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.

Response to "Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job" by Philip Giraldi

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hating-russia-is-a-full-time-job/

The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.

Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.

Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.

But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)

Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.

Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. Paradoxically, this egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).

Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity --- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers --- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.

'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.

Would American Foreign Policy be Sounder and Saner IF NOT for Heavy Jewish Involvement?

Due to the undeniable Jewish domination of US foreign policy, there’s been increasing criticism of Zionist-Jewish influence on America’s role in World Affairs. Many have noted that Jewish interests or Israel First mindset has warped a rational assessment of America’s true interests. Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer even wrote a book on the subject called THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. And Andrew Bacevich in AMERICA’S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST duly noted that following the end of the Cold War(when the USSR no longer existed to lend support to Arab client-states), nearly all of America’s wars have curiously been fought in the Middle East against nations especially feared or hated by Jewish Zionists. That said, is it fair to blame Jews when American History has long been replete with examples of imperial expansion, foreign meddling, ‘police actions’, subversion & regime change, and outright invasions? And yet, certain things are indeed no longer the same following the change in elite power from Wasps to Jews. It is worth considering the differences between Then and Now and how they’ve affected the reach and tenor of perceived U.S. interests and interference in world affairs.

Firstly, in the past, especially prior to WWII, US expansionism was part of the World Norm. Imperialism was common and proudly practiced on every continent. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire stretching across Middle East, Southeastern Europe, and parts of North Africa. Russians kept expanding into Siberia and Central Asia. It had also swallowed huge chunks of Central Europe. When the British opened up trade with China, it’d been under Manchu Imperial domination for ever a century and half. There were native imperialist wars among savage tribes(among whom Zulus were the most impressive and notorious) in Africa before European nations began to carve it up. And Mexico(as with the rest of ‘Latin America’) was also the product of empire building. Spanish imperialists bested the Aztec Imperialists. In the other words, the Conquistadors were aptly named. The Spanish also took Philippines. The British and the French embarked on creating vast new empires. The US was created out of empire-building and continued in that vein up to the 20th century.

Therefore, US warmongering in the past, for better or worse, was part of the world norm. Every major power did it or aspired to it. Also, empire-building was deemed as national glory for the Whole People(as in Roman times). So, even though the elites benefited the most, there was a shared sense of pride and victory among all Britons in the British Empire. And, all Frenchmen were to share in the glory of French magnificence around the world, i.e. they weren’t merely part of a great civilization but a great civilizing project in the world. And US expansion into SW territories was seen as a great opportunity not only for the Power Elites but for ordinary Anglo settlers who could start new lives in those parts. And it was an improvement, at least materially, even for Mexicans in the region because Anglos did so much more with the land than Mexico ever did. It’s like the character of Ramon has it pretty good working for gringos in THE BIG COUNTRY. He was like the Guillermo of his day.


So, imperial wars were once standard among the great powers, and nearly all peoples participated in them as conquerors or subjects. Even smaller powers practiced a local version of imperialism. If not for French Imperialism, the mini-imperialism of the Thais and the Vietnamese might have wiped Cambodia off the map. And of course, American Indians had been like childish savages ‘genociding’ one another since time immemorial, long before the first white man ever arrived.

In the Age of Empire, glory belonged to ALL the people of the victorious power. Empire-building wasn’t just an elite endeavor and enterprise. So, when British power gained domination in India, even British masses could go there and enjoy the privilege of calling a ‘dotkin’ a ‘brown sammy’. The elites got to lord over the empire, but the white masses got to feel some of the power too, like calling a ‘dotkin’ a ‘bloody coon’.


And when Anglo-American Empire spread across the ‘fruited plains’(now the fruity plains), little people gained alongside the big people. While the big industrialists always got more, little folks got their little house on the prairie. (If People Power in land-deficient Europe had no recourse but to demand distribution by taxation, People Power in the land-abundant US could be satisfied with promise of property... that is until the majority of Americans became urban dwellers dependent on wages than personal property, especially farmland, for a livelihood.)

But then, with the spread of European-style and American-style nationalism all around the world and the emergence of native elites who felt slighted by European imperialists(with their exclusive all-white clubs) and were no longer willing to collaborate with foreign masters, there was a sea-change in attitudes among non-whites, and anti-imperialist uprisings finally exploded in every non-Western corner of the world and achieved their main objectives as European powers were reeling from the calamitous effects of World War II. (Also, as even the great European powers had either been conquered/humiliated or attacked/devastated by Nazi Imperialist aggression, many Europeans after World War II began to feel that imperialism could no longer be justified in any part of the world. They increasingly sympathized with non-white subjects resisting European imperialism, even of their own kind.)

Still, prior to imperialism’s gaining a bad reputation, it was part and parcel of how the world operated… even though Europeans had extended it far beyond the reach of earlier civilizations. So, warmongering back then was perceived and practiced differently from the warmongering that existed in the post-WWII era. During the Cold War, nothing was deemed worse than imperialism in the court of World Opinion. This was rather ironic since both US and USSR were great neo-empires(or crypto-empires). However, it is telling that they employed imperial might in the name of combating the imperialism of the Other side. When the British and the French had competed on the world stage, it was openly about empire vs empire. In contrast, the US and USSR practiced empire vs empire ostensibly as anti-empire vs anti-empire. It’s like Progs pretend that HATE exists only on the other side. They themselves hate but see HATE only on the Right. Likewise, US and USSR practiced imperialism but saw it only on the other side.

Cold War was a strange phenomenon in exerting tremendous neo-imperialist energies against the threat of the OTHER imperialism. Pax Americana portrayed itself as representing the ‘Free World’ against Soviet-Communist Imperialism that held the Eastern Bloc captive and funded radical lunatics in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to spread the Marxist virus. In Afghanistan, the US purported to back the ‘freedom fighters’ against Soviet Imperialist occupation.

Soviets returned the favor against US hegemony. Soviets conflated imperialism with capitalism, i.e, US imperialism was the logical outgrowth of the naked greed of capitalism . So, US support of right-wing autocrats all over the world was part of the capitalist-imperialist plan of global exploitation. Pax Sovietica promised justice and equality for all peoples under the liberating power of communism and compatible ideologies.

And even though some historians and ideologues now claim that the Cold War was exaggerated and overblown, it was a real enough international conflict between giants. Both great powers resorted to strategies of imperialist character to brutalize their main enemy(or its proxies) and to bribe their allies(or puppets). So, the warmongering of the Cold War era was intrinsic to the how the world was structured and divided back then into two major spheres of influence. It was a real Struggle of History, one that finally came to an End when the USSR agreed to Western terms of peace.

So, even though US aggression and warmongering in the past(when Jews did not control America) had their dark side, they were either in tune with the international norm(dominated by Great Power politics) OR engaged in a Grand Battle of Ideas that would decide, once and for all, the ‘End of History’.

But, matters are so different in the present. The US is the lone superpower and stronger than ever. Imperialism is still regarded as a dirty word, and there are no rival ideologies that seek to unseat, let alone defeat, the US as the premier world power. If Soviet imperialism and US imperialism during the Cold War could be justified as ‘necessary evil’ against the Other Imperialism, such logic fails today because the US and its allies face no existential threat(except in Immigration, aka Mass Invasion or Demographic Imperialism, which is enabled by the very rulers of the US, Europe, and now Japan too). This is why US globo-imperialism must be ever more hysterical in exaggerating New Threats to justify its obsession with world hegemony.

Worst of all, the New Imperialism is used to serve the vanities of the 2% of Americans. Actually, it’s closer to 0.2% of the population that make up the Jewish globalist elites because many ordinary American Jews are increasingly growing critical of Israel’s reckless policies.

Whatever one may say of past imperialism, it served and represented an entire people. When US grabbed Southwest territories from Mexico, it was for ALL Americans to share in the land, cattle, and opportunity. But when the current neo-imperialist US makes a mess of Middle East and North Africa(nations hated by Israel), it only serves the extremely narrow interests of the Tribe.
Also, if warmongering during the Cold War had some overarching purpose in the War of Ideas, the new warmongering is petty and tribal by design and delivery. Sure, some Neocons try to portray it as the Next Great Cause. World War IV as Norman Podhoretz called it.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/world-war-iv-how-it-started-what-it-means-and-why-we-have-to-win/. 9/11 was spun by Neocons and globalists as the beginning of the Next Big Struggle: The War on Terror. But as it turned out, the US found itself at war with a bunch of ragtag nobodies. Not exactly WWIV. And what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? If anything, Saddam Hussein(vile nasty bugger that he was) had ruthlessly clamped down on terrorists within Iraq.
Furthermore, how could the world suddenly be sprouting all these ‘new hitlers’? Lately, Putin became ‘new hitler’, apparently because he said NO to Homo Poo-Ride parades and ‘gay marriage’ in Russia. Most perversely, the War ON Terror soon morphed into War WITH Terror. Under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the US actually worked with remnants of Alqaeda(rebranded as ‘moderate rebels’) to undermine secular modern regimes that had kept order and stability in the region. It is incredible that Americans aren’t outraged that the war that had begun AGAINST the terrorists who did 9/11 eventually metastasized into war ALONGSIDE those very terrorists against secular Arab regimes in the region. It was as if Jewish Power was willing to tell any lie or invoke whatever convoluted logic to justify warmongering to expand Jewish globalist hegemony and crush any Arab or Muslim enemy or rival of Israel. (Even 9/11 was mostly blowback for needlessly intrusive US policy in the Middle East. Iran and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It was US and Saudis that had funded and created Jihadi forces, esp in Afghanistan, to use against the Soviets and then Iran. US was attacked by the very monster it helped create with the Saudis. It's like poison gas could blow back to one's own side with shift in the wind. Indeed, it is telling that following 9/11, the US did absolutely nothing against Saudi Arabia, the very nation that had been most instrumental in the creation of monsters like Osama Bin Laden. But because of the deep historical ties between Saudis and the US[that had been no less involved in creating useful terrorists like Osama], the Jewish media moguls and the Deep State overlooked key details and spun wild theories about how Iraq and Iran must be destroyed to prevent another 9/11 or worse: the Day After of Nuclear Terrorism.)

All of it was hype: Speak pushily and carry a big Shtick. Cold War may have been exaggerated but it was real enough. Soviet Union at its peak was a great power and did rule over Eastern Europe. And if China had maintained good relations with Russia and if Mao had better economic sense, the Sino-Soviet alliance might have kept the Cold War going for much longer. Imagine if, with some economic reforms, Chinese labor had combined with Soviet resources and know-how. Communist power would have been far more formidable. But Mao had a peasant mentality and didn’t get modernity.

Anyway, the nature of today’s imperialism, hegemonism, and warmongering is far more perverse because it runs against the New International Norms that emerged as part of a universal consensus following WWII: Imperialism is bad, and nationalism is ideal for each people for whom nationhood is viable. And in recent years, there have been Western voices(usually shills of Jews) that say the US in the 21st century should openly and proudly espouse empire-building as its modus operandi. Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson are agreed on this. Their dream of Lost British Empire is relived through Zio-Anglo-American might. Still, most people will not defend imperialism as policy. By and large, even globo-hegemonic US continues to justify its expansionism and interventionism on the basis of defending the World Order from imperialistic or terrorist threats posed by Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, and etc.

So, why is the US acting like an imperialist power in a world that, ideologically at any rate, has no place for imperialism? US freaks out about Russia ‘invading’ Crimea(when it wasn’t invaded) but insists it has the right to make threats on other nations and invade & destroy Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and maybe Iran and Venezuela too down the line. The undeniable fact that most of these targets of US hostility and hegemony happen to be nations hated by Jewish globalists is proof that Jewish Tribal hostility is at the root of current World Problems.

During the Cold War, many people in both camps knew of the most egregious abuses and betrayals carried out by their own side. Surely, there were people in Soviet Union who felt bad about Russian invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. And there were Americans who were disillusioned by US meddling in Latin America and Asia. But many Americans believed the alternative could be worse on basis of the Domino Theory that posited that if Commies are given an inch, they take a mile. Likewise, the Soviets believed that if ONE nation were allowed to exit from the Soviet-sphere, the rest would follow. If Soviets had done nothing following the Hungarian Uprising, the anti-Soviet rebellion would have spread to all Warsaw Pact nations.

But, we now live in a world that could be peaceful and harmonious IF the US wanted it that way. The world no longer believes in empires. There is no longer any great ideological struggle. Some characterize the New Struggle as The West vs Islam, a ‘clash of civilizations’, but actually, it could easily be resolved by ending mass immigration and US meddling in the Middle East. Leave those people alone, and they will leave you alone. Keep them out of your domain on the basis of nationalism, and they will live in their own nations. It was Jewish-Israeli paranoia about Iran, Syria, and all the rest that led to these useless wars that served NO ONE but Israel and Jewish globalist-Zionist interests.

Francis Fukuyama is a real globalist shill, but he was right in the sense that there was no longer any great ideological struggle following the end of the Cold War. Today’s so-called Big Ideas are all hype, manufactured and phony, like Homomania or Queertianity, which is really just a proxy of Jewish Hegemonism. If the world just wanted to get along and do business, it could do so and have peace and stability, the kind hoped for by Steven Pinker in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE, on the basis of Universal Nationalism.

Look around the world. Japan doesn’t want to fight wars. European nations don’t want to conquer and rule over other nations. Russia wants trade and investment, not more wars. It doesn’t have plans to retake Lithuania and Estonia. It is reluctant even to annex Donbass. China just wants more trade opportunities. Chinese don’t want to put military bases all over the world, nor does it want to ‘save’ or rule the world with Big Chinese Ideas. Chinese don’t think "inside every barbarian is a chinaman trying to get out." Latin America shelved ideological conflicts that had once seemed intractable. There was a time when just about every other Latin American nation was severely challenged by Marxist insurgency. That is all gone. Peace is possible if people want it.

So, what is driving all this madness that threatens to turn 21st century into a hellhole?

1. It is Jewish globalist greed in foreign policy. The desire to use American power to further Jewish Might, esp in the Middle East. As Jews control the US(the key vassal of the Empire of the Judea) and the EU(a vassal of the US), they pretty much own the two richest parts of the world. But Jews also want control over vast Russia with all its resources. The only obstacle to Jewish Supremacism is Russian nationalism, which is why Jews seek to undermine Russia with appeals to ‘democracy’ and homomania.
The main problem of this approach is the insanely narrow tribal interests of Jews on the World Stage. Jews simply don’t identify with most peoples who make up nations like US or Russia. When Anglo elites ruled America, they put their class interests above all else, BUT they still felt some degree of connection to the masses, many of whom were also Anglo, similar to Anglo, or, at the very least, white and Christian. Vladimir Putin feels a real connection with fellow Russians. Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt felt a certain bond with the white masses. Even though they were elites, they were of the same racial-and-cultural stock as the majority population. But Jews simply don’t feel much affinity with the goyim. Sure, Jews will make temporary alliances and feign compassion or shared values. For example, Jews will unite with Christians against Muslims and then later unite with Muslims against Christians or do both at the same time. Jews will make white Christians hate ‘muzzies’ and drop bombs in the Middle East... and then hug Muslim ‘refugees’ and pretend to protect them from ‘racist white Christians’. Jewish contempt for goyim runs very deep. Not all Jews have this animus, but many powerful Jews do. Chinese elites may be lowdown and dirty, a bunch of snakes, BUT they feel some degree of solidarity with other Chinese as fellow countrymen. But Jews lack such sentiments for the goyim, the white masses, the ‘deplorables’ who crave real leadership and inspiration. Jews pretend to care for blacks, but then go about welcoming Invasive-Immigration to replace urban blacks with Asians, Hindus, Arabs, and Mesos.

In a way, Jews feel that a world in a state of flux and crisis is to their benefit. After all, if all nations were stable and at peace, they would focus on their own domestic affairs. And then, each nation will ask itself, “who has the most power and privilege in our nation?”, and the finger could easily point to Jews. So, in order for nations around the world to NOT notice Jewish power, they must be set against each other. If Americans are angry with Russians, they won’t notice who really rules America. That way, Jews can play the role of ‘patriots’ defending US from Russian ‘aggression’ and ‘influence’. And if Americans are made to hate Iran(as an ‘existential threat’), they won’t ask questions about who really controls US foreign policy and why. And why not push the Yellow Peril narrative so that Americans will blame China for everything… even though Jews played a key role in bringing China into the globalist economic system. Do business with China but use media power to make China out to be the Princess Dragon Mom. If you’re a coyote, it’s better to have bears, tigers, lions, buffaloes, and etc. hate and fight one another than notice YOU.


2. But there is even a bigger threat that will mess up all nations in the 21st century. It is mass migration(or mass invasion) and demographic imperialism. No group has been more responsible for pushing this than the Jews. This will spell doom and end for Europe and possibly for East Asia and Australia/New Zealand as well. And Canada and US. Europe is esp in trouble as it’s being flooded with black Africans who are more muscled, more aggressive, more loutish, and bigger-donged than white men. As Europe become junglo-Africanized, white men will be wussified and white women will be womb-colonized and give birth to vile creatures like Obama and Kaepernick. Europe will become like Morocco or worse.
With control of Media, Academia, and the Sacred Narrative, Jews have persuaded all these naive native whites into embracing Diversity, Jungle Fever, Replacism, and ‘White Guilt and Atonement’ as the only way forward. And US is no different.

For a time following WWII, there was the Golden Age of Universal Nationalism when all peoples aspired to independence-from-imperialism and national sovereignty. At the UN, it was agreed upon by all members that imperialism is wrong in any part of the world. So, the end of the Cold War seemed to promise the end of imperialism. Indeed, even the first Gulf War was billed as anti-imperialist because, after all, Iraq had invaded Kuwait. But this posture of anti-imperialism and limited war soon morphed into a prelude for More Wars of imperialist power-lust. Saddam Hussein was small potatoes in grabbing only Kuwait. US will smash-and-grab entire nations, at least if Jewish globalists want them occupied or destroyed.

Anyway, the Golden Age of Nationalism could have been fulfilled with the end of the Cold War. The Cold War had necessitated both US and USSR to act like imperialist powers in the grand struggle. But absent such conflict, each people could finally be independent and secure their own national destiny. Indeed, the liberation of each Eastern European nation was greeted with enthusiasm. The defunct imperialism of the Iron Curtain no longer stood in the way of national independence of peoples finally freed from the Soviet/Russian yoke. Furthermore, the former Soviet Union itself birthed many new nations. Russian empire broke into various new republics, mostly peacefully. There was war in Yugoslavia, but at the end of the day, stable long-term peace was achieved with assertions of national identity and independence. And it could have been a happy story. And most peoples would have been content with Universal Nationalism.

So, what destroyed it? One was US-warmongering in Middle East and North Africa that led to huge ‘refugee’ crisis, mostly into Europe. Another was rise of PC in EU that made ‘diversity’ sacrosanct. Apparently, it was the duty of white nations to keep letting in tons of non-whites on some crazy notion that ‘diversity is a strength’. (If so, why are super-diverse Latin America and North Africa such a mess?)

But even more dangerous was the alliance between Jewish globalists and non-white elites & masses all over the world. Non-whites who had once resisted and fought Western Imperialists and told whites to GO HOME now decided to shift into Demographic Imperialist Mode and mass-colonize white nations. The reason was crass and obvious. They’d made a mess of things in their own nations with corruption, repression, violence, and/or barbarism. And they wanted shortcuts to material comfort and social stability in the West. So, these non-whites around the world went from the slogan of YANKEE GO HOME to YANKEE LET ME IN. And it was Jewish Power that pulled strings to pressure white nations into taking all these People of Color(or Corruption).

People of Color(POC) found PC very useful as a moral cover for their crassness. In reality, they’d failed their own nations and hoped to flee from their own peoples and cultures to enjoy better material conditions and opportunities in the West among Nicer White Folks. But admitting-as-much would have sounded crass and shameful. It would have meant they’d rather run off to White Success than deal with their own failures. PC came in handy because it justifies non-white invasion of white nations on moral grounds, however bogus they may be: Redress or reparations to compensate for white ‘exploitation’ of darkies in the past. The combo of POC and PC has led to a strange phenom of “whitey, I hate you, so please let me come live with you”.

So, universal nationalism was destroyed by this new virulent form of globalism. If the West had not allowed mass immigration, non-whites would have remained in their own nations and worked harder to improve things. But once the gates were open to the West, non-whites figured it would be much easier and faster to enjoy the good life in the West. In time, the process was completed with non-whites joining elite ranks alongside Jews and Homos.
When white elites used to send signals like ‘No Dogs and Chinese allowed’, non-whites felt slighted or insulted and decided to lead their own people in national struggles. But once Western elite institutions made room for non-white elites(as collaborators and partners-in-crime in globalist hegemony), the latter joined the Elysium club and pledged their main loyalty to neo-imperialist Jews/whites than work for their own kind. This has led to Diversity of Privilege where elites of all colors rub shoulders in hogging power, privilege, and influence. Having no allegiance but to power and privilege, they will cynically work to further Zio-US hegemony, even if it means harm and degradation to their nations of origin.
In contrast, masses get Diversity of Poverty. While white elites rub shoulders with fancy mulattoes and non-white sophisticates, white masses get punched by nasty thug Negroes and replaced by grubby masses of non-white foreigners.

So, under globalism non-whites effectively became demographic imperialists, and so, the world has reverted to the Age of Empire. But then, it is much worse than past imperialism. Back then, whites, the most advanced peoples, went to less developed places and spread science, technology, and new ideas. Also, except in some parts of the New World(and Australia), whites didn’t have the numbers to permanently replace the natives. So, Africa is still black, South Asia is still brown, Middle East is still Arabic, and East Asia is still yellow.

But the current demographic tide into the West, if unchecked, will turn white nations into mulatto nations forever. France will become Morocco-Cameroon. Germany will become Nigeria-Turkey. Sweden will become Somalia-Afghanistan. Why would Jews do something so terrible? After all, Jews insist on keeping Israel Jewish, and Zionists don’t take in any Africans or new Muslims.
Jews do this to white nations because they ONLY care about their own power. Jews figure that if all white nations are made ‘diverse’, there won’t be sufficient white majority and solidarity to work against Jewish elite power. Also, whites will be too busy bickering with Africans and Muslims to confront Jewish Power. Jews effectively play both sides. Jews go to the non-whites and say, “we are your allies against nazi ‘racist’ whites” and Jews go to whites and plead, “Oh help us poor poor Jews from those terrorist antisemitic Muzzies who are like the new nazis.”

As the result of current trends, the 21st century will be even more crucial than the 20th century. It will determine if the West and white race survive at all.

Notes on Introduction to HITLER'S WAR by David Irving

http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/

I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

The Opposition to the Homo Agenda should have been Secular and Rational at the Core — The General Impression that the Opposition to Homomania was Mainly Religious created the Illusion that the Homo Agenda was Rational and backed by Science

Unfortunately, there was hardly any non-religious opposition to the Homo Agenda except on willy-nilly libertarian or legalistic grounds. Hardly anyone mentioned the facts of biological hierarchy, i.e. real sexuality is meaningful, purposeful, and essential whereas homosexuality is a deviance in organic terms and perversion in moral terms. The secular and rational counter-homo arguments were heartless and bloodless, utterly failing to recognize the Homo Agenda as a war on biology and morality that it really was. As for the religious component of the opposition, which had long predated the half-hearted secular opposition(not least because the Bible adamantly commands that homosexuality is a sin), it simply didn’t have the means to summon up the kind of arguments that could persuade modern educated people. (Perhaps, the secular opposition to the homo agenda was weak because it was so unprepared for such a challenge. After all, most of human history, religious or not, had taken as granted the wrongness of homosexuality. There was no need to argue against it since it was understood that EVERYONE knew it was sick and gross even if not wicked and sinful. Perhaps then, it will take some time for a truly effective secular opposition and immune system to the homo agenda, which has metastasized into full-blown Homomania, to develop. As things stand, Homomania is the HIV of Western morality and culture. It is eating away at everything.)

At any rate, nothing in a republic/democracy like ours can be based primarily on religious doctrine or dogma. We can’t say “Evolution must be banned because it is an affront to God’s Creation.” Likewise, we can’t let religion decide matters on law and sexuality. We can’t ban or deny something on the basis of "God said so".

But then, opposition to the homo agenda didn’t need God on its side. Upon close scrutiny, it should have been obvious that a merely secular opposition had not only sufficient truth but all the truth on its side. What is this truth?
Truth is that some people are born homo and can’t being what they are. Therefore, okay, let homos be homos and do their own thing in their own spaces. However, homosexuality cannot some kind of ‘new normal’ but will always be a deviance that has no biological meaning or sexual purpose. That is also the truth about homosexuality. Among men, homosexual acts are downright gross and putrid. It’s about homo fecal penetration.
That said, we can acknowledge certain cultural benefits of homosexuality. Not in what homo do ‘sexually’ but in how they see and feel things that opens up new creative possibilities. Homosexual sensibility has certainly left its mark on arts & culture.

But homosexuality has no value in biology and family. Homosexuality cannot produce life. That is a truth. Marriage is a fusion of biology and morality. It must be based on the truth of life and the necessity of moral values. ‘Gay marriage’ is based on a lie. It makes believes that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality. It makes believes that Tim Cook’s anus has the same value as his mother’s vagina that birthed him. Another observable and undeniable fact about homosexuality is that ‘gays’ tend to be vain, narcissistic, and self-centered in their ego. So, they have no sense of limits in terms of ‘sexual’ excess or self-aggrandizement. Homos have even pushed ‘gay rights’ into Gay Rites. They went from secular demand for ‘equal right’ to a quasi-spiritual demand to be worshiped as new angels and saints. Homos have even made ‘pride’ synonymous with homosexuality. They are so vain that they want to claim and own entire terms for themselves. And their chosen symbol hogs all the colors and associates homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting with the miraculous rainbow that used to be primarily associated with the story of Noah where life is preserved by saving male/female pair for each animal.

Indeed, the Homo Agenda won not by rational argument but by the irrational appeal of sensual-sacro-propaganda. TV shows and Movies featured an endless parade of saintly homos were so well-groomed and more-normal-than-normal. Even as Progs generally mock 1950s culture of FATHER KNOWS BEST and the DONNA REED SHOW, homos were given a GAYS-KNOW-BEST make-over.
Homos won by having at their disposal the power of advertising, fanfare, spectacle, parades, and etc. It’s like communism mainly cast its spell with songs, music, pageantry, rallies, and etc. Its success owed more to the appeal of the irrational. It is no wonder that homos soon targeted churches and sought to associate everything holy & sacred with homo colors, which are intrinsically ridiculous since what does the rainbow have to do with homo fecal penetration or lesbian poon-mooshing? Or tranny penis-and-testicle mutilation?

Most importantly, the main reason the Right failed to oppose the Homo Agenda was due to its slavishness to Jews and the Rich. As many homos became rich, powerful, and well-connected, more and more money-worshiping members of Conservative Inc. began to suck up to Homo Lobby. It became a status-thing to be pro-homo in elite circles. Consider how S.E. Cupp broke down with tears of joy when ‘gay marriage’ was forced on the entire nation. Look how the kids of the Bush family are all crazy for homo, homo, homo. It’s what fancy elites go for, so anyone who aspires for higher status must follow along and flash the same cues. (Also, homos built up a network of spying, gossip, and blackmail. If anyone opposed their agenda, they would be ‘outed’ and scandalized. Look how the homos and their allies in the media dragged Carrie Prejean’s name through the mud when she opposed ‘gay marriage’ at a beauty pageant. They dug up all the dirt on her and attacked her to send a warning to all women what will be done to them unless they comply with Homomania. Homo men are especially foul in personality. They have male aggression plus female bitchiness and hysterics, like with the homo guy in MEAN STREETS.)

As the GOP became slavish to everything Jewish, Conservatives dared not voice any real opposition to homosexuality lest Jews get upset. Jews sent out a message, “the homo agenda is OUR baby, and we’ll be very very displeased if YOU oppose. Saying NO to the Homo Agenda is saying NO to us wonderful super-Jews”. So, Conservatives only pretended to sort-of-oppose it while effectively doing NOTHING to expose and condemn the sick, perverse, and evil agenda of Homomania. Look how even Ross Douthat(the so-called Catholic) and Charles Murray caved. That bald-headed lowlife bent over to Tinkerbell Curve.

The failure was due to the lack of courage to handle truth and facts on a rational and moral basis. After all, marriage is a primarily a Moral Institution rooted in proper biology. Morality must be based on truth and justice, and it is neither truthful nor just to pretend that what homos do to each other has equal biological purpose and moral value as what men and women do in their practice of proper sexuality. Or that what trannies constitute health of mind and body. Since when is using Frankenstein medicine to remove perfectly healthy organs to be replaced with fake organs of the opposite sex a sane or moral act?

We have spineless idiots on the Right. But then, the Evangelicals and Mormons are so eager to suck up to Jews and Money that they’ve also muted their opposition to Homomania. Mormons will do ANYTHING to have Goldman Sachs build more office in Salt Lake City. And Evangelicals will do ANYTHING to please Zionists and prove it is not filled with ‘hate’. Since Jews say, "If you’re not with homos, then you are against us Jews", the craven Mormons and childish Evangelicals have decided to add Homo-Worship to their liturgy.

The Need for ‘Commonal’ Sense of ‘Prioritism’ in a World out of Balance — Dangers of Universal Meritocratism to National Community — Feminism and Family

The Modern West, indeed the Modern World in general, has lost a sense of Common Interest and Shared Priority. The Rise of the West owes to its better understanding of those two principles, but in the pursuit of radical individualism, narrow identity politics(fetishization of Diversity), alien elitist globalism(mainly Jewish), deviance as the New Normal(especially related to Homomania), sanctification of the Other(mainly Negro), and division of organic unity(due to selfish feminism), the West has lost its Great Way.

What used to be the Priority and Common Interests of the Past West? There was an appreciation for freedom that allowed for flowering in the arts, necessary criticism & reform of power, new ideas & visions, and advance in science & technology. But of course, freedom in and of itself could be chaotic and infantile. Therefore, the West also prioritized excellence and hierarchy. Equality of opportunity didn’t mean equality of outcome. Equal freedom for all members of society meant meritocracy, the chance for individuals of intelligence and talent to rise higher no matter his class origin. Without prioritization of meritocracy as means of professional elevation and social advancement, the West would have stagnated like so many other civilizations where power and privilege depended less on provable ability than on birth, connections, or corruption(deeply ingrained in the fabric of society).
But then, the Past West wasn’t just about individuality and personal gain. It was also about shared identity, heritage, & culture. It was about the unity of purpose. So, the talented people of the nation were compelled to feel a stronger bond to his national folk(rich, middle, and poor) than with talented peoples of other nations. Sure, there was mutual respect for talent among the elites all over the world. Still, the talented Frenchman felt first and foremost as a Frenchman just like a talented Englishman felt first and foremost as an Englishman. An Englishman of Talent may appreciate and learn from talented men all over the world, but his core identity & loyalty was bound to nation, culture, and heritage. Thus, there was a balance of meritocratic individualism and cultured communalism.
If individualism is radicalized and pushed too far, the result is deracinated atomization. If communalism is radicalized and pushed too far, the result could be something like a dull Amish community or communism. In contrast, National Humanism can arrive at a Goldilocks middle between individual freedom to achieve and a shared national sense of identity and purpose. And the Past West understood such balance. For this reason, there was sound and rational anxiety about the Other and the challenges it posed to the One. There was Ethno-Meritocracy.

For example, the practice of universal meritocratism can eventually break a nation. Suppose an all-white nation has athletic meritocracy and lets the best man win. In favoring the superior athletes over the inferior ones, there will be justice in the selection and rewarding of athletes. Best white athletes will represent the white nation. But should such meritocratism be extended to the Other. Suppose this all-white nation takes in blacks and lets them also participate in sports. Because of the BAMMAMA Factor — Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive — , blacks will beat the whites and take the elite positions in sports. It will be meritocratically fair, but would it be good for the nation? Idols and especially Icons are very important in shaping national identity and collective psychology. Human Nature makes people focus more on People of Fame by sports, beauty, talent, and star power. If blacks are let into a white nation, allowed to beat up whites in their own nation, and take over the top slots of athletic idolatry, the repercussions will be huge. After all, a nation’s athlete isn’t just a player-in-sports but the representative idol of nation’s manhood. Therefore, if black men take over sports in a white nation, the symbolic meaning will be Black Manhood as the real manhood and white manhood demoted to benchwarming cuckery. So, even though meritocratism as a principle and method has real value, there is a useful limit beyond which it begins to harm the national community. This is why the Ancient Hellenic Olympics limited the athletes to Greeks. Greeks were too smart to invite a bunch of Jaffers from Africa to kick their butts, humiliate them, destroy the iconography of Greek manhood, and then take over Greek wombs(as women are naturally wired to go with winner men).

Even if the athletes of a particular nation cannot win globally or internationally, they should be assured in winning and dominating in their own nation, their home-field. When meritocratism is globalized and universalized, then every nation will end up with blacks dominating all the sports and taking over the idolic manhood of the nation. This has happened in Japan with Mongols taking over Sumo and blacks(mulattoes created by Japanese women going with black men) dominating track. These developments have meaning beyond the athletic. Sumo has long been a sacred-spiritual sport of Japan. But because Japan stupidly allowed huge Hawaiians, tougher Mongols, and taller Eastern Europeans into the sport, Japanese fatsos have been pushed out of elite ranks. As foreigners took over the ‘idolic’ symbols of National Manhood, Japanese women are now rejecting Japanese men in record numbers and going with foreign men. It won’t be long before Japanese sports are totally taken over by foreigners or by children of Japanese women who have babies with foreign men, especially the 'groids'. But if Japan is headed in that direction, Europe has gone full cuck by letting in tons of blacks from Africa and Jamaica. Look at European track, and just about every nation puts forth a ‘groid’ as its national 'hero'. ‘European’ boxing champions are now likely to be black. And there are lots of mulattoes, almost all of them the product of ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) as white European women are now turned on by black men as the Real Men and Superior Men. And with 200 million black Africans(most of them men) headed to Europe in the next 20 yrs, we know what the future of Europe will be. European race will be sexually conquered by blacks as the native folks of South America and Mexico were sexually conquered by the Spanish. This is the future of EU unless a powerful movement arises to round up the ghastly ‘groids’ and ship them back to Africa(and to punish the white female race-traitor like French sexual traitors were punished after WWII). This is why meritocracy has to be for a specific people and within fixed borders. If you let blacks into your nation and allow athletic meritocracy, they will dominate sports and take over as the representative idols of manhood, and then, the women of your nation will go black and have black babies while the native men of the nation are cucky-wucked. The tell-tale signs of both Japan and Europe indicate that, unless the protection of Native Manhoods from Invasive Manhoods is prioritized, the viability of a nation will rapidly decline. A healthy and viable society is one where men feel confident in their manhood and are respected by their womenfolk. This becomes problematic when a foreign and invasive manhood enters a society and leads to the severe depreciation of the native manhood. What soon follows is loss of male confidence, feminization of men, and the loss of respect of the womenfolk who then offer their wombs to Invasive Manhood. Negroes pose the most invasive manhood around the world. In Cuba since the Revolution, despite the fact that whites kept the power at the top, there has been a massive Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Unless white Cuban males have elite privilege, they lose out to the Invasive Manhood of the Negroes with harder muscles and bigger dongs. Camille Paglia reported that white men in Brazil tend to be weak and wussy whereas white women are assertive and confident. It is surely because white males in Brazil have lost their manhood to the stronger manhood of Negroes. In contrast, white women can just shift their affections from whites to blacks or mulattoes. Men compete to come out on top. Women just put out to whomever happens to be tougher/rougher men. Is it any wonder that the Rise of the Invasive Negro Manhood is happening concomitantly with the wussification of the white male in the West, not least via LGBTQ stuff? And is it any wonder that the ‘faggotization’ of society has reached toxic levels in Japan and South Korea? Having gone global, both nations now worship black men as the Real Men. That being the case, Asian males, having lost in Manhood, seek value in androgyny.

And, we know from the Jewish Example that cerebral meritocracy can be dangerous too. Sure, Jews are smart and talented. If your nation lets in Jews, they will out-compete your people and take over the elite institutions and industries. Now, if Jews were to identify as white, respect your people & culture, and act on the sincere premise of DON’T BE EVIL, their superior intelligence and higher talent may do wonders for your nation. But there is a good chance that Jews will continue to identify mainly as the Tribe, see your people as dimwit goyim, become addicted to Jewish supremacism, and get all paranoid about your folks having their own identity & interests. Then, instead of using their intelligence and power for the good of your people, they may very well use their advantages to weaken, harm, and even utterly destroy your people. Even though Adolf Hitler was a pathological demagogue and National Socialism degenerated into psychotic lunacy, much of Jewish behavior since the 1960s has validated the ‘antisemitic canard’ that Jews tend to be a people filled with arrogance, contempt, venom, and viciousness toward other peoples.
So, again, meritocracy should ideally be restricted to your own people and should not be extended to the Other; the best way to keep it among your own kind is to EXCLUDE the Other from ever gaining a foothold in your nation. (A nation should be closed in borders[at least to prevent Mass Invasion by the Other] and open in ideas. Secure the body but free the mind. Unfortunately, the Current West is about opening the borders and closing the minds[with PC].) It’s best to let Other peoples have their own meritocratic institutions and industries in their own nations. Ideally, German institutions and industries should provided meritocratic means of elevation for Germans, and Japanese institutions and industries should allow such opportunities for Japanese people. While a nation may benefit from universal meritocratism in science, technology, and business, there is a good chance that the Others will take over the nation in terms of wealth & power and then use their influence to radically alter the character of the nation. Surely, if Jews had been allowed to take over Japanese industries and institutions, they would have pushed far more PC and ‘multi-culturalism’ in Japan. In a way, the US benefited greatly in science and enterprise by taking in peoples from all over the world and offering them meritocratic path to success. But even if Abstract America gained something from this, the Concrete White America lost tremendously. By allowing blacks to participate in what were intended to be white sports, blacks have totally taken over the most popular sports and toppled the white male from the idol of manhood. As white-only sports no longer exist, even white Americans have no choice but to watch sports that are totally dominated by blacks. The psycho-social effect of this has been that white men are made to feel like cucky-wuck white boys rendered effete vis-a-vis black men. And in terms of sexual behavior, it has been totally devastating to the white race. White girls now grow up with Jungle Fever because Sports, Music, and Pornification of Mainstream Culture condition them to see Black Men as the real idols, heroes, and representative of American Manhood. In the end, the Fever Factor may be more dangerous than Guilt Factor. After all, despite all the PC brainwashing, the main problem is not white guilt about non-whites. Rather, the main problem is white FEVER for black sports, music, and sex.

Universal Meritocratism in sports has been devastating for whites. And Universal Meritocratism in academics and brainy endeavors has been no less disastrous for white folks. Especially beginning in the 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews used their superior wits to take over so many institutions and industries. But Jews didn’t rely on talent alone. Jews learned from history that mere superiority in wit, talent, and drive is not enough to stay on top. After all, the less intelligent and less affluent stupid goyim might organize, march with pitchforks, and bring down the Jew. So, Jews used their power to push the White Guilt Narrative on the Holocaust and Slavery. That pretty much paralyzed any sense of white pride, power, and unity. Most crucially, it meant white elites could no longer champion and defend their own racial kin because it’d be ‘racist’ — but then, Jews insisted that white Americans MUST favor Zionist Jews over Palestinians; go figure. Also, Jews used their control of Law and whore politicians to push through Immigration by non-whites(effectively a form of Mass Invasion), resulting in Diversity among ‘stupid goyim’ that would make Gentile Unity impossible against Jews. The result of Universal Meritocratism of brain power has been devastating to white folks. While it’s true that the US benefited from Jewish genius and smart enterprise of many people from Asia, it’s no less true that many white Americans have been squeezed out of elite institutions and positions by Jews and Asians. Worse, under the current PC system, whites not only lose out meritocratically to Jewish weasels and Asian grinds but ‘affirmatively’ to blacks, Hispanics(even white Hispanics pretending to be ‘of color’), and others. Whites may even have to lose out to Arabs who may soon be categorized as ‘non-white’.

The Past West understood the need to balance Individual Meritocratism and National Unity & Purpose. The problem of universalizing Individual Meritocratism on a Global Scale is that all nations could end up with the same set of winners. If all non-black nations were to allow blacks to compete athletically, all nations will have blacks as top athletes. There will no longer be local heroes in a world uniformly dominated by globo-Negroes.
If all nations were to allow open access to Jewish investment & influence, Jews could very well take over the elite institutions and industries around the world. Look what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s when they were given Universal Meritocratic access. Of course, Jews being Jews, they used a combination of real intelligence and dirty Tribal Networking(that pulled all sorts of dirty tricks to funnel most of the wealth into the pockets of Jews, as Bernie Madoff had done in NY over decades). If you want your people to remain as idols and icons of your nation, they must be shielded from Universal Meritocratism. Indeed, meritocratism must be provided only to the kin-members of the nation. Is it healthy for Southeast Asian economies to be dominated so heavily by the Chinese community? Wouldn't it be better for natives of those nations to find ways to select and train the smartest of their own kind? After all, the Chinese market-dominant minorities in those nations feel no great loyalty and, as such, don’t care for anything but more profits for themselves. And how long will Black Africa allow Asian-Indians to dominate the economies in nations like Kenya? Now, while it’s true that Chinese and Asian-Indian market-dominant minorities may do wonders for the economies of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, can the natives and locals really trust those people to use their wealth for the general good of the nation? One thing for sure, Jewish talent almost always becomes a net minus for a non-Jewish nation. While Jewish genius and brilliance may lead to all sorts of useful products and services that benefit the nation economically and technologically, Jews will make the bulk of the profits that will be used to eventually subvert, harm, and even destroy the identity and interests of the non-Jewish majority population.

Anyway, the West needs to regain a sense of what might be called Common Priority, a shared consciousness that prioritizes certain interests over others for the overall good. Now, having a sense of priority doesn’t mean one thing has value and another thing doesn't. Indeed, just about anything has some value. But some things have greater value. Suppose you have an exam the next day. What should your priority be? Studying? Hanging out with friends? Watching a movie? Listening to hours of music? Going for a long jog? Going hiking and camping? Baking a cake? All those activities have some value, but of course, your priority must be to study and know the material.
Or suppose a family without much money moves to a new town. What should be its priority? Securing a place of residence, finding work, and saving money? Buying a boat and couple of kayaks? Throwing a giant party? Getting a swimming pool? Learning to ride horses? Of course, a sensible family will focus on residence, work, and saving. The other activities also have value, but they are not essential for what the family needs. And indeed, this is what separates adults from kids. Children, having a weaker sense of reality, always want to prioritize fun. They want to go to Disneyland even when the family has no money. Adults must know better. But in the culturally degenerate US, the problem isn’t just a poor sense of priorities among things of value but the insane prioritizing of things of NO value. While it’s foolish for a family that should be saving money to put in a swimming pool or purchase a boat, at the very least a pool or boat still has some value. But what value does tattoos, piercings, and using drugs like meth have? Nothing at all. And among the Negroids, there are so many trashy fat dumb black women whose main priorities are hair-weaves and fancy fingernails. Among stupid black guys, the priority is imitating trashy rappers, flashing blings, and firing off guns to prove how ‘badass’ they be. Or, it’s killing each other over Air Jordans. How did America become like this? That black mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN had a sense of real priority. She done get the insurance money and put a down payment on a house. Granted, she didn’t have to buy one in a white community, but she knew what came first on her set of priorities. But if she had grown up in post-60s America, her first reaction upon getting some money would have been, "Sheeeeeeiiit, gots to have me be 10 buckets of chicken, gots to get me all them weaves, gots to get my nails done..."

One area in which Western People have a poor sense of priority is in the area of sexes and family. And one of the main culprits is Feminism, a confused and hypocritical ideology that demands that women be (1) treated meritocratically as individuals and (2) favored ‘affirmatively’ as a group. So, women, as individuals, should have equal access to all professions, but if women are under-represented in certain sectors by those very rules of meritocracy, there must be remedial policies put in place to ensure that MORE women are represented. There is an obvious contradiction in the demand that women be judged as sexless individuals but also as gender-specific group with special needs and interests. But even if feminists were intellectually consistent and genuinely principled in their insistence on individual-based libertarian meritocracy, it would be violating the Common Priority and Ethno-Priority of the People. Why? Because, apart from intellectual skills at work, men and women are profoundly different in their psycho-social instincts, attitudes, and habits. It is a fact that jobs are many times more important to men than to women. It is a fact that men with jobs will marry women without jobs, but women with jobs will not marry men without jobs. Also, as women get more education, especially in elite colleges, they become super-choosy in terms of finding a mate. And if women get good high-paying jobs, they will only seek out men who are equally or more successful. In the end, a high-earning woman is likely to marry a high-earning man, and the high-incomes of both spouses go into ONE family. Is that fair for the community as a whole? Sure, it’s great for that single individual and her high-income hubby, but is it good for society? Now, imagine if her high-income job had been held by a man. Then, two men with high-incomed could have married, and TWO families could have benefitted from the high incomes. Instead of two high-incomes going into ONE family, two high-incomes could have supported two families.

Now, there are times when women should be favored for elite positions. Suppose a woman shows special aptitude in science and could contribute a great discovery that may very well benefit mankind. In such cases, she should be allowed to pursue her field as far as it can go. But most high-income positions have nothing to do with genius, brilliance, or originality. Indeed, most high-income jobs held by women in law, education, management, business, government work, and etc. could just as well be done by men if not better. Now, if all credentialed men could have high-paying jobs, it might not be a problem. But the fact is there are only so many high-income jobs, and there is great competition for them. And in most cases, women who take such positions are not better than the men they beat out. Also, even if some of these women do have higher credentials, the jobs are such that men could do them just as well. In a world where men have most jobs, they will be willing to marry women with lower jobs or no jobs and start families with them. But in a world where women have the majority of jobs, they will be unwilling to marry a man unless he has a comparable or superior job. In the end, many of these women will use their money on vanity, narcissism, and self-indulgence. Many will live the SEX-AND-THE-CITY lifestyle. If their jobs had been held by men, the guys could have married women of lower stations and started families with them. But women with high-income jobs don’t want to go low in marriage. So, unless they can catch some ideal partner, they just spend all the money on themselves. Or they choose to become single mothers whose children, growing up without fathers, turn out to be confused and neurotic. Not only have they taken jobs from men, but they wasted their earnings on short-term momentary pleasures of vanity. The psycho-social impact of this is devastating on the society-at-large. Except for the high-income woman who meets an ideal mate in high-income guy, everyone else loses out. A high-income woman who is super-choosy and finds no mate — especially because so many people like herself have taken good jobs from men — ends up alone and bitter. The men who were kept out of high-income professions because TOO MANY WOMEN took the positions have a hard time finding mates, especially in an increasingly zero-sum-game economy where the Middle Class is shrinking: Winners win big, the shrinking Middle remains stagnant, and the widening Bottom ekes out a living or falls to terrible vices.

Now, the point is not that the feminist argument has no merit. After all, feminists could argue that they too are about prioritizing certain principles and values above others. They could argue that, from their perspective, the highest priority is female freedom, female choice, female independence, female success, female achievement, and female empowerment. What is wrong with more freedom, choice, independence, success, achievement, and empowerment for 50% of the population? Why shouldn’t women have the same rights and opportunities as men? Fair enough. And one might concede that such argument would make sense IF men and women were simply interchangeable units with hardly any differences. Suppose some screws are green and others are red. What sense would it make to favor green screws over red ones when both are equally screws and serve the same function? If indeed the difference between men and women were really that trivial — if, let’s say, women were merely men with different-shaped ears — , it would indeed make no sense to favor men over women. But the difference between men and women are like the difference between screws and nuts. Green screws or red screws, that is of trivial difference, but there is a clear difference between screws and nuts. They are not only different in shape but serve different functions. Yet, they are also essentially complementary. Therefore, one cannot treat nuts like screws or screws like nuts. One must always be mindful of the fundamental differences between screws and nuts. Ideally, for every screw, there should be a nut. A screw on its own is useless. And so is a nut on its own. What makes both useful is for the screw to be matched with a nut. So, if there are 20 screws and 20 nuts, the ideal would be matching every screw with a nut. But suppose the end result is 5 screws ending up with 5 nuts, 5 screws ending up with 5 screws, 5 nuts ending up with 5 nuts, and 5 screws being on their own and 5 nuts being on their own. Something is clearly out of whack.

Then, the same goes for humanity. Even though skills and professions are important to us, the inescapable fact is we are, first and foremost, organisms that were created by sex and our kind can only continue through sex. Sex is union of male and female. So, the ideal thing is for every man to end up with a woman, notwithstanding the presence of small percentage of homos who want to do something else. Because we are living organisms before anything else, we need to prioritize our meaning as organisms. Human organisms were born through sex, and once mature, they reproduce through more sex. Thus, the main purpose of a man and woman is to reproduce. Some people may disagree and say it’s a matter of ‘choice’(whether one choose to procreate or not), but that’s meaningless from the vantage point of life. Would it make sense to argue that it’s a matter of personal choice whether one eats, drinks, pisses, and poos? In the strictest sense, that is indeed true. Every person has a right not to eat or drink or pee or poo. He or she cannot be forced by society or the state to eat, drink, pee, or poo. But the fact is a person, as a living form, MUST eat, drink, pee, and poo in order to live. It doesn’t matter what books he/she read, what job he/she has, what ideas he/she espouses, and etc. The fact is he/she won’t be alive for long IF he/she doesn’t eat, drink, pee, and poo. Or breathe air. Even though anyone can say it’s his or her RIGHT not to breathe air, no one’s going to last for long without breathing. So, the needs of life trump all else. Try reading a book without breathing air. Try going for several days without drinking? Try going for weeks without eating. Try to last a day without peeing. Try not to poo for several days. That’d be a lot of shit.

Of course, a person can live an entire life without having sex or having kids. And if someone thinks he or she, as an individual, is the beginning and end-all of life, then, I suppose it doesn’t matter if he or she leaves no kibblers behind. But that is such a narrow, vapid, and shallow view of life. After all, no individual created oneself. No individual emerged whole and all-knowing like Athena from the head of Zeus. Because our minds are so complex and because our consciousness is shaped by books, education, culture, and socialization, we tend to see ourselves more as individuals defined by abstract constructs than as biological creatures. Even when people act most animal-like — dancing like having sex at nightclubs — , they are imitating and responding to the artificiality of Pop Culture that have reduced our animal drives into recreational activity than biological functions with a certain survivalist and evolutionary purpose.
But in fact, as creations of biology, all individuals are really part of a continuum. A person is not a stand-alone creation or existence but a continuation of his parents who are continuations of their parents who were continuations of their parents and so on. Every individual that lives today exists only because of this long continuum that goes back billions of years. So, it is vain, shallow, and stupid for any individual to think that he is a separate and ‘free’ from all others. The fact is his DNA — his appearance, intelligence, temperament, disposition, and countless other characteristics — is the continuation of the DNA of his father and mother who themselves are continuations and inheritors of the DNA of their parents and so on. If one’s parents had decided not to have kids, that individual wouldn’t exist. Or suppose a particular individual’s great, great, great, great grandmother had decided not to have kids. Then, his great-great-great parent wouldn’t have existed, his great-great-grandparent wouldn’t have existed, his great-grandparent wouldn’t have existed, his grandparent wouldn’t have existed, and his parent wouldn’t have existed. And he wouldn't exist. That is the effect of life refusing to be part of a continuum. Therefore, a person, as an organism, needs to develop a deeper and richer consciousness. Sure, he or she is indeed an individual but also much more. He or she, as an individual, is a link in a very long chain. Thus, he or she isn’t just he or she but the continuation of his or her parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and etc. Even though all those people may be dead, their organic material carries on in the living individual. And they will continue to ‘live’ only if the individual has children who, in turn, have children. A person is a ‘me’ but also part of a much grander ‘we’. A ‘me’ carries the organic genetic material of all his or her ancestors, and if he or she leaves descendants behind, he or she continues to ‘live’ even long after he or she had grown old and died. He or she, even after death, continues to ‘live’ 500 yrs in the organic material of descendants to continue to carry the torch. From this perspective, having children is as essential as breathing, drinking, eating, peeing, and pooing. From a strictly ‘me’ perspective, having kids is not essential since a person can live an entire life without sex. But from a ‘we’ perspective, a person must have kids because he can continue to ‘live’ only through his kids, grandkids, grandkids’ kids, and etc. Just like all of one’s ancestors 'live' in one’s organic makeup — one’s intelligence, looks, emotions, talents, and etc. are the products of generations of genetic history of one’s ancestors — , everything that organically defines a person is passed down to the blood of his or her descendants. Thus, life isn’t just a individual puddle but a flowing river.
Furthermore, because humans aren’t mere animals but complex beings with memory, history, and expressions, a person doesn’t just inherit genetic material but arts, myths, narratives, and cultures that deserve respect & appreciation and future preservation by being bequeathed to one’s own children and grandchildren. (This is all the more necessary as devilish Jews have taken over the West and have agitated non-whites to join the Tribe in desecrating and destroying all the icons and symbols that are sacred to the White Race.)

Anyway, while every person and every group may have his or its sense of priority, they need to seriously ask what is the ultimate priority of any people and civilization? They need to ask, "What is humanity at the core?" At the core, humans are biological creatures. Before all else is possible, they must exist. After all, everything that happens in arts, sciences, and politics is the doing of those who are living. So, before anyone argues about right-or-wrong, he or she needs to understand that he or she is making the argument only because he or she is alive. So, life comes before all else. Why is he or she alive? Because his or her parents went through the trouble of having kids and forming a family unit. Since every person was made that way, his or her priority must be to make more people that way. After all, no one lives forever and no single life, no matter how remarkable, is the end-all of history or humanity. (Of course, we don't mean a woman should have lots and lots of kids. But at the very least, she should have two to maintain a stable population and to foster a sense of family drama that is unlikely with only one child.)
Also, the deepest meaning of life comes from the family. No one is going to live forever. No one is forever young. Every life is born, live, and die. As purposeful and useful as professions are, they have no emotional value. Even doctors who save lives hardly get to know their patients. A doctor may have mended many bones, but once the patients are healed, they hardly send the doctor a thank-you card. A teacher prepares many kids for skills, but most teachers forget their students, and most students hardly remember most of their teachers. A man working in a restaurant may feed a lot of people, but he doesn’t know who they are. A man working in a bicycle factory makes bikes that many people use, but he has no emotional connection to the people who buy the bikes. There is no emotional content in profession. Also, there is no real loyalty. A person who works for Coca-Cola may work hard for the company, but if he’s fired by Coca-Cola and hired by Pepsi, he will work for his new company against his old company. It’s purely mercenary.

So, where does the real meaning of life come from? It comes after work. It is about having a family to return home to. It is about feeling a strong emotional bond with one’s spouse and having children who grow up to love their parents.
Now, some people may look for meaning by seeking pleasures or collecting stuff. He may attend parties and eat at nice restaurants every night. But as pleasurable as they may be, they are fleeting and ephemeral. While eating a nice meal is more pleasant than feeding a baby or changing his diapers, all the things done for one's child build up to something. It's not just about the moment.
Or, instead of pursuing pleasures-of-the-moment, one could collect lots of books, lots of records, lots of clothes, lots of porcelain, lots of rings, lots of whatever. And such are nice to have around while one’s alive. But they are dead material. They have no independence, no autonomy. They have meaning only to the people who use them or enjoy them. But the minute a person dies, they are just... stuff, like lots of things that Charles Foster Kane collected in his lifetime in CITIZEN KANE. But after he died, did all those dead inanimate objects care? In the end, stuff becomes trash the minute the owner dies. Suppose someone lives alone and has lots of stuff in his house. Suppose he has no kids and no grandkids. Upon his death, all that stuff will just be tossed into the trash.
In the end, the only thing that will matter is whether a person has children and grandchildren to mourn him or her. Having a family is THAT important. It is the core of life and from which the ultimate meaning of life is derived.
Therefore, a good society is one where most individuals are assured of a family life. Before all else, that must be the priority. It is the union of biology, emotions, and culture. Through family, life is created. And in the family, there is real love, loyalty, and attachment that is generally lacking in professions. And it is through the family, at least ideally, that the culture and values of a people & community are passed down through the generations. That being the case, the Common Priority and Ethno-Priority of a People must be Family Formation.

But the Official Ideology and Current Values prioritize something else. They mostly prioritize individual vanity to have it all for the here-and-now. Also, jobs are not seen as economic means to raise a family but an end-in-and-of-itself of status, vanity, and materialism, at least for those with choice jobs. TV and Movies send the message that success and money should be sought not for meaningful Family Formation but Fun-Fulfilment as if there’s no yesterday and tomorrow. The message is to favor fantasy over reality. Fantasy is how 007 never grows old. The franchise continues with new actors, and we are supposed to believe that the James-Bond-Universe is Diamonds-Are-Forever. But look at the actors who played Bond. Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and etc. They are human all too human. They are old men, and away from the fantasy of the silver screen, their life will have true meaning only through the family.
Now, fantasy has its place, and it can be fun, but it’s not real. But in a culture saturated with celebrity-worship, homo vanity, tranny narcissism, rap infantilism, STAR-WARS-forever, superhero comic-book heroes, and etc., it appears the Consumer-Hedonist mode has taken the main seat of Priority in how we define and measure our lives. So, men don’t primarily focus on family formation for meaning but on one's exploits worth bragging about. And feminist-poisoned women don’t think of the common good of the community and culture but ‘my precious vanity’. If feminists have an idea of community, it’s the sisterhood, but it is as meaningless as brotherhood as an identity. Brotherhood is a useful spirit in a sports teams or military platoon, but it cannot be an identity. Likewise, sisterhood has meaning in the sense that some women may develop sisterly bonds, but it's worthless as a real identity. For one thing, women on their own cannot perpetuate themselves, no more than men can. Furthermore, every nation/culture has different female cultures. Also, feminism has failed to be a voice for all women because it is mainly about highly-educated women seeking more wealth and privilege. In the end, rich women, even feminists, have more in common with rich men than with middle class women or poor women. It’s all just a sham. These elitist feminists use feminist ‘victim’ talk to climb up the ladder but only to rub shoulders with winner men and to have children with them.

Anyway, if we were to prioritize what is good for society as a whole, then, we must begin with the fact that the core meaning of life is about the Family. And that means a best society is one where most people can be part of a family of their own. Because men with jobs will marry women without jobs but women with jobs will not marry men without jobs, we must ensure that men are favored for jobs. We can’t have everything — only children and the perpetually childish demand everything — , but we can have a society where most people have something, especially something that is most meaningful and valuable: the Family. Because the family is that important, all other considerations and interests must be adjusted and molded so that we can have a society where the greatest number of people can have families, lead lives rich in love & meaning, and grow old & die with the conviction of having lived a life worth living, which is not possible without family. Without a family, a Sex-and-the-City Lifestyle skank will die an old woman in a hospital where strangers who don’t give a crap about her change her bedpans only for money. And after she dies, there won’t be anyone at the funeral, there won’t be anyone to care. And all her Stuff that she thought had such meaning just became so much garbage at a landfill.

We are told by environmentalists that there is higher Priority than ‘muh car’ and ‘muh energy’. We would all like to have cheaper energy and more consumer products by exploiting nature, but environmentalists remind us that we are ultimately a part of nature, and the destruction of nature will destroy us too. We can no longer fish the oceans like we used to. We can’t just dump toxic waste into rivers because it’s economical and cheap in the short-term. We must think of the long-term. We must think of nature’s needs as well as our needs. We must be mindful of the balance of them and us. That must be the Priority. We must think of other organisms, animals and plants. We mustn’t be selfish but see the Bigger Picture, i.e. we are part of Nature, not the center of Nature. What goes for the environment and nature also goes for us. There is a kind of ecology in human society as well. And the Tree of Life of humanity grows from the family. Unless we have a society that is geared to providing the most people with a chance of family life, the social ecology will fail... and we are seeing the decay and degeneration all around. We need Biological Socialism that says NO to mindless libertarianism, capitalism, consumerism, and feminism.