The Grave Dangers of Rejecting the Biological and Racial Basis for Life and Existence

 

So often in political discourse is aired the denial of the biological basis of power and relations. It’s as if some people believe that humanity can be governed by ideas and icons alone. They pretend as if nations and communities are organizations formed on the basis of abstract principles. It’s as if everyone is(ideally) an individual defined by ideas and imaginations of his own choosing from a pool of those deemed permissible by the ‘liberal consensus’. It’s as if everyone materialized out of the thin air with total autonomy, indeed without ancestry, history, and heritage. Accordingly, parents exist only to produce self-centered individuals whose meaning-of-life is to be determined by the reigning ideologies and fashions. The appeal of individualism is certainly understandable. Who wants to be told by one’s grandparents and parents what to feel, think, and do? Modern people want to feel independent and possessed of free will.

That said, no individual, however fiercely independent in will & spirit, made himself. He was biologically made by his parents who were made by their parents and so on. Also, every individual, no matter how creative or visionary, was born into a ready-made world of history and heritage. Even the great Beethoven was born into a culture of music that he advanced further. Great individuals take giant steps but on a path set forth by others. Albert Einstein built upon pre-existing scientific knowledge. Richard Wagner advanced the language of opera. While some individuals have the spark of visionary genius that achieves more in a single lifetime than most peoples in many lifetimes, they are nevertheless inheritors of pre-existing realities. Stanley Kubrick, a genius film-maker, didn’t invent the cinema nor establish its basic grammar.

Consider a soccer ball. It moves in all directions but has meaning because it’s animated by purpose. If a soccer ball were to be randomly moved by wind or animals, it would have no purpose. If the soccer ball could move on its own, it would still have no meaning unless it’s part of a game. It has meaning only when animated for the purpose of making a goal. The purpose of a soccer ball is to be kicked into a goal at either end of the field. So, Team A tries to kick it into the goal of Team B, and Team B tries to kick it into the goal of Team A. Every individual is, to an extent, like a ball-animated-by-larger-intentions. Without purpose, a ball is meaningless. A soccer ball or football has meaning only in the game, which is played to score points and win.

The world is always in a state of play and gamesmanship among all kinds of powers, purposes, and agendas. These forces use individuals for their own purposes. Or, they accept some individuals as ‘us’ or ‘good’ while rejecting other individuals as ‘them’ or ‘bad’. In the US, Jewish Power tries to use all the individuals, Jewish and goy, to serve Jewish supremacism. In Israel-West-Bank, the Power favors the Jews as ‘us’ individuals(who are to be gathered into a unified force) while rejecting the Palestinians as ‘them’ individuals(who are to be kept at the margins of society).

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

Suppose you join the military for non-political reasons. You want to serve for a few years to pay for college and develop some useful career skills. You see yourself as a free individual who’s just minding his own business. But just because you don’t care about politics doesn’t mean that others don’t care. Many American soldiers are apolitical(and signed up only for career purposes), but power-obsessed Jews are totally political, and their main agenda is to steer American power and wealth toward serving Israel and Jewish interests.

Therefore, an apolitical American soldier who only joined for a career opportunity could find himself 5,000 miles away from home killing Arabs/Muslims or getting himself killed. In the end, his ball-purpose is kicked around by those who have a real sense of the game.
Just like a soccer ball is kicked back and forth by the two teams, an individual can never be independent in society. Even if one has no interest in politics, his or her taxes will be used to serve the interests of a group that is obsessed with power. Or his consumer habits, along with those of others like him, will enrich certain companies with particular biases.
For example, even if you purchase Starbucks products only for the coffee, you end up doing much more as Starbucks uses its profits to fund globalism and globo-homo-mania all over the world. And if you go gambling in Las Vegas, you are making power-hungry Zionists even richer. The likes of the late Sheldon Adelson will have billions more to throw around to favor Zion.

Then, we are all part of something grander and at the mercy of bigger powers all around us that can hire us, fire us, reward us, or destroy us. Because there is a price to pay for what we say and do, even an individual in a Free Society isn’t very free. See what happens if you freely denounce Zionism in many institutions and industries. If you exercise such freedom, your career prospects are likely to be considerably diminished. For that reason, we must be mindful of the forces all around us, be they political, economic, ideological, cultural, criminal, spiritual-religious, and etc.

We need to be mindful of what the prevailing forces have in store for us, i.e. it’s better to be kicked by the right team. The notion of being above all sides is about as delusional as a soccer ball or football ‘thinking’ it has agency independent of two teams that kick or pass it around. If there is a difference between a ball and an individual, it is that a ball is totally at the mercy of the players whereas an individual, despite being played by both(or more) sides, can choose one side over the others.

For example, there are various forces in America recruiting individuals as adherents, devotees, consumers, voters, activists, dupes, or etc. to their side. Yet, individuals can cultivate a sense of who they really are and take sides accordingly. Jews, for instance, are very conscious of Jewishness. Thus, Jewish ‘balls’ favor the athletic intentions of Jewish players. Jewish balls roll with the Jewish kickers and try to score goals for Jewish Power. In contrast, white balls, robbed of racial consciousness, usually get kicked by Jews, blacks, and nonwhites.

Jewish balls/individuals have gained Jewish consciousness, and that lends a sense of tribal agency to their motions on the field. Even if non-Jews try to kick Jewish balls in the anti-Jewish direction, Jewish balls favor Jewish kickers and work with them. In contrast, white balls either favor no side and get kicked by all sides OR they favor the anti-white side because Political Correctness or its worse variant ‘wokeness’ has instilled them with a loathing for pro-white goals as ‘racist’. Too many white balls are like loaded dice. Loaded against their own kind.

Ironic but logical, Jews hate goyim who act most like Jews. The advice, “Do as the Jews do. Disobey what Jews say” will likely drive Jews crazy. Jews know that what they practice among themselves maximizes their power. Jews are into blood-and-soil in Israel. Jews are into tribal networking. Jews are into Jewish heritage and history. Jews are into feeling special, even superior, as a group.
Now, imagine if a bunch of white goyim thought and acted in a similar manner. They would gain in power and could come to challenge Jewish power.
Alas, even as Jewish balls have tribal agency and favor the legs of Jewish kickers, white balls are either haplessly kicked around by all sides OR work with non-white kickers against White Goals.

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

Race is especially crucial as it’s the deepest definer of any people. Human history is, at most, 6,500 years old, and Northern European history is considerably shorter, at around 1,500 years old, and the history of modern nation-states is much shorter still. But long before there was any civilization, the white race had come into existence, roughly around 40,000 years ago. Before there were complex societies, civilization, organized religion, and recorded history, the European folks had been around for eons as a race.
Similarly, the American Indian claim to North America is mostly racial, especially as any long-lasting civilization failed to materialize among the indigenous folks. Long before there arose the various tribes(that came into violent contact with the white conqueror-settlers), the indigenous folks had existed as a race(or races) for around 20,000 years. The ‘spiritual’ bond of the American Indians to the land is essentially racial, i.e. the ‘red’ race has deep roots and bonds to the land, something all Americans need to respect.

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

Granted, there are both good and bad ways to be tribal. “My country/people right or wrong” is not an ethical perspective, that is unless all tribes feel the same way. The good and decent way to be tribal, nationalist, or patriotic is to recognize the validity of other peoples as well and seek diplomatic solutions on the basis of mutuality and reciprocity. Such an order would necessitate all tribes to adhere to a common set of basic principles.

The tragedy of Jewish Power stems from its dismissal of the rules that could make for a peaceful world order. The pairing of Jewish Supremacism and White Submissivism has been among the most unfortunate developments in history, rather amusing as whites submit to Jews as an atonement for their past supremacism when, if anything, they’re only acting to enable Jewish Supremacism, even leading some whites to rationalize their cuckery on account of Jews being the true master race(either spiritually as the ‘Chosen’ or intellectually as the smartest), i.e. the problem isn’t supremacism per se but wrongful supremacism(that of whites), which must be corrected with the rightful supremacism(of Jews as master geniuses and of blacks as master studs). Call it ‘justice supremacism’. Whites, who could function as a brake on Jewish Power(and did in the past), serve as the accelerator, dangerously leading the whole world to the edge as the US is still the lone superpower with great leverage over the entire world. If whites won’t do it, others must step up the plate in calling out on Jewish Power, but then how do whites react to this? They even cuck harder to Jews by barking at the Other to win doggy-biscuits as the darling pets of Zion.

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

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

How important is biology in all this? Everything is biology. Try holding your breath and ignoring your lungs. How long will you last? You can claim to be about ideas & principles instead of biology, but the fact is you were born and you live as a biological being. Without lungs taking in air constantly, you can’t live. Or, imagine your heart not pumping blood.

Why is murder so foul? Because it’s a biological deed. It stops life from continuing. Why is rape so grievous, especially if it leads to pregnancy? Because it’s a biological attack on a person. Surely, the physical act of rape is far more serious than a mental fantasy of rape, just like real murder that takes a life is far graver than the fantasy of murder, like in Hitchcock movies.

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

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

People in the West, in their peace and prosperity, have forgotten or failed to appreciate that their nice nations were created through great violence, struggles, and sacrifices. It is that willful naivete that triggers so many whites into self-loathing when they learn of the ‘dark’ side of white history.
Of course, there are other kinds of whites as well who, being rather proud of Western Civilization as the summit of human achievement, believe that the West is too wonderful for any single race to lay claim to and, therefore, must be shared with the whole world, and if you say otherwise, you’re a damned ‘racist’. Most mainstream white ‘conservatives’ fall into this school of thought, which is just as damaging in the long term as ‘wokeness’.

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

Furthermore, even reading, writing, listening to music, and watching movies are biological processes. Thinking is a biological process. They all involve the mechanisms of biological organs. Without eyes, we can’t see. Without ears, we can’t hear. Without hands, we can’t hold a book. Without fingers, we can’t use a pen or computer. Without neurons in the biological organ of the brain, we can’t think. So, even ideas and icons are all part of a biological process. It’s so obvious but overlooked precisely because it’s so obvious, therefore taken for granted instead of being appreciated on a daily basis.
Likewise, Europe has taken its existence(and dominance and prosperity) for granted for so long that it has yet to wake up and take necessary measures to ensure its survival against dire globalist trends.

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

Righteousness > Tribalism? — How Self-Righteous Flames Can Burn More Brightly Than the Tribal Fire, at Least in the Short Term

 

Tribalism is a powerful force, but so is self-righteousness. While tribalism may win out in the long run(that is if the tribe survives), self-righteousness or outrage mentality has short-term advantage. Being self-righteous is like a cocaine high, something you can’t get from tribalism which is about hunkering down. This is why the Power works very hard to define and control the terms of self-righteousness. Most people are incapable of defining the terms of outrage on their own. It must be handed to them like a bone thrown to a pack of hungry dogs. Consider China during the Cultural Revolution. Mao threw the radical bone of ‘to rebel is justified’ to the youth that then ran riot for a few years smashing everything in their path. It must have felt awesome to be so self-righteous.

As Jewish Supremacists rule the US, they get to define what people should be outraged or self-righteous about. Self-righteousness is intoxicating, a means of instant self-aggrandizement as a ‘woke’ person. Jews pushed Globo-Homo as one of the main themes, and countless idiots since have gotten all weepy and wild about holy homos and transcendent trannies.

In the long run, the Cultural Revolution petered out and Chinese tribalism won out over ideological radicalism, but when it was on fire, it really burned hot and scorched everything in its path. Tribalism is like the soil + rain from which stuff grows. Self-righteousness is like wind + fire. It can’t last forever, but when it does, it is an awesome force that can burn down entire forests.
This is why any side that seeks power must gain control of the terms of outrage and self-righteousness. People claim to be rational and individualistic but, in truth, are often governed more by a collective sense of righteousness & rightness(fed to them by media and academia controlled currently by Jewish Power).
James Watson is correct about IQ differences between whites and blacks, but facts mean little or are downright infuriating to lots of people who idolize Blacks as sacrosanct(and/or awesome). So, righteous chest-beating about blacks trumps factual rightness about race and IQ. Just like more people get excited over emotive astrology than factual astronomy, it’s the manipulation of emotions that often count for more.

It’s been said people are naturally tribal, the most powerful passion in the world. Is it? If so, why did so many tribal identities fade? Jewish Identity survived, but what happened to the Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, and countless others? If tribalism is so resilient, why did those cultures vanish? While some peoples/cultures were physically wiped out, most identities and cultures faded away without mass deaths. Instead of people clinging to their identities, cultures, and languages, they abandoned those for something else. In some cases, the changes were forced on them at the point of the sword.
Many peoples had no choice but to convert to new faiths and rituals. Consider all the pagan cultures that were eradicated in Europe and Near East as the result of the spread of Christianity and Islam. But then, many tribes willingly abandoned their own cultures and beliefs to adopt something deemed more pleasing or prestigious.

Granted, tribalism, if sufficiently rich, broad, and/or potent, can be deeper than credo or faith. A Russian was a Russian before communism, during communism, and after communism. One could be Greek in the ancient world and choose from various schools of philosophies. Whether one was a stoic or an epicurean, a Greek was a Greek. A people can keep their tribalism even as they change values and beliefs. Modern Chinese have adopted much that is Western in ideology and economics, but they still feel as ethnically Chinese.

But, there were many more extinct cultures than living-and-continuous ones. And most of them went extinct because their members gave up on their core tribal identity. In some cases, it was a case of ‘take on or assimilate to new identities’. Or, people just gave up on high culture & complex identity and receded into subsistence living, like what happened to peoples who scattered into the jungles following the collapse of the Mayan civilization(prior to the arrival of Europeans) or Khmer civilization(that left behind Angkor Wat but not much else).

Jews have been the exception than the rule in human history. Among ancient identities, Jewishness is one of the few that managed to survive to the present. While today’s Egyptians have genetic links to Ancient Egyptians, there was a decisive break from the past. It took Western archaeology to rediscover much of the lost ancient world and reconnect the natives to their forgotten pasts.
Besides, the spread of Christianity and Islam had the effect of ‘cultural genocide’ on both the Near East and Europe. As the coming of the One God demanded the destruction of pagan cultures, the baby of tribal ancestry was thrown out along with the bath-water of pagan ‘superstition’. Only sufficiently high pagan cultures were preserved as myths, legends, and artistic expression.

The histories of Europe and Near East have been, more or less, continuous since the time they adopted monotheism derived from Jewish spirituality, albeit at the cost of fundamental breaks with their pagan pasts. In contrast, medieval Jews didn’t need to undergo a ‘radical’ break from their ancient origins because, from the beginning, they had faith in the One God.
The story of the Jews illustrates how, despite credo and ethno being separate categories, one can deeply affect the other. Even though the coming of Christianity didn’t wipe out the white European race, the change in credo led to the destruction of indigenous pagan culture rooted in blood-and-soil, in effect eradicating certain strains of tribal consciousness. And much the same happened in the Near East with the spread of Christianity and then Islam. Also, the Byzantium, or the Christian East, though spared the onslaught of the Germanic barbarians, underwent profound changes as Christianity suppressed and even destroyed much of the glories of pagan culture that held within them the markers of tribal identity.

Monotheism was both the greatest destroyer and the greatest enabler of tribal identity. On the one hand, it had the power to wipe out indigenous pagan cultures and beliefs so crucial to tribal identity. And yet, people whose spirituality was imbued with monotheism of the all-powerful Being of truth, goodness, and mystery were more likely to possess a culture of continuity and constancy, a kind of ‘rootedness’ to heaven and ‘footedness’ in destiny. After all, the one true God is bound to offer a deeper sense of moral uplift and spiritual truth than a bunch of imperfect pagan gods who, however colorful or ingeniously conceived, tend to be vain, fickle, and/or amoral in their desires and demands. Monotheism ensured the continuance of newly conceived or profoundly revised identities and cultures in both Europe and the Near East. Even pagan elements that survived were either Christened or Islamized via syncretism.

Anyway, even though tribalism is a real force in nature and history(which is, after all, the story of human nature), its resilience mustn’t be exaggerated or taken for granted. There are plenty of counter- or related(but distinct) forces that can work against tribalism, even destroying it almost overnight in historical time.
Materialism and individualism are but two. If indeed tribalism is the most powerful force, why have so many people been willing to move to another country, especially the United States(and other parts of the West), to start anew as ‘Americans’, ‘Australians’, or ‘New Europeans’? Why so readily betray and dispose of one’s own peoples, cultures, and lands to come to the US and take on a new identity, especially for one’s children who usually forget their ancestral language, culture, & sense of history and eventually assimilate into Americanism? And why have so many white Americans(and even Europeans) adapted to or even embraced radically altered definitions of who they are? Why are so many Irishmen willing to champion the notion that a newly arrived African, Hindu, Muslim, or Vietnamese is just as Irish as they are? What happened to the natural power of tribalism? It’s been said that people must be conditioned and indoctrinated to be anti-tribal, but many people, when freely given the choice of tribalism or individualism/globalism, happily choose the latter as morally sound, culturally enrichening, and economically viable, indeed far more so than tribalism. If many people in big countries feel they have too much land and resources for only themselves, many in small countries feel restricted and confined to limited resources and opportunities.

The US as the global destination is all the more jarring given its long history of war. There’s always been a fair chance that the America one assimilates into could make war on one’s nation of origin, in which case one will have to support directly or indirectly the American War on one’s blood kin in one’s ancestral land. Consider the German-Americans who fought in World War I against Germany. Consider Muslim-Americans who took part in the invasion of the Middle East that led to deaths of 100,000s(or maybe millions) of Muslims. Indeed, just about ONLY nation that the US is unlikely to wage war on or politically threaten/abuse is Israel as Judeo-centrists have total lock on US politics.

So, why did people come to the US and give up their identity and culture of origin? They were tempted with materialism(as US is obviously richer than most nations) and freedom(of which US has more to offer than most other nations, though so-called ‘wokeness’ is chipping away at it; granted, non-white immigrants and especially their children are likely to support reduced freedom for whites because Jewish media/academia have spread the message that unfettered free speech could lead to ‘white supremacism’ that will close the gates to further non-white immigration, in which case immigrant groups won’t be able to bring over their relatives via chain-migration).

Material interest and individual freedom have often trumped tribalism. It’s been said Chinese are proud of their culture and history, but look at all those Chinese who not only flock to the US, Canada, and Australia but readily lose their identity to become ‘New Americans’ and ‘New Canadians’. And in our Age of Cool, so many people find the real culture of history, heritage, and community to be ‘boring’ & ‘lame’ and chase after the siren song of pop culture and fashion. For a lot of whites, it only took some TV shows to change their minds on a moral and cultural issue as fundamental as marriage, which is 80% of American morons now support ‘gay marriage’. And for shallow dolts like Charles Murray, all it took was status anxiety to change his mind.
And even though the US makes threats on Iran and Russia all the time(even to the point risking a major war), there are plenty of Russians and Iranians who are willing to drop everything and come to the US and become ‘Americans’ even though their tax dollars will go toward hate-mongering against their nations of origin.

The power of tribalism is real, but it can be surmounted or circumvented by other factors, such as pleasure. Why do black men chase after white women and vice versa? Because jungle fever is pleasurable to both parties. Black men find white women to be fairer, and white women go with black men who are more muscular and have bigger dongs. And consider all the Asian women who go with non-Asian men and all the Mexican women who go with ‘gringos’. Vietnam may have won the war, but it’s back to ‘me so horny’ antics again, and so many Asian women who remain single and barren in places like Japan, Korea, and China will instantly jump at the chance of marrying a foreigner, especially white, and having mixed-race kids.

Perversely, tribalism can lead to strange alliances that may actually undermine tribalism. In World War II, Nazi Germany was allied with Imperial Japan against the UK even though Hitler actually admired and respected Anglos while having a rather low opinion of the Asian race(as unoriginal and inferior). Instead of white vs yellow, it turned into white-and-yellow vs white. But because of the Anglo-Germanic conflict, Germany made an alliance with an Asian nation(just like it allied with Muslim Ottoman Empire in World War I). And Anglos recruited lots of nonwhites from their empire to fight the Axis powers.
During the Cold War, white America came to an understanding with yellow China against white Russia. And from the late 19th century to now, Japan has been allied mostly with the West against Asia. It was only during World War II that Japan invoked Asian Brotherhood as a ploy against European and American Imperialists. But prior to the falling out between Japan and the US, both were ‘partners-in-crime’ in their aggression against the Asian mainland. And after WWII, Japan was once again allied with the US against much of the mainland, especially Red China. So, yellow tribalism sided with white tribalism against another yellow tribalism. And when the US and China drew closer under Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, it was white tribalism(of US) siding with yellow tribalism(of China) against another white tribalism(of USSR).

Granted, one could argue that the US and USSR were not motivated by ‘white tribalism’ as both empires professed grandiose universalist ideologies, but for most of US and USSR history, one could not discount the white political consciousness as a key element in foreign policy(just like current US policy makes no sense unless we take Jewish ethno-centrism into account). Until relatively recently, US power was essentially white and Christian. And in the USSR, people of European stock had most of the power compared to Central Asians and Muslims.

Perhaps, one difference is that, during the Cold War, Anglos increasingly lost power in the US(mainly to Jews), whereas ethnic Russians increasingly gained power in the USSR(mainly from Jews). When the Cold War began, the US was still solidly in the hands of Wasps, whereas Soviet leadership was varied, especially under the leadership of Georgian Stalin. After Stalin, the new leader was Khrushchev the Russo-Ukrainian. But as years passed, Russian nationals increasingly gained leverage in the USSR(especially with the suppression of Jewish power that came under suspicion as linked to Zionism), whereas power in the US increasingly shifted in favor of the Jews.
Of course, capitalism was bound to favor Jews in the long run because sky’s the limit in a market economy. Even though Jewish radical intellectuals played a significant role in the communist takeover of Russia, the system of machine politics and ethos of equality(and mediocrity) were bound to suppress the power of Jewish ingenuity, drive, and ambition(for good or ill).

Another way tribalism can be used against itself depends on programming. Now, this doesn’t apply to solitary animals that even shun others of their own species EXCEPT in mating and mothering, but among social organisms, the tribal instinct can be reprogrammed to serve another tribe. Certain species of ants carry out mass theft of larvae of another species that hatch to serve the very ant colony that ‘enslaved’ them. Humans can toy with canine ‘pack’ nature to make dogs serve man against other dogs. Thus, tribal nature isn’t suppressed or extinguished but, instead, re-attached in service to(and possibly identification with) another tribe. The Janissary was a historical example of such a formula. Ottoman Turks scoured Christian Greece and Balkan territories to conscript young boys who were deemed especially attractive, healthy, and intelligent. These boys were initially traumatized in their separation from family and culture, but under intensive Muslim training, they became fanatical servants of the Ottomans. Their tribalism was reprogrammed to serve the Ottomans and Islam against Christendom, their ancestral homeland.
Another useful example is the fate of Korea under US hegemony. The US divided Korea and gave half to Stalin. Since then, one people have been made into two peoples, and Korean tribalism has been set against one another, brother against brother. One might expect Korean tribalism to call for unity of all Koreans against non-Koreans, but South Koreans are essentially reprogrammed minions of the US empire that would rather serve the US than reunite with their ethnic brethren in the North who are seen as the ‘mortal enemy’. As wanna-be-Americans, they welcome the occupation of their nation by a superpower for ‘protection’ and dream of moving to the US to become ‘New Americans’ than preserve their identity and culture.

And in the US, consider how white tribalism has been reprogrammed to serve Jews and Israel. Anti-White Political Correctness had managed to condition many whites to feel that white identity & white interests are intrinsically ‘racist’, ‘supremacist’, and evil, and therefore white tribalism must emotionally attach itself to something else(without the mark of Cain)… and it is invariably Israel, Israel, Israel(and the worship of blacks and homos).
It’s no wonder then that most US politicians would rather be dead than be caught with white pride. And, they will go out of their way to shout Hallelujah for Israel, the nation that now means most to them. It goes to show that tribal feelings are not necessarily loyal to the tribe to which one belongs or sprung from.
Even among wolves, on rare occasions a lone wolf might join a pack that was once an enemy pack. Among Europeans, some Frenchmen settled in Germany and essentially became Germans and fought against France in World War I. And there were French Jews whose tribal loyalty was to France, and there were German Jews whose tribal loyalty was to Germany. Many such Jews gave up on Jewishness and even came to loathe it.

And oftentimes, people would rather be allied with winners of another tribe than be stuck with losers of their own kind. Consider all the non-Romans who joined and fought for the Roman empire. And this is especially true of women for whom tribalism is less important than put-out-ism to the victors. When Germans defeated and occupied France, many French women went with victorious ‘alpha’ German men. After the US destroyed and occupied Japan, many Japanese women became war-brides of Americans. And when black guys began to beat up white guys in boxing and other sports, so many white women put out to winner-black-men and felt contempt for loser-white-men.
But winner-ism is powerfully alluring to men as well. Jews won the elite competition for top power in the US, and the result has been all these white male cucky-wucks pledging their loyalty and offering their services to Jewish Overlords. It’s like Sal switching his loyalty to Barzini upon sensing that Corleones are finished in THE GODFATHER. Just look at Donald Trump. Jewish Power has been ramming him in the arse, but his only reaction is, “Can I suck your dick?” Jewish Power took everything from the likes of Jared Taylor, but their only hope forward is to win over the Jews. Pathetic.

Even though many of these whites are Christians, they would rather serve the awesome-winner-Jews than their own communities. For sure, they dare not oppose anything that the Jews desire or covet. So, if Jews insist on Globo-Homo as the future of the West and the favored mass cult of white folks, even white ‘conservative’ Christians hide their tails between their legs lest they displease the winner-Jews.

Tribalism is further complicated because life is the product of union of the two sexes. If mankind replicated itself asexually by individuals reproducing copies of themselves, then sexual politics would matter far less. Suppose there’s a tribe of people where all the women are taken by another tribe or willfully go off with it. If the men of the tribe could produce doubles of themselves like single-cell organisms, the tribe could continue without the women. Perhaps, if cloning becomes the New Normal in the future, nations will survive by creating new life from laboratories like in Aldous Huxleys’ BRAVE NEW WORLD.
But for now, a tribe or nation can only survive by creating new life from the union of its men and women. This is why a tribe where women lose respect for the men or where men lose the means to support families faces extinction.
It certainly explains why Jewish Supremacists are pushing black African invasion into Europe and promoting Jungle Fever among whites. They know that the black race and only the black race can effectively destroy white manhood because black men have harder muscles, bigger dongs, more aggression, and stronger voices. This leads to white male cucky-wuckery and jungle fever among white women who become ‘thots’.

Capitalist Feminism is defined in terms of ‘empowerment for women’, but, at a deeper level, it is predicated on female desire for submission to a higher power. It’s just the nature of female psychology that yearns for a king than to be one. Women aren’t fulfilled with ‘liberation’ alone. They value greater freedom as a means to seek out the ideal man who can make her ‘feel like a woman’. If most women had to choose between patriarchy & Robert Redford and feminism & Danny DeVito, most would opt for the former.
In that sense, feminism, or at least capitalist feminism, is a form of elitism. If anything, traditionalism was more egalitarian when it came to sexual politics because the moral order stressed chastity, reputation, marriage, fidelity, and family. Also, as most well-paying jobs went to men, women had to find some nice guy and settle down.
Most men are not ‘alpha’ and not super-successful. They are middle class or working class. And in the past, most middle class and working class men could find a woman and have a family. And women had to be content with ordinary men. But with the ‘liberation’ of women, the great majority of women want the ‘best’ because the cult of ‘empowerment’ says women should ideally have it all. We went from Patriarchy to Bratriarchy, a world of spoiled brats who think they are too good for the ordinary and middling. Capitalist feminism turned into a game of women seeking ‘liberation’ from ordinary men to seek out and submit to the superior or ‘alpha’ men. It’s no wonder so many women are hooked on stuff like FIFTY SHADES OF GREY where an every-woman meets a man who is handsome, strong, and super-rich.

While all women may have had such fantasies throughout history — all those fairy tales of princes and princesses — , they lived in the real world with a real culture of family, church, and community. But with the rise of Pop Culture as the main staple for the great majority of modern folks and with the delusional toxicity of PC ideology taught in schools, people no longer have realistic expectations of life. Too many males see the world through the prism of superhero comic book fantasies, and too many females model their lives on the diva-mentality of celebrities who seem to have it all. (Is it any wonder that the hottest ‘moral’ topic in our Age of Vanity is Globo-Homo-mania?)

In the long run, tribal-transference is most doable among those within the same race. If a bunch of Poles transferred their tribal loyalties to Germany and decided to become Germans, their descendants would become Germans like other Germans. There isn’t much genetic difference between Germans and Poles, and most people would hardly notice much difference if a Pole claimed to be German. Many modern Turks are not Turkish in origin — some are actually Greek or Lebanese in blood — , but one would hardly tell the difference because there isn’t all that much difference between Greeks and Turks(at least those who are essentially European in blood).

But tribal-transference can be problematic among those of different races. Notice how most European ethnic groups became assimilated into Anglo-America. In time, Poles, Swedes, Germans, Irish, and even Italians became Anglo-Americanized and pledged their main loyalty to the Anglo-made America.
But it’s been far more problematic with blacks due to race. For much of US history, whites had difficulty accepting blacks as equals, and since the Sixties, blacks have resisted melding with generic White America that they find to be inferior, a world of ‘slow, lame, faggoty-ass white boys’. Of course, black men like white women but see it as ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs whereby black babies are made via black sexual conquest of whiteness.

They say Slavery has been the main cause of the divide and friction in America, but it isn’t so. If whites had enslaved other whites, freed whites would likely have just mixed with other whites, just like emancipated Russian serfs just became fellow countrymen with other Russians. Likewise, if American Indians had been white, they would likely have just assimilated fully with invading European whites. But because they were racially distinct, they were seen as the Other and pushed out of their lands. If a bunch of Chinese moved to Japan and made a sincere effort to become Japanese and if Japan accepted them as such, they would likely just meld in over time. But if a whole lot of non-Asians went to Japan and tried to fit in, they would still stick out from the native population because they look different. Japanese would notice, as would the non-Japanese newcomers. Looks do matter. If one could push a button and turn all black people in the US into whites, the two communities would likely come together much faster.

Is there a force more powerful than tribalism? In short-term behavior, yes. If tribalism is about “I am”, idealism is about “I am right”. In a brutally savage or barbarian world, the concept of “I am right” hardly matters. Who has time for higher morality or abstract ideals in a world of tooth & claw or sword & spear? The only thing that matters is survival and struggle. It’s about live-or-die. One’s main focus is on “I am”. “I am alive, I am part of this tribe, I am willing to fight to live for another day.” It’s like wolves are fixated on survival, which is justification enough for struggle.
But once a people develop civilization and learning, the elites become guided by laws, ideas, and principles. And the power of principles eventually come to define society as a whole. In time, elites justify their power on something more than ruthless might or the fear factor. Rather, the elites argue that they have the divine right to rule or have the mandate of heaven under god(or gods). And they justify their rule on the basis of sacred laws and theories of justice. People should obey them for their right-to-rule than mere might-to-rule. By gods or laws, the elites of high civilization want to be perceived as representatives of the noblest laws of the universe than merely fellas with the most wealth and weaponry.

In an advanced society, “I am” is never enough. People need to feel “I am right”, a need for moral/spiritual justification. Granted, there could be more to tribalism than “I am”, which some might characterize more as individualist and ‘libertarian’. One might say tribalism is less about the ‘I’ than the ‘we’. Also, it’s more than about “We are”(in the moment) because deep tribalism is about the past and future. It’s about the memory and vision of “We were, we are, and we shall be.” In that sense, tribalism can be noble in sentiment and meaning. It is about much more than the immediate demands of the present, the only thing that matters to animals that have no sense of history or heritage.

Of course, not all forms of tribalism are imbued with depth. Jungle tribalism among primitive folks lack deep memory in the absence of written language and bodies of literature. Such tribalism is mostly about belonging to the tight-knit community of the all-important moment. It is the tribalism of sports-teams or street gangs where a bunch of guys stick together against rivals. Like the gangs in the movie THE WARRIORS. The main unifying force in such a tribalism is the constant threat of danger and/or thrill of adventure. It’s about the need to stick together in fight-or-flight mode, indeed not much different from the pack instinct of wolves.
In contrast, deep tribalism is not just about unity of the moment but unity of the past with the present and future. As Merlin admonishes the Knights in EXCALIBUR who exult in the thrill of the moment, “…and look upon this moment. Savor it. Rejoice with great gladness. Great gladness. Remember it always, for you are joined by it. You are One, under the stars. Remember it well, then… this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, ‘I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!’ For it is the doom of men that they forget.”

(Granted, too much memory can be problematic as well. With all the history and literature in the modern world with vast stores of knowledge, where does one even begin? Many don’t bother at all as the subject is too long, wide-ranging, and complex. There is also the problem of expertise in advanced civilization. History becomes specialized and maintained by trained professionals while most people focus on other things and leave it up to others, the experts, to preserve the history. In contrast, even though a primitive tribe with an oral tradition retains far less collective memory, everyone takes part in the tales and myths around the campfire as their ‘history’ can only be preserved through constant retelling and sharing. And, the rise of academism has taken passion out of history whereby a people’s story becomes just another subject of study, like chemistry or math. The overall impact is a sense of detachment from one’s heritage as it’s become just another part of the curriculum, one that ANY people may study and become experts in. But then, not all is dispassionate in the current order as passion about something is essential to keeping the system together and directing it toward certain agendas. As it happens, histories and cultures that are non-white, non-Jewish, non-black, and non-homo are mostly given the dispassionate treatment. In contrast, histories and cultures that are white are given the negative-passionate treatment, or passions that are hostile to notions of white identity, pride, and power. Finally, histories and cultures that are Jewish, black, and homo are given the positive-passionate treatment, i.e. there is nothing nobler and more redeeming than to venerate and celebrate all things Jewish, black, and homo. So, no special feelings about Arabs, Iranians, or Japanese, only hateful feelings about whites, and only worshipful feelings about Jews, blacks, and homos. Such is the formula of the current West.)

Without the memory of and reverence for the past, the power and prosperity in the present lose their deeper purpose. Also, people are less likely to make sacrifices if they won’t be remembered and if what they sacrificed for is not defended by their heirs. And people are less likely to guard what they have IF they don’t appreciate the struggles and sacrifices of their ancestors or if they’d been made to disrespect them by alien propaganda or ethno-masochism. This is why War Memorials are important. In the noble sense, it is a way for people to remember and honor the fallen who’d died in defense of or service to the order. In the cynical sense, it is a hook(of ‘heroism’) used by the Power to ‘inspire’ naive young men to serve in future wars.

Individuals who are swept up in the heat of the moment may fight ferociously but rarely to sacrifice themselves for the higher good. It’s for the thrills, glory, or trophy, all of which are fleeting. Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves do so on the promise that their civilization will remember and honor them. And that what they’ve fought and won for their side will be appreciated, defended, and kept by their followers.
It explains why Jews are hellbent on desecrating the memory and the graves of white folks and all their perceived enemies and rivals. As an advanced civilization, the West has a deep memory and powerful sense of history, that of great triumphs and tragedies. When people in the present feel a deep connection to their forebears, they are committed to preserving and defending what their predecessors made of the land, the culture, and history. To sever these roots, Jews promote infantile youth culture, mindless hedonism, mania-for-moment, selfish individualism, white shame & ‘white guilt’(premised on the unique evil of whites throughout history), Afro-mania, homo-vanity, and retrofitting of white history whereby the New Narrative says European Medieval history was not white, European heroes & great men were black, and ‘diversity’ was the defining feature of the West. In other words, whites have little to be proud of, but if they still hanker for memory and history, they should invest their emotions in the divine and noble history of the Jews, the Perfect People who were never wrong and always in the right in their relations with wicked goyim, especially white ones. Or they should pretend Julius Caesar was a Negro.

But then, this mental habit developed first with the spread of Christianity. As the Bible became the central text for all of Christian West(that search-and-destroyed most remnants of paganism that had been so deeply entwined with indigenous European history and culture), most white folks looked to Biblical stories of the Hebrews as a kind of meta-ancestral canon. It was as if white folks, as Christians, were more spiritual descendants of the ancient Hebrews than blood descendants of their direct pagan ancestors.

Still, at least with Christianity, whites were imbued with a sense of spiritual-moral superiority(or at least parity) in relation to the Jews. However, since the end of World War II, the abandonment of the core Christian credo has effectively abnegated moral superiority to the Jews(even atheist ones) because the new Christian consciousness placed redemption-and-salvation-from-‘racism’(the biggest victims of which were Jews in the Shoah according to the Jewish-run Narrative) at the center of its theology.
Once Christianity thus cucked to Jews as the Holy Holocaust People, its miserable fate became one of serving the diktat of the Jewish globalist agenda, which is why so many churches are now into Homomania, a proxy globo-cult concocted by Jewish supremacists.

If white people are to survive, they must search for roots in the soil that have yet to be severed by the Jewish ax or poisoned by Jewish toxins. The fact that there is some push-back against globalism is proof that not all roots have been destroyed in the European Tree.

Subscribe to New Columns

Even though tribalism can be deep in meaning, it rarely inspires instant passion(except for revenge in extreme cases, like when a kin has been killed by another clan or one’s homeland has been attacked by another country). Indeed, deep tribalism is often less intense than shallow tribalism. Street gangs with the shallowest tribalism will rumble and even kill/die over trifles for the thrill of the moment. It’s a way of showing off to one’s pals and gals that you’re made of tuff stuff.
Tribalism among primitive tribes and street gangs is often emotionally intense because you are closely and even intimately associated with each and every member. Everyone knows everyone in a street gang or in a jungle tribe. It’s like the camaraderie among a platoon of soldiers in combat.

In contrast, deep tribalism encompasses and embodies something much richer and grander. It’s about a sense of connection with the deep and distant past. It’s about a sense of unity and shared destiny with people who are strangers, whose existence one isn’t even aware of.
After all, most Turks only know their immediate family, friends, and co-workers. Most people they pass by in the streets are total strangers, and they will never come in contact with most Turks. And yet, nationalism is about one’s sense of connection to every member of the Wider and Deeper Tribe.
Deep tribalism is like a train. It takes more time and energy to get it going, unlike shallow tribalism that can roll into action instantly(like a skateboard), as in THE WARRIORS when the fellas know they have to stick together to make it back home. But, just as a train in motion has far greater force and momentum than any skateboard, deep tribalism in action has power way beyond shallow tribalism. American tribalism was slower to enter World War II(as they figured Germany and Japan posed no immediate threat to Americans), but once it gained critical mass and momentum following the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was an unstoppable force of a united people out for vengeance. Same with Russia’s reaction to the German invasion. Once Russians recouped and realized what was really at stake, they put on a massive show of force to defend the motherland.
This is why deep tribalism is both an awesome asset and a serious liability. While most of us will jump into action to defend our family or friends, it takes much more for a whole people to move into collective action because it’s about the unity of purpose and shared sacrifice with people who are strangers, with whom one has no intimate connection.

Deep tribalism is all the more lethargic and dormant when the elites are useless or have been co-opted by another tribe(with imperialist stranglehold over the nation). If FDR’s problem was the difficulty of rousing up the populace to enter an overseas war, the current problem in the EU and US is that the ruling elites(or the pseudo-elites servile to Jewish Power) are unwilling to wake up the people to defend the homeland and push back against the Great Replacement(or White Nakba) engineered by Jewish globalists.
Jewish globalists are more than willing to rouse up white people to invade Iran or wage war on Russia, but they do everything to ensure that whites shall do NOTHING to defend the nations of their origin or founding. In other words, Jewish Supremacists have reprogrammed white tribalism into a tool for fighting Wars for Israel and doing nothing to defend white homelands from Diversitzkrieg.

Because deep tribalism is like a locomotive that requires great energy, consensus, and unity to get moving, there is a chance that a people can fade as an identity & culture in their failure to summon up the forces of nationalism. It’s like someone freezing to death because he fails to start a fire in time. The deep tribalism of nationalism is like a campfire done the old way(by rubbing sticks together), one that takes time and energy to start but, once it gets going, provides heat all throughout the night. Jews have thrown water on the white wood, and it is now difficult for the white race to start a nationalist fire. (In contrast, Zionism comes with lighter-fluid and matches, which is why white cucks prefer the ease of the Jewish fire without realizing they will eventually be gutted and cooked over it.) Zionists have urinated all over the white logs of the West, and it appears no one can get the white fire going in places like the UK, France, Sweden, and etc. Hungary and few other nations have been the exceptions than the rule. Upon observing the massive invasion of Europe, Viktor Orban stepped up his game as national leader and inspired fellow Hungarians to unite to preserve the sacred nation of their heroes and ancestors. But in Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, and the UK, the response has been wholly different, with the leaders welcoming the invasion, suppressing patriotism, shutting off the diesel engine of the deep tribal locomotive, and silencing debate & criticism. But then, the problem is even more dire because, even had the national leaders stepped forward in defense of the realm, too many people would have opposed them and demanded that the borders be flung wide open to WELCOME the endless waves of ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’. And to understand why this is so, we need to consider a force that is, at least in the short-term, stronger than tribalism.

We know that pleasure is a powerful force. People will cheat on their spouses for pleasure. People will use terrible drugs for pleasure and ruin their lives. People will blow their life-savings and the house for the thrill of gambling. Students will fail exams in their addiction to TV, video-games, or pop music. People grow dangerously obese in their addiction to food.
It is for this reason that globalism pumps the populace with non-stop diversions that offer pleasure via pop music, blockbuster movies, TV shows, pornography, video-games, and all sorts of apps. The human mind becomes like a pinball machine that is always ‘ON’, bumping & bouncing & rolling & ringing. When we add up the number of people whose lives have been ruined by addiction to stupid pleasures, it staggers the mind. Pleasure-seeking and pleasure-plugging — why seek out pleasure when all you have to do is ‘sign in’ or ‘log on’? — are such a mainstay of our existence that a new kind of ‘morality'(or immorality as the new morality) has grown up around it.
So, having loose sex isn’t just lewd behavior but ‘empowerment’ and ‘liberation’. And just about every other TV show is praised as the ‘greatest TV show of all time, indeed a work of art’. Demented pop music is said to be ‘inspirational’ with their ‘messages’. Football players who ‘take a knee’ to defend fellow racial thugs are to be admired as moral exemplars. And killing unborn babies up to birth is about ‘women having choice’. It’s bad enough that so many people are addicted to excessive pleasures, but it’s much worse when such are ‘moralized’.

Still, except for the issue of abortion, ‘moral capital’ has yet to be fully invested in current pleasures, though trends favor the turning of vices into ‘new virtues’. Gambling has become mainstream, and libertarians have come up with philosophical as well as economic reasons as to why it should be legalized, but most people don’t take moral pride in gambling(even though it has been associated with ‘reparations’ for American Indians). That said, our current culture doesn’t lack for themes steaming with Moral Outrage and Self-Righteousness, and this is a potent threat to deep tribalism.

Granted, moral outrage and self-righteousness can exist side-by-side with tribalism, that is IF one’s tribe happens to be sanctified as holier-than-others for whatever reason. During the Westward expansion of Manifest Destiny, white people held this view that they were furthering progress and civilization whereas Indian savages stood in their way. So, in any struggle with the Indians, especially when the Red hostiles carried out massacres against white settlers/pioneers, white people felt moral outrage and moved into swift action to flush out the Indians as an act of vengeance, justice, and progress. Back then, being white and spreading white civilization were conflated with the moral progress of humanity.

Jews associated Zionism with the Shoah, and so, the Narrative has long asserted that Jews have the right(and even an obligation) of pride of identity and nationhood to prevent another mass-killing of Jews. And in the Age of Anti-Imperialism(that ran parallel to the Cold War), non-white folks around the world felt pride of identity and morality in expelling the European(or American or Soviet) colonists or occupiers.
But, in an earlier era, European Imperialists would have felt pride of identity and morality in spreading the light of civilization and/or the blessings of Christianity to the benighted folks around the world living in darkness or stagnation.

The dynamic between identity and morality depends on WHO gets to control the governing ideas, narratives, and the flow of information. If the prevailing idea says “the West is spreading the light of civilization to the darker parts of the world”, white identity gains prestige as the crusading race shouldering the burden of uplifting the rest of mankind. If the narrative says “great progress has been made in the non-white world under white rule”, white imperialism is vindicated and justified.

Now, It may well be true that white imperialism did bring civilization or advancement to most parts of the world. (The process was no less true in Europe itself where the more advanced and powerful states often intruded upon weaker and relatively backward ones and compelled them toward change.) It’s also true that the lives of non-white natives did greatly improve in myriad ways under Western hegemony. But, there were also countless acts of brutality and betrayal(of promises and/or stated principles). And there were surely white massacres of the natives.

This is why the flow of news and information is of utmost importance. Indeed, one reason why white-ruled South Africa failed whereas Jewish-ruled Israel thrived was due to Jewish control of the flow of information. Jews made South Africa out to be uniquely evil while covering up or rationalizing Jewish oppression over the Palestinians(while also greatly exaggerating the Palestinian acts of terrorism against Jews).
Just like the production of goods is useless without the means to distribute them, the production of news is only as good as the means to disseminate them. Jewish Power not only produces a lot of news content but controls the networks through which even the news generated by others is at its mercy. Same is true of money. Consider the SWIFT system that expelled Russia upon the start of the Ukraine War. In their control of the financial systems around the world, Jews can even restrict the flow of capital that isn’t theirs. Even with news generated among non-Jewish groups, Jewish Power gets to cherry-pick those which are in service of its favored narrative. Jews know that the control of information isn’t enough. The real key is the control of the flow of information.

The mere control of the flow of info can justify even a murderous regime as the Lesser Evil. Given the core tenets of the National Socialist ideology, it was a challenge for the German government to persuade the national volk that the war was about bringing liberty and progress to the Slavic populations. So, how did the Hitler’s regime justify its aggressions and wars? They ran countless propaganda about how the Soviets were utterly beastly and monstrous.
In other words, never mind the ‘necessary’ brutality of the Germans in Russia given that the enemy was many times worse, at least according to the permitted flow of information.

Ironically, Jews are playing a very similar game in the current Middle East policy. If the Zionist Neocons rode high on the rhetoric of vanquishing terror and spreading democracy in their Iraq War venture, they’ve since justified further wars in the Middle East and North Africa on grounds that the enemies are simply far worse than ‘we’ are. Never mind the absence of high-minded objectives, and just support the war against Assad as ‘the butcher of Syria’ or Iran as Evil Incarnate.
As the American public was dead-set against further deployment of US troops in major ground operations, Jewish Supremacists had to rely on proxies, and the most willing happened to be Jihadis, exactly the kind of people involved in the 9/11 attack. If the official line on the Iraq War was ‘destroy tyranny to build a democracy’, the new line was ‘destroy to destroy to destroy’.
How did the Zionist globo-imperialists justify their support of ‘moderate rebels’(euphemism for Jihadi terrorists) in Syria? It was like German propaganda about the Russian Slavs in World War II. Assad(and before him Gaddafi) had to go and their nations had to be destroyed because they are simply bad, awful, evil, and ‘monstrous’. The US had no meaningful alternatives for their future upon implementing ‘regime change’. The big idea was that ‘evil regimes’ must be destroyed, and that’s that. So, the Jewish-run media ran countless reports about how Assad was yet ANOTHER Arab Hitler who had to be toppled, and never mind the consequences of Syria being torn apart by war. In the absence of a positive proposition in foreign policy — “we can offer something better” — , push the negative proposition of mayhem for mayhem’s sake on grounds that the irredeemable ‘barbarians’ simply must be destroyed.

Tribalism can be reassuring in its sense of community but can feel restrictive and suffocating, like in a prison. Same goes for the family, which means home but also considerable loss of individuality. No wonder so many people leave their own ‘tribal’ communities and come to the US where they can feel free as individuals unshackled from identity and culture(which lend meaning but also place burdens). (Of course, one mustn’t assume that other countries, especially non-Western ones, are necessarily any more tribal and/or traditional in the era of globalism. There are now likely to be just as many deracinated and atomized individuals in the non-West as in the West as so many people underwent urbanization and consume pop culture, much of it emanating from Hollywood, as their main cultural staple. Thus, immigrants aren’t so much moving from traditional-tribal countries to modern-individual ones but merely going from a poorer globalized order to a richer globalized one. And what exactly would be ‘tribal’ in Latin America where so many diverse populations and cultures have been blended into a hodgepodge?) Abandoning one’s culture may be alienating and lonely, but it is also liberating, especially in a place like the US where identity has become so interchangeable, superficial, take-it-or-leave-it, and/or do-it-yourself. It places few burdens except for the obligatory singing hosannas to Jews, Negroes, and homos. A Muslim, as an American ‘nobody’, has freedom to do anything, whereas back home he might have felt constricted by the mores and conventions of a more traditional community.

Of course, some people want to have the cake and eat it too. They come to the relatively freer West and enjoy freedoms forbidden in their home countries, but they also maintain close contacts with people back home or form their own enclaves in the West so that they have both ‘our culture’ and ‘my freedom’. This uneasy duality was dramatized in the film MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE by Hanif Kureishi and Stephen Frears. And of course, Jews are masters at this, what with their ‘liberal democracy’ and tribalism of Zionist nationalism & Shoah Exceptionalism going toe-to-toe. Barbra Streisand sees herself as both a liberated woman and tribal Jew to the core. Think of YENTL that, perhaps more than THE JAZZ SINGER with Al Jolson, conveyed the Jewish duality of being 100% modern/subversive and 100% tribal/loyal. Devotion to the Tribe even in defiance. Tootsiwitz.

But it’s not just more freedom and individual liberty for which people take leave of their own tribalism. There are, after all, plenty of ‘liberal democracies’ around the world where people are accorded much personal freedom. Besides, tribalism tends to be weak and fractured in diverse societies, especially if the nationalism happens to be artificially constructed than rooted in organic blood and soil.
Indeed, what does it really mean to be a Colombian, Peruvian, or Bolivian? Does one trace one’s roots to Europeans or the indigenous natives? If to both, how does one resolve the fact that Euro-Meso history has been one of conquest, slavery, ‘rape’, and ‘genocide’? Also, what makes Ecuador distinct from Venezuela? These are made-up nationalities that have yet to gel into meaningful identities.

Now, if people with genuine national identities like the Poles, Greeks, Hungarians, and Swedes were willing to abandon their homelands-and-cultures to become ‘Americans’, imagine how people in fake nations feel? They’d hardly be abandoning anything of substance in their departure to another country, which actually might provide the sense of purpose they’d been yearning for all their lives. At any rate, especially with the spread of American-style democracy all over the world, there are now plenty of nations where individuals are free to spout their views and indulge their personal fancies. And even people in China are free to do most things as long as it’s not overtly political or ideologically opposed to the state.

Then, why do so many people still want to abandon their tribalism and come to the West, especially the US? It’s because tribalism or familism feels better when you’re part of the ‘superior’ tribe. Uber-tribalism is more awesome than unter-tribalism. It’s like people prefer to be part of a uber-family than unter-family. Why do men, upon making lots of money, abandon their homely wives & children and go off with some prize-chick and have kids with her? Why do women leave their ‘inferior’ husbands for the ‘superior’ man who is either more handsome, more manly, more intelligent, and/or more wealthy?
Even though people are born into tribes, they may be dissatisfied with a sense of inferiority. After all, what does it mean to be a Kazakh? By global standards, it means NOTHING. What does it mean to be a Peruvian? Or a Bangladeshi?

Granted, people with feelings of tribal inferiority may exaggerate their sense of pride as compensation, but it barely conceals the obvious signs of inadequacy. Puerto Ricans are a perfect example of this. They will not vote for independence from the US. 80% of them would rather live in the US than in Puerto Rico. They are total dependents on the US empire, but they mask their inferiority with National Pride Celebrations of Puerto Rican culture and history… which are what exactly? And look at all those Mexicans who left Mexico for the US but wave the Mexican flag at every chance. If Mexicans are so proud to be Mexican, why didn’t they stay in Mexico? Now, if Mexicans say they came to the US because gringos stole the SW territories, then why not limit their residences to those areas? But instead, they spread out all over the US to look for jobs and better conditions under gringo.

In contrast to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, Turks do seem to have a genuine national identity and pride, BUT their flag-waving antics in the West(especially Germany) do suggest a deep-seated sense of inferiority. They left Turkey and resettled in Western European nations, but they make a big noise about how they are so proud to be Turk. Still, at least the Turks do maintain some degree of national distinctness even as minorities in other nations.

In contrast, certain groups almost entirely drop their original tribalism like a hot potato or dead cat and take to the new uber-tribal identity, indeed like a person who converts from one faith to another. Even though identity and spirituality are different — identity is what you are by blood whereas spirituality is what you are by heart — , identities too have often been mutable throughout history.
Perhaps, becoming ‘American’ has been the biggest phenomenon of Identity-Conversion. It is different from being a mere member or citizen of the empire. Being a Roman citizen didn’t mean you were Roman. Being a member of the British Empire didn’t mean you were British. It meant you, as an African, Arab, or Hindu, were part of the empire dominated by Britons. You could take part in the empire and benefit from it, but you still weren’t British but a British subject. In contrast, becoming ‘American’ is about more than citizenship. It is about abandoning your identity of origin to be reborn as a ‘new man’ called ‘American’. And it is now also the template for Europe, as nonwhites in the UK are deemed just as British as the native white British.

Now, with ‘multiculturalism’, some might argue that immigrants can be both ‘American’ in the generic & ‘inclusive’ sense AND culturally distinct in the ‘diverse’ sense, but this does not pan out in practice. Actually, multiculturalism is more likely to be be practiced in Europe because distinct identities still exist over there, making assimilation more difficult for newcomers, especially if non-white.
As such, immigrant groups are more likely to cling to their identity of origin as European identities are less mutable. (Quite often, what may bring the native whites and the migrant nonwhites together is a shared enthusiasm for US soft power, especially in sports, rap music, Hollywood movies, Globo-Homo, and Negrolatry. A Swede and an Afghani may have little in common but for their fandom around some American rapper or movie star.)

In contrast, the ‘genericizing’ impact of Americanism has been such that even the founding stock of Americans hardly have any distinct identity left, and besides, Anglo-Americanism at its core tended to be blander, for better or worse, than other cultures. (Indeed, that very blandness was part of the reason for greater progress as it was less hampered by culture and customs.)
When foreign peoples come to Europe, both sides embolden the other to be more tribal-cultural. The increasing presence of foreigners makes many Europeans recoil and take refuge in neo-tribalism, and the particularities of European-ness makes the newcomers stick to or reconnect with their own cultures. (If the right-wing European attitude is unwelcoming, the left-wing attitude is self-loathing and suicidal, something nonwhites exploit but feel no respect for, as no people who hate and attack their own identity, culture, and territoriality is deserving of admiration.) The massive arrival of non-Europeans is making many Europeans dig deeper into their roots and history for solidarity, not least because they can no longer take the survival of their people and culture for granted.

But when peoples with distinct histories and culture come to America with hardly any discernibly dominant narrative or culture, they take cues from established Americans to just become ‘good Americans’ or ‘cool Americans’. That ‘cool’ factor is crucial because immigrants generally don’t assimilate to the new nation IF they regard it as inferior or ‘uncool’.
For example, the Chinese are far more likely to assimilate into Western-ism that they deem to be superior than to Southeast Asian cultures that they deem to be inferior and ‘uncool’, even though Chinese are racially far closer to Southeast Asians than to whites.
Likewise, people who move to Mexico aren’t exactly eager to become ‘Mexicans’. If anything, they regard Mexico as a mere way-station before they can ultimately make it to America to become ‘Americans’, which is a helluva lot ‘cooler’ than being a ‘Mexican’. Cool-Supremacism really counts for something in the pop-culture-drenched world. (As for American expatriates in Mexico, they go for the weather and/or the cheaper cost of living, not to become ‘Good Mexicans’.)

It’s also a matter of wealth and power. Just like a woman in a poor family is tempted to leave her husband and children and start a new life in a big mansion with a rich man and have kids with him, plenty of people are willing to run from their unter-tribes and join the uber-tribe of America.
Given the nature of ‘Americanism’, one could argue that it isn’t real tribalism and, if anything, is anti-tribalist. But, if we expand the concept of tribalism to mean a sense of belonging to a power-system, one could speak of the meta-, supra-, and inter-tribalism of America. It may not be organic or stable(much like the Soviet Union), but it is the greatest Power System to which so many people around the world are drawn. Just like athletes hope to leave inferior teams and be recruited by superior teams with a higher chance of winning the championship, so many people want to leave their weaker & ‘inferior’ nations and be part of the Lone Superpower.

That said, all such peoples find anti-white Political Correctness and ‘wokeness’ useful in masking their sense of inferiority and act of betrayal. Even though they ran from their own non-white kinds to be in a superior political and economic order created by whites, they spout PC talking points to hide their shame of preference for whiteness and pretend that they came to the West to teach white people the important lessons of ‘diversity’(even though countless nonwhites flee from diverse places like Latin America and North Africa to settle in white majority nations).

 Video Link

In truth, they want to be part of the ‘winner’ superpower America than be stuck in their ‘loser’ nations. Tribalism is loyalty to one’s own kind but can also be betrayal of one’s own ‘loser’ kind by transferring one’s loyalty to the ‘winner’ kind. This is especially true of women. Look at all those white women who dumped ‘loser’ white males and ran off with ‘winner’ Negroes and had children for them. Look at all those nonwhites who came to the US and serve in the US military EVEN THOUGH the US empire has killed bushels of their kind.

Ideally, every tribe wants to be #1 and the best, just like every team wants to win the championship. But when one’s own tribe seems interminably hopeless and weak, there is a temptation to join and offer one’s services to the winner side. There is the organic tribalism of belonging but also the psychological tribalism by association. When all those white college kids root for black athletes, they are psychologically associating themselves with the winners. In contrast, when blacks root for black athletes, it is a tribalism of unity and belonging. Blacks think ‘blacks win for black glory’.

Psychological tribalism can be employed by everyone. Asians and Mexicans don’t win in sports in the US, but by rooting for and psycho-associating themselves with the blacks of their local team, they too feel a sense of victory, or ‘we won’. So, a Vietnamese or Palestinian guy in Detroit can root for the Pistons and feel ‘we won’ by association.
Needless to say, psychological tribalism of association is delusional and even pathetic compared to the deeper tribalism of belonging. But, so strong is the urge for people to feel connected with winners that they will psychologically associate themselves with the Winner Group despite the lack of blood ties and the harm it may cause to one’s own people. Notice how blacks cause tremendous harm to whites, but white retards go on cheering for ‘our black team’ as if their lives depended on it. A black guy can beat up a white guy and take his girl, but the white guy, come superbowl season, will be howling and cheering for blacks with whom he has psychologically associated his sense of worth.

Identifying with the other Winner Tribe over one’s own Loser Tribe begins with collaboration but can even lead to assimilation, especially if the ‘loser’ side and ‘winner’ side are racially similar. Granted, a truer kind of tribalism is where one sticks to one’s own kind, win or lose. Such a person finds value in his tribe and identity for their own sake. Jews were the biggest practitioners of this kind of tribalism, and they were able to do so because of the power of the Covenant. Though surrounded by far mightier powers on all sides in the Ancient World, Jews believed that (1) the one and only God was on their side and (2) every Jew, from rich to poor, was blessed with this Covenant.
The Covenant made Jews feel as winners even in defeat because they had the blessing of the one and only true God. Such a mindset was able to stave off the temptation of surrendering one’s own ‘loser’ identity to partake of the ‘winner’ identity. This mindset set the Jews apart from other groups in the US. Many Jews arrived with just shirts on their backs like other immigrant groups. But if most others, in their awe of Anglo-Americanism, were eager to give up their own puny identities and become winner ‘Americans’, Jews came with a different outlook. They valued Americanism as an opportunity, not an identity, something they already had and tenaciously clung to. Even as Jews became Americanized, they didn’t become ‘Americans’ in the way of the goyim for whom American Identity was primary, even if such entailed the abandonment of bonds and loyalties to the peoples and cultures of their origins. Jews felt a strong urge to be Jewish first and American second and then to gain control as the captain of the American ship.

Now, what force can be more potent than tribalism, at least in the short-term? After all, if tribalism is the most powerful force, why did Russian tribalism fail to suppress radical communism in 1917? Granted, in the long-term, Russian tribalism reasserted itself and ‘nationalized’ communism and then outlasted communism; still, for several decades, the radical ideology of Bolshevism swept across Russia like a wildfire. The reasons continue to be relevant as human nature hasn’t changed since then.

In the moralized and spiritualized culture of the West, people feel most justified and superior with holier-than-thou emotions. The need to virtue-vape may be most pronounced among whites in the Current Year because they’ve been robbed of tribal/racial/ethnic identity.
Jews and blacks, in contrast, have the most potent combination of tribal nobility and moral sanctity. Because their identities have been stamped with ‘noble victimhood’, their sense of “we are” is synonymous with “we are right”. Just by being a Jew, you’re a member of the Holy Holocaust Club. Just by being black, you’re a member of the Slavery Cruise or (Jim)Crow Crew.
For most other non-white groups, their identity is neither noble or ignoble, only neutral. Still, they can score some ‘wokemon’ points by constantly attacking whites for ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘patriarchy’, and ‘homophobia’(which is rather ironic since the white world did most to spread the catechisms of PC).

In contrast, white identity is not only unholy but lacking in neutral value. It is tainted and diseased with all sorts of nasty -isms, which really sound like a bunch of -itises or disease. When whites are accused of ‘racism’ or ‘antisemitism’, it’s almost as if they’re infected with diseases of racistitis or antisemititis.

Indeed, discussions of ‘antisemitism’ often characterize whites(and some Muslims and blacks) as ‘infected’ with ‘delusions’ and other ‘mental disorders’, as if it’s entirely a virus-infected hallucination about Jews having lots of money and pulling strings to further Judeo-centric interests. (Palestinian Nakba must have been just a nightmare-fantasy fueled by Arab Jew-hatred, not a historical reality perpetrated by Zionists.)

Because whites cannot rely on identity for moral worth, not even for moral neutrality, they must make an extra effort to come across as GOOD people. Imagine three people at sea. Jewish guy’s identity is a life-jacket. Even without moving his limbs, he remains easily afloat. Not needing to swim constantly to stay afloat, he can just berate and mock others. Next, imagine a Mexican. His identity is like a shirt on his back. It doesn’t do anything to keep him afloat. So, he has to tread his arms and legs regularly to remain afloat. Now, imagine a white guy whose identity is extra weight anchored to one of his legs. The weight keeps pulling him down, so he has to make an extra effort to keep his head above water. As his identity is a hindrance to his being, he must try extra-hard to prove his worth.

Subscribe to New Columns

Then, one can understand why some of the most deranged TOM(The Outrage Mob)types are white. TOMs cannot rest on the laurel of favored/ennoble identity. If anything, they’ve been told from birth that their identity is tainted with historical crimes, especially against Magical Negroes and Wonderful Jews. So, it’s not enough for them to be reasonably good(especially in regards to Jews and blacks). They must go out of their way to show that they seek atonement and redemption. It’s sink or swim for whites.

But then, such whites have discovered along the way that their virtue-virulence actually feels kind of good. It gives them a high like a drug. Also, if they are ugly, unattractive, or uncool and missing out on the pleasures of life, they can feel pleasure from hits of virtue-vaping. They get high on Cuckaine.
Those who can’t get off on physical narcissism get off on moral narcissism. This is why Rock concerts and Evangelical gatherings have something in common. The partying people at Rock concerts get off on ‘cool’ fun, and the rapturous people at church services get off on feeling holier-than-thou and being ‘saved’.
Or, if you’re not invited to a house party, join a political party. If you can’t afford a cruise, join the crusade. No wonder then that some of the most vociferous TOM types tend to be physically ugly, gross, or unpleasant, the kind unlikely to attract members of the opposite sex. Many of them have personality problems or psychological issues. They possess no discernible talent.

Now, there are plenty of people who count as ‘losers’ and just go on with their lives. But, certain types of ‘losers’ have narcissistic personalities even though they have nothing to be narcissistic about. It’s like some guys think they’re gals and some gals think they are guys EVEN THOUGH men are really men and women are really women. Some narcissists-without-anything-to-be-narcissistic-about(sort of like being poor-but-feeling-rich) just lose themselves in their delusions and pretend they are ‘special’. Lena Dunham was maybe the most famous case of this personality type in recent years. A homely Miss Piggy look-alike, she nevertheless pretended to be hot stuff and was indulged by the media. And there are people who look even worse but just can’t get enough of themselves. It was certainly true of the fat tranny Divine. They once hid behind camp but now claim to be champ.

Other ‘loser’ types aren’t so delusional; they know they aren’t cool and never will be. Still, a repressed narcissism may drive them to be ‘somebody’, and the EASIEST and QUICKEST way is to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou on morally charged issues. So, they join in the outrage about some ‘great’ evil in the world and cop an angry attitude of moral superiority.
In a way, TOM behavior is like athletics for SJW-NPC ‘losers’. Even though PC has spread far and wide — plenty of attractive and successful people virtue-signal as well, though for status than anything else — , the most extreme and committed types tend to be ‘losers’ who use the politics of Outrage as a crutch, or compensation for lack of anything happening in their lives.

Now, some of these ‘loser’ types can attain success if they have talent and work ethic. Certain successful figures in the Rock scene would likely have been nasty SJW types if not for the talent. Kurt Cobain was a ‘loser’ type who shot to stardom thanks to genuine musical talent. But, their ‘core’ angry-loser personalities never make them really feel like winners even when they win. The chip remains on their shoulders because, but for their rare talents, they were socially doomed to be unattractive losers burdened with the narcissistic complex. Perhaps it explains why Kurt Cobain ended up as he did. Despite all the success and wealth, his essential attitude was that of an angry loser who never got the love that he craved(or got the love he didn’t deserve). Even when he finally got the love, it wasn’t on his own terms. People loved him as a glamorous Rock Star than as an angry & wounded soul, a victim of cosmic injustice.

Anyway, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of righteousness, especially self-righteousness. While it has a shorter life-span than tribalism(and especially deep tribalism that can fall into prolonged hibernation in a world defined by one’s ‘pursuit of happiness’, especially by Pop Culture), it burns brighter and can torch a lot of things while it’s hot. It’s like what Eldon Tyrell says in BLADE RUNNER: “The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.”

The radical fire of communism didn’t last a century, but the conflagration was unstoppable for a time in certain parts of the world where hearts and minds were lit. It’s like youth comes and goes too fast, but it’s the most exciting time of one’s life because of the spirit, dreams, and ideals. Even as people grow older and realize much of the foolishness of their younger days, they look back with fondness.
This is why patriotic types shouldn’t rest on the laurels of tribalism as the default position of humanity. While tribalism may win in the long run over idealism(often fanciful or delusional), the sheer fury of the righteous vision may alter society SO MUCH that the original tribalism becomes difficult to regain or restore.

It is especially true if the righteous-sounding ideas go about transforming the demographic character of a nation. Suppose Nation A undergoes the radical-righteous assault of communism while Nation B undergoes the radical-righteous assault of globalist multiculturalism. Both communism and multiculturalism wage war on traditional tribalism, but the impacts could be profoundly different. Eventually, once communism fails and is discarded, Nation A still exists as a people and culture to restore their traditional tribalism. Communism may have wrecked the economy and repressed lots of people, but it didn’t replace the native folk and culture.
In contrast, multiculturalism and Diversity-mania, as radical-righteous crusades, do go about demographically transforming the nation. So, when the righteous radicalism of multiculturalism finally fades and the native folks realize what a dumb idea it had been, the sad fact is Nation B’s tradition and tribe cannot be reconstituted. Some radical ideas pass like the wind. It does a lot of damage, but the things of the land remain. But some radical ideas have the effect of a massive mudslide. It uproots and washes away the very things of the land. Communism was like a terrible hurricane that passed without destroying the core foundations of a nation. It led to much ideological madness and killed a lot of people, but when it was over, Russians still had Russia, Chinese still had China, Poles still had Poland, Hungarians still had Hungary, Vietnamese still had Vietnam, and etc.
In contrast, globalist mass-immigration and multiculturalism are like a massive flood or tsunami that wipes away the very demographic and cultural foundations of a nation. The most threatened are Western European nations, but the danger is spreading all around the world.

Then, why are so many white people obsessed with Diversity-and-Multiculturalism when it means harm to them? We need to understand that ideology is something more than political reasoning or a logical discourse about world affairs. Rather, it is an impassioned, fanatical, and/or dogmatic commitment to a system of ideas as quasi-sacred, infallible, and finalizing. Ideology lends the impression of being the terminal destination of all threads of history, morality, and progress.
It is venerated as the Answer following the = sign after a lengthy, difficult, and complicated formula.
For example, Marxism wasn’t presented as just another idea or proposal. Rather, the idea was that Marx figured it all out. He peered into the hidden heart, mind, and gut of history and drew out the secret of what really animates human affairs. And based on that understanding, Marx provided The Answer.
As such, Marxists weren’t merely economists with a socialist bent but more like the Christian apostles who, blessed with the Truth, were determined to change the world.

True, ideology is the product of thought, and it is open to further theorizing, but, more than anything, it demands adherence, commitment, and fanaticism. Ideology isn’t merely a hypothesis or theory but something that presents itself as the final solution. So, while its adherents may revise it here and there, they mustn’t deviate from the core tenets. It’s like there have been many sects of Christianity, but all Christians must believe in the One God and Jesus as His Son, the Messiah. Anyone who rejects the core canon of Christian theology cannot be a real Christian. Likewise, while Marxists might reject or reform certain aspects of Marxism, they must accept the idea that economics and class struggle are the fundamental drivers of history.

If ideology can be rigid and stultifying, why are so many people drawn to it? Because unlike most ideas that, no matter how brilliant or fact-based they may be, are emotionally dry or neutral, ideology imbues its true believers with a sense of belonging, destiny, justice, and righteousness of Higher Truth(that is bigger than the sum of all little facts). Ideology allows for righteous supremacism, or self-righteous supremacism. (Of course, there’s also the appeal of pseudo-intellectual terminology that can make the stupidest ideas sound academic and sophisticated. Jargon-ology is the easiest way for dummies to feel smart.)

Such ‘passions’ may appear demented and unhinged to outsiders, but they feel so good to the true believers who, as far as they’re concerned, are among the Blessed whereas non-believers are the Cursed and Damned.
Take Amy Harmon of the New York Times for example. A vile bitch who peddles PC truisms and piles abuse on people with minds and character many times greater than hers, BUT she feels so good about herself wrapped in ‘woke’ sanctimony, a kind of self-righteous supremacism. Who cares about facts(that might be deemed ‘racist’ and ‘hateful’) when your feelings are aligned with the spirit of the times(as defined by Jewish supremacists)?

Now, how can her favored ideology be said to be the Truth when it overlooks so many facts and side-steps matters of integrity? Because ideology says the Truth is more about how the world should be than how it is. Utopianism may be delusional but is the dream of ‘good people’, whereas ‘bad people’ make do with grim or ‘fallen’ reality. Just like many people prefer movie-reality to real-reality, ideologues prefer world-as-it-should-be to world-as-it-is. This is why leftist-dreamer Oliver Stone remains star-struck with John F. Kennedy as Mr. Camelot, though with NIXON, his crypto-conservative side admitted that Tricky Dick was closer to what America really is.

What about the occasions when ‘good people’ pore over inconvenient facts and come to the right conclusion? In that case, they too are suddenly denounced as ‘bad people’ for deviating from the Party Line. Notice how Stephen Cohen was suddenly disinvited from most ‘progressive’ platforms when he deviated from the Anti-Russia line.
Or, if they want to salvage their reputation, they will state the facts as facts but, at the end of the day, draw a conclusion at odds with what the facts imply. It’d be like Galileo laying out all his calculations that prove that Earth revolves around the Sun, but then saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth just the same. That’s how people like David Reich play the game. “The facts validate the other side, but I’m still with my side.”

Even though ideological dogmatism can come across as off-putting, virulent, and crazy to neutral observers, it can also have a certain appeal. After all, ideology isn’t merely about extremism or fanaticism for its own sake. There are people with extreme eating or video-gaming habits, but they don’t win respect. (On the other hand, the extreme zeal of getting more tattoos seems to draw positive attention in our deranged age. It’s like how some primitive cultures measure worth by how many scars or bones-through-noses one has. At least the primitives could be forgiven their ignorance and savagery, but what is the excuse of advanced cultures?)
Then, how can ideological extremism be appealing? Because ideology can be about extreme self-righteousness and moral purity. Given that so many people lead compromised lives, there is a certain envy for those who seem pure of heart and fully committed. Christianity’s appeal has been similar: The idea that Jesus never compromised, stuck to His principles, and faced torture & death as ordained by the will of God. All Christians know they are far from perfect & all too compromised and, for that reason, greatly admire and revere Jesus Christ, the Man who played his strings out to the end. (To be sure, most purity-spiral types in the ‘woke’ movement sacrifice nothing and, if anything, are coddled by the powers-that-be. Thus, they are more like official witch-hunters than saints.)

While ideological extremists often come across as nasty, difficult, and insufferable — even to members of the shared ideology — , there is always a grudging respect for and even envy of the purists and fanatics for their unwavering commitment. Granted, there’s a sigh of relief when such figures fade from the scene because purists are easier as myths than as men. Take Che Guvera, a purist Marxist-Leninist who was willing to put his life on the line to spread communism all throughout Latin America. While alive, he made Fidel Castro and others very nervous with his strident rhetoric and call to action. The more pragmatic elements of Revolutionary Cuba didn’t want to jeopardize their gains by going all in and risking the full wrath of America. And yet, they had to admit Che had the heart of a lion to charge into the dragon’s lair. When he died in Bolivia and went from Man to Myth, Cuban leaders were relieved because the late Che would be more effective as an icon.

While existence matters more than excitement, once the former is taken for granted the latter takes the driver’s seat. Sensations(from drugs, food, sex, games, and etc.) also feel good but lack the righteous element(unless one worships marijuana or is into the ‘body positivity’ movement).
One thing for sure, people without the ‘cool’ element face difficulty getting the best kind of feel-good fun. How many men end up with the most gorgeous women, how many women end up with the most handsome men? How many people have the money to really live it up and afford the best things in life? Not that many.
So, for all the millennials and zoomers who majored in less lucrative fields or graduated from lesser universities, their best bet for feeling good is to take up self-righteous causes, especially as the decline of traditional religion in America has deprived people of spiritual worth. (If you have God and Jesus, you don’t have to chase after every new cause to feel ‘saved’. Granted, today’s churches are so hollow and soulless that they too chase after moral fads, like queertianity and George Floyd cult.) That way, even a not-too-bright, ugly, and gross-looking person can instantly feel as a GOOD person, indeed a BETTER person than most.

While their commitment to a certain cause could be sincere and genuine, one of the main attractions of ideological crusades is the sense that one is part of a great, glorious, and shining movement. The prevailing ideological fashions today aren’t even intellectually challenging because the dominant cult of ‘wokeness’ emphasizes the Tri-Idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, Homos, and Negroes more than anything.
As most young people are raised with quasi-sacred idols and relics associated with the Holy Three, their emotions are drenched in the sanctimonious sweat of endless prostrations before Wise Jews, Magic Negroes, and Holy Homos. So, if PC says ‘white supremacists’ dare to blaspheme the sacred iconography of the Holy Three, the ‘woke’-tards get awfully ‘triggered’.

Most people are unthinking NPCs whose psycho-politics of (self)righteous outrage has been instilled by elite forces of media, academic, and state power. It is then no wonder that so many white Americans are such clumps of clay molded by Jewish hands that control most of the institutions and outlets.

Granted, the Jewish culture of self-righteous-supremacism is beginning to splinter. When the US was less diverse, Jewish identification with Zionism was sufficient grounds for self-righteousness as Israel was regarded as a necessary haven for Jews who survived the Shoah. But in a more diverse America where BDS has become a thing and with a more stridently right-wing Israel so closely allied with the GOP, some Jewish Democrats are beginning to feel that their only way to sustain self-righteous supremacism is by distancing themselves from the increasingly right-wing Israel and side with people-of-color and young whites who tend to sympathize with the Palestinians.

Anyway, we should never rest on the laurels of tribalism on grounds that it is ‘natural’ and will always prevail. It is natural to some extent but so are the emotions of righteousness. And in a way, we need righteousness because we wouldn’t have morality, ethics, rules, principles, and laws without it. We are not just about existence like plankton or bacteria. We are not just about might-is-right, the mentality of thugs and gangsters. With the power of reason and sense of fairness, we want to do the right thing. It feels good to be righteous, virtuous, and moral(though, there is also a natural side of us that takes delight in being edgy, daring, and nihilistic; our culture of ‘cool’ tends to favor amorality or even immorality over ‘square’ morality).

But, we need to make sure that our sense of righteousness came by way of good sense, reason, and proper set of priorities. After all, righteousness that threatens existence cannot be good except in cases where one sacrifices one’s individual self for the survival of the community as a whole. If one’s righteousness brings about the destruction and demise of the entire community, it cannot be good under any circumstances.
In the Current West, so many whites think there is nothing more virtuous than supporting policies that are sure to lead to the White Demise; they believe there’s nothing more evil than the desire of white nations to retain their racial, cultural, and territorial integrity.
How did whites become so doggedly righteous about self-destruction as a moral priority? To understand this, whites must ask the question, “Which group wields the power & influence, what are their interests & attitudes, how do they look upon my people(as fellow humans or cattle), and how are they using elite institutions to manipulate us? Never trust the power. Never obey the power mindlessly. Always try to understand who has the power, how they feel about your people, and what they are doing and why.

Even though a branch of PC/Wokeness emerged from Critical Theory, its overall effect has been to shut down critical thought. Critical Theory doesn’t say that individuals, as free thinkers, should look upon all things with critical gaze and cautious skepticism. Critical Theory is not an individual pursuit but an institutional agenda. It’s been about a handful of intellectuals gaining control of elite institutions, deciding & decreeing WHAT should be ‘critiqued’ & ‘deconstructed’ in support of WHICH agenda(decided mostly by Jewish esoteric-supremacists), and compulsively guiding & nudging the students & followers to think in a certain way. It should really be called Collective Theory. Critical Theory will NOT tolerate those who use its ‘deconstructive’ methods of critique on Critical Theory itself or on Jewish Power. Just look at Bill Ackman’s ploy to get Ivy League presidents removed for their allowance of the condemnation of the ‘Gaza Genocide’.

In this, the Jewish-dominant Critical Theory is different from the Anglo liberal tradition of skepticism and empiricism that favors, above all, the rational individual’s effort to formulate his own questions and pursue his own queries. Most commissars of Critical Theory never had an original thought or observation. Rather, from day one, they were handed WHAT to believe, WHAT to hate, WHAT to pursue, and WHAT to serve. Critical Theorists, especially non-Jewish ones, are little more than bloodhounds given a scent to track. They are unable to deviate from the scent put before their noses, especially by Jewish Power. So, for all their conceit of higher learning and intellectual ‘sophistication’, it all comes down to promulgating the same old same old trite cliches about ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘white privilege’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘patriarchy’, and the usual suspects of ‘thought crimes’. Those were the scents given to these hound dogs to track with fanatical single-mindedness.

Critical Theory could also be called Critical Decree. It is especially effective as a supremacist tool because the supremacist power or the wanna-be-supremacist power(which now happens to be Jewish) directs the intellectual, journalistic, and political class to pour all its energy and rhetoric into exposing and denouncing the alleged ‘supremacism’ of OTHER groups. By making so many fools in the academia, media, government, and activist groups feel oh-so-very-self-righteous about opposing and denouncing ‘white privilege’ or ‘white supremacism’, Jewish Supremacists have successfully diverted so many people from the fact of Jewish Supremacist Rule over America. Jews invoke ‘antisemitism’ to shut people down and simply will not tolerate anyone daring to ‘deconstruct’ the Jewish weaponization of ‘antisemitism’ to slander and shut down critics of Zionism. Jews had to destroy Joe Sobran who said antisemitism is less about people hating Jews than about Jews hating certain people.