The dirty secret of America is that 'conservatives' have a Critical Race Theory of their own: Philosemitism and Hypocritical-Cuckery or Hypocruckery. 'Conservatives' will say that, unlike the 'left', they are not obsessed with race and committed to seeing-and-treating people as individuals with agency and responsibility. So, the 'left' is all about Identity Politics(usually anti-white), whereas conservatism is about colorblind treatment of all peoples as individuals deserving of equal respect and protection.
But this is utter BS. 'Conservatives' don't believe in equal treatment and dignity for all peoples, to be judged as individuals. No, they bleat about how Jews are so special in history, culture, values, ability, and etc. and therefore, Jews as an Entire Group are deserving of more respect, support, sympathy, praise, protection, favors, love, awe, and etc. Just ask any Palestinian or Syrian if American 'conservatism' is about colorblind treatment of all as equals. In a way, 'conservative' version of Critical Race Theory(premised on Jews Uber Alles) is worse than the 'leftist' counterparts. Ironically, the so-called 'leftist' ones are actually more right-wing, i.e. they are based on tribal pride and empowerment. For blacks, CRT means more pride and power for blacks. For Jews, it means more pride and power for Jews(as if they don't have enough). This can be said for other non-white groups as well. It's about OUR interests vs YOUR interests(usually white-whatever).
In contrast, 'conservative' CRT is a wussy version of liberalism, or wiberalism. It's about white people suppressing white pride and rejecting the concept of white power so as to meekly appeal to Jews, blacks, and nonwhites to adopt colorblind individualism. This might be viable IF Jews, blacks, and nonwhites showed any interest in adopting colorblindness for themselves, but there's no such sign. Thus, it is utterly useless. But it's far worse. If, at the very least, 'conservatives' truly promoted colorblind individualism for all, they could in good faith argue that they are opposed to the dynamics of Critical Race Theory, i.e. they defend the rights and liberties of all individuals regardless of color than promote one group at the expense of others. But even this isn't true given how American 'conservatism' favors and sucks up to Jewish Power uber alles. When have 'conservatives' been about colorblind equality between Arab-Americans and Jewish-Americans? And in foreign policy, when has American 'conservatism' been about treating all nations with equal respect? No, the GOP foreign policy has been about defaming, demeaning, demonizing, alienating, and even invading/destroying other nations at the behest of Zionist Jewish Supremacists. If 'leftist' CRT is about Jews, blacks, and nonwhites propping up their own pride at the expense of others(especially whites), 'rightist' CRT is about whites suppressing their own power/pride and cheering on Jewish pride/power as the apex of Western Values, rather funny given that Jewish Power has been most effective in destroying whatever is left of Western Civilization.
So, if 'conservatives' claim to oppose Critical Race Theory on grounds that it favors certain groups at the expense of others and rejects dignity premised on colorblind individualism, they have failed miserably with their own words and actions that clearly favor Jews and Zion uber alles. Consider the cuck-governor Abbot of Texas. He claims to be for free speech and against Big Tech censorship, but he cucked to Zionists and waged war on GAB as an 'antisemitic' platform even though the site offers free speech to ALL groups. So, in other words, GAB is evil according to Abbot the 'cuckservative' because it offers free speech and equal time to both Jews/Zionists and Palestinians(and detractors of Jewish Power). According to American 'conservatism', free speech means JEWS GET TO SAY WHATEVER and those who dare to be critical must be silenced with Censchwarzship. And was Donald Trump any better? Even as Jews spat on him and smeared him with feces, all that the orange buffoon ever did was suck up to Jews and demean Palestinians. And even on the Dissident Right, there is a tendency to name-drop prominent Jews in the hope that, gee whiz, maybe the superior race will see the light and join with whites. It's all so pathetic the non-stop swooning of how such-and-such Jew is a Fellow Conservative or Fellow Patriot when most Jewish Conservatives are for Jews Uber Alles at the expense of whites. David Mamet is a good example. He claims to be a libertarian who sees the wrongness of statism, but he's totally for the US using all its might for Jews Uber Alles and Zionism; and his kind of libertarianism is perfectly fine with Jews amassing tons of cash and using it for Jews Uber Alles. It's all a con-game on his part. It is time to put to rest the dichotomy of capital vs the state because, in the current climate, both deep pockets and the deep state are little more than the two arms of Jewish Power.
Even though 'conservatives' are most obsessed with Jews Uber Alles, they also practice a form of CRT with blacks. A black 'conservative' is treated like royalty on the basis of the person's race. What he says carries more weight simply because he's black. Kanye West has been a sick moron all his life, but he was praised to high heaven by 'conservatives' for donning a MAGA hat. Most 'conservatives' look the other way on the issue of black-on-white crime or black crime in general... unless it impacts Jews. Oh, Jewish Lives are so precious, and black violence must be condemned ONLY WHEN it hurts Jews. When blacks were attacking cities and rioting, Trump and Maga-tards were more likely to blame the white Antifa for most of the violence(as if innocent blacks were goaded to act badly by 'leftist' whites); it was just another variation of blaming bad black behavior on whites. If 'leftist' whites blame 'racist' whites, 'rightist' whites blame 'leftist' whites. Apparently, blacks have no agency to act bad on their own.
According to 'conservatism', it was an unforgivable sin for Americans to have discriminated against blacks, BUT it's totally 'conservative' to support Zionist apartheid, Jim Crowitz, and mass brutality against Palestinians. It's so obvious that 'conservatives' practice a group-identity politics when it comes to Jews. Even when 'conservatives' acknowledge that Zionists can act brutally, they justify such violence on grounds of History. So, Jews are not to be judged as individuals doing bad things to Palestinians but as a group whose tragic history justifies their harsh oppression of Palestinians and wanton destruction of Arab/Muslim nations(even though the Shoah was the doing of Germans, not the Arab-Semites and Persians). What's the difference between such philosemitic logic and the justification for black mayhem? You see, it's 'muh history'. Blacks are right to riot and loot because of 'muh history', and Jews are given license to wreck and destroy entire nations(and ruin millions of lives) because of 'muh history'. Apparently, crushing Palestinian aspirations for nation liberation is justified by the Never Again cult. But did Palestinians run the Treblinka camps? The notion that the Holocaust Card gives Jews-as-a-group license to commit countless acts of violence against the world is hardly different from the logic at the core of Identity Politics. So, any 'conservative' who claims to oppose and denounce CRT should look in the mirror and abandon his own Philosemitic version of CRT that says Jews as a group should be allowed to run amok as they please because... 'muh history'.
Financial de-regulation and national legalization of gambling have led to a massive Jewish looting operation. Insider Jews rig the game and rake in gazillions. And Jewish casino monopoly means goyim are turned into degenerate gamblers and hand over their hard-earned money to Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and others who used pressure to get Jewish crooks pardoned from jail. It's no wonder Jews support BLM. Jews get to loot the economy from the top, and blacks get to loot the economy from the bottom. Jews use their loot to finance black looting, and Jewish Power rubs 'white guilt' in all this mess. The understanding between Jews and blacks is Jews will fund and defend black pillaging IF blacks used their demigod status to support Jews and Zionism, thus providing moral cover for what Jews do to Palestinians. "Gee, how can Zionism be bad when Jews are allied with the People of MLK?" And of course, both are protected by 'muh history'. We can't denounce Jewish looting because it'd be 'antisemitic', and we can't denounce black looting because it'd be 'racist'. Jews are forever the holy holocaust people, and blacks are forever the sacred slavery people, as if genocide only happened to Jews and slavery only happened to blacks. But there it is, Jews have effectively monopolized genocide-sanctity and blacks have monopolized slavery-sanctity(with help from Jews, of course). So, whites are robbed from top and bottom, but what do white 'conservatives' have to offer? "Uh duh.... it's the communists and the Chinese! We must protect rich capitalist Jews from socialists!" "Uh duh... white Antifa are making good decent patriotic blacks riots and loot." "Uh duh, Joe Biden is an Anti-Semite because he might make a deal with Iran. Israel forever!" Ridiculous.
Political Correctness and 'wokeness' have been associated with socialism-communism, but they are now more like Judeo-Nazism with Maoist hysterics about the supremacy of blacks and sanctity of homos. Under communism, the worst possible label was 'bourgeois', and so, anything deemed bad, heretical, or false was deemed 'bourgeois' even if it had nothing to do with the actual historical bourgeoisie. When communists attacked other communists, they accused the other being 'bourgeois'. During the Sino-Soviet Rift, the Soviets belittled Maoism as a 'petite-bourgeois' theory, and the Chinese predictably denounced Soviet Union as 'bourgeois revisionist'. (Marxists also dismissed the Iranian Revolution as 'bourgeois'.) So, 'bourgeois' became an all-encompassing term of excoriation against anything deemed undesirable or threatening to the ruling regime or communist hack-intellectuals. It was like all sides in Christian Europe accused their enemies of being agents of the Devil. "God was on OUR side" while the Other Side was tainted with Devil-worship EVEN IF they all worshiped the same God.
Still, the emphasis on the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils — even Fascism and National Socialism were theorized as mere byproducts of bourgeois capitalism, i.e. the rich class recruited faux-revolutionary thugs to protect its property from the communists and workers as vanguards of the True Revolution — makes it clear that Marxism believed class conflict to be the central issue deciding history and morality. The worst evil in the world was class oppression because it was diagnosed to be the source of all other evils. As Karl Marx said, so-called antisemitism is the cause of class conflict: Because Jews are so maniacal about money, capitalism fuels their insatiable greed, and this leads to Jews acting badly and goyim feeling resentful of Jewish wealth and abuses. Therefore, the ONLY way to get rid of 'antisemitism' and other forms of bigotry is to bring about a communist revolution that would make for a classless society of equality. That way, Jews and Goyim will be comrades, brothers and sisters, under the sun. According to classic Marxism, as long as capitalism exists and bourgeois factors create class divisions, it will lead to other forms of divisions as well. One reason will owe to some groups being more adept at business and extraction; they are more clever that way and gain dominance over other less acquisitive groups. The other reason will be the rich and powerful will exploit racial and cultural differences as a divide-and-rule mechanism. Yet, another reason will be that the masses of proles will be too overworked, under-educated, and beastly in a system of dog-eat-dog capitalism to rise above crude tribalism. Ultimately, the real source of all such bigotries was economic injustice. Make people equal in property and education, and they will appreciate one another more as fellow humans. Marx was convinced that, while Jews may gain great wealth under capitalism, they will always be hated. (Ironically, Jews came to be regarded with greater suspicion in the Soviet Union while they came to be much praised in the capitalist US. American Capitalism, having a less darker history than the European counterpart, may have been a factor. American cult of freedom has been more meritocratic and extols the Winner, especially because of the mythos that ANYONE can succeed. Jews certainly won big. But it also owes to the fact that Jews took over much of the academia and media & entertainment and elevated the Shoah to a quasi-religion and made 'racism', especially against Jews and blacks, the worst possible sin — badmouthing Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians is perfectly fine.)
Anyway, if capitalism said ANYONE, regardless of race or creed, can become gloriously rich, communism said ANYONE, regardless of race or culture, can be made evil by greed and money. Capitalism said it's great that a Jew or a Christian can become rich. Communism said it's sad that both a Jew and a Christian can be corrupted by money. Marxism didn't spare the Jews. While Marx lamented antisemitism, he didn't regard Jews as innocent pure-as-snow angels who were hated for irrational reasons. He believed they were hated for rational and material reasons: Capitalism brought out the worst aspects of Jewish Character as molded through history(of money-making). So, the only workable compromise between Goyim and Jews was for goyim to drop their resentment on grounds that Jews will forsake their greed. Only then as comrades could Jews and all kinds of goyim get along.
Because Antifa types and other so-called 'leftists' claim to be socialist or even communist — and because so many on the Right love to draw parallels between Marxism/Maoism and current PC madness in the West — , one would think Old Communism is back in force. But actually, so-called Antifa, though claiming to be anti-fascist, is oddly closer in spirit to Nazism that put Race at the center of its worldview. Unlike Marxism that said ANY PEOPLE, both Jews and Goyim, can become corrupted by money and power, the current PC insists that the problems of power is almost always about 'white supremacism'. So, it doesn't matter how rich Jews are, how successful blacks are, how well-off non-whites are. The problem is always about 'whiteness'. If some whites are exempted from total abuse, it is only because they funnel lots of money toward PC to appease the beast. According to PC, a poor white person who holds an American flag and doesn't hate himself & his race is a greater evildoer than super-rich whites like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates who fund PC causes. As for Jews, blacks, homos, and certain non-white groups, it doesn't matter how rich they are. (Latin American whites are also exempt from the worst of abuse.) You are GOOD simply because you're Jewish, black, homo, or etc. But if you're white(and straight), it doesn't matter how many hardships you face. It doesn't matter if you've been attacked by blacks or fleeced by Jews. You SUCK because you're white.
The notion of 'racism' change from one's attitudes to one's innate character. It went from mutable to immutable. It went from an attitude that anyone can have, borne of ignorance and meanness, to a condition that certain groups are born with, regardless of their attitude. So, you can be a hateful Jew or nasty Negro, but you're hardly 'racist'. You can be a Zionist Jew pushing all kinds of wars in the Middle East to destroy countless Arab/Muslim lives, but that's okay. Jews can dehumanize Russians and white Christians, and that's cool too. And, blacks can do thug-talk, threaten other races, attack other groups, and indulge in all sorts of hateful rhetoric. But no matter what they do, it's always contextualized as 'resistance against systemic racism', that is UNLESS blacks badmouth Jews and homos. In contrast, if you're white, you are 'racist'(or tainted with the white mark of cain) no matter how much you try to be fair with rest of humanity. Indeed, the reason why white Antifa types are so soul-damaged is they indulge in an insane kind of self-hatred. They've internalized Jewish PC so much that they believe it's no longer sufficient for whites to reject 'racist' hatred against non-whites. Rather, whites must actively hate their own race as innately tainted with the 'original sin' of 'racism'. Thus, White Antifa is less about anti-hatred than pro-hatred-against-the-self. (Of course, Jewish leaders of Antifa happily promote such attitude among their white dolt comrades.) If Antifa is truly communist, socialist, or Marxist, it should focus mostly on economic issues. In regarding the 'bourgeois' elements as the source of all inequality and evil, they would condemn ALL forms of power, wealth, and privilege. They would hate Barack Obama who's approaching a billion dollars in personal wealth. They should be denouncing Tim Cook and other fancy-pants homos who do the bidding of oligarchs and the deep state. Karl Marx did just this. Though of Jewish origin, he lambasted Jewish capitalists as among the worst bourgeois elements. But no such is heard from current Antifa and of course BLM. Their worldview is essentially racial-supremacist in that good or evil is really a matter of one's identity. So, it doesn't matter what Jews, blacks, or homos do or how much wealth they have and how much privilege they enjoy. They are wonderful and good simply because of their vaunted identities. In contrast, it doesn't matter how difficult one's situation is as a white person; it doesn't matter how much he or she tries to be good and fair-minded. He or she is bad, even 'white supremacist', simply because he or she is white or, worse, refuses to hate himself/herself.
How ironic that Jews who support Antifa as anti-fascist and anti-'racist', a means to expose and hunt down 'nazis' and 'white supremacists', are now the main purveyors of something like a Neo-Nazi outlook. Jewish Power pushes a certain racial essentialism. Jews are forever to be 'essentialized' as the Holocaust People, or Holochs. So, even when Jews act like Nazis and abuse Palestinians, Jews are a bunch of Anne Franks while Palestinians might as well be the 'nazis'. In the most perverse way, Jews have used the narrative of victimization under supremacist Nazis to justify a kind of moral nihilism for Jews, i.e. because Jews suffered so much, they are forever wise, and therefore, everything done by Jews must be grand! In other words, Jews invoke 'Never Again' against the evils of Nazism to act like a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Just ask the Palestinians. And blacks are to be 'essentialized' forever as a bunch of Emmett Tills when, in fact, so many black thugs roam the streets and terrorize people worse than the KKK ever did. If Jews really care about humanity, why are they most angry with Donald Trump when he wants to de-escalate wars in the Middle East? Why have the likes of Thomas Friedman praised ISIS as the wreckers of Assad's Syria? If Jews are really against 'racism', why are they perfectly fine with Trump and Pompeo's most blatant form of racial bigotry: the mindless support of Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and other Arabs? And if Jews are opposed to racial essentialism, why do they create TV shows that feature Jews and blacks as noble simply for what they are, whereas whites are villains because it's in the nature of whites to be 'racist' and 'supremacist'? Jews fool a lot of people by claiming to condemn 'white supremacism', but the notion that some groups are incorrigibly 'racist' whereas other groups, such as Jews and blacks, are always 'anti-racist' is essentially supremacist. A truly anti-supremacist view would argue that ANY group, given the circumstances, could be supremacist. It was certainly the case with Romans and Germanic barbarians. When Romans were on top, they could lord over the Germanics with supremacist arrogance. But when the empire fell apart and the Germanic barbarians rampaged through Rome, who were the supremacist overlords?
Any honest person would admit the current US is animated by Jewish Supremacism, especially in foreign policy and historical memory. When Jews are remembered only as victims of the Shoah but not as perpetrators of mass killings of others, it's like remembering white history only in terms of what American Indian savages did to white settlers but not what the white invaders did to the Native Tribes. And how can BLM be anything but a form of supremacism when it pretends that even obvious black thugs and degenerates are saintly victims of white supremacism while totally overlooking all the anti-white violence carried out by deranged blacks? When blacks rioted and looted, carrying out modern-day pogroms, the Jewish-run media didn't care about the victims because they were white or non-blacks. (While some Jews were negatively affected too, Jewish Power saw it as a gambit to bring down Trump America. One step backward for Jews for three steps forward for Jewish Power.) Indeed, the Jewish PC Narrative mirrors the peculiar manner of Jewish remembrance of Russian History. Jews never let us forget about the Slavic pogroms against Jews but suppress all discussion of Jewish role in Bolshevik violence that literally destroyed millions of lives. In other words, pogroms were worse because thousands of Jews were affected because, of course, a single Jewish life has more value than a million Slavic lives. It's a form of JLM or "Jewish Lives Matter MORE than Slavic lives", especially if the Slavs were slaughtered at the behest of Jewish communist henchmen.
At the very least, because communism identified economic injustice and class oppression as the true source of evil, any group could be condemned for being 'bourgeois'. While the Soviet Union forbade antisemitism, an ethno-racial animus against Jews, it attacked Jewish capital as well as goy capital. So, even though Jews were protected as communists, they could be destroyed like anyone else as capitalists. So, Jews could be good(communist) or bad(capitalist). But according to current Identity Politics of PC ideology, Jews are never bad or wrong. Jews can be Liberal Zionists or Neocons; both are great. Jews can be socialist or capitalist; both are super. Jews are great no matter what they do. Both GOP and Democratic Party expend most of their energies in flattering and appeasing Jews. Democrats will denounce white conservatism but praise Neocons. Republicans will denounce white liberalism but praise Liberal Zionists. Jews are exempt from all blame. Donald Trump was dragged through the mud by Jewish Power, but his main message is "I Luv Israel, and I Kiss Jewish Butt." And in the recent riots, black thuggery and violence were celebrated by Democrats and unopposed by Republicans. Even as cities burned, Trump was sucking up to blacks and making Fentanyl Floyd into a saint-angel.
This is so unlike Marxism or communism where any group, any nationality, or any race could face moral censure and condemnation for evils. Current PC is more like Nazism because it's about the racial supremacism of Jews and blacks(with special honors for Homos). It says certain groups(Jews, blacks, and homos) are infallible, while whites are intrinsically tainted(no matter what they do or say). Sadly, whites brought this upon themselves because they've enabled the current state of affairs. Whites grovel to Jews who demean them most. Whites also hurt those who face the same kind of hatred from Jews. Given Jewish vitriol and venom against whites, the logical thing would be for whites to side with other targets of Jewish hatred. Whites should be main allies with Russia and Iran; whites should be shouting, "Palestine is our greatest ally." But whites, as politicians, preachers, tax-payers, and soldiers, go out of their way to do the bidding of Jews in destroying other victims of Jewish Power. So, even as Jewish Power clobbers Trump and his white Christian Base, they are enabling the total destruction of Palestine. It'd be like Poles sucking up to Nazi Germany even as Germans push them around. It's truly a disgusting sight.
Whatever socialism that remains among the American 'Left' is NOT about the workers. If American 'leftists' really cared about the Power of Labor, it would call for end of immigration which has a scab-effect on Big Labor. They would also support policies that encourage more blacks toward productive work. But the American 'left' condemned welfare reform under Billy Boy Clinton because it 'heartlessly' put conditions on blacks to find some kind of useful employment. American 'left' doesn't care for workers or labor. What goes by the name of 'socialism' in most places is the demand for more freebies for parasites. Indeed, most 'leftists' and so-called 'progressives' look down on most jobs as demeaning and dirty for 'losers'. They don't want to pick up the shovel. They want to use pens. They want the government to produce more 'clean' jobs for bureaucrats, officials, operatives, instructors, activists, coordinators, managers, and the like. They want to be busy doing nothing in bogus jobs that make them feel they are 'saving the planet', 'working for progress', 'raising consciousness', 'fighting hatred', and etc. Over the years, more people got college degrees, but most degrees outside practical fields like science, technology, medicine, and the like are pretty useless. What good are most 'liberal arts' degrees or 'humanities' degrees, let alone degrees in Women's Studies, Black Studies, Gender Studies, and most social sciences? Out of college, all these people with fancy-pants college degrees realize their future is working for Starbucks and serving coffee to people who make lots of money in high tech, medicine, entertainment, finance, and the like. (And those with secure government jobs do pretty well.) And this breeds resentment among many of the educated. Thus, current 'socialism' is not about the proletariat or the working class at war with the rich; rather, it's about college-educated Starbucks workers feeling resentful about having to serve expensive coffee to their much more successful peers who specialized in practical fields like technology or money management. These 'socialists' don't feel any sense of camaraderie with the Workers of the World whom they regard as 'losers of the world'. They don't lose sleep over wage-slaves toiling in Asia to make Nike shoes. If anything, they want the hip and fashionable lifestyles enjoyed by the yupsters, or yuppie-hipsters who work for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Wall Street firms. In a way, they feel more deserving of the good life because they majored in more 'meaningful' fields like arts, culture, and ideas whereas their more successful 'shallow' peers only care about making money. And yet, they are gravitated to the world of privilege; their dream is to live in a fancy condo, be surrounded by books and music, and attend cocktail parties. But only a handful of people who majored in arts/culture/ideas get to attain privileged slots in society.
Still, given the resentment against the successful, you'd think the current 'socialists' would be most passionately anti-rich. But despite their rhetoric about the 99% vs the 1%, their main passions are for the holy three of Jews, blacks, and homos(and sometimes 'diversity'), while their main ire is directed at 'white supremacism', 'racism'(that means speaking truthfully about blacks), 'homophobia'(that means refusal to celebrate 'gay pride'), and 'nazism'(that means anyone hated by Jews is a 'nazi' who must be punched and destroyed). Of course, being anti-rich while being mindlessly pro-Jewish makes no sense because Jews are, by far, the richest people in the world. For one to say that excess wealth is evil but then claim that Jews are above criticism is, for all practical purposes, anti-socialist. If Jews, the richest people on Earth, cannot be condemned, it means Jewish Wealth must be protected. And being pro-'gay' is also antithetical to socialism because homos are naturally vain, narcissistic, elitist, and fancy-pants aristo. While there have been some homos on the Real Left, homo nature tends toward catering to the rich, privileged, and the fancy crowd. Once 'socialism' is associated with homo-celebration, Mayday turns into Gayday, which is precisely why rich Jews and the oligarchy(even in the GOP) pushed the homo agenda so far. Also, celebration of Jews and homos can only be a kind of elite-minority-supremacism. While some minorities are poor and powerless, some are rich and powerful, much more so than the great majority. In the US, almost nothing is said of the plight of American Indians or Muslim-Americans(especially of Palestinian backgrounds), the powerless minorities. Jews and homos, as minority-ruling-elites, count for much more; they are akin to the British Imperialist minority elites in India or the white-Jewish minority elite in Old South Africa. As for blacks, yes, it's true that many are mired in poverty and backwardness. But blacks are also oppressors as street thugs, predators, criminals, and bullies. It's been said that comedians should punch up than down, but it's not like all members of the group are either up or down. While some whites are above blacks, some whites are below blacks. While rich whites live in communities totally safe from black criminality, other whites are constantly attacked by black thuggery. Just because one bunch of whites are above blacks doesn't mean ALL blacks are above them. Some whites are below blacks. But in Jewish-controlled US, there is this crazy notion that ALL whites are privileged with supremacist power while ALL blacks are oppressed. It's like ALL Jews are forever Holocaust Survivors or something whereas ALL Russians, despite having suffered tragically from Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish gangster-capitalism(in the 1990s and even today under international sanctions), are forever tagged with blame for the pogroms.
What can be done to save the West? It must go Cold Turkey with the truth. And white people have no one to blame but themselves unless they speak the obvious truth: That the West is now Jewish Supremacist and that 'white supremacism' is just smoke-and-mirrors cooked up by Jewish Power to distract people from the fact that the modus operandi is "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" Then and only then can whites work toward White Liberation whereupon whites will be telling Jewish Power, "I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more." This will not only be great for whites but for all victim peoples of Jews, such as the Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians. White Racial Disobedience and Resistance to Jewish Supremacism will mean No More Wars for Israel & Zion and no more use of white energies to spread the 'ghaspel'(the ghastly gospel) of Globo-Homo and Afro-Mania around the world. The White Bridges used to spread Jewish Supremacism(and its proxies) around the world must be blown up. If whites resist, the rest of the world will take inspiration and follow suit. If whites cuck and submit to Jewish Supremacism, the rest of the world will do the same. This is the special place whites have in the world. Though the West is Jewish-supremacist and Jewish-dominated, Jewish Power feeds on white submission and obedience. White behavior vis-a-vis Jewish Power serves as the template for all the world. So, if whites suck up to Jews and worship globo-homo-BLM craziness, other races will do likewise. But if whites finally say NO and stand up to Jewish supremacist perfidy, others around the world will also get the message and toss away the shackles. Whites no longer have the power of rule, but they still have the choice between submission and liberation to the rule. And what whites do will determine the direction of history. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQzSILxdgCOq/
"Will Jews eventually figure out that promoting antiwhite hate is not good for the Jews? Much hinges upon that question."
So, the future depends on the Jewish decision/agency, not the white one.
Why not ask instead, “Will whites eventually figure out that Jewish Power is hostile and not good for whites?” And then, act accordingly on the basis of that undeniable fact.
Why must the future depend on Jewish realization than on white realization? Why should it be a matter of Jews realizing they should stop hating on whites than whites realizing they should hate Jews if Jews hate whites? If Jews hate whites(as is abundantly clear by all signs), shouldn’t whites return the favor? It'd only be natural, that is if whites have pride and dignity.
The Jewish-White Question or JWQ prioritizes Jewish consciousness & interests over white ones. In other words, the implication is Jews should stop hating whites ONLY or MAINLY BECAUSE it’s not good for Jews. Never mind what it means for whites. There is a better way: If something is bad for whites, whites should take action and fight back REGARDLESS of what it means for Jews, especially if Jews are leading the anti-white charge.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, did white Americans ask, “Will Japanese realize that being anti-American isn’t good for them?” and pray for the Japanese to change their minds? No, Americans didn’t care what the Japanese thought and fought back. When Germany invaded Russia, did Russians think, “Hmm, will Germans realize that attacking Russia isn’t good for Germans?” and just hope for German change of heart?
Why should whites care about Jews when Jews not only NOT care about whites but are downright hostile to them? It’s more ridiculous than the ‘conservative’ case against Affirmative Action, i.e. it is bad because it hurts blacks. What about what it does to whites? Why must white interests always take the backseat to those of Jews and blacks and now others, such as ‘Dreamers’?
At this point, it’s about time whites realized that Jewish Power is hostile to them. Not all Jews are, and there are Jews like David Cole who want whites and Jews to bury the hatchet and get along, and kudos to them, but they don’t have the Power, no more than pacifist Japanese during WWII. It is about time that whites realized that Jewish Power(the only thing that matters) is virulently anti-white, and therefore, whites must stop caring about Jews. If Jewish Power cared about whites, whites should care about Jews. It'd be give-and-take. But when it’s all take-and-take among Jews, whites would be stupid to care about what Jews think or whether it’s good for Jews or not. Your average Jew-of-Power has an attitude closer to that of Rob Reiner or Sarah Silverman than that of David Cole or even Dave Rubin. National Review came to the defense of Matt Yglesias, and his reaction was “Ewwwwwww, get away from me!!”
Do Jews plead with whites, “Don’t do such and such because it’s bad for you white folks”? No, they are hellbent on making sure whites do stuff that is bad for whites. Notice how all those Jews who signed the pro-‘free speech’ petition got involved ONLY BECAUSE their own kind was coming under pressure from the rage mob. They didn’t care one bit about all those ‘conservatives’ who'd gotten doxed and destroyed.
Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss whine about the dangers of identity politics and ‘tribalism’ without any self-awareness. Or maybe they know and are just being devious cretins. In fact, what is known as Identity Politics began with Jews. Contrary to popular belief, so-called identity politics isn’t so about tribalism as idolatry of certain groups. As such, it is more dangerous than tribalism that, at the very least, allows equal rights of identity & interests for each and every group. Tribalism is as old as the hills: My people, my culture, my heritage. If US were truly tribal and if each group prioritized its own interests, it wouldn’t be so bad. There would be a kind of balance. Indeed, imagine how fairer things would be if whites were tribal and cared about white interests and didn’t always intervene in favor of Jewish interests over Palestinian ones. In other words, whites would approach Jews and Palestinians on the basis of 'what is good for whites', sometimes favoring Jews over Palestinians and sometimes the other way around. But the Identity Politics of Jewish Idolatry means whites must be knee-jerk in their mindless support of Jews and Israel no matter what. It's great for Jews but bad for whites and terrible for Palestinians. The problem is whites are into the Identity Politics of idolizing Jews.
Identity Politics boils down to the demand that all other groups should revere, favor, serve, and idolize a certain group or groups over all else. Thus, it’s not even a fair kind of tribalism where each group gets to favor its own kind. Rather, one or few groups hog all the praise, adulation, and support. Instead of all groups being planetary in its gravitational pull, most groups must revolve around the greater identity gravitational force of key solar groups. Jews occupy the place of the sun and chose homos and blacks as main allies. All other groups are mere planets that must revolve around the Identity Politics of Jews, blacks, & homos. Notice there is nothing about PALESTINIAN LIVES MATTER even though the US war machine is far more racially hostile to Arabs than to blacks, a people actually adulated by US media and culture.
Jewish power is immense not only because of riches and institutional power but because other groups, especially majority whites, bend to its will. After all, Wasps once had great wealth and institutional domination but lacked the kind of power Jews have now because they were open to criticism and didn't demand Wasp-Worship. They were dominant but not holy idols for other groups to mindlessly revere and obey. Even the emphasis on the Anglo-American Narrative was a compromise with non-Anglo groups. While non-Anglos would learn of Anglo-American achievements and respect Anglo-American giants and heroes, Anglo-Americans would in turn broaden the definition of ‘American’ to accommodate non-Anglos. Thus, Anglos and non-Anglos would merge into the big tent identity called ‘American’.
In contrast, Jews demand that all groups bow down to Jewishness, but Jewish Identity remains stingily particular and distinct, even downright exclusive. How can there be any compromise with such people? Sarah Silverman said Jews hate nationalism because it did harm to Jews. But if Jews had dropped their own ‘nationalism’ of separate identity long ago, they would have just merged and dissolved with other populations, the sea of common humanity, and then, there would have been no Jew-Goy tensions. So, what did she really mean? She meant all goyim must give up their nationalism so that Jewish nationalism alone can thrive and grow stronger. Compromise is impossible with such people.
Compromise means either all groups drop their nationalism or all groups keep their nationalism. But the Jewish Way is for Jews to keep their nationalism while goyim must lose theirs. It’s ‘heads I win, tails you lose’. It is supremacism, pure and simple. Also, mindless worship of Jews as Eternal-Holocaust-People has led to race-nihilism or the nihilism of power. As long as Jewish Essentialism is forever about the Shoah, everything they do, no matter how rotten, is justified or forgivable on grounds that they are the Holy Holocaust Tribe. So, even when Jews do grave harm unto others, whites cheer on the Forever Good Jews while turning a blind eye to their victims. Because Jews are the Holy Holocaust People, they can crush Palestinians, and if Palestinians resist, they are the 'nazis' and 'Anti-Semites'. Likewise, because blacks are Noble Negroes forever identified with American Slavery, even their violent rages are always justified, and never mind all the non-black victims of black thuggery and lunacy. It's Jews and blacks uber alles. Sympathy for Jews and blacks may have begun as moralism but it's since degenerated into nihilism... just like too many religious folks came to believe that all their aggressions and violence were justified as long as in the name of God, Jesus, Allah, or Muhammad. It's even more dangerous when people begin to worship other humans as godlike. Moral consideration for Jews went from denouncing white/goy supremacism to justifying Jewish supremacism, but as long as Jewish Power is cloaked in the banner of combating goy supremacism, its own supremacism remains camouflaged.
It’s time for Divorce between whites and Jews. Whites should think in terms of the Bob Dylan song: "
You say you disturb me And you don’t deserve me But you know sometimes you lie You say you’re shakin' And you’re always achin' But you know how hard you try Sometimes it gets so hard to care It can’t be this way everywhere And I’m gonna let you pass Yes, and I’ll go last Then time will tell who has fell And who’s been left behind When you go your way and I go mine
Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.
There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their core interests on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. Marxism = Interests > Identity. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race, culture, and nation.
Among capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so 'crude' as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal mode of cosmopolitanism would go from elite privilege to mass reality if all worked according to plan. With rising prosperity, expanding leisure, and growing sophistication, cosmopolitan model could define mass consciousness.
But as things turned out, identity(and ethno-cultural inheritance) mattered after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, cultural consciousness, historical memory, & ethno-solidarity, and, if anything, nationalist tensions flared up even within the socialist camp, as between USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and sense of history. And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that neither political ideology nor mere economic interests(usually short-term and ever-shifting) cannot supply the meaning and compass that could be found only with identity-of-inheritance(which is distinct from PC identity-of-grievance). Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.
Also, certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusionary toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was Main America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America had to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identities and melt into a single pot of new-found unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it(not least because the melding of various white ethnics into a Common Americanism had succeeded more or less in many parts of America). And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about the overall impact of such 'melting' assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites(meaning White Christians). So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found new value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own (apparently more authentic)identities against whiteness. This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 1980s. So, if assimilation were the magic formula for America, it meant non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood by becoming 'honky-ass white'. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore. If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks managed to. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they couldn't assimilate into whiteness(at least not 100%) and become mere imitation-wasps(as some White Christian Conservatives wished them to be). Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reached the top, they figured it should be the whites(and others) who should try to assimilate to the Jewish Way(mainly be sucking up to Jewish Power). After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into the Jewish Way than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. (Assimilating into the Jewish Way isn't the same thing as goyim-becoming-Jewish. Rather, it means goyim regarding Jewish Power and Jewish 'values' to be the dominant New Normal of America and the West. For example, Homomania as replacement for Christianity.) Granted, some goyim literally do assimilate into Jewishness because they are so in awe of Jewish Power. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and/or prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.
So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right. Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. It is an identity-of-grievance than an identity-of-inheritance(and reverence). Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory(native homeland). Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrant-invaders usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges non-whites to abandon their own homeland nations/folks/cultures and head to White/Western nations and surrender to Hollywood culture of degeneracy, PC dementia, Homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But surely, living in a world of Diversity makes it more difficult for any group to preserve its identity, heritage, and culture; obviously it's more difficult for a Burmese or Syrian to maintain his identity and culture in the US or Canada than in his own home nation. Homogeneity means there are others who share in your identity & culture and cooperate with you in maintaining the history and heritage of your people. Diversity means your people/culture constitute just another minority that is surrounded by other groups with different identities and cultures. Diversity undermines every culture as every group will lack a solid support system of like-minded and like-cultured national kinfolk. Surely, it's more difficult to secure Irishness if an Irish group is surrounded by many other groups who aren't Irish. There must be a constant struggle to prevent members of the group from joining and interbreeding with other groups. Also, Diversity means all groups must be united by something generic, bland, and/or superficial that has easy but shallow appeal to all groups. As America grows more Diverse, the sniffing-glue that holds America together is Pop Culture and Food. In contrast, in a Irish nation full of Irish people, you don't even have to make an effort to preserve Irishness since it's all around, organic and rooted. Anyway, to make things even worse in the Current West, the Cult of Diversity is interwoven with Homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. The lie of Multi-Culturalism is that it appreciates and defends non-white cultures from Western Hegemony. Its real agenda is to associate non-white cultures with PC grievances and degeneracy. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam per se. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans maintain their Islamic ways and cultural values. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to uphold Islamic values or spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into the Way of Islam. They've done just that with Christianity already. Especially Mainline churches are now into Queertianity.
Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for but an identity-of-against. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are and what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims' of 'white racism' and 'white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.
And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-Culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homo lunatics? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims who still live by the Faith.
The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to reverberations of Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for genuine bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything. Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It provides reprieve from the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is to ensure continued Muslim immigration-invasion to the West, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.
Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something. In contrast, the identity-of-for or identity-of-inheritance(of history and heritage) has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He'd be a proud Greek regardless of Victim Politics. His Greekness has value apart from Hurt Feelings. In contrast, an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something and whines endlessly about victimization. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate and blame, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has no inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is a vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou. Given the anti-white vitriol of PC, why are so many white people(ranging from SJW harpies to cucky-wuck GOP Constitutionalists) on-board with the lunacy? Because white people have adopted a kind of negative-identity and fetish-for-exoticism. Given human nature, even guilt soon turns into pride, and so, it's not surprising that 'white guilt' morphed into a new twisted kind of white pride. Since whites are no longer allowed to feel pride in white identity, they seek neo-pride in White Guilt, just like Christian obsession with Sin became just another form of pride, that of sanctimony and holier-than-thou shtick. Christians took pride in their displays of atonement, and white proggies and Cuckservatives practice neo-white-pride in the form of the Great White Atonement. They indulge in Good White Pride by loudly beating their chests and bashing the 'racist' Pride of Baddy Bad Whites. Also, so many whites are now so bored with their own history and culture that they are into exoticist fetish for other cultures(and 'genders').
I imagine the Ethiopian eunuch as a delightfully androgynous soul – dark of skin, flamboyant, dressed in bright silks, bejeweled, his lips colored and his eyes lined with kohl. He is sitting under a parasol in a large chariot, and around him are mounted soldiers and attendants. A wagon carries tents and food so that he can camp in luxury on the journey home.
Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity-of-depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted the Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Shoah. Under this limited formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics and recent history.) Precisely because even shallow-identity can lead to deeper-identity, Jewish Power decided to unleash Homomania especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, despite the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism(or the Outpost of Western Civilization), and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites, especially the secular ones. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-Anno-Sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. Otherwise, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings are most effectively washed with shameful white acts(of homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting).
The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI. The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It had one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Anything that didn't submit had to be destroyed or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control had to be in hands of the radical left.
In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another. The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany than in most communist nations was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all away and created hell on earth when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.
So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial. Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way. Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"
Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini made a foolish pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian). Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.
In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the scratching of branches of different trees at the whims of winds. Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads. In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration-invasion to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something in common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality -- just take a look at California -- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definitive. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." And libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean. They mean 'equality of opportunity'.
It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.
Neo-Fascism is the best intersectionality between the Real Right and the True Left. Left-Rightism must be the Way of the Future.
It’s a truism that the Alt Right and related causes/movements constitute a reaction to Identity Politics of Jews, so-called ‘People of Color’, Homos, blacks, and even radical feminists. There is some truth to the assertion insofar as a group must uphold the banner of identity to have a seat at the bargaining table in the Diversity Sweepstakes. After all, if Power is increasingly about what-you-or-your-people-are-owed-because-of-your-interests-based-on-identity-politics, then it’s only right that every group must have an identity. It’s like, if the rule says, "You must have an identity card in order to purchase a car and drive", you won’t be able to drive unless you have a license. You will notice that everyone who is driving has an identity card that grants them the right to drive a vehicle. No card, no car. So, it’d be natural for you to go through the process of obtaining an identity card of your own so that you will be able to drive. Then, why should it be any different in politics and social competition. If the Current West says those groups with specific identities will be celebrated and favored in the Diversity Sweepstakes, then a people without an identity won’t amount to a plate of beans. They must always step aside and make way for those with identities that make them the favored of DIOS(Diversity Is Our Strength) Ideology. In the US, non-whites are allowed and even encouraged to have Identities. In contrast, whites are browbeaten into suppressing their Identity. Or, whiteness is invoked only as a Negative Identity that must be denigrated, impugned, mocked, shamed, and discredited. So, while most groups are made to feel Pride in Identity, whites are made to feel either numbness or shame. The only Pride allowed to whites is if they rise above Whiteness(as a toxicity) to be cleansed and redeemed by serving the Noble Identities of the Other, mainly Jews, Homos, and Negroes. (After all, Jews would be plenty pissed if whites who abandon their Pride of Identity decide to champion Palestinians and Iranians against Zionists as Evil Jewish WHITES.)
Because of the Name of the Game in our Age of Political Correctness and Diversity-Mongering, it’s been tempting for some white people to raise their own banner of White Identity and even White Nationalism. According to people like Jordan Peterson, it’s just a case of disgruntled white people picking up bad habits from PC and what Harold Bloom called the School of Resentment. (Jews praise Peterson for his criticism of White Identity, but of course, Jews are the biggest Identity Politicians in the world and insist that whites, upon rejecting their own identity, do all they can to support and promote Jewish Identity and Interests to the point of Jewish Supremacism.) But people like Jordan Peterson are overlooking a crucial difference between the rising tide of White Identity and the way Identity Politics is used by non-whites and the LGBTQP — P is for Pedophile — Community.
For starters, White Identity isn’t about White Innocence. Unlike the Identity Politics of other groups, White Identitarians don’t go around saying whites were always victimized, pure-as-snow, innately noble, and blameless. There is an understanding that the histories of all of humanity have been a brutal, violent, and destructive process. So, yes, white people were involved in wars, mayhem, conquest, oppression, and exploitation. Whites brutalized fellow whites and other races. But so did other races. Black African savages were conquerors, killers, and slavers too. Mongols were a fierce nomadic tribe that caused havoc in Asia, Near East, and Europe. American Indians and Aztecs where hardly salt-of-the-earth or star-children living in harmony with nature. Even as White Identitarians show appreciation for the awesome achievements of their forefathers, they are fully cognizant of the fact that history has been a brutal process and that much of human progress was the result of aggression and violence. It’s been noted by historians that the advancement of Western Europe owed to constant wars among kingdoms that prioritized innovation in weaponry and technology to stay ahead of rivals. It’s like Space Technology greatly benefited from the competition between the US and USSR to send the first man to the Moon. Thus, the Space Race happened parallel to the Arms Race. The very rocket that sent men to the Moon could have targeted a nation for nuclear destruction. (Furthermore, the best rocket scientists were the product of Nazi militarism.) History has been like that Sergio Leone movie THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. The good, co-mingling with the bad and the ugly, wasn’t pure-as-snow either. So, except for extreme idiots on the White Right who revere Adolf Hitler and/or refuse to acknowledge the dark side of Western Imperialism(that discovered & united the World and unleashed new possibilities for all of mankind but also unloosed havoc and upheaval in every continent and even led to near-total extinctions of civilizations in the New World), there is an admittance and understanding among White Identitarians that (1) History has always been tragic and (2) White people did their share of killings and mayhem.
In contrast, most Peoples-of-Color, especially the blacks, pretend otherwise about their own bloody histories. Blacks act as if (1) they were totally great but white folks stole everything from them or made it impossible for Africa to have lots of Wakandas because European Imperialism got in the way of African genius and shi* and (2) they are innately noble & wonderful, therefore, everything that is wrong with blacks in the West or in Africa must be the fault of white folks. Worse, some blacks feel that they be so ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ that even the bad shi* they do is justified on account of awesome black folks done it. The logic goes, "Blacks be wonderful, so whatever they do be wonderful too." Blacks regard their own black bodies as Midas-like and shi*. It’s no wonder Ta-Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates or The Hissy Coates) be always yapping about Black Bodies. You see, black bodies got this talismanic soulfulness, so it was much worse to oppress Black Bodies than any other kinds of bodies since Black Bodies be magical and shi*. (According to GET OUT, White Liberals worship Black Bodies for their harder muscles and bigger dongs so much so that they are even willing to murder blacks to take over Black Bodies. So, if a Negro isn’t being chased by KKK who done hate him too much, he be chased by White Liberals who love his black body so much that they want to kill his ass and take over his black body.)
The jury is still out as to whether Jews are white or non-white. Jews find it useful to be white as they can launder their Jewish Privilege as WHITE PRIVILEGE and blame the White Community for having too much wealth and privilege(that are actually disproportionately held by Jews), but given the mindless vilification of whiteness over the years(not least due to Jewish control of academia and media), Jews are increasingly troubled by being thought of as WHITE. Many Jews are now tempted to emulate White Latin Americans, the descendants of Conquistadors, who masquerade as People-of-Color, benefit from Affirmative Action, and blame Gringo for all the history of White Oppression of the Other, conveniently forgetting that it was the Spanish and Portuguese who spearheaded the Conquest of the New World and the destruction of indigenous civilization of Aztec cannibals and Inca human-sacrificers. Anyway, whether Jews are white or non-white, they put on the biggest pure-as-snow & eternally-innocent act of all time. According to the Jewish Narrative, it is mental, moral, and spiritual sickness not to like, love, admire, respect, revere, and worship Jews. Goyim exist mainly to praise Jews, enrich Jews, protect Jews, fight for Jews, and massage Jewish ego(and suck the Portnonic puds of Jews). Apparently, the fact that most people throughout history didn’t treat Jews as god-king-saint-prophets is proof that humanity had been soul-sick with ‘antisemitism’ and must finally redeem itself by sucking up to Jews at every turn. What ethno-megalomania!
One thing for sure, except for diehard 14/88 Neo-Nazi moronic types, most of White Identitarianism is nothing like Jewish Identity Politics(or Identity Theology). White Identitatarians are not asking the World to revere or even respect whites. All they are saying is that Peoples of European Origin have traits, cultures, territories, and histories well-worth saving. They are NOT asking non-whites to serve white interests above their own interests. They are saying white people should primarily preserve their own identity and serve their own interests in their own domains just as non-white folks all over the world should do likewise for their own people, power, and culture. They are the exact opposite of White Supremacists who believe that the White Race(as the Master Race) should rule all the World and force non-whites to kiss White Butt. The position of White Identitarianism is, "You guys do your own thing, and we will do our own thing." Ironically, Jews, non-whites, and White Progs who condemn and denounce White Identitarianism as ‘white supremacism’ pursue an ideology that is predicated, upon closer inspection, on White Supremacist precepts. After all, whereas White Identitarians expect non-whites to be independent and capable of reforming, developing, and improving their own nations, the outlook of Jews, non-whites, and White Progs is the exact opposite. Their pro-Diversity and pro-Mass-Immigration(which is really Mass Invasion) argument is premised on the notion that non-whites must be with White Folks in White-Made nations to have a better life. So, don’t expect Somalians to fix their own problems in their own nation. They must be brought to Sweden and Minnesota(and Ohio and Maine) to have better lives. By themselves they are hopeless and helpless. So, even as Jews and Progs condemned Donald Trump for his ‘shithole nation’ remark, in their heart of hearts, they really do believe that certain non-white groups can’t do anything on their own. Those non-whites are like children who must be ‘rescued’ by Mass Immigration to the West where they can leech off White Wealth. Same attitude prevails in regard to certain Mexicans and Central Americans. Never ever expect those people to fix up their own nations. Their ONLY chance of a better life is to come to the US and partake of the civilization created by Whites. It’s just a variation of White Man’s Burden, the beneficent Master Race ideology of British Imperialism. The only difference between Then and Now is that White Man’s Burden(WMB) was once invoked to justify colonization of non-white lands by whites but is now subconsciously embraced to justify colonization of white lands by non-whites. You see, white folks must welcome such Diversity because those folks simply can’t have Nice Things unless they come to live in white nations. Therefore, the underlying principle of the Jews, non-whites, and Progs is actually closer to White Supremacist ideology than the core conviction of White Identitarianism is. The position of White Idenititarians — Whidens or Whidents? — is like that Bob Dylan song, "Most Likely You Go Your Way And I’ll Go Mine". Or "You Can Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac.
Even as Jews, non-whites, and White Progs defame whites as ‘toxic’ and wicked, they believe Jews and non-whites must always have access to White Worlds. If white race is infected with the toxicity of ‘white supremacism’, why do Jews and non-whites feel so dependent on whites and the White World? Why are Jews and non-whites so eager to follow whites wherever they go. If Earth were to blow up and if humans had to evacuate to a White Planet, Black Planet, Asian Planet, Brown Planet, Muslim Planet, or Hindu Planet, it's most likely that not only whites but non-whites will all try to head to the White Planet. Even when black or proggy celebrities threaten to leave the US because it is too ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’, their destination of choice is a nation even whiter than the US, usually Canada, Australia, or Germany. This attachment and dependence on Whiteness implies that Jews, non-whites, and White Progs really do believe Whites are superior. Indeed, whites are so superior that Jews have long preferred white nations over all others(despite all the complaints about 'antisemitism'). And non-whites prefer to leave behind thousands of yrs of history and culture in their own nations to resettle in white nations and live alongside white people, live under white laws & systems, and even have children with white folks. And the compassion of White Progs seems to be predicated on the notion that non-whites can only be rescued, taken care of, guided, and led by superior whites. Of course, PC ideology pretends that it’s all about Diversity-Equality-Inclusion, but if all the races are equal, why do non-whites prefer whites even over their own kind? And if Diversity is so great, why do non-whites run from Diverse nations in Latin America and North Africa to come to white-majority nations? Why do non-whites want to exclude themselves from their own nations and be included in white nations? The underlying assumption of Diversity is really the notion that Whites are the Best. Nobody-Does-It-Better than whites, and so, everyone, even in modern East Asia, wants to come to White Nations. ‘Diversity’ is really "I want to get away from my own inferior people and go live with superior whites." (Also, in order for Jewish Supremacism to be viable, Jews need the systemized support of the most capable race on Earth after the Jews, and that people happen to be whites. If Jews prize blacks most in sports, they prize whites most in management, bureaucracy, and leadership positions. The fact that Jews prize white talent above all others is sure sign that Jews don’t believe in the equality of the races despite their PC bullshit. Jews regard themselves as the most superior and want to be served-and-supported by the next-most-superior people who happen to be whites. This is why Jews obsess about shaming and taming White Identity. They want White Talent to serve Jewish Power than insist on its own power, White Power. Jewish Supremacism feeds on White Submissivism.)
At any rate, if the Identity Politics of Jews, non-whites, and Homos is essentially political, this isn’t true of the White Identitarian Movement. Granted, there are Real Identities in the School of Resentment — Jewish identity, Afro-black identity, Asian-Hindu Identity, and etc. are real identities with deep roots — , but the problem is a one-sided formulation whereby one’s own identity is whitewashed whereas everything about white people is tarred-and-feathered. And then, there are unstable and made-up identities in the School of Resentment, mainly because of the Rise of Gender Identity movement. While homosexuality is a Real Identity, it isn’t a stable identity because we never know from which couple the next homosexual child will be born. If a Greek man and a Greek woman produce a Greek child, a straight man and a straight woman can produce a homo child. And if a homo guy were to impregnate a homo woman, there’s no guarantee that the child will be homo; indeed, he or she is far more likely to be straight. Thus, there is a lack of continuity, certainty, and stability in homo identity. Still, homos are real enough.
In contrast, all this tranny business and related silliness have really mucked up Gender Identity Politics. Apparently, it’s Identity as Ideological Scrabble, a word game. Given that less than 0.5% of people are tranny, it shouldn’t matter that such folks cooked up 50 or more genders as a word game. The real problem is that this ultra-minority dysphoria has been promoted among impressionable children who are encouraged to gender-bend, not least with the enthused encouragement of their perverted teachers and wacky-proggy parents. So, the problem of Gender Dysphoria has spread like an epidemic among even naturally straight youths. Not only are boys told that if they feel a bit girlish, they might really be girls(and girls are told that if they feel a bit boyish, they might really be boys), but they are told it is a Great Sign worthy of celebration. (Proggy parents act as if giving birth to a homo or tranny kid is akin to Mary giving birth to Jesus. But then, Homomania was designed by Jews to be replacement faith for Christianity.) Just as people could be led to believe in witches and fairies, so many kids have been led to believe they may be something they are not. If you tell a roomful of kids that they may be afflicted with a certain condition based on vague symptoms, even kids without the condition could be made to believe that, gee whiz, maybe they have it too. Suppose you tell the kids about the symptoms of diabetes that, by the way, are NOT unique to diabetics. Then, many kids may be led to believe that maybe they too have diabetes because they have those symptoms like peeing a lot or feeling tired at times. Gender Fluid Identity works the same way. There are so many grey areas and vague suppositions that an impressionable child could easily be led to believe that, gee, maybe he’s really a girl or she’s really a boy... all the more so IF the authorities shower positive attention on the child who claims to be of the Other sex. This turned 21st century ideology in the Obama Era into a total farce. If Jews, blacks, and others(even homos to an extent) misused real identities for politics-of-resentment, trannies turned Identity Politics into a fantasy. Never mind misuse of identity; trannies just made up identities. And yet, globalists were fine with this because, as proponents of Mass Invasion, they waged War on All Real Identities(except Jewishness in Israel). The Idea was, If a man is a ‘woman’ if she says so, then anyone is anyone if he or she says so. Then, an African is an ‘Englishman’ or ‘Frenchman’ if he says so. An Afghani is a ‘Swede’ if he says so. The Proglob(proggy-globalists) went from misuse of real identities to mischief with false identities. Bruce Jenner claiming to be a ‘woman’ is really a form of Identity Theft.
At any rate, something like Jewish Identity or Black Identity need not belong to the School of Resentment. Jewish Identity is rich in history & culture and could be valued as such. And even though Alex Haley turned out to be a plagiarist and fraud, the idea behind ROOTS was a noble and moving one. And it is this kind of identity that White Identitarians are primarily interested in. Though all identities have no choice to be politicized in the Current Year, White Identitarianism is essentially cultural than political. In other words, it would be deemed necessary EVEN IF white people in the modern world weren’t challenged by Jewish globalism, Homomania, Black Rage, and non-white Mass Invasion. Even if white nations were demographically stable and secure, White Identitarians would stress the need for conscious identity because modernity alienates people from their racial roots, cultural heritage, historical consciousness, and mytho-legendary narratives. Even if whites were not demographically or territorially threatened by non-whites and Jews, White Identitarians would argue that the Modern conception of meaning, purpose, and existence is not enough to lend real meaning to birth, life, and death.
Indeed, White Identitarians would argue that white people(and non-whites in their nations) must now make a SPECIAL effort to retrieve/recover, revitalize, maintain, preserve, and hand down their sense of family, community, blood, culture, and history because it cannot be taken for granted in the modern world that has no use for anything but materialism, consumerism, individualism, hedonism, utilitarianism, and profiteering. Whatever value McDonalds or Walmart may have, it has no concern for where you came from, who you are, or what you will leave behind.
In a traditional community steeped in a particular culture, one doesn’t have to make an effort to have an identity or roots. One is always reminded of who he is, what his values are, what traditions & customs he must follow, and how he must behave. He is surrounded, indeed saturated, with culture. There is no need to be consciously cultural because he has no choice but to be habitually cultural because he’s surrounded by the trappings of his people’s culture from morning to night. If anything, a person in such an overtly cultural community must make a conscious effort to be free as a thinking individual. And the general trajectory of Western Civilization has been to break out of the confines of particular culture & community and gain independence & agency as free individuals. And this is why the West achieved so much more than other civilizations in which people were mired in strictly ordained decrees & demands of their fixed and particular culture. For example, Islamic and local tradition permeated every facet of life in the Arabian desert. And a samurai or peasant in pre-modern Japan conformed to the particular cultural norms and duties of his community. He had no individual freedom to say no and do his own thing. Indeed, he was so deeply enmeshed in his culture that he could hardly imagine an alternative.
In contrast, the West developed the concept of individual conscience, freedom, and initiative on the basis of reason, evidence, creativity/inspiration, and personal morality. Instead of merely conforming to the larger culture, the secret was to confirm one’s individuality, free will, and potential as a thinking & feeling being. And this development led to explosions in science, technology, enterprise, philosophy, and the arts. Therefore, instead of being submerged in a Permanent Culture(like Ancient Egyptians were over millennia), the West underwent accelerating changes in styles, expressions, ideas, values, and means/methods. And these developments eventually led to the Rise of Modernity. Even so, until relatively recently, Western Folks didn’t, at least for the most part, revile or reject their identity, culture, and history. Instead, they steadily evolved from one mode to another, changing profoundly but also remembering and appreciating the organic links between the present and the past. Progress meant building upon the past than rejection of the past.
Furthemore, in some ways Modernity necessitated a strengthening of cultural-and-national identity. In the old days of Kings and Aristocrats, most people were mere subjects, barely educated, often semi-literate(or even illiterate), and knew little of the world beyond their local community. Their lot in life was to obey and serve their lords and masters. But with the emergence of the Modern World, especially with the French Revolution and great transformations in Britain, the People began to matter. They were no longer mere subjects or servants but the citizens of the nation. As such, they needed to be educated and instilled with a sense of national purpose, cultural identity, and historical continuity. So, even though one facet of Modernity promoted individualism, another side of Modernity promoted unity of identity and purpose. And in the case of socialism and communism, there was a sense of solidarity and unity based on economic justice and working class dignity. Indeed, Karl Marx had written on the alienating effect of capitalism where the workers toil away in factories in which they have no direct stake; they are mere wage-slaves who might as well be cogs in the machine.
Anyway, even though we can all appreciate the freedom, individuality, and sense-of-agency made possible by modernity, we must also recognize that there is a serious problem of meaning-of-existence in the 21st century, in many ways far more troubling time than the earlier century. At the very least, even through most of the 20th century, the atomizing and deracinating(albeit personally liberating) aspects of Modernity were balanced by the unifying influence of nationalism. Frenchmen and the British became freer and more individualistic but also prouder and more unified as members of a nation-based civilization. For most of the 20th century, a Frenchman knew what was or wasn’t a real Frenchman, and a Briton knew what was or wasn’t a real Briton. Japanese had a clear sense of who was Japanese and who wasn’t. On the one hand, modernization infused greater individualism among the Japanese. But the effect of nationalism as a modern organizing principle was to instill all Japanese with a sense of shared blood and history. Prior to modernization, a Japanese peasant may have mainly identified as human property to his samurai lord. His cultural consciousness would have been local and village-centered. He was Japanese but had a weak sense of being part of the Japanese nation, history, and civilization. But modernity, in freeing the masses from their traditional stations in life(in which their forbears were bound to over many generations), needed to raise national consciousness in order to lend the uprooted and displaced masses a new sense of belonging and purpose. It was a huge challenge for someone to make the adjustment from a local agricultural community to a mobile industrial economy. Nationalism was the remedy for alienation resulting from one’s ‘exile’ from one’s local community.
But that balance of nationalism and individualism has been lost with the rise of globalism. Some may argue that nationalism was discredited because of WWI, Nazism, and WWII, but this is total nonsense. WWI was the result of clash of empires. Had the problems been resolved on the local-national level, there never would have been the Great War. Also, Nazism went truly wrong when its emphasis went from National to Imperialist. Also, it was nationalism that was the main motivator against both German and Japanese imperialism. Polish and French Resistance were nationalist. Russians fought for the Motherland. Chinese resisted Japanese aggression for national preservation. And after WWII, the Third World struggles were all nationalist and anti-imperialist. And it was nationalist pressures that made the USSR give up on empire. The Soviets knew their imperialism over Eastern Bloc nations was unpopular among the native folks. Soviets got away with crushing the nationalism of Hungarians in 1956 and Czechs in 1968 but grew increasingly anxious about maintaining hegemony via force of arms. Poland could have exploded in the 1980s, and the Soviets didn’t send in tanks only because the Polish communists managed to clamp down(mainly to avoid full-scale Soviet invasion). When the Soviet Union broke apart, the world breathed a sigh of relief and welcomed the emergence of newly liberated nations. So, the main theme of the 20th century was as follows: Universal Nationalism as the primary force of freedom and dignity against Imperialism.
But then, Jews took power in the West(especially following the end of the Cold War) and rewrote history to make Nationalism the main culprit of the 20th century. As the new rulers of the US(and the EU and even Russia for awhile in the 1990s), Jews became addicted to supremacist hegemonic neo-imperialism and strove to undermine all nationalisms(as obstacles to the Empire of Judea or EOJ). Jews even promoted Homomania as the New Globalist Ideology and even crusading neo-religion. Thus, the West(and other nations emulating the West) grew weaker in national, cultural, and historical themes. No longer was there nationalist consciousness & solidarity to counter-balance the individualism and atomization of modernity. In time, Pop Culture became the main culture. History was simplified to vilify whites and paralyze them with ‘white guilt’(to make them subservient to the Noble Victim Peoples such as Jews, Negroes, and Homos, aka the Holy Three). White Submissivism is necessary to serve Jewish Supremacism. Religion was distorted into Zionist warmongering among Evangelicals or Homo-worship among Mainline churches. National identity kept eroding with Mass Immigration, the effect of which was really Mass Invasion or Demographic Imperialism by the Other. In time, Parasitism was the New Normal while Classic Patriotism was vilified as ‘far right’ and ‘hateful’. So, an illegal invader is a ‘dreamer’ in the US while a gung-ho patriot is a ‘populist deplorable neo-nazi far-right hater’. So, a Briton who wants to keep Britain British is a deranged ‘hater’ and ‘racist’ whereas newcomers from Africa or Pakistan WITH ZERO ROOTS in the U.K. are welcomed as wonderful New Britons. When Parasitism is the New Patriotism, you know something is terribly wrong. Meanwhile, the globalists assure everyone that all will be fine because of... More Restaurants, More Exoticism, More Sex-with-the-Other, and More Vibrancy.
This is why white people(or any other people) must now make a conscious effort to cultivate, reinforce, and preserve their sense of identity, roots, and history. A Briton living in the U.K. in the 1930s needed not have made such a conscious effort. From a young age, at school and church, in the home, and serving in the military, he was educated, indoctrinated, conditioned, and encouraged to identify as British, share in British glory and pride, and defend British might, territory, and honor. He didn’t have to make a conscious effort as all the institutions, big and small, worked in concert to imbue him with national identity, spiritual sense, and ethics-manners-honor thought to be particular to British folks. But now, all such are gone. If anything, the Jewish-Homo-Cuck-dominated institutions & industries of media, academia, finance, entertainment, sports, and the state all conspire to tell British kids that Africans-and-Muslims-are-the-real-Britons-because-UK-has-always-been-a-nation-of-immigrants, Homos-and-Trannies-are-holy-and-the-Christian-church-exists-primarily-to-bless-fruitkins-and-other-deviants, Jungle-Fever-and-the-Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs-are-the-greatest-thing, White-males-must-cuck-out-and-become-wussy-servants-of-Jews-Blacks-Muslims-and-Homos, and Pop-Culture-is-the-main-culture. When this is the reality in the U.K. and in the US, people are no longer possessed of meaningful identity, culture, or history. They must now find it on their own. They must ‘home-school’ themselves on what they are really about. The Jewish globo-supremacists who control the US use all their means to persuade white Britons and white Americans that their nations were always ‘nations of immigrants’, always about ‘universal values’(though one must always, for some odd reason, favor Jews over all others), and always harmed most by ‘racism’ that prevented sufficient Diversity that will really do wonders for UK and US. It’s all a crazy lie.
In fact, Race-ism was one of the best, soundest, and most essential components of what made UK and US great and outstanding in the past. Race-ism assured racial integrity, unity, continuity, and solidarity. A people who drop their race-ism either become confused/alienated or ‘cucked’ to serving other peoples who continue to cling to their identity. Is it any wonder that whites, who’ve been pressured to lose their own identity, are now so servile to the powerful identities and interests of Jews, blacks, and homos?
Identity and what might be called ‘culturality’ is like Morality. When and Where they are not remembered, reinforced, and preserved by institutions and community-at-large, they must be salvaged and secured by individuals themselves. It’s like, if there are no schools to teach you, you must educate yourself. If there are no established churches or temples to preach the faith, you must do so on your own. In a community with a strong sense of right-and-wrong, one doesn’t have to be consciously moral. In such a community, moral values are written into the codes of everyday life and being. If you’re a member of the Amish community, you are reminded by everyone and everything what it means to be Amish in identity and values. But in the modern world of individuals and decadent/deracinated elites(who offer no guidance, leadership, and protection), every person must consciously think of right and wrong because he is surrounded by freedom and choice than by moral instruction and social pressures. (Granted, PC does exert much pressure on modern people, but it’s not about morality but about Power by supremacy-of-sanctimony. PC tells us to unquestioningly defer to Jews, Homos, and blacks. But morality is NOT about blind obedience to certain groups deemed divine. Also, true morality must apply to everyone. PC can’t be truly moral because it blames whites even when they are innocent and exonerates Jews, Homos, and blacks even when they are clearly wrong or problematic. Consider the Starbucks Negroes who were treated as saintly victims by the company and the media even though they violated Starbucks' policy... that, by the way, was soon altered to appease the black community. If blacks want to occupy a table without buying anything, it must be justifiable, even inspiring and noble, because they are black; therefore, the company must now allow ALL peoples to hang out at Starbucks without purchasing anything.) Just like one must be consciously moralist in a world devoid of clear moral instructions, guidance, and pressure, one must be consciously culturalist in a world that no longer provides clear guidance and meaning in the identity, culture, and history of a people. And this is where White Identitarianism is different from mere Identity Politics so common among the Progs. With Progs and their allies, Identity is simple. It comes down to feeling good-and-noble if one is Jewish, Homo, or black. If one is non-white but not one of the Holy Three, he or she must latch onto one or all of the Holy Three to gain Pokemon points. At the very least, non-whites of all stripes are at least not scapegoated for all the problems of the world. That ‘honor’ is reserved for the Wicked Whites who, unless they suck up to Jews-Homos-Negroes, are defamed as ‘far right’, ‘neo-nazi’, or ‘white supremacist’. So, that is Proggy Identity Politics in a nutshell. It’s so easy. Feel good and noble if you’re of the Holy Three or non-white. Feel bad and bow your head in shame if you’re white, especially straight white male. It’s really hardly more sophisticated than a game of Tag, ‘You got the cooties’, or Pin-the-Donkey(or Honkey as the case may be). Jews got the looties, homos got the tooties, blacks got the booties, and whites got the cooties.
In contrast, notwithstanding the political dimensions of White Identitarianism, it is essentially a cultural project of ‘home-schooling’ oneself of his or her true origins, history, and culture... and, based on those factors, forging a sense of destiny for one’s own people independent of the globalist project of subverting and destroying all nations and cultures(except for Israel that gets Passover privileges). In a world where white kids are raised on trash & degenerate Pop Culture as the Main Culture and on vapid & shallow Political Correctness as the Main Credo, there is a need for white individuals to think consciously, critically, and seriously of what it means to be part of a Real Folk, Real Culture, Real History, and Real Tradition. If someone who does the cooking serves you healthy and balanced meals, you don’t have to think consciously about nutrition. It’s all done for you. You merely need to arrive on time and enjoy the meals. But if there’s no one to cook for you OR if the cook just serves you sugary & greasy junk food, you need to learn to cook for yourself and gain personal awareness of what real nutrition and healthy eating are. And the conscious will of ‘preparing our own meals’ is at the core of White Identitarianism. When the globalists just feed white people junk and garbage that lead to diabetes and cancer of mind, body, and soul, it is about time white people learn to ‘home-school’ and ‘home-cook’ their own servings of culture, history, and identity.
