathered into a unified force) while rejecting Palestinians as ‘them’ individuals(who are to be kept at the margins of society).

Given the way the game is played in reality, every individual must consider his or her ball-purpose. Every individual can be played by any side. There is no way anyone can opt out of the game. After all, even if one doesn’t care about politics and power, others do and their agenda will affect even the apathetic. For example, even if you don’t pay attention of power/politics, you work and pay taxes, and those taxes will go to serve some agenda. Even if you ignore politics, those who are power-obsessed with use government to favor their interests. Jews are obsessed about power and make sure that American power and wealth go to serving Israel and Jewish interests uber alles.

Suppose you join the military for non-political reasons. You only want to serve for a few yrs to pay for college and develop some skills. You see yourself as a free individual who’s just minding your own business. But just because you don’t care about politics doesn’t mean that others don’t care. Many American soldiers are apolitical(and signed up only for career purposes), but power-obsessed Jews are totally political, and their main agenda is to steer US power and wealth toward serving Israel and Jewish interests. So, an apolitical American soldier who joined just for career opportunity could find himself 5,000 miles away from home killing Arabs and Muslims or getting killed himself. In the end, his ball-purpose gets kicked by those who have a bigger vision of the game. Just like a soccer ball will be kicked back and forth by the two teams, an individual can never be independent in society. Even if one has no interest in politics, his or her taxes will be used to serve the interests of a group that is obsessed with power. Or his consumer habits, along with those of others like him, will enrich certain companies that have a certain bias. For example, even if you purchase Starbucks products only for the coffee, you end up doing far more since Starbucks uses its profits to fund globalism and homomania all over the world. And if you go gambling in Las Vegas, you are making power-hungry Zionists even richer. The likes of Sheldon Adelson have billions more to spend on favoring Israeli interests.

So, we are all part of something bigger and at the mercy of bigger powers all around us that can hire us, fire us, reward us, or destroy us. Because there is a price to pay for what we say and do, even an individual in a Free Society isn’t very free. See what happens to you if you freely denounce Zionism. If you exercise such freedom, you will be shut out of so many institutions and industries. For that reason, we must be mindful of the powers and forces all around us be they political, economic, ideological, cultural, criminal, spiritual-religious, and etc.
And we must be mindful to take sides. The notion of being above all sides is about as delusional as a soccer ball or football ‘thinking’ it has agency independent of two teams that kick or pass it around. If there is a difference between a ball and an individual, it is that a ball is totally at the mercy of the players whereas an individual, despite being played by both or more sides, can choose one side over others. For example, there are many sides in America that try to win over individuals as adherents, devotees, consumers, voters, activists, dupes, or etc. But individuals can cultivate a sense of what they are really about and take sides accordingly. Jews, for instance, are very conscious of Jewishness. Thus, Jewish 'balls' favor the athletic intentions of Jewish players. Jewish balls roll with Jewish kickers and try to score goals for Jewish Power. In contrast, white balls lack white consciousness and easily get kicked by Jews, blacks, and non-whites against white goals.
Jewish balls/individuals have gained Jewish consciousness, and that lends a sense of tribal agency to their motions on the field. Even if non-Jews try to kick Jewish balls in the anti-Jewish direction, Jewish balls favor Jewish kickers and work with them. In contrast, white balls either favor no side and get kicked by all sides OR they favor the anti-white side because PC has instilled white individuals with loathing for White Goals as ‘racist’. Too many white balls are like loaded dice. Loaded against their own kind.

Ironically, Jews hate gentiles who act most like Jews. The advice, "Do as the Jews do. Disobey what Jews say" will likely drive Jews crazy. Jews know that what they practice among themselves maximizes their power. Jews are into blood-and-soil in Israel. Jews are into tribal networking. Jews are into Jewish heritage and history. Jews are into feeling special, even superior, as a group.
Now, imagine if white gentiles thought and acted the same way. They would become very powerful and could challenge Jewish power. So, even as Jewish balls have tribal agency and favor the legs of Jewish kickers, white balls are either haplessly kicked around by all sides OR work with non-white kickers against White Goals.

For this reason, whites must be conscious of their racial, ethnic, and evolutionary roots. Long long ago, there was a small band of proto-humans. Over time, this group splintered and branched off into separate groups that became different from one another in appearance, temperament, size, strength, stamina, and/or intelligence. And Europeans developed certain traits that were especially common among them or unique to them. Just like every family has blood ties, memories, and stories that are unique, each race and every ethnic group have their special lore and legends.

Life would be dull if we only received tradition and heritage from our forebears. We want to be active and creative in our own right as individuals with unique hopes and dreams. Just as every ethnic group has its own story, every individual has his personal memories and private dreams.
The answer to life is the balance between what we receive and what we create. We want to be free, but the fact is we are born into a game of power whether we want to play or not. Just as the natural world is one of contest among drives, appetites, and wills among animals and plants, the human world is also driven by contesting wills in the ceaseless game of power. Those who understand this and act accordingly will gain in power. They will act in symphony with certain forces with which they identify with. Jews are powerful because Jewish individuals act in concert with Jewish Power and Purpose. Jewish balls roll with Jewish feet that kick in them in the right direction to score points for Zion.

It’s like an orchestra or any band makes music by having the players work in unison in service of the composition. If everyone does his own thing on the stage, the result will be noise and cacophony, not music and harmony. Jewish Agenda is a powerful symphony where most Jewish players act in concert with Jewish Prophecy.
In contrast, white individuals make a mess of things in their music-making since too many whites play contrasting melodies and work against structure.

White people must know that they are the product of a long evolutionary process that happened over tens of thousands of years. They are a people unlike any other, just like any other race is a people unlike any other. Even though whites have much to teach and learn from other peoples, all whites must racially and biologically see themselves as part of a unique people and culture. And their primary interests must to be preserve and serve whiteness... just like Jews feel that the main purpose of Jews is to serve Jewish interests and power.

How important is biology in all this? Everything is biology. Try holding your breath and shut off your lungs. How long will you last? You can claim to be about ideas & principles instead of biology, but the fact is you were born and live as a biological being. Without lungs taking in air constantly, you can’t live. Or, imagine your heart not pumping blood. What does it matter, you may ask? You don’t pay attention to biology and only to ideas. But if your heart, a biological organ, won’t do its job, you can’t live and then you can’t even think of ideas.
Why is murder so foul? Because it’s a biological deed. It stops a life from continuing. Why is rape so grievous, especially if it leads to pregnancy? Because it’s a biological attack on a person. Surely, the physical act of rape is far more serious than a mental fantasy of rape, just like real murder that takes a life is far graver than the fantasy of murder, like in Hitchcock movies.

Before anything else is possible, there is biology. We can’t escape biology. Someone may claim to live purely with ideas & dreams regardless of biological processes. Suppose he reads books but refuses to eat, drink, urinate, and defecate. But how long will he live without performing those biological processes? Without food and drink, he will grow weak. Without peeing, his bladder will explode. Without pooing, his intestines will rot. He will eventually grow sick and die because he didn’t address his biological reality. Yogis and ascetics have tried to transcend biological functions. Hindu gurus have meditated and disciplined their bodies to take in less oxygen and make do with less food, BUT even such extreme re-regulation of bodily functions didn’t rise above biology. In the end, even yogis and gurus have to eat and drink something; they have to pee and poo. Jesus fasted for 40 days, but even He had to finally eat and drink something.

Perhaps, we tend to ignore biology because so many of our basic needs for survival have been met. Without worries about food, roof over one’s head, plumbing that makes water easily accessible and sanitation readily available, and etc, we’ve come to become blind to biological functions. Hungry people know they must eat to survive. But in a world of excessive food, people think food exists mainly for pleasure. And in a world of plentiful water and drink, people don’t know the power of thirst. And since slaughterhouses are hidden from view, we think meat comes in neat plastic packages. We fail to realize that our lives are maintained through tremendous amount of violence meted out to cattle, pigs, chicken, fishes, and vegetation. Life is an endless struggle of biology, of creation through destruction.

People in the West, in their peace and prosperity, have failed to understand that their nice nations were made possible by great violence, struggles, and sacrifices. All lands were conquered, fought for, developed, defended, and maintained. Such could not have been possible without a guiding hand that directed one set of power against another. Take Israel. It may seem like a nice nation, but it was built by a biological struggle between Zionists and Palestinians. Jewish elites led the struggle and guided Jewish mass violence against Arabs so that Jews would come out on top. And Jews use border walls and pro-Jewish immigration policy to keep Jewish power at the center of Israeli affairs. Israel wasn’t created by some idle set of principles entertained in the minds of dreamers. It was created by biological Jews taking action and waging war on others who stood in their way. It was created by the triumph of Jewish organisms over Arab organisms.

Furthermore, even reading, writing, listening to music, and watching movies are biological processes. Thinking is a biological process. They all involve the mechanisms of biological organs. Without eyes, can we see? Without ears, can we hear? Without hands, can we hold a book? Without fingers, can we type on a computer or use a pen? Without neurons in the biological organ of the brains, can we think? So, even ideas and icons are all part of a biological process.

So, the most sensible ideas and icons are those that remind us of our biological existence, evolutionary roots, and cultural history. Ideas that deviate from truth of biology and history have little value compared to ideas that reconnect us to our biological truth and historical reality. It’s like drugs that address real illnesses and restore our health are far more valuable than the kind of drugs that promise false heaven of escapist fantasy while degrading our bodies, like meth and crack for example.

Journalist as Courageous Teller of Truth Is More Myth than Reality

Judith Miller, whore journalist of the War State

A healthy democracy depends on honest journalism, but most journalists are not free voices or inquiring minds. They are less likely to speak truth to power than speak power to truth. They are propagandists and agents for the tiny cabal that owns over 90% of the media. The reality is ethno-corporate ownership of big media, and most journalists are products of colleges funded by globalist & Zionist-imperialists who push Political Correctness to suppress free speech and the speaking of truth to power.

The big media colluded with George W. Bush to invade Iraq over false claims of WMD.
The big media looked the other way while Obama told lies to destroy Libya. The Media failed to expose CIA's aid to terrorists in Syria against the secular government of Assad. The media worked with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to overthrow its democratically elected government. 95% of US media are owned by Zionist-globalists, and all journalists must serve the supremacism of the Tribe.

Consider. Iran has no nukes and allow international inspections. Meanwhile, Israel has 300 illegal nukes and allows no inspections. Yet, Iran was hit with sanctions while Israel has been showered with billions in aid every year. How is this absurdity possible? Because Western Journalism serves the supremacist ambitions of Israel against any nation that guards its sovereignty and integrity.

The media also told lies about City of Ferguson and Michael Brown. Thorough investigation ordered by Eric Holder showed(contrary to his wishes) that the white police officer had been in the right in the altercation with Michael Brown. But the fake news media fanned the flames with the help of George Soros, and the result was the Ferguson Effect and thousands more dead in cities all across America. Journalists were mostly responsible for this. Will journalists do a mea culpa for all those dead lives?

We all grieve the deaths of courageous journalists around the world, and there are surely many noble individuals in the profession.
But do journalists ever ask how many lives were destroyed as the result of their misreporting and willful falsehoods? Lies and propaganda kill. Journalists, by serving as presstitutes of the Deep State, have furthered the interests of US globalist-imperialism well in helping spread wars all over the globe. Journalists, by failing to sound the alarm about Obama’s ventures in Libya-Syria-and-Ukraine, helped create conditions that destroyed countless lives. Worse, some brazenly worked as propagandists of the Zionist-American Imperium.
And consider the Fake News hysteria of ‘Russia Hacking’. This rabid lunacy(cooked up by powerful Jews) has prevented good relations between US and Russia, and millions of lives could be destroyed if war breaks out between the two great powers. Do journalists care? Or are they so swept up with Homomania as their neo-religion that they gladly shill for globalism to justify a 'new cold war' with Russia?

Journalists pose as courageous pursuers of truth, and some are indeed that. Kudos to Seymour Hersh and others like him. But most journalists are either craven opportunists who spread falsehood to further their careers or mindless PC commissars indoctrinated to serve globalism and the Deep State.
Consider how Washington Post is filled with second-rate propagandists whose families are tied in with Deep State, CIA, FBI, State Department, and etc. And who owns the Post? Bezos the oligarch who uses his employees like worker bees. And who is the big man at NYT? The gangster oligarch Lebanese-'Mexican' Carlos Slim.

Given the dominance of US media and its relations to Deep State, we must accuse globalist journalists for the death of at least a million people since 2000. Instead of fulfilling their calling as speakers of truth to power, most journalists have been little more than shills and running dogs of the Deep State, War Machine, and Wall Street Tribe that got away with the financial crime of the century.

Just like most Chinese journalists do the bidding of the corrupt Chinese regime, most Western journalists are little more than fellow travelers of the CIA and Pentagon. Their profession is a career than a calling. They are to journalism what televangelists are to Christianity.

Paul Gottfried’s Opposition to White Nationalism as Basis for Conservatism/Rightism.

Paul Gottfried, formerly a mentor to Richard Spencer, has remarked ‘white nationalism’ shouldn’t be the basis for the New Right. Gottfried argues that white identity doesn’t have a thematic history in Conservatism. Rather, it is an artificial made-up category, like ‘black nationalism’ in America when, in fact, no such thing as ‘black identity’ existed in Sub-Saharan Africa where people identified along tribal or clan lines than on racial ones. After all, it was blacks who enslaved other blacks and sold them to Arabs or European slave-traders.
Gottfried argues that Rightism in the West has essentially been about Christian values, ethno(as opposed to racial)nationalism, heritage & memory, traditionalism, and culture. In contrast, the notion of racial identity is a radical departure from everything that was genuinely traditional on the Right. Ramzpaul the Youtube personality has also repeatedly said that Europeans don’t identity by race but by narrower categories of ethno-national identity, e.g. Hungarians don’t see Romanians and Russians as their ‘brothers’ on the basis of race.

It was in America that race became a group identity. If black Africans had been divided along tribal or clan lines, black Americans developed a common racial identity based on skin color, genetics, shared historical experience as slaves and second-class citizens. Thus, the identity of race in America, especially among blacks, came to be associated with anti-conservatism. Blacks united to resist and destroy the system that ensured white superiority over blacks. Yet, black movement was paradoxical in that it was about black racial unity whose stated goal was to fight ‘racism’. Officially at least, blacks didn’t come together to favor blacks or uphold narrow black interests. It was to overcome the notion of race so that all Americans will be judged by ‘content of their character than the color of their skin’. So, the Civil Rights Movement was both a black racial movement and an anti-racial movement. Its goals were to break down white racial privileges so that all races could live under equal justice under the law. But if such were its ultimate mission, was the Civil Rights Movement anti-black as well as anti-white? And this issue was the basis for the divide between figures like MLK and figures like Elijah Muhammad & Malcolm X. MLK and his cohorts argued for ultimate integration and assimilation of white and black. In contrast, Muhammad and X argued for black identity and black nationalism as the ultimate objective of black politics. Both sides agreed on the need to resist white power, but one side wanted to merge with white community on the basis(at least officially) of color-blindness whereas the other side wanted to create a separate realm of black power in body and soul. To be sure, even the assimilationist and integrationist blacks could never let go of their racial identity, and their politics became one of race-baiting ‘whitey’. Still, MLK and his values were esteemed by both white and black integrationists as the shining ideal for a color-blind society. Even race-specific Affirmative Action has been rationalized, at least officially, as remedial than racially permanent, i.e. it is to ultimately end when blacks have caught up to white standards.

Anyway, there was an element of black identity in both black integrationists and black separatists. But neither side was associated with American Conservatism. Even black nationalists, despite their racial consciousness(and even black-supremacist tendencies), were seen as the enemy of the American Right. Malcolm X has always been more revered on the Left despite his black racialism.
As for black integrationists, black identity politics was always implicit and even explicit at times. Still, they spoke the words of Christianity, Social Justice, and Universal Progress than black nationalist politics. On those grounds, Paul Gottfried is right that racial consciousness has not been a powerful factor on the American Right? What about the KKK and Neo-Nazis? The KKK was not about white identity but about Southern Anglo-Protestant interests against perceived threats from blacks and eventually Jews. Religion and Cultural heritage were just as important as race, and KKK’s racialism didn’t reach out to white ethnics. If anything, the Southern Anglos of KKK were opposed to mass immigration from non-northern-European nations. They didn’t feel a broad white identity with the entirety of the white race. As for Neo-Nazis, they never amounted to anything in America despite the huge German-American population. They hardly mattered to the core themes of American Conservatism that were centered on religion, heritage, economic policy, family values, and anti-communism.

Therefore, Paul Gottfried finds the notion of race-based ‘radical traditionalism’ on the Alt Right a meaningless idea. He just doesn’t see white racial identity as part of any traditionalism in the West. There was a heavy dose of radical racism in National Socialism, but it was not a traditionalist movement. It was racially radical than traditional, especially as it was about a bunch of ‘Aryan’ whites at war mostly with other ethnic groups of whites. So, where is the history of white identity as part of traditionalist Right in America and Europe?

Gottfried makes much good sense, and it’s true enough that the term ‘radical traditionalism’ is a willful oxymoron. However, the rise of White Racial Identity may be more viable in the future due to common threats faced by ALL whites in both the Old World and New World. New crises birth new consciousness. What had been implicit or irrelevant suddenly seem essential and meaningful. Contexts change consciousness. Consider the notion of Asian-American interests in the US. In Asia, there is no such thing as united or common Asian interests. Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Thais, Malays, etc. don’t see eye to eye on much. Each think more in terms of national identity rooted in history, culture, and religion. However, when these groups come to the US, they all find themselves to be minorities and suddenly a shared Asian Identity gains meaning... just like shared common black racial identity gained meaning in the US because all blacks, regardless of their tribal origins, experienced the same story of slave ancestry and dream of emancipation. In black Africa, blacks didn’t have to think about ‘blackness’ since everyone was black. It was a given. And blacks were the only people that most blacks knew. Most black Africans had never seen a white man or non-black. They thought their little world was the entire world and all peoples were black. So, it made no sense for black unity. Black unity against what? Rather, it made more sense to belong to one tribe of blacks against other tribes of blacks. In contrast, blacks in America were faced with the power of whites. Since there was another race that had power over them, blacks couldn’t help but develop BLACK racial consciousness. Likewise, Asian-American identity that unites various Asian groups makes sense in America because they all constitute yellowness in contrast to other races. This is also true of today's American Indians. Prior to the arrival of the white man, notion such as 'Native American' or 'indigenous people' made no sense to Indians. They had no concept of any world beyond their own, and their world was about constant warfare among various hunting tribes. Their core identity was tribal, not 'Indian'. It was the threat posed by whites that gradually led to a common Indian consciousness even though Indians failed to form a united front against the white man(and other immigrant groups heralded by imperialist Emma Lazarus). Today, separate 'Native American' tribes remain and preserve their cultures, but there is also a shared and common sense of Indian-ness among them all since they have the shared experience as indigenous peoples who got defeated by the same enemy: Pale Face and Lazarus' Immigrant-Invaders.
Whether such consciousness is ‘left’ or ‘right’ is ultimately irrelevant. Because the ‘left’ is usually associated with minority interests, even non-white racial interest and tribalism will often be associated with the Left. In contrast, because white majority power is associated with conservatism, even anti-racial white libertarians who call for color-blindness will be associated with the Right. The point is racial consciousness depends on racial context. If America were to suddenly become an all-white nation, racial identity would be moot. What would be the point of discussing race when all Americans are white? The dividing factors in politics will be economic theory, religion, social values, or ethnicity than race, e.g. Polish-American vs Italian-American vs Irish-American. It’s like air. We don’t think about it because it is freely and abundantly available to all. But suppose air were to become scarce and had to be rationed to people for survival. We would all be air-conscious in debates over which groups should receive more air.

For most of American History, white dominance was a given. Whites had power over non-whites. And when ‘too many’ non-whites, such as Chinese, seemed to be arriving, immigration was shut down. So, whites could take White America for granted. Even when the 1965 Immigration Act passed, most white Americans didn’t much care since they only knew a white-dominant America and couldn’t conceive of an America that would eventually become white-minority. Whites were like the Hare in the race against the Tortoise. The Hare, so certain of its victory over the slow tortoise, couldn't even conceive of losing. Hares are faster than tortoises, so hares will naturally win. True enough IF the hare finishes the race. But it just took a nap and the tortoise passed it by.

Anyway, we live in different times, and white consciousness will have to grow in both the US and Europe. White Americans can no longer take their majority status for granted. Non-white colonization is out of control, and PC has mentally colonized countless white minds into welcoming the Great Replacement. And things are changing in Europe too. When Europe used to be virtually all white, it made little sense to unite over whiteness. What was the point when everyone was white? So, the divisions were over ethnicity, religion, ideology, or sense of heritage or historical narrative. But with the rapid rise of non-white populations all across Europe, various European groups are waking up to their shared white-Europeanness and feeling the urgency to work together to beat back the tide. Also, when EU now says even Africans and Arabs are ‘Europeans’ or ‘New Europeans’, race will come to matter more. In the past, to be German meant that you had German ancestry and blood. Now, an Iranian, African, Turk, or Pakistani can be ‘German’. In a nation like Poland or Hungary, national identity still has meaning as the basis of identity & unity since most Poles are ethnic Poles and most Hungarians are ethnic Hungarians. But today, being ‘German’ is increasingly meaningless since Germans with German blood must regard masses of invaders as ‘New Germans’. Germans are to believe that an African ‘German’ or Arabic ‘German’ has more in common with European-Germans than Poles and Russians have with Germans. Since national identity has been rendered meaningless, there is only race left as the unifying theme for Europeans. After all, even if PC argues a black African is a Frenchman, Englishman, or German, it cannot and will not argue that he is a white person. Thus, race is the only thing that can resist PC’s redefinition of national identities.

With the increasing browning of Europe and North America(and Australia), white people will realize that their race has to be the core tenet of their identity. Only when the West is once again made all white can there be meaningful national identities and divisions among whites based on religion, culture, and history. In nations like France, UK, Sweden, and Germany, national identity no longer makes sense. Today, French have to believe that millions of Africans and Muslims are fellow Frenchmen. British whites have to embrace tons of Pakistani Muslims as fellow Englishmen. Swedish have to welcome countless Somalis as fellow Swedes. National identity used to be associated with ethnicity. It is no longer. It is now just an ‘idea'. Jews first turned Americanism into an abstract ideal and then exported this notion to Europe. Western Europe has been thoroughly Judeo-Americanized. Eastern Europe resists, but for how long when the Western side holds all the purse-strings that bribe politicians into collaboration and cuckery?

Granted, the term ‘white nationalism’ is a misnomer since whiteness transcends national boundaries. The Alt Right is for the preservation of distinct white nations with their particular heroes and histories, but it also calls on all whites in Old World and New World to develop another layer of consciousness because all whites, in yrs to come, will be met with the same challenges. After all, anti-white-ness in the US doesn’t discriminate among Scots-Irish, Polish-American, German-American, Italian-American, and etc. They are all seen as part of ‘evil white privilege’. And the invasion of Europe will not spare any nation. Globalists are not content to flood only Sweden and France. They also target Poland and Hungary. And the local elites, eager to win approval and prizes from Glob Central, do the bidding of George Soroses of the world.

Consider the evolution of Jewish consciousness in the Modern World. Though there were Jewish networks all over the world, many diaspora Jews felt little affinity with other Jews. Many Western European Jews sought to assimilate and snubbed Eastern European Jews as vulgar, uncouth, and ill-mannered(like how the refined Anglo elites felt about loud-mouthed braggart Hitler). And European Jews felt little in common with Middle East Jews. And American Jews and Russian Jews went separate ways in their ideologies and strategies. So, what finally brought all those Jews together? One might say the Shoah, but it was really Zionism. It was Zionism that became the focal point of Jewish identity and power. Even though Jews in NY have the most power, Jews in Israel have the most prestige, and Israel was founded as a homeland for ALL Jews regardless of their national backgrounds: Polish, German, Russian, Hungarian, Iranian, Syrian, Yemenese, Egyptian, etc.

Alt Right is not opposed to ethno-nationalism, but it believes white people now need something extra. In the US, whites of all ethnic backgrounds share whiteness as the focal point, just like blacks rally around blackness as they’ve lost their tribal links to Africa. Unlike in the US, whites in Europe mainly identified along ethno-national lines, and this was a plus and a minus. It was a plus in that Europeans retained a deeper sense of roots and heritage. It was a minus in preventing Europeans to pull together their resources to develop into a great world power. After all, WWI , WWII, and Cold War were about divisions among Europeans leading to self-destruction or mutual distrust.
In this time in history, all Europeans face the common threat of massive Third World Invasion. Just like all Christian Europeans felt compelled to put their ethnic & sectarian differences aside and unite in their fight against the Ottoman Turks, Europeans today must realize that all of them face the same threat from both Jewish globalist elites and the Third World. (The one time all Greeks were most united was when faced with the Persian invasion. Even Athenians and Spartans united as fellow Greeks against foreign invasion.)
Jews and their cuck-collaborators have undermined national identity — globalists say anyone can be a ‘New European’ — , and Third World masses aim to colonize Europe and feed on white-wealth-as-beached-whale.
It is in times like this that all Europeans must realize that they are not only members of a nation but members of a race and continent facing the same doom and demise if they fail to unite as a people.

Was the Jewish-Christian Conflict More about Creed or Breed?

Was the Jewish-Christian divide really about race: most Christians came to be gentiles?

Suppose Christianity hadn't gone the Paulian way. Suppose the followers of Jesus preached mainly to fellow Jews in a movement intended mainly to be a reform religion for Jews.

There surely would have been much acrimony between the two groups(Judaic Jews and Christian Jews), but maybe the problems wouldn't have been so unsolvable if the contest had remained among Jews. It's like German Protestants and German Catholics used to attack one another but eventually patched things up and got along as fellow Germans.

But Christianity passed onto gentiles; thus most Christians were not Jewish converts/reformers but non-Jews who took up the Faith. So, the conflict between Judaism and Christianity went from differences of theology to differences of ethnology. And matters of blood are always deeper than matters of ink.

Religious Jews in Israel can tolerate and even accept secular Jews, communist Jews, decadent Jews, and all sorts of non-observant Jews as fellow tribesmen, but they reject even the most Philosemitic non-Jews as members of the community. Indeed, Jews feel closer to ethno-Jews who accept Jesus than to gentiles who reject Jesus and accept Moses. When Bob Dylan was into Jesus for awhile, Jews still regarded him as one of their own.