Ever notice that religious people and so-called ‘progressive’ types tend to be the most self-righteous, sanctimonious, and holier-than-thou? This may seem rather odd, even counter-intuitive, considering that the two groups are usually billed as polar opposites. Religious people are said to favor faith and spirituality. ‘Progressive’ people are said to embody the secular principles of reason in search of real-world solutions.
Then, why are they so alike in their emotions? Why are they so prone to moral one-upmanship, moral narcissism, me-huggery, and pious snobbery? Why do their modes of identity derive from feeling superior to most people, i.e. being part of an elect community of special people?
True, both Christians and Progressives claim universality, a welcoming embrace of the whole world. But then, their terms of entry have been devised to be as exclusive as inclusive. After all, if everyone joined and became part of the club, those in the club would no longer feel special. Likewise, an elite university, despite its claims of ‘inclusivity’, is no longer an elite institution if anyone is admitted.
What religion and political correctness(PC or its worse variant, ‘wokeness’) have in common is the rejection of nature as the basis of understanding humanity. Christian cosmology begins with the perfection of God and the purity of His Creation. According to the Judeo-Christian view, God is perfect, and He created a perfect order, but mankind betrayed, defiled, and corrupted it. But God, in His love for mankind, sent His Son to die on the Cross so that humanity may be redeemed through holy blood sacrifice.
According to the Judeo-Christian view, the natural is sinful, filthy, and obscene. Its corruption is the aftermath of the Fall, the loss of Eden. And the redemption offered by Jesus is one of self-abnegation and condemnation of fleshly desires as fertile soil for demon seeds.
Thus, even though Christianity is open to all seeking salvation, it isn’t easy to be a good Christian and nearly impossible to be a perfect one. Christianity is obsessed with sin, like a germ-freak is obsessed with ‘filth’. A good Christian must always purge his or her soul of sinful desires of the flesh and instinctual animal drives. Both the will-to-power and the will-to-procreate are regarded with suspicion, even hostility. (Of course, even though Christianity claims to uphold and embody universal, eternal, and immutable truths, it hasn’t been impervious to the socio-politico-cultural pressures of the here-and-now. Consider how the Catholic Church made a pact with Fascists, how the Russian Orthodox Church caved to Stalinism, and how the Church of England — among many others — bent over to the cult of globo-homo-mania pushed by Jews. Given that the biggest ‘sins’ according to ‘wokeness’ or PC doctrine is ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’, much of today’s Christianity is obsessed with atoning for those said ‘evils’ than for upholding Core Christian Beliefs and Values that run counter to the vanity of Jews, homos, and Negroes. Core Christianity says Jews are to be damned for rejecting Jesus. Christianity, like true Judaism, is anti-homosexual and anti-decadence. Also, Christianity’s emphasis on humility and spirit-over-flesh is at odds with the Afro-Maniacal jungle-jivery that places thuggery and animal lust at the center of life.)
Now, the conundrum isn’t so much Christianity’s problems with nature per se. Even nature has problems with nature. Nature is in a constant state of warfare. Animals are always attacking and/or devouring other animals. Animals of the same species fight for territory and mating(and bloody violence and death often accompany the creation of new life). Survival is about fright and panic.
Because nature is so brutal, mankind could not have community, let alone civilization, by acting purely in accordance with raw nature. Natural instincts and animal impulses have to be controlled in favor of social cooperation and relative peace.
Then, the problem isn’t Christianity’s conflict with nature. Any kind of civilization must be in conflict with nature. No civilization can sustain itself by surrendering to nature. This is why black Africa has problems creating and maintaining civilization. Being naturally a wilder, more aggressive, and more animal-like race, blacks are less restrained in their ‘jungle’ nature. They are more likely to holler and loot than get down to business. They are more likely to rob and rape than respect social contracts and higher principles.
Christianity’s deeper problem derives from its rejection of nature’s validity. It views nature not as the foundation of life of both man and beast but as the work of the Devil. Instead of regarding nature as something essential, vital, and powerful, the raw material from which civilization is molded and sculpted from, Christianity sees nature as the problem itself.
Of course, Buddhism goes even further in rejecting reality as false illusion. Undoubtedly a profound religion(or spiritual philosophy), it developed, according to legend and myth, not as a reaction to the grim reality of man and nature but as an overreaction to the falsehood constructed by his overly protective father.
Siddhartha was said to be traumatized by the horrors of the world, but this was only because he was raised in an artificial bubble devised by his father who protected him from the facts of life, its cycles of birth and death and everything in between. If he had been raised with a healthy dose of reality, i.e. life is full of horrors as well as wonders, he wouldn’t have been so triggered by the sights of death and decay upon wandering outside the false-eden he was reared in.
It was the denial of reality in his formative years that made him overreact and reject all of reality as unbearable by the standards of ‘perfection’ that marked his childhood and youth. What most people accepted as mundane reality was intolerable because he grew up in an unreality. Instead of accepting reality as reality, he damned it as an illusion from which one must break free. But then, he couldn’t conceive of Heaven either because his Childhood Eden turned out to be an illusion as well. In rejection of both reality and Eden/Heaven, there was only Nirvana, the eternal void.
Christianity has a similar problem(if not as extreme) because it too harbors a severely pessimistic view of man and nature. Of course, it’s a continuation of the Judaic perspective of man’s permanent exile from Eden. Both religions believe that mankind, having ruined and lost Eden, must somehow find their way back to God. Judaism is morally more pragmatic — there is a time for everything, time to kill, time to heal, etc. — but spiritually more purist — God is pure spirit and unfathomable to man — , whereas Christianity is morally more purist — ‘love thy enemy’ and ‘turn the other cheek’, a sinful heart is as guilty as a sinful deed — but spiritually more worldly — God appeared in the form of Man, touched humanity and was touched by it. (One thing for sure, the Eden story is like a template for Jewish Behavioral History. Even when Jews find themselves in something close to a New Eden, say Fin de siècle Germany or the United States, they must play games with the Serpent and mess things up, creating conditions for a new exile or worse.)
Now, imagine you come across a dog. Suppose the dog is wild and aggressive. You want to raise the dog, but the dog needs to be tamed and housebroken. It needs to be trained to obey orders. You value the dog and its canine nature. But you also understand that the dog must be tamed to be a companion to man. You value its canine nature(so vital and energetic) but also its need to be controlled.
Now, imagine an alternative scenario where you come across a dog and see it as a demonic creature(as indeed many Christians regarded cats as witch’s companions during the Middle Ages). Suppose you need the dog to serve you and guard the house. But instead of regarding the dog’s nature as healthy and vital, you see it as wicked and foul. So, instead of trying to control and tame a healthy and vital natural-force, you try to expunge it and turn the dog into a creature of total obedience that is furthermore, ashamed of its dog-nature.
The first dog-tamer and the second dog-tamer have one thing in common. They understand that the dog has to be trained and restrained. Its nature has to be controlled. But the first dog-tamer values the dog’s nature. He values the dog’s natural hunting instincts, fighting instincts, and mating instincts. He values the dog’s energy, exuberance, curiosity, and adventurousness. They are hallmarks of the dog’s nature, and he doesn’t want to destroy them. He wants to tame them to the extent that the dog is compatible with mankind.
In contrast, the second dog-tamer sees the dog’s nature as essentially ugly and lowly. As such, he would like to destroy the dog’s nature as much as possible so that it will be tamed into submission of total obedience. It’s like Muslims see nothing good about dogs and their nature.
Because of Christianity’s cosmology of the Creation and the Fall, followed by Jesus’ offering of redemption by the ritual of self-sacrifice and spiritual transcendence, it cannot accept nature — wild nature and human nature — for what they are. For Christians, nature itself is sinful. It is not something that is vital and healthy that must be controlled but something that is sinful, wicked, and obscene. Before the Fall of Eden, spirit and flesh were one. Both were immortal, pure, and eternal. But with the Fall, the flesh began to age, rot, and wither. It became part of the world of decay and death. Only the spirit retained the possibility of surviving beyond death. For Jews, the spirit was carried down through the generations via the Covenant. For Christians, the spirit could rise above flesh via Jesus’ sacrifice and gain entry into Heaven.
Such a mindset led to sanctimony among Christians. This may seem counterintuitive since Christianity says all flesh is wicked. That means even the flesh of earnest Christians are sinful.
Then, if Christians themselves are wrapped in impure flesh, why should they feel so holier-than-thou and self-righteous? It is because Christians feel they are at least closer to God, whereas heathens are without God and Jesus. At the very least, Christians believe that they are aware of their filth and taking regular spiritual showers. In contrast, the heathens are blissfully ignorant of the true nature of their flesh and reek of unwashed sin.
Of course, even among Christians, there is a competition for sanctimonious one-upmanship of greater self-righteousness premised on higher degrees of self-flagellation.
In contrast to Christians, the neo-fascism accepts nature for what it is. Neo-fascists don’t see nature as wicked or sinful. Nature is the product of billions of years of evolution. The process of life is brutal, ruthless, and violent. And humans are the product of this long evolution from single-cell organism to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to ape to man. Whatever we think of nature and its processes, they are what they are. They are neither good nor evil. Without nature, there is no life, and no life means no humans. We have to accept the truth of nature as the foundation of all that is.
However, it’s no less true that humans developed advanced cultures and civilizations, and for such to be maintained, we need to control and tame nature, even as we harness its power, both internal and external. Raw nature will bring down any civilization. Rock-n-Roll belongs on stage, not in life.
Nature created different species. And within the same species, there are different subspecies or races/breeds. And these differences can be significant, indeed significant enough to profoundly impact patterns in crime, violence, sex & mating, achievement, dominance, success, and status. But, noticing differences among human groups, especially if deemed to reflect negatively on blacks, has become a taboo subject in virtually all of ‘liberal'(as well as ‘conservative’) media and academia. Only Neo-Fascism and its variants now dare speak the truth.
For neo-fascists, not only species but subspecies are too evident in nature and society to be denied by any honest person. What serious person can deny that Ashkenazi Jews achieve far more than blacks in mental endeavors due to higher IQ? And who can deny that blacks attain far more than Jews in sports due to greater strength and speed?
Even though the prevalent characteristics of a race don’t apply to every member, they exist generally more among certain groups than among others. There are more individuals like Mike Tyson among blacks than among Jews, and there are more individuals like Alan Dershowitz among Jews than among blacks. And these differences have a huge impact on society in terms of finance, media, sports, sex, crime, and violence.
This is why neo-fascists, race-realists, and race-ists(meaning those who believe in the reality of race and racial differences) have little need for self-righteousness, moral one-upmanship, and me-hugging sanctimony. They are grounded in reality and make no apologies for it. And if they prioritize the survival and success of their own kind, it’s due to healthy human nature and a sense of obligation to heritage and culture.
Now, neo-fascists, race-realists, and race-ists do believe in morality as the controlling mechanism against nature. Letting nature run wild is like letting dogs and cats do as they please, a recipe for disaster. Unless human aggression, sexuality, gluttony, and greed are contained, things will fall apart.
So, we need morality and the rule of law. But for neo-fascists and race-ists, it’s not a matter of being holier-than-thou or self-righteous but being right about the ways of nature and controlling them. Neo-fascists value nature for what it is. Without natural urges, drives, and passions, we wouldn’t be human. Without emotions, we’d be anemic robots. But, letting the id loose turns into the Altamont Rock Concert of 1969, a complete fiasco. Indeed, look what happened to much of the black community once blacks reverted to their wild African-jungle nature. Many black communities seem as though populated with baboons or chimpanzees.
This is why the neo-fascist moral philosophy is about being sane, sound, and sensible than self-righteous and holier-than-thou as me-huggers. Unlike Christians who believe that God’s perfect Creation was destroyed by man’s wicked surrender to vanity and desire, neo-fascists believe that man is the way he is because he evolved from apes that evolved from monkeys. Animal nature is part of what we are. And this nature is valuable as the primary fuel that makes us seek food & shelter, compete with others, seek sex to create new life, express ourselves to gain attention, and etc.
Religions such as Buddhism and Christianity idealize the transcendence of the spirit. They favor the total abnegation of fleshly desires in favor of spiritual uplift. Christianity envisions the spirit departing from the flesh and entering Heaven. Buddhism goes the extra mile and informs the spirit that it too is an illusion and must also be extinguished in the void so that there will remain nothing in the end, neither filth of flesh nor fantasy of spirit.
The difference between neo-fascists and Christians in relation to nature is like the difference between the two aforementioned dog-tamers. The first dog-tamer values the dog’s nature but knows it must be tamed in order for the dog to be a useful companion to man. He doesn’t deem the dog’s nature to be wicked or wrong. Indeed, a wild dog must rely on its wild nature to survive. But in the world of man, a dog cannot act wild. Still, there is much in dog’s nature that is appealing and even useful to man. So, the first dog-tamer respects the dog’s nature but channels it in ways that make the dog compatible with the world of man.
It’s akin to the neo-fascist view of human nature. Neo-fascists understand the organismic foundation of man. Unless we understand the biological foundation of humanity, we won’t understand its true nature. Neo-fascism believes in the necessity of morality: A morality of realism than purism. Since Neo-fascists understand man’s animal origins and essential animal-organismic nature, they understand those factors must be controlled and channeled in order for man to rise above savagery and barbarism.
Shorn of animal nature and drives, mankind would lack the fuel for power and competition. But if mankind fails to control those drives, it will remain on the level of the savage, like among Negroes who hardly developed great civilizations and turned Western cities like Detroit into jungle-lands.
The age-old question has been, “Do men want mastery over nature or slavery to nature?” All animals, even the most intelligent, are slaves of their nature and instincts. They cannot break free of their natural programming. They are driven by instincts and drives. Animals can be freed from the tyranny of nature only under the control of man, but then, this makes them slaves of man.
Only man can begin to understand his own nature via heightened consciousness, reason, morality, context, and wider perspective. Man can go from running with horses to riding them, literally and metaphorically.
Only man can create culture as a bulwark against nature but also understand how culture, made tyrannical or corrupt, could rob him of both mind and instinct. Man’s search for his true self is like the myth of Sisyphus: A never-ending struggle. The Hellenic ideal envisions the man of reason & will who shapes his own destiny, thus gaining mastery over nature both internal and external. The Hebraic ideal seeks mastery over nature by having man serve the only true master, the one and only God.
Then, rules and codes, of which morality is a part, are of the essence. Even among animals, especially social ones, certain crude ‘understandings’ regulate their behaviors. Without such factors, a wolf pack or a lion pride wouldn’t be possible as those species rely heavily on cooperation.
The purism of Christian morality can be traced back to the tragedy of Eden that was lost through man’s ego-driven disobedience, even though one could argue that Adam and Eve were undone more by childlike innocence than any ‘Faustian’ bargain as they were ill-prepared to appreciate the full effects of the fruit. God ordered them not to eat from the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge, but as they only knew of goodness, perfection, and bliss, they had no way of conceiving what lay on the other side.
Paradoxically, Christianity is at once most demanding and most forgiving. The example set by Jesus, one of the highest virtues, is upheld as the gold standard of morality and spirituality for all converts. But then, precisely because it is so difficult to attain in life(even among self-sacrificing saints), Christianity allows for man’s failings, as when Jesus essentially forgave Peter’s betrayal before the fact. Jesus, in pushing moral and spiritual logic to the very end, knew that no man could come anywhere close.
This paradox has led to no small amount of cultural schizophrenia, with some interpreting the Christian God as a moral germ freak and stickler for detail while others portray Him as the life-of-the-party for whom just about anything is forgivable.
Furthermore, if some see Jesus’ sacrifice as a model to emulate, others see it as a meal-ticket, i.e. since Jesus went through the trouble for mankind, one need not try too hard.
The Christian Way is akin to that of the aforementioned second dog-tamer. If the first dog-tamer values the dog’s nature even as he controls it, the second dog-tamer reviles the dog’s nature as inherently wicked despite its usefulness. He not only tames and controls the dog but instills it with guilt over its very nature.
Given PC’s official secularism and, for the most part, non-religion-ism, you’d think ‘progressives’ would be like the first dog-tamer. For one, they accept the animal origins of mankind, aka evolution. They know that mankind’s animal drives are natural, formed by millions of years of natural selection, not the work of the devil. For the most part, they don’t believe in God and reject Biblical precepts. They don’t believe in Eden or Jesus and the Resurrection. So, why are they so much like the Christian moralists? Why are they like the second dog-tamer?
It’s because the proglodytes and ‘wokesters’ have their secular twists on the Edenic and Christo-redemptive narratives.
For starters, the French Enlightenment, even as it championed materiality and reason, was less the product of scientists than philosophers or philosophes. And the proto-social-scientific views of these philosophes were more idealistic than realistic. They imposed their vision of hope, redemption, and progress on the cult of reason. Thus, their idea of ‘Reason’ wasn’t necessarily rational or even reasonable. Later, Marxism posited its theories as ‘scientific materialism’ despite the sketchy or flawed evidence, downright falsehoods, intellectual egomania, and Messianic fervor.
The French Enlightenment was defined by the overly optimistic Cult of Reason. The philosophes believed that the triumph of Reason would lead to their desired social or political goals. Their Cult of Reason lacked reasonableness and the cautious curiosity of the skeptical mind. No wonder the supposedly Rational French Revolutionaries were soon massacring one another. If Christians butchered one another over “God on my side”, the Rationalists butchered one another over “History on my side”.
It’s one thing to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in mathematics. But there are too many variables among humans, society, and history for any single theory to be conclusive. And even things that are correct may be so only in certain contexts. For example, one can argue that democracy is a good political system. But democracy can only work within certain historical, economic, political, and demographic contexts. Just because liberal democracy works well in one nation is no guarantee that it will have the same effect on another nation with very different content and context. It’s like what works for one breed of dogs will not work so well with other breeds, let alone cats. Try using bloodhounds to herd sheep.
The French Enlightenment had its Edenic vision in the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and this optimistic vision of human nature has always been a feature of ‘progressivism’. This Edenic view of human nature says that all humans are born with positive, noble, and wonderful qualities. But society, burdened with the history of oppression and corruption, tarnishes human souls and leads them astray. Anarchists believe in the innate goodness of human nature and blame social institutions for corrupting individuals into nasty exploiters, oppressors, or criminals.
A variation of Rousseauian view is found in J.D. Salinger’s THE CATCHER IN THE RYE where Holden Caulfield is distraught over the compromised, hypocritical, and even corrupt world of the adults. And this mentality carried over into the 60s where one of the biggest hits of the decade was THE GRADUATE, a story of a young man unnerved by the prospect of graduating into a world of ‘plastics’. Woodstock Concert was about going ‘back to the garden’. Apologists of black pathology have insisted that naturally vibrant and exuberant Negroes fail in society because of the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination, i.e. the Edenic Negro soul and the once-Edenic Africa are in troubled states because of the Greedy West that perverted and corrupted their true sunny and warm nature.
Also, the entirety of Jewish history is narrated as one of victim-hood under Gentiles, especially white ones. So, these nice, innocent, and wonderful Jews were oppressed, exiled, and brutalized by these bad nasty goyim, and that explains Jewish neurosis. (Granted, the famous Jewish neurosis is expressed through both Adam/Eve and God. Adam’s troubles begin upon gaining a greater vision of reality beyond the confines of Eden. Knowing more, Eden is no longer enough for him. Likewise, when Jews remained within their closed tight knit community, they were content with a world of their own. But once their eyes fell on what the goyim have — greater wealth and power, more attractive sexual mates, vaster territories, and etc. — their own world was no longer enough, and they had to have the world beyond their own, which had been enough in their self-enclosed ignorance. Once Jews got a taste of the forbidden fruit of the goy world, they could no longer be satisfied with their own world that suddenly seemed small. But Jewish neurosis also identifies with God in seeing goyim as Adam and Eve who must be harshly punished IF they dare to venture beyond what Jews deem permissible. To know more is condemned as ‘antisemitism’ and results in swift exile from the Jewish Plantation.)
And according to feminists, female nature is loving and kind(and powerful in a good way), but evil patriarchy kept it inside a cage and distorted it. So, for women to be free, they must run wild and do as they please.
And the Counterculture was in no small part premised on the natural idealism of youth against the Man and the System standing in the way and stomping from above. As Times-they-are-a-changin, the Man and the System need to step aside and let the youth run wild and free.
So, the end-result of all these strands was a kind of neo-Edenism, a secular variation of Christianity. Certain groups — Jews, blacks, womenfolk, youths, and later homos — were deemed innately noble and wonderful but held back from reaching their potential by the Man and the System. There was a burst of optimism in the 60s when social barriers fell one after another.
Finally, blacks could be freer and more equal than ever before. Young people had the leisure and freedom to indulge in their dreams and desires. Women, encouraged by the feminist movement, chose to do their own thing. And later, homos began to run wild, topped only by Negroes. And Jews began to challenge and even eclipse the Wasps as the dominant elites in America. There were no more brakes by the Man and the System. According to the logic of neo-Edenism, everything should have gone well as all these wonderful people were no longer hamstrung by the Man(especially the Wasps).
But, what happened? Something like the crazy-birds-gone-wild in Alfred Hitchcock’s famous movie. Youth movement degenerated into excesses of drugs, sex, and alienation. Negroes ruined city after city, and crime went through the roof. Womenfolk turned into nasty unhappy bitches, with rising rates of eating disorders and sexually transmitted diseases. Homo orgies led to the HIV epidemic and worse. And Jewish power led to the New Cold War, mass corruption on Wall Street, destruction of the Near East, a culture of greed to make previous greed seem piddly by comparison, and the degeneration of culture by Jewish control of media.
Given these outcomes, one would think that the Progs would have wised up a bit. And some, like Steven Pinker, saw the light at least halfway. He realized the dark-side of the libertine-ism of the 1960s and 1970s. But most ‘progressives’ never saw the light and remained stuck to the neo-Edenic vision. Why?
Yes, they will admit that a lot of things went wrong with blacks, womenfolk, homos, youths, and Jewish power. But, they still blame OTHERS for the failures. It is always The Man. So, how do we explain the STD that devastated the ‘gay’ community? Should homos be held accountable for their irresponsible mass orgies that spread all manner of germs via fecal penetration? No, that would violate the neo-Edenic view of homos as angels and saints. Just blame “Reagan’s Indifference” and pretend that homos did nothing wrong in butt-banging one another across the continents. The real culprit was Reagan who didn’t spend enough on some magic cure so that homos could do their thing without worry of disease.
As for the youth culture, we are fed the same theme over and over. Blame the Adults for standing in the way of youth(whose minds are ironically molded by Jewish adults with control over media and academia). This has gotten tricky for boomers who first identified Youth as an Identity. Now, the boomers are in their 60s and even 70s. So, shouldn’t today’s young blame them? Liberal Boomers have dodged this responsibility by always pandering to a new batch of young people by vilifying the Conservative Boomers. Following this logic, all would have been well if every Boomer was more like Bill Clinton than Newt Gingrich. But then, didn’t even Liberal Boomers go for big money, privilege, power, and stuff like locking up record numbers of blacks to revive cities?
As for feminism, it’s still stuck on blaming men(especially white gentile straight men) for whatever is perceived to plague women and girls. So, even though Jews and Homos run the fashion industry that make women feel neurotic and insecure about their looks, the blame only goes to White Male Patriarchy. And even though the problems faced by non-white women owe to culturally distinct sets of circumstances(as well as to globalism), feminism makes believe it’s all the White Male’s fault.
As for Negroes, it is never their fault. So, if black students get suspended more, it must be the fault of ‘racist’ teachers. If too many blacks are dying by gun violence, it must be the white police than blacks killing one another. Even the GOP will never blame blacks. Donald Trump pandered to blacks and blamed their problems on the Democrats, a twist on the Democratic shtick of blaming all black problems on the GOP and ‘racism’.
Now, a sensible attitude would call for the realization that human nature is a form of animal nature, and as such, it needs to be restrained, tamed, controlled, and channeled AMONG ALL GROUPS. Just as white males allowed to do as they please will likely act like barbarians or drunken frat-boys, the same holds true for other demographics as well.
Now, ‘progressives’ will admit as much about the white males. White-boys-gone-wild is a familiar trope of moral degradation. It became a sensation with the Duke Lacrosse Gang-Rape of a black woman that, by the way, turned out to be a hoax. It was associated with the UVA Gang-Rape of Jackie Coakley that also turned out to be a hoax. But then, white-male-craziness isn’t blamed on unrestrained male-animal-nature but on ‘white privilege’, as if it is the evil of privilege that makes males want to act like animals. (Germanic Barbarians who sacked Rome must have been filled with snotty ‘white privilege’.)
Anyway, if white males can act stupid, crazy, and dangerous if their natural urges are unrestrained, why wouldn’t the same apply to other groups? If allowed to run loose, wouldn’t they cause the same problems? And yet, ‘progressives’ have a hard time grasping this simple fact since they cling to the neo-Edenic view of certain groups as naturally good(and corruptible only by the Man and the System). So, when blacks act crazy and cause havoc, they are called ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. Or, the news is suppressed nationally and covered only locally in a subdued tone. Or, when the violence is so extreme and obvious, black rage is explained in terms of the legacy of slavery or lingering ‘racism’.
And the same logic applies to Jews. Some years ago, an Israeli-American was caught making hate-hoax bomb threats to Jewish centers across America. Jews made a big stink about the rise of ‘antisemitism’. But, when it turned out that the main hoaxer was a member of the Tribe, Jews like David Schraub of Berkeley Law School cleverly twisted logic to argue that the guilty Jew is really just another ‘Anti-Semite’ who targeted Jews than a Jewish-Supremacist who defamed white gentiles to serve Jewish interests. So, even when Jews do bad things, the fault is with the others. A Jew who pretends to hurt Jews in order to defame white gentiles is said to reflect badly on ‘antisemitism’ than on Jewish Supremacism, the true motivating factor.
There seems to be two kinds of Difficult Truths.
The first kind is due to the mental challenges inherent in the advanced sciences, philosophy, and other intellectual pursuits. It’s no easy feat to make breakthroughs in biology, chemistry, physics, or philosophy. Such difficulty is challenging but rewarding, a tough climb but backed with encouragement and support.
The second kind of Difficult Truth may be plain as day, easily demonstrable, or obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of honesty and integrity. It isn’t rocket science and doesn’t take a genius. And yet, this truth is very difficult because the social, cultural, and/or political taboos militate against it. One would think this kind of difficulty could only exist in a theocracy or tyranny, but it is no less a part of the supposedly ‘liberal democratic’ West.
In some ways, this kind of Difficult Truth is more frustrating than the other kind, which however exhausting and challenging, has free rein in attaining the answer. But imagine the answer being known(by a sizable population) but not being spoken or being suppressed(or denied) by the institutions that matter.
One kind of difficulty is seeing the mountain and trying to climb it against all odds, while the other kind of difficulty is pretending not to see the mountain that is plainly there. Like “Race isn’t real.”
On some level, ‘progressives’ share the Christian rejection of nature. This may sound counter-intuitive as the ‘progressive’ types embrace the natural in sex, fun, thrills, and frills. Also, ‘progressives’ love violent sports and licentious pop music.
But, here’s the problem. Their understanding of nature is hedonistic, illusory, ‘liberational’, and/or utopian, in spirit neo-Edenic than evolutionary. They indulge in the pleasurable aspects of nature while ignoring or minimizing the dire consequences, which have been suspended or delayed with the aid of technology such as modern medicine, surplus food, welfare safety nets, and/or contraceptives. A society of plenty can sustain(and even grossly profit from) a lot of bad behavior by formulating ways to indulge in excesses without suffering the full consequences that had been virtually inevitable in the past in conditions of relative scarcity and hardship.
The ‘progressive’ conception of nature is ideological-political than biological and evolutionary. Even though they know humans evolved from apes, their concept of human nature owes more to the Narrative than to Natural History. This ‘narratural’ view of mankind or ‘narraturalism’ divides mankind into those with pure/holy natures, those with neutral natures, and those with impure/unholy natures.
In a way, it is a variation of modern ‘scientific racism’ that also ascribed different ‘human narratures’ among the races. For example, the National Socialists contended that the white race evolved to be the most noble, creative, and heroic. In contrast, the Jewish race evolved to be cunning, parasitic, and dishonest. And the black race evolved to be savage and primitive. And the Asian race evolved to be slavish, servile, and despotic.
Both the radical anti-racist and the radical racist views of various human groups have their racial rankings, and in some ways, the ‘woke’ anti-racism is an inversion of European radical racism and indeed could not exist without it.
Radical racism, once prevalent on both the left and the right, provided the intellectual and moral rationale for white imperialism, white ‘antisemitism’, and white racial domination over other races, especially blacks, often worded in progressive rhetoric of the time.
It led to much violence and oppression, as well as imperialist wars(between imperialists and subject peoples & among the imperialist powers vying for mastery), and the horror of World War II. (It also led to the spread of many advanced Western ideas and values around the world.)
With the decline in Western civilizational confidence in the aftermath of World War II & the post-imperialist world order due in part to increasing Jewish influence, the official narrative inverted the earlier racial hierarchy. The new order called for racial equality, but in terms of symbolism, iconography, and storytelling, the narrative was skewed to present certain groups — especially Jews, Negroes, and later homos — as intrinsically holy and pure while making the white race, especially the males, out to be ‘innately evil’, e.g. ‘white babies are born racist’ and ‘the biggest threats to white co-eds are white male date-rapists’.
Given the white domination over the world for so long, the PC attempts to redress past wrongs might have been understandable, at least for a time. And it was good to tear down nonsense ideologies such as ‘Aryan’ supremacism that could only lead to nihilism. National Socialism turned so monstrous because its concept of right-and-wrong was ultimately determined by race. So, even a bad ‘Aryan’ is better than a good decent Jew. The great irony is that PC and its cancer ‘wokeness’ work in the same way. By ‘sacralizing’ certain groups as the Noble Peoples of Eternal Victim-hood, peoples such as Jews, homos, and Negroes needn’t make an attempt to be good, and when they do bad, the deeds are easily forgiven or forgotten… or blamed on ‘systemic racism’ or the Eternal Anti-Semite that made them do it. PC is a form a nihilism because right-or-wrong becomes a matter of group inheritance than individual action. PC ‘morality’ is for the lazy and spoiled.
Interestingly enough, even though scientific race-ism and radical racism could be offensive and simplistic, they were still closer to the truth than the current PC anti-racism. Even the old scientific race-ist views of Jews, blacks, and Asians were more factual than today’s PC anti-racism. Jews do have a more cunning and devious nature than whites do. Blacks are more aggressive, wild, and demented. Asians are more servile and slavish, which explains why so many Asian-American academics are mere yellow dogs of Official Dogma of PC.
If the world carries on with the currently fashionable ‘woke’ anti-racism, the result will be far more dire than even WWI and WWII combined. While those wars were devastating, European civilization still survived. Whites destroyed one another, but whites emerged from the rubble, and they quickly rebuilt their nations. But what will happen when the West continues to let Jews dominate the institutions, infect & paralyze white minds with the ‘woke’ virus, encourage Afro-Colonization of White Wombs(or ACOWW), and welcome endless non-white immigration to the point where the US turns into New Brazil while Europe turns into Afro-Arabia? Then, it will be the end of the white race, and the once-great-center-of-civilization will be just one big Bongomania.
Political Correctness and ‘wokeness’ are premised on the rejection of nature. This may seem odd as PC is nevertheless secular and adopted by the intellectual class that favors science over religion. But science can also be affected by ideology, dogma, and fanaticism. This was true enough of the more zealous National Socialists who rejected certain scientific ideas as ‘Jewish Science’. By rules of National Socialism, Jews were a Problem People, therefore ideas that originated from Jews tended to be suspect and devalued. And consider the role of ideology in communist science. What came to be known as Lysenko-ism was a case of ideology over biology.
When PC and ‘woke’ types accuse Western Science of past prejudices, they aren’t entirely wrong, but their criticism is ultimately useless because, instead of rooting out anti-scientific biases, they merely enforce biases of their own.
Worse, their biases lead them to condemn and purge even real science if not aligned with the currently fashionable dogma of favoring Jews, blacks, and homos.
In a way, such animus, sometimes approaching inquisitional zealotry, is really a form of masked envy because only those in hard sciences and technology seem to make a real difference in the world. As such, the hard sciences and technological fields attract the most advanced intellect, and their findings can be verified as factually true, that is independent of any agenda.
Thus, the hard sciences are above politics, ideology, and opinion, though there are clever charlatans like Elizabeth Holmes. For this reason, science is an object of envy for those who specialize in religion, ideology, culture, and popular opinion. Science is threatening to other fields of knowledge because its only objective is the verifiable truth regardless of dogma or cause. Then, it’s hardly surprising that PC is just as ‘triggered’ by science as was the Church of yesteryear. Whether it’s the fact of heliocentrism or racial differences, those driven by religion or ideology have a hard time accepting anything running counter to their concept of the sacred or righteous.
If humans were computers programmed to strictly follow the rules of logic and facts, political correctness wouldn’t matter. But, humans are emotional, and feelings, not facts, lend meaning to life, as well as the fuel for the lifeforce. It’s why religion/spirituality is still going strong despite all facts pointing to a godless cosmos.
From the cradle, many were raised to believe in God & Jesus, that God loves everyone equally, implying that we must love everyone equally as God’s creation. As for non-religious families, their kids were raised from the cradle to worship MLK, see ‘racism’ as the greatest evil, and associate scientific theories about races & racial differences as ‘Nazi-like’.
Much of PC is about ideological passion and sanctimony, and the emotions are so powerful that ‘woke’ minds rage and recoil from facts and ideas deemed ‘racist’. That said, they’re deluded that facts and science are on their side because most of the media and academia subscribe to PC ideology(for reasons ranging from cultural bias to speciousness to cravenness).
For example, Charles Murray’s (rather milquetoast)ideas have often been dismissed as ‘invalid’ or ‘discredited’ by the ‘scientific community’. To impressionable young minds, such assertions have a double effect: “Don’t even consider Murray’s ideas because they are just flat-wrong and NO ONE in good standing takes them seriously” and “If you desire professional success, such views are unacceptable.” There’s the smear factor and fear factor. Humans are socio-economic players, and status & peer-approval mean a lot to them. With the rising numbers of servile East Asians in the academia as toadies and commissars, the problems of ‘wokery’ will grow worse.
Another problem arises from Jewish control of the Narrative. How important is the power of Narrative? Consider how the Judeo-centric Narrative came to dominate so much of our views of the Ancient World and History. It is because the Jews wrote the Torah that centralized their accounts as THE TRUTH as to what happened and why. Even though other peoples and cultures also produced written texts — even in greater volume than the Jews — , the Torah formulated a powerful unity of narratives. The Torah brought together holiness, mythology, history, genealogy, poetry, prophecy, laws, ideology, and politics in one unified volume. It’s everything in a single canon. (Bob Dylan’s central place in Rock history owes largely to his two albums, HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, regarded as having interwoven the various strands of arts & culture, everything from rural blues to haute poetry, into a unified expression.) It was to knowledge what the Ark of Noah was to all of life. The essential core. So, even though Jews were never a great political power in the Ancient World, their Narrative came to dominate the world, in time leading to the Christian-ization of the West and Islam-ization of the Middle East. Neither the New Testament nor the Koran is conceivable without the Torah.
The story of Jesus illustrates the power of the Narrative. He got whupped and killed real bad. When He was whipped, stripped naked, and nailed to the Cross, it’s hard to imagine a bigger loser. And that would have been that… but for the fact that a handful of men spun an inspired narrative about Jesus and then worked tirelessly to disseminate their accounts and messages all around. It was the power of Narrative that resurrected Jesus from a hapless loser to the King of Kings. The Narrative has the power to do that. People love a good story. And Jews, the craftsmen of the Torah and the New Testament, have known the art of storytelling and ‘sacralization’, from St. Paul to Steven Spielberg.
So, how does the Jewish control of the Narrative play into the neo-Edenism that led to White Guilt? By arguing that the US is a ‘proposition nation’, Jews claimed that America was created as a New Eden of equality, justice, love, and harmony. But, according to the Jewish PC-narrative, whites befouled this New Eden with the ‘genocide’ of Indians and the slavery of blacks. (To be sure, the ‘genocide’-of-Indians Narrative gets far less play, not least because it undermines the idea of America as a ‘nation of immigrants’. Immigrants are, after all, invaders, which is to say favoring immigrants necessarily disfavors the native inhabitants. Jews prop up Emma Lazarus as the prophet of justice, but if she really cared about the ‘huddled masses’, she should have said something about the huddled Indians who were losing their lands to whites & Jewish immigrants? In the end, Jews favor their own tribalism over the interests of others. Indeed, the championing of Indians in the 1960s was more a neo-pagan thing among the hippies, who took their cultural cues from aspects of German Cult of Nature, than the main topic among Jews who preferred the Negro Narrative and then the Homo one.)
According to the Jewish Narrative of the US, the white Adam and white Eve failed, especially with the Original Sin of Slavery. Notice that the ‘genocide’ of Indians is not considered the ‘original sin’ of America even though whites had to conquer the red man’s land before blacks could be brought over. Also, consider the oddity of associating slavery with ‘original sin’. Slavery has existed for 10,000 years according to anthropologists. It existed for eons in Africa, Arabia, Asia, Europe, and in the Americas among the native Indians themselves. Slavery existed in the Americas for at least 10,000 yrs before the white man came.
Also, the Spanish and Portuguese who conquered Central and South America practiced slavery BEFORE Anglo-Americans founded America(and after it was abolished in the US).
So, why is slavery the ‘original sin’ of America? The accusation works ONLY WHEN we adopt the notion of America as a ‘proposition nation’. Supposedly, that ‘proposition’ promised a New Eden. Thus, America was no longer part and parcel of human history, with all its bloodshed and turmoil, but a New Eden founded on perfection of ideals and values. And given such an Edenic proposition, America was obligated to be perfect. But, it ate of the fruit of slavery and others sins that later came to be deemed as ‘unjust’. Therefore, the failings, shortcomings, and hypocrisies of America were not the same-old-same-old replays of the flawed nature of man but a Great Sin against Edenic Justice and Truth. (Of course, the pro-Americanists have argued in favor of US history, especially in contrast to the French Revolution and Russian Revolution. True, the US was far from perfect throughout its history, but its gradual reformist model based on the rule of law and political stability was preferable to French radicalism that led to Napoleonic Wars and the Russian Revolution that created a totalitarian tyranny.)
Now, the notion of America as a ‘proposition nation’ isn’t entirely a Jewish Creation. Rather, it is a Jewish radicalization of the founding principles of America. It is true that the Founding Fathers were high-minded and dedicated to creating a new kind of order with ideals of liberty, tolerance, justice, rule of law, and acknowledged talent. But they weren’t naive sop-eyed idealists with utopian dreams.
Indeed, the fact that they were Deists than literal-minded Christians shows they were men of reason and caution than messianic fanatics. Also, their policies regarding France and Great Britain indicate pragmatism than ideological fervor. After all, their victory of independence was won with the backing of France, a nation that was then politically more monarchical than Britain.
But, just like Ayn Rand radicalized American capitalism and individualism into a monomaniacal ideology(than accepting them as competing and cooperative approaches within a plurality that also includes religion, tradition, community values, and even some socialist programs), the Jewish Narrativists radically idealized the founding of the US.
Initially, the idealization seemed to flatter the Anglo-Americans, patted on the back for having founded and built the greatest nation on earth with the noblest principles. It’s no wonder Anglo-Americans like Theodore Roosevelt sucked it all up from Jews like Israel Zangwill. Anglo-Americans failed to understand that they were being hustled. Jews rolled out the red carpet that turned out to be a trap.
After all, it was only a matter of time before Jews began to berate Anglo-Americans for having failed to live up to the proposition. If someone praises you as perfect and if you accept the praise, then any blemish turns into a stain. So, when Jews praised America(as envisioned and built by Anglo-Americans), the sensible response would have been to say thanks but no thanks, i.e. America never was meant to be a New Eden. Rather, it was a continuation of Western Civilization(especially that of Anglo-tradition), which itself was a continuation of human history filled with all manner of tragedies as well as triumphs. Then, Anglo-Americans and whites in general could have evaded the Flatter-Flatten Strategy of the Jews.
Beware the most he who comes bearing gifts. He showers you with praise and stokes your vanity while plotting to take your pride and property. You gain empty words in exchange for the real world. And in the end, you even lose the word because your prize has been taken on grounds that you don’t deserve it.
The Jew said to the Anglo, “You’re perfect.” Flattered Anglo welcomed the Jew into his world. Jew then said, “You’re not so perfect”. To please the Jew and win more words of praise, the Anglo handed over more and more of his world. But the Jew only complained more, and in the end, the Anglo lost everything(in both the US and UK). And then, the Jew took back even the praise because the Anglo’s forfeiture of the prize implied the latter never deserved anything he had.
It is because of the Neo-Edenism of the American Narrative that the moral failures or shortcomings of the US seem so horrific and traumatic. Everything depends on context. Indeed, how come the partaking of the Forbidden Fruit seems like the worst thing ever even though far uglier and horrific things happen later? How could eating a fruit be worse than fratricide, rape, wholesale massacres, and bloody wars in the later stories? It’s deemed worse because Adam and Eve did an imperfect thing in a perfect world. It’s like belching at a classy dinner in a fancy restaurant is far worse than breaking wind like hippos at a drunken frat party. The Bible is filled with wars and other horrors, but they are terrible things in a fallen world. In contrast, Adam and Eve disturbed the order of a perfect world.
Similar dynamics shape our view of American History(and that of the Americanized West) given the prevailing neo-Edenic vision enforced by Jewish Power. Because of the over-idealization of the Edenic ‘Proposition Nation’, we wish the US had been perfect from day one. It should have been the End-of-History utopia of freedom, liberty, equality, justice, happiness, bounty, and peace.
In truth, however, some of the Founders were slave-owners. And their intentions weren’t entirely noble or idealistic. There was a considerable discrepancy between their rhetoric and their deeds. None of this should surprise us as the Founders and the people of the time were simply humans with human problems that have always plagued history.
But within the neo-Edenic context of Proposition-ism, all their failings become magnified, especially as ‘wokeness’ becomes ever shriller through the pushy personality of Jews, savage personality of blacks, bitchy personality of feminists, and hissy personality of homos. Jews and their golems are driving everyone, including themselves, nuts.
And yet, these groups could be falling into neo-Edenic traps of their own making. The way they bitch and whine, you’d think they’re pure and perfect angels unbesmirched by historical sin. But if we were to write a Black Book on each of them, e.g. THE BLACK BOOK OF COMMUNISM, then they would come across as shitty as the whites or even shittier. Didn’t Bantus wipe out the other racial tribes of Africa? THE BLACK BOOK OF JEWS could be very useful. Some clever soul should collect all the data and write one… though some would argue Jews did it already with the Talmud, which, to non-Jewish(and even enlightened Jewish) eyes, would come across as pretty disturbing.
Of course, the Jewish mind-trick might not have worked had the Anglo/American mind not been instilled with Protestant conscience, reform, and rectitude. It is no accident that the Protestant World came to lead the crusade in abolishing slavery all over the world. Jews sensed that the Northern European Protestant Mind had the Will to Progress & Redress that was lacking in most cultures, including that of Jews of course. (The concept of Tikkun Olam, in positing that ONLY JEWS can repair the world, implies that the Tribe should rule the world that is lost without Jewish wisdom and blessing.)
So, by flattering this good-and-noble side of Protestant Northern Europeans, Jews could ingratiate themselves into the Order as admirers and advisers. Once ensconced within the Order, however, the Jew could keep pestering the Anglos about all that is imperfect and wrong. And having gained systematic access, the Jew could use his wits to gain financial supremacy over the system and gradually buy off one Anglo leader after another… until it is the Anglo elites who are held by the Jewish purse-strings. And Jews could buy up the media and use the influence to shame & defame Anglos while presenting themselves, the Jews, as the faultless wise-men and martyrs of History.
Neo-Edenism comes easily because humans, like all organisms, are naturally amnesiac. Humans, like all animals, are born without memory of the past. Also, most people are not interested in history. They mostly regard it as recordings of past events irrelevant in the here-and-now. It doesn’t come naturally to most people to research and contemplate the past.
It goes for spirituality and ideology as well. Most religious people never read the entire Bible, and most communists never read Das Kapital and other classic Marxist tomes. They much prefer TV and popular culture, which explains why so many Christians and ‘leftists’ became suckers for Globo-Homo and Negrolatry constantly pushed by the much dumbed-down and vulgarized media.
Of course, people love stories and seek spiritual uplift, but they want it fast and easy. So, people prefer movies over books and pulp over literature. And they prefer the easy uplift of church services turned into entertainment(as if God’s into showbiz). They prefer myth to reality. They want ‘kumbaya'(of Oprah as pop cult messiah) or the celebrity-shtick of the devil Pope Francis as a kind of Catholic Bono.
Electronic Pop Culture and infantile Political Correctness have made mass amnesia even more pervasive. Pop Culture mentality favors things of instant gratification and click-bait-appeal. It’s the effect of the TV Remote Control x 1000. Pop Culture feeds into Political Correctness as both are predicated on impatience and intolerance of complexity or ambiguity.
Just like Pop-Culture addicts get antsy with anything requiring genuine curiosity, depth, and concentration, the Political Correctness can’t abide anything without the high of insta-virtue.
So, anything that smacks of ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, or ‘antisemitism'(or ‘sexism’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘Islamophobia’ on a rotating basis) is immediately denounced without any consideration to its nuances and complexities.
The ‘woke’ types are incapable of examining the credence of their own convictions just like the devoutly religious cannot ponder that, maybe just maybe, God isn’t real. Even though Pop Culture favors fantasy over reality and even though Political Correctness prefers falsehoods(or semi-truths) to the truth, they are naturally appealing to the masses because they are so easy.
That’s why Jews prize them. Pop Culture appeals to everyone, from the intellectual to the idiot, and is the fastest vehicle for transforming cultural norms and attitudes.
In the past, the educated were expected to focus more on serious culture than on mass culture, but the increasing shamelessness has made Pop Culture the main culture of the elites as well. Is it any wonder that the cultural sensation among elites is HAMILTON the rap musical or the concerts of that insipid whore madonna? And once the elites have embraced vulgarization, even high culture is degraded by the vagaries of Pop Culture and Political Correctness, as in the case of Donna Zuckerberg’s brand of Classical Studies.
The rise of amnesia also creates a kind of Perpetual Neo-Edenism. The faddish mind, mistaking the hour for history, falls for the latest fashion as the ultimate in truth, such as the Jewish Narrative that America was founded as an Edenic ‘proposition nation’ but, having failed to live up to its billing, must redeem itself by constant reinvention, replacement, and reformulation.
So, existing Americans have to be replaced by New Americans, i.e. the US is a ‘nation of immigrants'(or Future Americans) than Existing or Historic Americans. Then, it follows that the true American Values are the yet-to-be-values of Future Americans who, as newer and newer versions(via never-ending mass immigration-invasion), become ‘more evolved’ with notions pumped into their minds by the Jewish-run media. People are so swept up in the nuttery that they’re blind to the new hells that await them.
Granted, heaven is its own kind of hell. This is obvious enough in the utopian visions of heaven-on-earth where radicals, so sure of their rightness, are willing to exult in violence, terror, and repression to realize their dreams.
But even in cases where something heaven-like is attained, it turns into a kind of hell. While mankind has never created heaven-on-earth, some societies have come closer to achieving the utopian dream of man.
But such successes create a host of new problems. In one sense, the Biblical Eden(when Heaven and Earth was one) was cursed with boredom. Since all was well, harmonious, and peaceful, Adam and Eve led uneventful lives. And they were tempted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge precisely because they were so bored. Men in the hell-fires of war may dream of peace but, once back home, miss the eventfulness that had lent urgency and purpose to their existence. Whether it’s Ethan Edwards(John Wayne) returning from Civil War in THE SEARCHERS, the Swedish knight returning from the Crusade in THE SEVENTH SEAL, or the soldiers returning from the battlefields in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, men forged in the furnace of war often feel empty and purposeless in a world of peace. Though soldiers are expendable in war, they’re heroes fighting for a Cause. In peacetime, people live in safety(unless Negroes are nearby) but in a humdrum world. To die for something Big is more exciting than to live for something small. Soldiers are heroes who become zeroes as civilians.
Peace and prosperity(or P&P) often lead to boredom, apathy, decadence, naivete, neurosis, and/or desperate craving for meaning. Boredom manifests itself differently among intelligent/sophisticated/educated and among unintelligent/simpleminded/uneducated, but the results are equally dire. Among the elites, it leads to decadence in attitudes, values, and arts/culture. Among the masses, it leads to indulgence in trash culture & neo-savagery(usually of the Afro-black kind), addiction to drugs(legal or illegal), and ugly expressions, such as tattoos, piercings, and hair-dyeing. If some people stave off boredom with decadent conceits or degenerate fantasies, others surrender to apathy and become zombies, like the Apathetics in ZARDOZ.
Another problem of P&P is naivete, especially in a Trust Culture. Some societies are more immune to naivete because of pervasive corruption and/or clan-based mindset. Thus, Southern Italians, even in peacetime, tend to be cynical about others’ motives.
But in Trust Cultures like Sweden, peace made for relatively clean government, economic efficiency, and social order. This led to trust in institutions and officialdom. Such naivete isn’t dangerous if contained within secure borders. But the idealism inherent in the naivete gravitates toward the save-the-world mentality. Worse, when such a social order adopts globalism, the world rushes in before the full extent of the damage can be assessed.
There are also the factors of moral pride, ideological purism, and status conceit. Sweden, as a self-professed ‘moral superpower’, is loath to admit it was wrong. Some Swedes have embraced certain ideologies(lately formulated as DEI) as their forebears took to Lutheranism. They are blinded with faith. As for the political class, their main concern is status-anxiety within the upper ranks of the EU.
Swedes, having had their semi-heaven for several generations, grew naive and trusting. This led many Swedes to believe that all of humanity, even jiggity black Africans, could be as trustworthy and capable as Swedes themselves.
Also, being only around fellow countrymen, Swedes lost a sense of relative worth. Because Sweden has been a nice place, even the slightest failing of Swedes came to be exaggerated and amplified. So, Swedes were easily scandalized or ‘triggered’ by the ‘moral’ shortcoming of any Swede even though, by world standards, it could be trivial compared to the horrors in Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and parts of Asia.
There was also the exotic attraction of the Other, i.e. Sweden may be clean and orderly, but it’s boring and generic, whereas other, especially the darker, races are full of color and exuberance, and so, the Swedes need them like the repressed nuns need Sidney Poitier to spice things up in THE LILIES OF THE FIELD.
And, of course, the impact of Americanism inspired every European nation to create its own American Dream, albeit one without ‘racism'(even though it was race-ism that made America and prevented it from falling apart at the hands of blacks).
In a way, the Swedish cult of tolerance has made it far less intolerant in many respects. Humans are naturally righteous and judgmental. If humans are pressured into tolerance in one area, it’s balanced by intolerance in other areas. Purely from the viewpoint of political pragmatism, in order for one thing to be tolerated, its rival ideas or attitudes must become verboten, especially if the object of tolerance is celebrated and sacralized. It is so with globo-homo-mania that, as a kind of neo-religion, cannot tolerate ideas, icons, and attitudes deemed ‘homophobic’.
But, power-dynamics aside, there is an emotional craving for intolerance. While tolerance may make people feel fuzzy-and-warm, it doesn’t make them feel righteous and justified. Such strong emotions can only be had through intolerance, the rallying of the faithful to hunt witches and burn them at the stake.
So, it’s not surprising that, as Sweden became more tolerant racially, sexually, and culturally, it became more intolerant politically, ideologically, ‘narratively’, and ‘iconographically’. People who abandon religion tend to compensate with heightened ideological intolerance. It’s no wonder that some of the most self-righteous prigs and progs are to be found in secular institutions such as colleges. For those who celebrate homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-mutilation-of-dicks-and-balls-to-get-fake-pussies as beautiful-as-a-rainbow, tolerance for so-called LGBT isn’t enough. That makes them feel fuzzy-wuzzy enough, but it doesn’t make them feel justified. The ONLY way they can feel righteous and sanctimonious is by screaming ‘burn the witch’ at those who remain unpersuaded that homosexuality and tranny-nuttery are noble, inspiring, and redeeming. (Reaming maybe, but redeeming?)
Sweden is a prime case study of how heaven can turn into hell. All that Peace and Prosperity led to boredom. Boredom led to neurosis and then to decadence. It also led to naivete in the absence of ‘red-pilling’ bitch-slaps by reality(of most of the world that wasn’t as pleasant as Sweden). And it led to a hunger for meaning, which was provided by the likes of Barbara Specter whose moral cachet as the Holy Holocaust People fooled the Swedes into accepting the snake oil as holy water, the venom as wisdom.
The socio-economic formula that kept Western societies stable and wealthy despite the decadence(profitable for fostering conspicuous consumption) paved the way for the fall all across Europe. Ingmar Bergman’s modern Sweden was no longer bound by the restraints of class, mores, and religion.
And yet, Bergman’s generation had still been shaped by faith and tradition, even if on their last legs. So, even as they were critical of the old through the lens of the new, they were, even if only subconsciously, critical of the new through the lens of the old.
True, there was the new libertinism that overturned social repressions and spiritual dogma, but where did it all lead to? For a time, obsession with neurosis was the new cult of the educated class. Despite its uncertainties, it could serve as a kind of substitute religion with emphasis on inner-conflict-and-struggle. If the meaning of life could no longer be attained through God, perhaps the mysteries of psychology and philosophy, especially through the prism of modernism in art, could point the way to a new state of being.
Modern Art and new schools of philosophy, such as existentialism, reflected this anxiety and, as such, staved off complacency and shameless indulgence in narcissism and hedonism. Guido in Federico Fellini’s 8½ wants to break free of all restraints but fears what lies on the other side.
All the Proof You Need that the Idiot Christian Mindset is the Progenitor of the Moronic Woke Mindset.
In the Age of Freud, the spirits were the repressed sexual energies. If Christianity taught that spirit triumphs over the flesh, Freudianism argued that the spirits shall be released with the rejection of repression, of which religion is a part. In Fellini’s JULIET OF THE SPIRITS, the wife purges herself of the guilt complex inculcated in her childhood by the Catholic Church. (It was a convenient way for Fellini to rationalize his womanizing, i.e. the problem wasn’t so much his affairs with other women but his wife’s hang-ups due to Catholic upbringing.)
Anyway, the generation of Bergman, Fellini, and Antonioni, even as it espoused the new freedoms, was ridden with anxiety and doubt. This was especially true of Bergman, relative to whom Fellini became rather euphoric & careless(in his role as the Wizard who believes in his own Oz) AND relative to whom Antonioni dabbled in the purgative power of revolution(as in ZABRISKIE POINT) though not without trepidation. ZABRISKIE POINT, like Jean-Luc Godard’s WEEKEND, is radical in calling for the System to be destroyed, but there is little to indicate much promise in the aftermath. Their vision is of destruction, not construction, nihilism than idealism.
Swedish generations since the 1960s have grown up in a libertine world devoid of traditional themes and restraints, and the result has been a culture of shamelessness, decadence, and deracination.
In the absence of true morality, there’s the ‘commitment’ to ‘justice’ based on hysterics about ‘climate change’ and ‘racism’, especially against the magical Negroes anointed as the sacred race(at least for whites).
Thus, morality is a less matter of individual conscience and personal behavior than checking the right boxes in the idolatrous hierarchy of who/whom. Consider all the people who think themselves virtuous or ‘more evolved’ on account of idolizing homos and trannies. Not that the ‘conservatives’ are much different, as their idea of moral one-upmanship is praising the Jews to high heaven and defending whatever they do, no matter how atrocious. But then, too many Christians lacking in virtue think themselves saved because they make a good show of worshiping Jesus(while barely acting Christian in their daily lives).
In some ways, things might not have gotten so bad IF the new modes had led to a sudden social, cultural, and economic collapse. It certainly would have had a sobering effect on everyone. But, late-stage capitalism, especially anchored in the rich and vast United States, not only weathered the rise of decadence/degeneration but thrived & profited from them. So, the degradation in social mores that would have destroyed earlier societies made modern capitalist societies even richer and more productive, delaying the eventual decline of civilization.
It used to be that periodic economic downturns and devastating wars had a pendulum effect in checking cultural excesses — the Jazz Age and the Weimar Period followed by Great Depression and social conservatism — , but the prolonged economic growth and equilibrium since the end of World War II, albeit made possible by funny money with the US dollar as world currency, has encouraged and sustained a culture of infantilism that fuels fantasy over reality.
The prediction of some observers in the 20th Century that the spartan communist east would triumph over the decadent capitalist west didn’t come to be. While the rise in decadence/degeneration did have a baleful effect on society, they also made rampant hedonism the great incentive for work and ambition.
After all, once the basic needs of survival are met, the main incentives are the pursuit of happiness & pleasure. So, as more pleasures(however decadent and debauched) were available to the public, the more tirelessly people worked to make more money to indulge in more fun.
And once capitalism broke free of the moral restraints of Protestant Work Ethic(that said work is noble simply as work), there was the exponential explosion of Vice Industries that catered to all sorts of whims and fantasies.
The entertainment industry was eager to sell anything to make a buck, and since outrage = sensationalism = easy publicity, the culture got coarser as a series of whores, especially beginning with madonna, competed with one another with the Latest Whore Outrage of the Month.
Granted, the rise of Vice Culture has divided people into three basic classes. Those stupid enough to accept Vice as their main culture and indulge themselves to the point of destroying the self, family, and community. This is especially true of the Negroes. And then, there are those who indulge in vice but have it under wraps to the extent that they work hard to enjoy more of it. They’ve succumbed to the enticements of vice and are moral-spiritual zombies by traditional standards. But they still have the work ethic and sufficient self-control to delay immediate gratification. They live for Prurient Work Ethic; they work like Protestants-of-old but for the attainment of Prurience-of-new.
And then, you have the elites who are like the drug kingpins: They don’t get high on their own supply. It’s like the British and Jews sold opium to the Chinese but banned it among their own kind. Many elites who work in Vice Industries push vice-dope on the masses but see the junk for what it is and raise their children differently. It’s like Jews push the false god of Diversity on gentile nations but not on Israel. Smart Jews don’t get high on their own supply, though there are less-smart Jews.
Anyway, the ever-‘creative’ ingenuity of capitalism managed to monetize decadence and degeneration in ways that made society even richer and more powerful. And the first real understanding of this potential perhaps arose during the Prohibition. Back then, many people worried that alcohol would have a debilitating impact on family, morality, and the economy, made all the more worrisome with immigrant populations and growing licentiousness of the Negroes and their music. (Gorbachev dabbled in limited prohibition in the USSR in the 1980s because alcohol-related problems took a toll on the Soviet economy.)
Many hoped that the Prohibition would lead to a more sober, serious, and productive America. It was as if too many Americans, held in bondage to alcoholism, could break the chains only through the abolition of the Devil’s Brew.
But being a ‘democracy’, a relatively free society by world standards, people exploited the situation, and the Prohibition led to a rise in urban organized crime and corruption in government(as well as the irreversible decline in the prestige of Christian moralism).
So, the US eventually ended the Prohibition but with rules and regulations that gave the state increased powers to contain alcohol-related problems, all the more necessary due to the rise of the automobile that, in the hands of a drunken Irish, could easily be a killing machine.
Still, when Prohibition ended, America was still a sober society with families, centrality of the church, patriotism, and sensible race-ist understanding of the dangers posed by the more muscular and more aggressive Negro.
But, over the years, the US and the Modern World as a whole, have been growing more and more decadent and degenerate in all aspects of life. So, while the problems resulting from the Prohibition could be contained by a mostly moral society and while the race tensions & youth culture excesses of the 60s could be balanced by the stability of the ‘silent majority’, a most pressing question of the present is what will contain and stabilize the increasing levels of decadence and degeneration we see all around.
The family as an institution is breaking down for entire segments of society. Many boys fail to grow up into real men, and many women are stuck in trashy whore culture and unfit to be wives and mothers. Colleges are places of excessive Negro trash culture and radical political correctness. The People of Correctness or the PC gang claim to stand for idealism and truth, but their main objects of reverence are crazy thuggish Negroes and narcissistic self-indulgent homos & trannies.
Vice can be controlled and even serve as a useful incentive in a moral society. After all, junk food and soda/beer are okay as long as people mostly eat healthy and exercise. But, what happens when vice-foods are promoted as real food? What happens when the casino becomes as much a family-place-to-be as the church? What happens when a slickster phony like Barack Obama is made the equal of Jesus, a ‘kind of god’? What happens when a homo’s anus is said to be of equal sexual value as the vagina? Is it any wonder we now see homo symbols displayed even in churches?
And, consider the state of Fine Art today. Most of it is only good for hype, speculation, and investment among the filthy rich who keep the charade going just to have something through which to launder their money. When society becomes this demented, decadent, and degenerate — where the solid-silent-majority itself is turning into a minority — , the system itself will eventually buckle and break. It’s like yeast feasting on sugar and soon dying in the very alcohol it produced. The glamour and glitter of modern globalist cities are built on the fecal muck of moral degeneration and social decay.
Sweden is a nation but can also be appreciated as a state-of-mind of a self-enclosed prosperous social order of excessive boredom, trust, naivete, and good-will; we might call this ‘SwEden’.
There are SwEdens all across America, places that are mostly white, prosperous(comparatively speaking), well-educated, and politically correct(above the national norm). Though most SwEdens are not inhabited by Scandinavians, they benefit from the same advantages and suffer from the same deficiencies. The problems of Minnesota can also be found in Maine, Vermont, and Washington, especially around the cities. Being overwhelmingly white, these places are less aware of the dangers posed by blacks and excessive Diversity. Their view of Negreality(Negro-reality) and Diversity comes mainly from the Jewish-run media that indoctrinate minds with the mantras, ‘blacks are holy and cool’ and ‘diversity is our strength’.
So, even though SwEdens are nice places because of the lack of blacks and Diversity, they go out of their way to bring more blacks(even from Africa) and immigrants. Like Sweden the nation, SwEdens are populated with white people who are bored, naive, and trusting. Being bored, they want some excitement or vibrancy. Being naive, they fail to see that other races/cultures can be threatening and destructive. Being trusting, they fall for the Jewish-promoted PC that is programmed to instill homogeneous societies with ‘guilt’ of lacking ‘inclusive’ diversity.
Also, given their spineless Cult of Tolerance, the only way that the people of SwEden can feel righteous is through Intolerance of those who remain skeptical of the magic cures of Negroes, Divine Diversity, and holy homos.
In a way, the puritanical mindset of Protestantism has never left them. If their forebears denounced the corruption of the Catholic Church and went about purging impurities of faith, the current secularized crop of rectifiers, pegged with the same mindset, call for the casting out of all evil spirits in accordance to ‘wokeness’, the reigning cult of the age.
One problem of Sweden, as well as of the many SwEdens, is that the peace-taken-for-granted fosters an unrealistic impression of nature. Just like cinema can give the wrong impression of war as ‘heroic’ or violence as ‘cool and fun’, social peace can lead to the naive misreading of nature and the larger world.
Such protectiveness has a similar impact on domesticated animals. If you raise wild animals in a safe environment with love and affection(and plenty of food), they are less likely to exhibit the necessary ruthlessness and ‘cunning’ to survive in Real Nature. In a man-made zoo-setting, even wild animals can be raised from an early age to be trusting of humans and other animals. So, tiger cubs, wolf cubs, bear cubs, piglets, and calves can be raised to ‘trust’ one another, tolerate one another, and get along. Even though predatory instincts remain even in human-raised carnivores, they are likely to feel fondness for their ‘natural enemies’ with whom they were raised by kindly humans. It’s like dogs and cats raised together as puppies and kittens become lifelong friends… as long as there is human supervision and provision of food & comfort for both. But outside the man-made enclosure or environment, the ‘learned’ or ‘instilled’ affections and attitudes of the animals have little use or relevance in nature. A bear in the wild must fear the tiger. Pigs must run from wolves. Real nature is brutal.
Humans who live in close proximity with nature know this. They don’t romanticize lions that could kill them or eat their mother. Eskimos or Inuit in Alaska fear the polar bear and brown bear. They don’t play games like the ‘Grizzly Man'(of the Werner Herzog film).
Indeed, the Germans romanticized nature because it was fully under their control. (When a group of Germans went to colonize some part of Brazil in the 19th century, they were met with forces too brutal and harrowing for romanticism, much like those faced by the Conquistadors in AGUIRRE THE WRATH OF GOD. If you want to create your own Racial Zion, don’t attempt it in the jungle.)
The white frontiersmen who struggled with Indian warriors and bears, wolves, cougars, moose, and rattlesnakes knew nature was no dream. Even so, the white American conquest of the gigantic North American continent was so swift by historical standards that it wasn’t long before a romantic myth grew up around the Indians as noble savages and the lost wilderness. Out of guilt or nostalgia, the white man came to favor myths than reality about Indians and nature.
By the Sixties, the romanticism about ‘touching Indians’ and going ‘back to the garden’ had more than a little resemblance with German idealism about nature, albeit without the discipline and tidiness; German nature-worship, naive as it could be at times, didn’t lead to something as gross as Woodstock or demented as Altamont.
One reason was Germans had a fixed territory, and every inch of Germany was seen as homeland or heimat. In contrast, there was an element in the American psyche somewhat similar to the Russian: Both people have vast territories, and so, many developed a tendency to simply run off to greener pastures if they made a mess of one place. American Mythos was built on the chance of ‘getting away from the problems of Europe’ and starting over in the New Land. And if they couldn’t make it in the East Coast or made a mess of wherever they were, they could just move move westward ever still.
And when the US was all settled and unified, they could move from cities to ever-expanding suburbs. The US could indulge in endless sprawl from the cities because of the bountiful space. If white men once chased after Indians to take more land, they could later run from Negroes to live in safer areas.
In contrast, peoples of smaller nations have no such option… that is unless they themselves decide to forgo domestic responsibilities by moving to other bigger countries. But then, given what has happened to the UK, Sweden, and France, it seems even the mentality of small(er) nations have been Americanized. Even nations that can’t afford or accommodate endless sprawl are going the American Way, inviting more diversity, and forcing European natives to seek residence away from darkening cities. But, for how long can this continue in cramped Europe?
As for the Germans, who’ve been world-renowned for orderliness and cleanliness, they’ve decided to open their nations to waves of brutish, vulgar, and uncouth Arabs, Muslims, and even Africans who throw garbage and urinate/defecate all over. Germans, who are so hard on one another over issues of sanitation and recycling, have decided it’s wonderful to let Germany be flooded with peoples whose culture of hygiene and sanitation is completely at odds with the German model. It’d be like a school, where every student is pressured to be respectful and diligent, letting in tons of students who have no use for manners.
Could it be that, on some level, Germans are vicariously enjoying the barbarism of non-Germanic invaders who don’t give a damn about social rules and regulations? Since Germans themselves don’t have the guts to give the middle-finger to the social order, perhaps they’ve outsourced social rebellion to the invaders who, furthermore, don’t give a shit about the Jews and the Holocaust, two things all Germans must worship.
So, even as the Germans are appalled by the social erosion and chaos, there might be some repressed glee upon witnessing the invaders acting in vibrant and unrestrained ways denied to the Germans who’ve become accustomed to correctness in just about everything.
Anyway, just like those who don’t know real nature tend to romanticize nature(as a kind of wild eden), people who don’t know the reality of the Other tend to underestimate its savagery, barbarism, hostility, and/or degeneracy(due to cultural, ideological, or genetic factors). The people of Sweden and SwEdens see the entire world/humanity through the prism of their ideology, which is naive and stupid but instills absolute faith among its adherents.
Naturally, people who pay attention to the news(what’s going on) and devote themselves to study(higher knowledge) know more than most people. Ideally, that should be the case IF the media and academia are doing their job. But as PC is the reigning ideology in the West, those who rely most on the establishment media and higher education often turn out to be the most naive and stupid. They may be smart and diligent but trustingly swallow whole hog the garbage that is fed to them by the Jewish-run Media and the PC-virus-infected academia. Such types were suckers for the Russian Collusion Hoax, Covid Hysteria, BLM nonsense, and the Ukraine Narrative. In the Current Year, to ‘know more’ often means to know less(of actual reality).
Now, it won’t do to endorse a populist anti-elitist argument that lazily champions the ‘common sense’ of the silent majority over the conceits of the eggheads. When it comes to specialized knowledge in key fields, the elites and experts do indeed know best. And ideally, if social sciences and humanities were to do their job, they would sustain an elite community where critical thinking, empirical truth, free exchange of ideas, and necessary revisions define the methodology.
But PC and its worse variant ‘wokeness’ have corrupted elite culture with dogmatism, conformism, cravenness, cowardice, and opportunism.
So, unless the culture breaks out of the current mold, many of the most ‘informed’ and ‘educated’ people shall remain in the dark as to what’s really happening and why.
But the disease isn’t limited to the elites, though it is most consequential there as they control the levers of power and shape national policy. The disease spreads to the populace at large through Public Education, Pop Culture, and State Policy. Even when the people begin to sense that something is wrong with globalism and PC, they feel at a moral disadvantage because they’ve been drummed day in and day out with mantras about ‘white guilt’, ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘diversity is our strength’, and ‘homophobia’. So, even illegals in the US enjoy a moral advantage over American citizens. It’s become a twisted parody of the Jewish Way of rubbing the nose of the Founder-Settler Narrative into the dirt in favor of the Immigrant-as-Better-American Narrative.
Under current PC, one need only to spout cliches about ‘diversity’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘racism’ to browbeat any nationalist argument in support of the Historic Americans and border integrity. Under the ‘woke’ regimen, no one’s supposed to ask the illegal alien, “Why don’t you respect the laws of another country? Who gave you the right to violate American laws and barge into another nation?” Also, “If you really love and care about your own kind, why do you run from them to settle in another land?” And, “If Americans are wrong to reject them, why do they reject their own kind by leaving their own countries?”
Indeed, there is a moral contradiction in an illegal Mexican who accuses the ‘gringo’ of not wanting to be around ‘too many Mexicans’ when he himself fled from Mexico because he himself doesn’t want to be around many of his own kind. The illegal Mexican may argue that he came to the US for jobs, but then the patriot should ask the Mexican, “Why can’t you Mexicans build industries and create enough jobs in your own nation? What’s wrong with you people that you let your country be run over by drug gangs & corrupt politicians and just run from the problem by bolting for the US?”
‘Wokeness’ inverts morality and truth so that the lawful, natural, and patriotic are put on the defensive against the criminal, degenerate, and treasonous. So, the treasonous who create ‘sanctuary cities'(which ought to be called ‘treason cities’ or ‘illegopolis’) feel holier-than-thou against the patriots who call for implementation of national laws. So, we have homo-degenerates, who indulge in fecal-penetration, preaching to normal straight people about moral and even spiritual values. (It’s as if the main purpose of god and jesus is to flatter homo vanity.) Blacks who commit the most crime and violence strut around as saint-thugs. And Jews, the most powerful and most destructive force in the world, bitch about the ‘human rights’ abuses of other peoples. And as white elites go along with such nonsense(if only to maintain their status and privilege in the Jewish-run world), the PC dogma & narrative are thrust on ALL white people, and then disseminated around the entire globe by the US media and Western academia(that shapes elite opinions around the world).
True understanding of nature is the best antidote to the Edenic illusion of lion lying with the lamb. But when neo-Edenism infects society, people lose sight of the true horror of nature and reality. It’s like the Eternals in ZARDOZ have become so complacent in their own bubble that they entertain the notion of being massacred by barbarians as happy liberation, unaware of its brutality and pain. If Christians were fed to the lions against their will, the Eternals feed themselves to the barbarian hordes as ‘saviors’. And such delusions can spread quickly, indeed in a few generations. Look at the Britain of today.
PC types are fools, but we can’t blame them entirely as most people, especially if safely distanced from harsh reality, only know what they’re told. If you live in some nice white community in Minnesota or Maine and have no direct contact with Negroes or Diversity, then your only sources of information are Hollywood movies, news media(run by Jews), and education. Hollywood movies give you Magic Negroes and ‘evil white racists’. Also, even thug Negroes are presented as ‘cool’, ‘badass’, or ‘glamorous. Even black pathology is given a positive spin. Or, a supposedly realistic show like THE WIRE is ideologically contextualized so that black problems are seen as the product of ‘history’ or ‘society’ when, in fact, they are mainly due to BAMMAMA, or “blacks are more muscular and more aggressive”.
This is why some idealistic young whites entertain notions of teaching blacks, just like the boomers dreamed of touching Indians. The result is almost always hopeless, with whites teaching little and blacks learning little while acting like louts and messing things up.
Black pathology is what it is due to black nature that is wilder, more thuggish, and nastier than those of other races. But it’s made worse by the Magic Negro cult, ‘white guilt’ cult(that must be shared even by non-black minorities or NAM), and ‘badass nigga’ cult. The Magic Negro Cult or MNC says blacks are naturally and innately more soulful and spiritual than other races. Given natural black predilection for egomania, such adulation is like adding gasoline to fire or handing whiskey to an alcoholic.
In tandem with MNC is the White Guilt Cult or WGC that says whites(and indeed all non-black minorities) must atone and apologize before the Negro who suffered like no other race has done. It’s nonsensical, but ‘white guilt’ has been universalized. If in the past, whites tried to convert the world to worship the Christian God, today’s West pressures the world to worship Holocaust Jews, Holy Homos, and Magic Negroes.
Now that whites have lost faith in God & Jesus and instead worship Magic Negro, Holy Homo, and Holocaust Jew, they believe all of humanity must do likewise. Jews, Negroes, and Homos love it as the global mission is to convert all of humanity to kneel before the New Trinity of Jews-blacks-homos.
For people who only know the safe & secure world of artifice, there is much to learn from the brutality of nature. Thus, one is made to appreciate the safety and security provided by artifice while also respecting the awesomeness of nature. Indeed, seeking haven from nature is part of nature. In the wild, all organisms seek safe space. Birds build nests. Bears, badgers, and wolves dig dens. Bees and wasps build hives. Beavers build shelters. Humans built towns and cities.
In a way, the artificial is natural to the extent that organisms have this innate natural tendency to create havens and shelters that separate them from the rest of nature. Just like babies are created within the safety of the womb, organisms feel most secure within their sanctuaries. Since they cannot return to their mothers’ wombs, they create physical havens that protect their own kind from threats posed by hostiles.
The ideal way is to appreciate the artificial world and the natural world for what they are, i.e. the artificial world can not exist without the natural world or exist without barriers against the natural world. The artificial world has to be appreciated for providing humanity with safety and security, and the natural world must be respected as an awesome amoral entity from which mankind carves out his own domain. Without trees and ants, there can be no humanity.
Likewise, each people need to value their own nation as a repository of their ethnos, culture, and history. But other nations possess things of value in materials, goods, services, ideas, and arts/culture. Therefore, a balance must be struck between protecting & preserving one’s own nation from other nations while, at the same time, being open to the ideas, goods, and expressions of other peoples that may be of value.
But, PC has undermined the balance. When it comes to nature, PC paints a simpleminded portrait of humans(especially Westerners) as villainous despoilers and of nature as the holy mother victim raped by her sons. Given the power of modern technology and the extinction of so many species of animals, great concern for nature is certainly understandable and necessary. But, it can overestimate the power of man while underestimating the power of nature. The Climate Change Cult pretends as if the fate of the Earth is purely ‘man-made’.
Furthermore, it lets nature off the hook as a world of Edenic harmony when, in fact, this so-called ‘harmony’ of nature is the balance arrived at by ceaseless warfare among the animals.
Also, if humans seem ‘ravenous’ and ‘piggish’, it’s because ‘human nature’ is part of nature. Nature is ravenous. Bacteria and viruses spread like crazy. A forest expands in all directions. Ants grab all they can. Lions are insatiable in their appetite. Pigs and rats are horribly destructive of whatever they run across. And locusts will eat up entire fields.
Indeed, every organism must be excessive in its effort to hold its own against other equally excessive organisms. But the flaky New Age PC version of nature would have us believe that all things act in concert to remain in balance. So, even when predators attack and kill prey, it’s a musical like THE LION KING. It’s as if the prey animals are instinctively ‘understanding’ and ‘accepting’ of the roles they must play in the natural balance of things when their only modus operandi is the Negronic gold-capped rule of “Run like a mothafuc*a”.
Given Western PC’s willful naivete about nature, it’s hardly surprising that it has concocted similarly naive fantasies about other races, cultures, and peoples. Especially because of the cult of ‘white guilt’ that admonishes white folks to atone for the past sins of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, whites tend to reject any sense of white pride while exaggerating the ‘achievements’ of nonwhites(especially blacks), however piddling they may be. So, we are to believe that the Apollo mission’s success owed especially to the three Negresses of HIDDEN FIGURES(though with all the chicken and watermelon they be consuming, their figures aren’t exactly easily hidden). The combination of PC ideology, cult of youth, and fantasies about nature encourages the neo-Edenism that is destroying the West.
At this point, the ONLY correctives are Neo-Fascism and Organicism that counter and repel the willfully naive dogma of PC programmed to weaken gentile societies so as to render them more easily penetrable to the Jewish virus.
Are all secular Jews consciously working to push such an agenda? Some Jews are surely aware of what’s going on, but many secular Jews seem to have only a subconscious inkling of what is really animating them.
For thousands of years, Jews have struggled and survived as an intensely tribal and nomadic people. This made them both more principled and more opportunistic than other peoples/cultures. In their devotion to God and kin, many Jews kept the fire burning, even through the darkest times. The idea of the Covenant bound Jews to the one and only true God. And yet, especially as a people without a homeland following a series of exiles, Jews mastered hustling the dimwit goyim to put food on their table and gold in their pockets. And over time, they got so good at it that they aimed to fleece the entire world. Why else are there so many individuals like Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Friedman among the Tribe?
Perhaps, Jesus’ rebellion against both Romans and Jews was to break out of this mold. The state of affairs must have struck an idealist like Jesus as outrageous. After all, if indeed there is the one and only God and if He has blessed Jews over all other peoples, why should Jews cower and compromise in their dealings with other peoples? If the Jewish God is the only God and if Jews are His Chosen, then Jews shouldn’t compromise, especially with the pagans who don’t belong in Jewish lands. Why claim something so lofty as the Covenant — special connection between God and Jews — but then act so cravenly, bowing down before pagan Romans(and before them, other pagan powers) and begging for mercy and favors.
Jesus refused to play the game and got killed… which only seemed to validate the ‘wisdom’ of Jews who’d compromised and lived another day. But then, St. Paul found a way to resolve the contradiction between the pure principles and the clever pragmatism(especially by saving his own neck by invoking Roman citizenship) to spread Jesus’ message far and wide.
According to this formulation, there are four kinds of people in the world. (1) The highest is the person of pure principle who never compromises. Such a person is usually destroyed. Even those who admire him fear him because purity of principles threatens the way of the world. We admire such a person because he sticks to principles with courage and conviction while most of us seek compromise for sake of self-interest. Jesus, according to Christian myth, was that kind of a pure perfect person. (2) Below the person of pure principle is the person committed to the pure principle but incapable of being pure himself(mainly out of fear but also due to self-interest) but uses his compromised pragmatism to further the spread of the pure principles. This would be St. Paul who wasn’t as pure as Jesus. Indeed, had he been like Jesus, he would have been killed much earlier, and then, he couldn’t have achieved what he did. St. Paul had to compromise and play the game when his neck was at stake, but he always did it with the ultimate purpose of spreading the Gospel. So, even though St. Paul was often pragmatic than confrontational(in the mode of a purist) and even bordered on opportunism on occasion, his cunning was ultimately in the service of God and Jesus. If he mastered the art of living another day by compromise, he spent the next day spreading the Word to one more person. (3) Below the person-without-purity-who-nevertheless-uses-pragmatism-to-serve-the-pure-principle is the person who uses pragmatism and opportunism for no other purpose than to serve oneself. If for St. Paul, pragmatism and compromise were means to an higher end — he had to survive to spread the Gospel — , there are those for whom pragmatism and opportunism are ends in themselves insofar as they’re useful in helping them attain status and goods of self-aggrandizement. Such people may ascribe to some principle and, in a superficial way, believe themselves to be committed, but their bogusness are plain to see when the ideological winds blow in the opposite direction. Their so-called ‘conviction’ invariably shifts with the winds. Is there something lower than an opportunist-pragmatist? (4) There is the purist of principled profanity. If some people are committed to the purity of principled truth, the diametric opposite is not the devious opportunist without principles. As contemptible as such people may be, they are not the most dangerous as they will bend with the shifting winds. The bigger danger is the purist of the profane, false, and vile. A good example of such holy cretins is found among so-called SJWs or Social Justice Warriors. These morons are indeed true believers, and some of them are even willing to put their lives on the line for the Cause.
But what are the obsessions of their ‘pure hearts’? Worship of Jewish Power that has come a long way from World War II and is now the predominant force of evil in the world. The ‘sacralization’ of homosexuality and trans-gender nonsense, whereby humanity is supposed to derive its moral and spiritual meaning with rapturous ecstasies around the wonders of homo fecal penetration and tranny genital-mutilation. Apotheosis of Celebrity Madness or Celebristianity as the new christianity. And of course, there are the false gods of the Magic Negro and the Holy Holocaust Jew.
Whereas plenty of opportunists play along with the PC charade just to get theirs, certain ‘woke’ types truly and sincerely believe in the nonsense with the purity of conviction, incredible as it may seem. When such purity of devotion is wasted on falsehood, corruption, and dementia, it is truly a tragic farce indeed.
