So, why are they so alike emotionally? Why do they so prone to moral one-upmanship, moral narcissism, me-huggery, and pious snobbery. Why does it seem as though their mode of identity derives from feeling superior to most people and being part of an elect community of special people? Sure, both Christians and Progressives claim universality and the welcoming of the entire world into their tents. But then, terms of entry have been devised to be as exclusive as inclusive. After all, if everyone joined and became part of the club, those in the club would no longer feel special. It's like an elite university, however 'inclusive' it claims to be, is no longer an elite university if anyone can be admitted.
What religion and political correctness have in common is the rejection of nature as the basis for understanding humanity. Christian cosmology begins with the perfection of God and the purity of His Creation. According to the Judeo-Christian view, God is perfect, and He created a perfect order, but mankind betrayed, defiled, and corrupted it. But God, out of love for mankind, sent His Son to die on the Cross so that humanity may be redeemed through holy blood sacrifice. According to the Judeo-Christian view, the natural is sinful, filthy, and obscene. It is part of the Fall, the exile from Eden. And the redemption offered by Jesus is one of self-abnegation and condemnation of fleshly desires as the temptation of the Devil. Thus, even though Christianity is open to all who seek salvation, it isn't easy to be a good Christian and nearly impossible to be a perfect one. Christianity is obsessed with sin, like a germ-freak is obsessed with ‘filth’. A good Christian must always purge his or her soul of sinful desires of the flesh and instinctual animal drives. Both the will-to-power and will-to-procreate are treated with heavy suspicion. (Even though Christianity claims to uphold and represent universal, eternal, and immutable truths, it isn't impervious to the socio-politico-cultural pressures of the here-and-now. Consider how Catholic Church once made a pact with Fascists, how the Russian Orthodox Church caved to Stalinism, and how the Church of England — among many others — has bent over to the neo-religion of homomania pushed by Jews. Given that the biggest 'sins' according to dominant PC doctrine is 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia', much of today's Christianity is obsessed with atoning for those PC-defined ‘evils’ than for upholding Core Christian Beliefs and Values that are bound to be offensive to Jews, homos, and Negroes. Core Christianity says Jews are to be damned for rejecting Jesus. Christianity, like true Judaism, is anti-homosexual and anti-decadence. Also, Christianity's morality of humility and spirit-over-flesh is at odds with the Afromaniacal jungle-jive that places thuggery and animal lust at the center of life.)
Now, the conundrum is not Christianity's problems with nature per se. After all, even nature has problems with nature. Nature is in constant state of warfare. Animals are always attacking and/or eating other animals. Animals of the same species fight for territory and mating. They often fight out of fright and panic. Because nature is so brutal, mankind cannot have community, let alone civilization, if members act purely in accordance to raw nature. Natural instincts and animal impulses have to be controlled and proscribed among mankind to have social cooperation and relative peace. So, the problem is not with Christianity's conflict with nature. Any kind of civilization must be in conflict with nature. No civilization can sustain itself by surrendering to the ways of nature. This is why black Africa has problem creating and maintaining civilization. Being naturally a wilder, more aggressive, and more animal-like race, blacks are less likely to restrain their wild nature. They are more likely to loot and pillage than to do business. They are more likely to rob and rape than respect social contracts and higher principles.
Anyway, the problem with Christianity is it rejects the validity of nature. It sees nature not as the foundation of life and the world around life but as the work of the Devil. Instead of seeing nature as something essential, vital, and powerful, the raw material from which civilized mankind is to be molded and sculpted from, Christianity sees nature as the problem itself. (Buddhism goes even further in rejecting all of reality as false illusion.)
Imagine you come across a dog. Suppose the dog is wild and aggressive. You want to raise the dog, but the dog needs to be tamed and housebroken. It needs to be trained to obey orders. You value the dog and its canine nature. But you also understand that the dog cannot be a companion of man unless it is tamed. So, you value its canine nature but also see the need to tame and control it.
Now, imagine an alternative scenario where you come across a dog and see it as a demonic creature(as indeed many Christians regarded cats as witch's companions during the Middle Ages). Suppose you figure you need the dog to serve you and guard the house. But instead of regarding the dog's nature as healthy and vital, you see it as wicked and foul. So, instead of trying to control and tame a healthy and vital natural-force, you try to expunge it and turn the dog into a creature of total obedience that is furthermore, ashamed of its dog-nature.
In contrast, the second dog-tamer sees the dog's nature as essentially ugly and lowly. As such, he would like to destroy the dog's nature as much as possible so that it will be tamed into submission of total obedience. It's like Muslims see nothing good about dogs and their nature.
Because of Christianity's cosmological principles of the Creation and the Fall, followed by Jesus' offering of redemption by the pure ritual of self-sacrifice and spiritual transcendence, it cannot accept nature — wild nature and human nature — for what they are. For Christians, nature itself is sinful. It is not something that is vital and healthy that must be controlled but something that is sinful, wicked, and obscene. Before the Fall, spirit and flesh were one. Both were immortal, pure, and eternal. But with the Fall, the flesh began to age, rot, and wither. It became part of the world of decay and death. Only the spirit had the possibility of surviving death. For Jews, the spirit was carried down through the generations. For Christians, the spirit could rise above the flesh via Jesus sacrifice and enter Heaven.
Such a mindset led to sanctimony among Christians. This may seem counter-intuitive since Christianity says all flesh of all humans are wicked. That means even the flesh of earnest Christians are sinful. So, if Christians themselves are wrapped in impure flesh, why should they feel so holier-than-thou and self-righteous? It is because Christians feel they are at least closer to God, whereas heathens are without God and Jesus. At the very least, Christians feel that they are aware of their sinful condition and doing something about it to cleanse their spirits to prepare for Heaven. In contrast, the heathens are blissfully ignorant of the sinful nature of their flesh.
But then, even among Christians, there are further opportunities for sanctimony and holier-than-thou one-upmanship since some Christians work harder to be nearer to God whereas others just go through the motions.
In contrast to Christians, the neo-fascist accept nature for what it is. Neo-fascists don't see nature as wicked or sinful. Nature is the product of billions of years of evolution. The process of life is brutal, ruthless, and violent. And humans are the product of this long evolution from single-cell organism to fish to reptile to mammal to ape to man. Whatever we think of nature and its processes, they are what they are. They are neither good nor evil. Without nature, there is no life, and no life means no humans. So, we have to accept the truth of nature as the foundation of all that is. However, humans developed advanced communities and civilizations, and for such to be maintained, we need to control and tame nature, even as we harness its power, both internal and external. Raw nature will bring down any civilization. We may find Rock-n-Roll acts fun on stage, but if most people acted like that, we will revert to savagery or worse.
Now, neo-fascists, race-realists, race-ists, and Alt Right types do believe in morality as the means to control nature. Letting nature run wild is like letting dogs and cats run wild. It's like a lion tamer who lets the lions do as they please. That will lead to mayhem. So, morality and laws are necessary. Unless human aggression, sexuality, gluttony, and greed are contained, things will fall apart.
So, we need morality and rule of law. But for neo-fascist, race-realists, race-ists, and alt-right people, it's not a matter of being holier-than-thou or self-righteous but being right about the ways of nature and controlling them. Neo-fascists, race-realists, race-ists, and alt-rightists value nature for what it is. Without natural urges, energies, drives, and passions, we wouldn't be human. After all, humans are hairless apes in many ways. Without emotions, we would be anemic robots. But, if we just gave into our raw natural drives and desires like young people did at Altamont Rock Concert in 1969,that is recipe for chaos and disaster. Indeed, look what happened to much of the black community once blacks reverted to their wild African-jungle nature. Many black communities look as though populated with baboons or chimpanzees.
The difference between neo-fascists and Christians in relation to nature is like the difference between the two dog-tamers. The first dog-tamer values the dog's nature but knows it must be tamed in order for the dog to be a useful companion to man. He doesn't deem the dog's nature as wicked or wrong. Indeed, a wild dog must rely on its wild nature to survive. But in the world of man, a dog cannot act wild. But then, there is much in dog's nature that is appealing and even useful to man. So, the first dog-tamer respects the dog's nature but tames it and channels it in ways that make the dog compatible to the world of man.
And this is the neo-fascist view of human nature. Neo-fascists understand the organismic foundation of man. Unless we understand the biological foundation of humanity, we won't understand its true nature. Neo-fascism believes in the necessity of morality: A morality of realism than purism. Since Neo-fascists understand man's animal origins and essential animal-organismic nature, they understand those factors must be controlled and channeled in order for man to rise above savagery and barbarism. Without the fuel of animal nature & drives, mankind would be without the Will to Power and creative energies. But if mankind fail to control those drives, they will remain on the level of the savage, like among Negroes who hardly developed great civilizations and turned Western cities like Detroit into jungle-lands. (The question is, "Do men want to have mastery over nature or allow nature to have mastery over them?" All animals, even the most intelligent, are slaves of their nature and instincts. They cannot break out of their natural programming. They are driven by their instincts and drives. The only way they can be freed from enslavement to raw nature is by coming under the control of man, but then, this makes them slaves of man. Only man can understand his own nature and gain mastery over it with the use of consciousness, reason, morality, context, and wider perspective. Man can go from being the horse-of-nature to horseman-of-nature. Man can be like a dumb horse or be like a smart rider atop the horse. Only man can ponder how human nature can lead him astray or how he can become the slave of other men. Only man can create culture as a bulwark against nature. But then, man can also understand how culture, turned tyrannical or corrupt, can rob him of sense, reason, morality, freedom, and natural essence. A man's search for his true self is like the myth of Sisyphus: A never-ending struggle. The Hellenic ideal seeks mastery over nature by envisioning the free man of reason & will who shapes his own destiny. The Hebraic ideal seeks mastery over nature by having man serve the only true master, the one and only God.)
So, morality is a necessity. Indeed, even among animals, especially social ones, certain 'rules' or 'understandings' come into play to regulate and restrain raw instincts. Without such checks, a wolf pack or lion pride wouldn't be possible since those species rely so much on cooperation. In contrast, Christian morality is one of purity because it is premised on the Edenic bliss that had been bestowed upon man by God but was lost through man's disobedience and surrender to pleasure and thrill.
Neo-facists don't believe there ever was an Eden or could there be any such in the real world. Also, Neo-fascists, even as they respect Jesus and the religion He found, don't believe in the redemptive transcendence of the soul from the body. However noble or uplifting such ideas may be, they have nothing to do with reality. They only lead to more neurotic frustration, preference for fantasy over reality, or radical attempt to purge the world of sin, leading to wretched violence and repression.
 |
| Emma Sulkowicz's 'struggle' for 'social justice' |
Given PC's official secularism and, for the most part, anti-religion-ism, you'd think 'progressives' would be like the first dog-tamer. After all, they know of the animal origins of mankind. They know that mankind's animal drives are natural, formed by millions of years of natural selection, than the work of the devil. For the most part, they don't believe in God and a set of perfect purist laws as set forth by Him. They don't believe in Eden or Jesus and the Resurrection. So, why are they so much like Christian moralists? Why are they like the second dog-tamer?
It is because, in a way, the 'progressives' have their secular twist on the Edenic narrative and christo-redemption narrative.
For starters, the French Enlightenment, even as it stressed facts and logic, was less the product of scientists than philosophers or philosophs. And the proto-social-scientific views of these philosophs were idealistic than realistic. They imposed their vision of hope, redemption, and progress on the cult of reason. Thus, their idea of 'Reason' wasn't necessarily rational or even reasonable. It's like Marxism imposed its theories as 'scientific materialism' even though much of its theory was founded on sketchy or flawed evidence, downright falsehoods, intellectual egomania, and Messianic fervor. The French Enlightenment was for reason but was more defined by the overly optimistic Cult of Reason. The philosophs were sure that the triumph of Reason would lead to their desired social or political goals. But their Cult of Reason lacked reasonableness and the cautious curiosity of true rationalism whereby every side would be required to assiduously weigh the arguments and evidence offered by other sides. This is why the supposedly Rational French Revolutionaries were soon massacring one another. If Christians butchered one another on the premise of "God on my side", the Rationalists butchered one another because each side was so sure that its position was the truly rational, therefore incontestable, one.
Now, it's one thing to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in mathematics. But there are too many variables among humans, society, and history for any single theory to be conclusive. And even things that are correct may be so only in certain contexts. For example, one can argue that democracy is a good political system. But democracy can only work in a certain historical, economic, political, and demographic context. Just because liberal democracy works well in one nation is no guarantee that it will have the same effect on another nation with very different content and context. It's like what works for one breed of dogs will not work so well with other breeds, let alone cats. Try using bloodhounds to herd sheep and try using collies as tracking dogs.
 |
| Monterey Pop - 1967 - 'Summer of Love' |
But, what happened? Something like the crazy-birds-gone-wild in Alfred Hitchcock's famous movie. Youth movement degenerated into excesses of drugs, sex, and alienation. Negroes ruined city after city, and crime went through the roof. Womenfolk turned into nasty unhappy bitches, with rising rates of eating disorders and sexually transmitted diseases. Homo orgies led to the HIV epidemic. And Jewish power led to New Cold War, mass corruption on Wall Street, destruction of the Near East, a culture of greed to make previous greed seem piddly by comparison, and degeneration of culture by Jewish control of media.
Yes, they will admit that a lot of things went wrong with blacks, womenfolk, homos, youths, and Jewish power. But, they still blame OTHERS for the failures. It is always The Man. So, how do we explain the HIV epidemic? Should homos be held accountable for their irresponsible mass orgies that spread the virus via fecal penetration? No, that would violate the neo-Edenic view of homos as angels and saints. Just blame "Reagan's Indifference". So, homos did nothing wrong in butt-banging one another across so many continents. The real culprit was Reagan didn't spend enough on some magic cure so that homos could do their thing without worry of disease.
As for youth culture, we are fed the same theme over and over. Blame the Adults. This has gotten tricky for boomers who first identified as Youth as an Identity. Now, many boomers are in their 60s and even 70s. So, shouldn't young people blame them? Liberal Boomers have dodged this responsibility by always pandering to a new batch of young people by vilifying the Conservative Boomers. Following this logic, all would have been well if every single Boomer was more like Bill Clinton than Newt Gingrich. But then, didn't even Liberal Boomers go for big money, privilege, power, and stuff like locking up record numbers of blacks to revive cities?
As for feminism, it is still stuck on blaming men(especially white gentile straight men) for whatever is perceived to be wrong with women and girls. So, even though Jews and Homos run the fashion industry that make women feel neurotic and insecure about their looks, the blame only goes to White Male Patriarchy. And even though the problems faced by non-white women owe to culturally distinct sets of circumstances(as well as to globalism), feminism makes believe it’s all Donald Trump’s fault.
As for Negroes, it is never their fault. So, if black students get suspended more, it must be the fault of 'racist' teachers. If too many blacks are dying by gun violence, it must be the white police than blacks killing one another. Even the GOP will never blame blacks. Donald Trump panders to blacks and blames all their problems on the Democrats, which is a twist on the Democratic habit of blaming all black problems on the GOP and 'racism'.
Now, a sensible attitude would call for the realization that human nature is a form of animal nature, and as such, it needs to be restrained, tamed, controlled, and channeled. Just as white males allowed to do as they please will act like barbarians or drunken frat-boys, the same holds true for any other demographic. Now, 'progressives' will admit as much about white males. After all, white-boys-gone-wild is often vilified and condemned as a sign of degradation of social mores. It is associated with the Duke Lacrosse Gang-Rape of a black woman that, by the way, turned out to be a hoax. It is associated with the UVA Gang-Rape of Jackie Coakley that, by the way, also turned out to be a hoax. But then, white-male-craziness isn't blamed on unrestrained male-animal-nature but on 'white privilege', as if it is the evil of privilege that makes males want to act like animals. (Germanic Barbarians who sacked Rome must have been filled with snotty 'white privilege'.)
 |
| UVA Rape Hoax |
In a sense, 'progressives' share the Christians' rejection of nature. This may sound counter-intuitive since 'progressives' seem to embrace the natural in sex, fun, thrills, and frills. Also, 'progressives' love violent sports and licentious pop music.
But, here's the difference. Their understanding of nature is hedonistic, illusory, and/or utopian, in spirit neo-Edenic than evolutionary. They indulge in the fun & pleasurable part of nature without pondering the dire consequences, which have been suspended or delayed with the aid of technology such as modern medicine, surplus food, welfare safety nets, and/or contraceptives. A society of plenty can sustain(and even grossly profit from) a lot of bad behavior by formulating ways for the masses to indulge in excesses without suffering consequences that had been virtually inevitable in the past in conditions of relative scarcity and hardship.
Furthermore, the progressives’ ideological conception of nature is philosophical-political than biological and evolutionary. Even though they know humans evolved from apes, their concept of human natures owes more to the Narrative than to natural history. This 'narratural' view of mankind or 'narraturalism' divides mankind into those with pure/holy natures, those with neutral natures, and those with impure/unholy natures. In a way, it is a variation of the modern 'scientific racist' view that also ascribed different 'human narratures' among the races. According to this view, most extremely pushed by National Socialists, the white race evolved to be most noble, wise, and heroic. In contrast, the Jewish race evolved to be cunning, vicious, and vile. And the black race evolved to be savage and primitive. And the Asian race evolved to be slavish, servile, and despotic. Both the radical anti-racist and radical racist view of various human groups go for hierarchies, and in some ways, the PC anti-racism is an inversion of European radical racism and indeed could not exist without it. Radical racism, once prevalent on both left and right, presented the intellectual and moral rationale for white imperialism, white 'antisemitism', and white racial domination over other races, especially blacks. This led to much violence and oppression, as well as imperialist wars(between imperialists and subject peoples & among the imperialist powers vying for mastery), and the horror of World War II. Due to moral doubts arising from WWII & the post-imperialist world order and due to Jewish attainment of supremacy in the West, the official narrative was used to invert the hierarchy. Even though the leftist argument was for equality, in terms of symbolism, iconography, and storytelling, the narrative was skewed to present certain groups — especially Jews, Negroes, and later homos — as intrinsically holy and pure while making the white race, especially the males, the official face of all evils.
Given the white domination over the world for so long, the rising PC attempt to redress past wrongs might have seemed understandable, at least for a time. And it was good and necessary to tear down the myth of nonsense ideologies such as 'Aryan' supremacism that could only lead to nihilism. The reason why National Socialism turned so monstrous was its concept of right-and-wrong was ultimately determined by race. Since 'Aryans' were deemed the superior race, they are always right, and since non-Aryans are lesser races, they must be wrong. So, even a bad 'Aryan' is better than a good decent Jew. The great irony is that PC works the same way. By ‘sacralizing’ certain races as Noble Races of Eternal Victim-hood, peoples such as Jews, homos, and Negroes never need to make any attempt to be good, and when they do bad, they are easily forgiven or the transgressions are forgotten since they run against the Narrative.
This is why religion or spirituality is still going strong even if all facts point to a godless cosmos.
From cradle, many young ones were raised to believe in God & Jesus, that God created everyone equally, and that we must love all of humanity equally. Among non-religious families, the kids were raised from cradle to worship MLK, see 'racism' as the greatest evil, and associate any scientific theory about races & racial differences as 'Nazi-like'.
Much of PC is about ideological passion and sanctimony. Those emotions are so powerful that PC-addled minds panic and recoil from facts and ideas deemed 'racist'. But they are also confident that facts and science are on their side since academia is infected with PC and has cleverly doctored research and papers with smug disingenuous terminology. For example, Charles Murray's ideas have often been dismissed as having been 'discredited' by the 'scientific community'. To impressionable young minds, such a message has a double effect: "Don't even consider Murray's ideas because they are just flat-wrong and NO ONE takes them seriously" and "If you want to move up the professional ladder, views such as Murray's will NOT be tolerated." There's the smear factor and fear factor. Humans are socio-economic players, and status & peer-approval mean a lot to them. With the rising numbers of servile East Asians in the academia willing to serve as toadies and commissars, the problems of PC will increase.
Another problem arises from Jewish control of the Narrative. How powerful is the influence of Narrative? Consider why the Judeo-centric Narrative came to dominate the West and the Middle East. It is because the Jews wrote the Torah that centralized their view as THE TRUTH in regards to Ancient History. Even though other peoples and cultures also produced written texts — even more than the Jews — , the Torah formulated a powerful unity of narratives. The Torah brought together holiness, mythology, history, genealogy, poetry, prophecy, laws, ideology, and politics in one unified volume. It’s everything in a single canon. (Bob Dylan holds a central place in Rock history because his two albums, HIGHWAY 61 REVISTED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, are seen as having interwoven all the various disparate strands of arts & culture: Rock n Roll, Country, Folk, Poetry, Religion, Modernism, Traditionalism, Personalism, Satire, Rebellion, Reverence, Love, Hate, Circus, Theater, Realism, Surrealism.) It was to knowledge what the Ark was to all of life. The essential core. So, even though Jews were never a great political power in the Ancient World, their Narrative came to dominate the world, in time leading to the Christian-ization of the West and Islam-ization of the Middle East. Neither the New Testament nor the Koran is conceivable without the Torah.
So, how does Jewish control of the Narrative play into neo-Edenism that led to White Guilt? By arguing that the US is a 'proposition nation', Jews claim that America was created as a New Eden of equality, justice, love, and harmony. But, according to the Jewish PC-narrative, whites befouled this Eden with 'genocide' of Indians and the slavery of blacks. (To be sure, the 'genocide'-of-Indians Narrative gets far less play, not least since it undermines the notion of America being a 'nation of immigrants'. Immigrants are, after all, invaders, and therefore, favoring immigrants must disfavor Indians as native inhabitants. Jews prop up Emma Lazarus as the prophet of justice, but if she really cared about the 'huddled masses', why didn't she champion the huddled Indians who were losing their lands to white & Jewish immigrants? In the end, Jews favor their own tribalism over interests of others. Indeed, the championing of Indians in the 1960s was more a neo-pagan thing about hippies, who took their cultural cues from aspects of German Cult of Nature, than the main topic among Jews who preferred the Negro Narrative and then the Homo one.) According to the Jewish Narrative of the US, the white Adam and white Eve failed, especially with the Original Sin of Slavery. Notice that the 'genocide' of Indians not considered the 'original sin' of America even though whites had to conquer the red man's land before blacks could be brought over. Also, consider the oddity of associating slavery with 'original sin'. Slavery has existed for 10,000 years according to anthropologists. It existed for eons in Africa, Arabia, Asia, Europe, and in the Americas among the native Indians themselves. Slavery had existed in the Americas for at least 10,000 yrs before the white man came. Also, Spanish and Portuguese who conquered Central and South America practiced slavery there BEFORE Anglo-Americans founded America. So, why is slavery an 'original sin' in America? This notion works ONLY WHEN we adopt the notion of America as a 'proposition nation'. Supposedly, that 'proposition' made the New Nation in a New Eden. Thus, America was no longer part and parcel of human history, with all its bloodshed and turmoil, but a New Eden founded on perfection of ideals and values. And given that Edenic proposition, America had an obligation to be perfect. But it had slavery and other problems that later came to be deemed as 'unjust'. Therefore, the failures, shortcomings, and hypocrisies of America were not the same-old-same-old replays of the flawed nature of man but a Great Sin against Edenic Justice and Truth.
Now, the notion of America as a 'proposition nation' isn't entirely a Jewish Creation. Rather, it is a Jewish radicalization of the founding principles of America. It is true that the Founding Fathers did have high-minded ideas and were dedicated to creating a better nation with ideals of liberty, tolerance, justice, rule of law, and acknowledged talent. But they weren't naive sop-eyed idealists with utopian dreams. Indeed, the fact that they were Deists than literal-minded Christians shows they preferred reason and caution than messianic visions. Also, their policies regarding France and Great Britain indicate pragmatism than ideological fervor. After all, their victory of independence was won with the backing of France, a nation that was then politically more monarchical than Britain.
Indeed, beware most he who comes to you with praise. He gives you empty praise to stoke your vanity while planning to take your pride and property. You gain empty words in exchange for a real world. And in the end, you even lose the words of praise because, after all, your world was taken away on the basis that you are not worthy of those words. Jew says to Anglo, "You're perfect." Flattered Anglo lets Jew into his world. Jew then says, "You're not all that perfect", meaning that the Anglo isn't deserving of pride of property. So, to appease the Jew and hear more words of praise, the Anglo hands over more and more of his world to the Jew. But the Jew only complains more, and in the end, the Anglo has given everything to the Jew. And then, the Jew takes back even the word(of praise) as well since, as things played out, the Anglo wasn't the perfect person deserving of his property, his world.
It is because of the Neo-Edenism of the American Narrative that the moral failures or shortcomings of the US seems so horrific and traumatic. Everything depends on context. After all, how come the eating of the Forbidden Fruit seems like the worst thing in the Bible even though far uglier and horrific things happen later? I mean, how can eating a fruit be worse than fratricide, rape, wars, eradication of populations, and ceaseless bloodshed in the later stories? It is worse because Adam and Eve did an imperfect thing in a perfect world. It's like belching at a classy dinner in a fancy restaurant is far worse than farting like crazy at a drunken frat party. Bible is filled with wars and other horror, but they are terrible things done in a fallen world. In contrast, Adam and Eve disturbed the order of a perfect world.
Similar dynamics shape our view of American History(that has come to inform ALL of Western Narrative as the entire world is being Americanized) given the prevailing neo-Edenic vision enforced by Jewish Power. Because of the over-idealized vision of the Edenic 'Proposition Nation', we believe the US should have been perfect from day one. It should have been a utopia of freedom, liberty, equality, justice, happiness, bounty, and peace. But in fact, the some of the Founders were slave-owners. And their intentions weren't entirely noble or idealistic. There was a huge discrepancy between their rhetoric and their deeds. None of this should surprise us since the Founders and the men of the time were humans with their flaws and imperfections. But within the neo-Edenic context of the utopian Proposition-ism, all their failings are magnified, especially as PC becomes shriller as shaped by the pushy personality of Jews, savage personality of blacks, bitchy personality of feminists, and hissy personality of homos. (And yet, these groups could be falling into neo-Edenic traps of their own making. The way they bitch and whine, you'd think they're pure and perfect angels un-besmirched by history. But all one has to do is assemble the Black Book on each of them, like a Black Book was compiled on communist crimes by French former-communists. And then, they can be made to look dirty and stained as their real histories are so at odds with their professed innocence and 'eternal victim-hood'.) Of course, the Jewish mind-trick couldn't have been possible if the Anglo/American mind hadn't been instilled with Protestantism that promoted conscience, reform, and rectitude. It is no accident that the Protestant World came to lead the crusade in abolishing slavery all over the world. Jews sensed that the Northern European Protestant Mind had a Will to Progress & Redress that was lacking in most cultures, including that of Jews of course. So, by flattering this good-and-noble side of Protestant Northern Europeans, Jews could ingratiate themselves into the Order as aids and admirers. But once ensconced within the Order, the Jew could keep pestering the Anglos about all that is imperfect and wrong. And having been accepted into the Order, the Jew could use his wits to gain financial supremacy over the system and gradually buy off one Anglo leader after another... until it is the Anglo elites who are held by the Jewish purse-strings. And with all that money, Jews also buy up much of the media and use the power of information to shame & defame Anglos while presenting themselves, the Jews, as faultless angels.
Neo-Edenism comes naturally to people since humans, like all organisms, are naturally amnesiac. Humans, like all animals, are born without memory of the past. Also, most people are not interested in history. They see it as recordings about the dead past that are most irrelevant to the present. It is not natural for most people to sit down, read books, and concentrate long hours on knowledge that has no immediate relevance to the moment. This goes for spirituality as well. For everyone who bothers to sit down and read the Koran, thousand others prefers to watch TV or listen to pop music. Of course, people love stories and want spiritual uplift, but they want it to be immediate and powerful in impact. So, people prefer movies to books, and they prefer popular history(for general reader) to academic history with lots of details and footnotes. And people like easy spirituality of singing in churches or feeling New Age vibes at a Rock Concert than reading and pondering Hindu, Buddhist, Rabbinical, or Christian texts. Most people are not interested in the minute details of what really happened with MLK and Lyndon B. Johnson. They just want the myth, as seen in PBS documentaries. Most people are not interested in multi-layered facets of spirituality and religion; they prefer the 'kumbayah' feeling they get from Oprah or the celebrity-shtick of the current Pope Francis the attention-hog, a kind of Catholic Bono.
And the power of electronic Pop Culture and infantile Political Correctness have made mass amnesia ever more attractive. Pop Culture shapes minds to favor things of instant gratification and click-bait-appeal. It's like the effect of the Remote Control x 1000. Pop Culture mentality feeds into Political Correctness since both are predicated on shallow impatience and snippy intolerance of anything of deeper meaning. Just like a Pop-Culture addict can't stand something that requires more curiosity, depth, attention, and concentration, the Politically Correct mind-set can't abide by anything that doesn't fill them with instant self-righteousness. Just like Pop-Culture addict don't have the requisite patience to appreciate classical music, folk music, or serious literature, the Politically Correct Mind-set cannot tolerate anything that is deemed to be 'evil' by its narrow rules of righteousness. So, if anything that smacks of 'racism', ‘homophobia', or 'antisemitism' — though, off and on, 'sexism', 'xenophobia', and 'Islamophobia' could be added to the mix — is immediately dismissed or denounced without any consideration to its deeper meanings or values. Furthermore, the Politically Correct are incapable of examining the credence of their own convictions just like the devoutly religious are incapable of pondering that, maybe just maybe, God isn't real. Even though Pop Culture prefers fantasy over reality and even though Political Correctness prefers falsehood(or semi-truths) to the truth, they are naturally appealing to the masses because they are so easy. That's why Jews prize them so much. Pop Culture is designed to be appealing to everyone, from intellectual to idiot. In the past, elitism played a role in pressuring the educated to focus more on serious culture than on easy mass culture, but the decline of shamelessness has made Pop Culture the main culture of the elites as well. Is it any wonder that the cultural sensation among elites is HAMILTON the rap musical? And once the elites have embraced vulgarization, they infect even high culture with the vagaries of Pop Culture mentality and stupidities of Political Correctness, as one can see in Donna Zuckerberg's brand of Classical Studies.
Another thing we need to consider is that heaven is its own kind of hell. This is true enough in the utopian visions of heaven where radicals, so sure of their rightness, are willing to commit to any level of violence, terror, and repression(where they to gain power). But even when heaven is attained, it is a kind of hell. While mankind has never created heaven-on-earth, some societies have come close(or at least closer) to achieving the utopian dream of man. But such success, while solving many problems, has created a host of new ones. In one sense, Eden(as heaven on earth) was cursed with boredom. Since all was well, harmonious, and peaceful, Adam and Eve led uneventful lives. And they were tempted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge precisely because they were so bored. Men in the hell-fire of war may dream of home, but once back home, they may miss the eventfulness of conflict which, despite its dangers and horrors, lent meaning to their lives. Whether it's Ethan Edwards(John Wayne) returning from Civil War in THE SEARCHERS, the Swedish knight returning from the Crusade in THE SEVENTH SEAL, or soldiers returning from WWII in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, men forged in furnace of war feel empty and purposeless in peace. Though soldiers are expendable in war, they die for a Cause. In peacetime, people get to live but to stock shelves as a supermarket. To die for something Big is more exciting than to live for something humdrum. When one is at war, he feels more as a man than men who stay behind for whatever reason. Soldiers are heroes; men who stay behind are zeroes. But when the soldiers return home, they are hardly distinguishable from the zeroes. Worse, zeroes(despite their cowardice, luck, or disqualification) are in one piece whereas the heroes may be physically broken, like the young man who lost his arms in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES or Ron Kovic(Tom Cruise) in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. This is why some soldiers fear surviving as a cripple than dying as a hero in war; consider the Gary Sinise character in FORREST GUMP.
Another problem of peace is naivete, especially in a Trust Culture. Some societies tend to be more immune to naivete because, even in peace-time, corruption and/or clan-based mentality is everywhere. Thus, Southern Italians, even in peacetime, are keen about the tawdry side of human nature. But in Trust Cultures like Sweden, peace means relatively clean government, economic efficiency, and social order. This leads to trust in institutions and official dogma. Such naivete is hardly dangerous IF borders remain secure and cultural cohesiveness is maintained. But when such a society enters into globalism, the naivete can become fatal, and we are seeing the death of Sweden and similar nations in the global order. Swedes, having had semi-heaven for several generations, grew naive and trusting. They only knew their own nice quiet society. This led many Swedes to think that all of humanity are as trustworthy as Swedes themselves. Also, being only around fellow countrymen, Swedes lost a sense of relative worth. Because Sweden has been a nice place, even the slightest failing of Swedes has been exaggerated and amplified. So, Swedes feel scandalized by the 'moral' shortcoming of any Swede even though, by world standards, it is trivial compared to the horrors in Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and parts of Asia.
So, it's not surprising that, as Sweden became more tolerant racially, sexually, and culturally, it became more intolerant politically, ideologically, 'narratively', and 'iconographically'. It's like people who either abandon religion or subscribe to religious tolerance must compensate with heightened intolerance in ideological matters. It's no wonder that some of the most self-righteous prigs and progs are to be found in secular institutions such as colleges. For those who celebrate homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-mutilation-of-dicks-and-balls-to-get-fake-pussies as beautiful-as-a-rainbow, tolerance for so-called LGBT isn't enough. That makes them feel fuzzy-wuzzy good, but it doesn't make them feel justified. The ONLY way they can feel righteous and sanctimonious is by screaming 'burn the witch' at those who remain unconvinced of homo quasi-sexual acts and tranny genital-atrocities as noble & inspiring ways of human behavior worthy of association with the beauty of rainbows.
Worse, Swedes grew accustomed to their decadence, and this made things worse. And in a way, the political formula that allowed Western societies to remain socially stable and economically productive despite decadence prepared Sweden for the terrible fall that it is experiencing today. When Ingmar Bergman made his films, he was presenting a new Sweden freed from traditional restraints of class, mores, values, and religion. And yet, Bergman and others like him had still grown up under the older certitudes(even as such were ebbing away). So, even as they welcomed social changes and greater freedoms, they also felt a conflicted sense of anxiety and even pangs of guilt. Yes, there were all these new libertine freedoms that overturned the social repressions and spiritual dogma of the past, but what could and should be done with this freedom? For a time, neurosis was the new religion. Though it didn't provide mankind with certainty(like the existence of God and His goodness), it offered something that was quasi-religious: a sense of inner-conflict and inner-struggle. If meaning of life could no longer be expected from God, it had to be found through psychology or philosophy. Modernist Art and new schools of philosophy, such as existentialism, reflected this anxiety and, as such, staved off complacency and shameless indulgence in narcissism and hedonism. It's like Guido in Federico Fellini's 8½ wants to be free of the gravitational pull of tradition, family, church, intellect, money, morality, & socio-economic crisis and fly around by the whims of his spirits. According to tradition, highest spirits are those of God and Heaven. But Guido, like so many of his generation, has lost faith even though there is still a side of him that longs for the holy and pure.
 |
| Through a Glass Darkly - Ingmar Bergman |
 |
| 8 1/2 - Federico Fellini |
Swedish generations since the 1960s have grown up in a libertine world devoid of traditional themes and restraints, and the result is a culture of shamelessness and moral decadence. In some ways, things might not have been so bad IF such new modes had led to social, cultural, and economic collapse. Such would have had a sobering effect on the population. But capitalism managed to not only weather the rise of decadence/degeneration but thrive & profit from them. So, the degradation in social mores that would have destroyed earlier societies made modern capitalist societies even richer and more productive.
The prediction of some observers that the spartan communist east will triumph over the decadent capitalist west didn't come to be. While rise in decadence/degeneration did lead to all kinds of social problems, they also made rampant hedonism the great incentive for work and ambition. After all, once the basic needs of survival are met, there’s no greater incentive for work than pursuit of happiness & pleasure. So, as more pleasures(however decadent and debauched) were offered to the public, the more tirelessly people were willing to work to make more money to indulge in more fun. And once capitalism broke out of the moral restraints of Protestant Work Ethic(that said work is noble simply as work), there was the exponential explosion of Vice Industries that catered to all sorts of whims and fantasies. As for industries, they were willing to sell anything to make a buck, and since outrage = sensationalism = easy publicity, the culture got coarser as a series of whores, especially beginning with madonna, competed with one another with the Latest Whore Outrage of the Month. Granted, the rise of Vice Culture or Vice-olution had led to problematic class divisions. It had divided people into three basic groups. The morons who are dumb enough to accept Vice as their main culture and indulge to the point of destroying self, family, and community. This is especially true of the Negroes. And then, there are those who indulge in vice but have it under control to the extent that they are willing to work hard to enjoy more vice. They've succumbed to the enticements of vice, and as such, they are moral-spiritual zombies by traditional standards. But they still have the work ethic and sufficient self-control to delay immediate gratification. They live for Prurient Work Ethic; they work like Protestants-of-old but for the attainment of Prurience-of-new.
And then, you have the elites who are like the smart drug-lords: They don't get high on their own supply. It's like the smart British and Jews sold opium to the Chinese; they didn't use it themselves and banned it among their own kind. Many elites who work in Vice Industries push vice-dope on the masses but they themselves see it for what it is and raise their children differently. It's like Jews push the false god of Diversity on all gentile nations but not on Israel. Smart Jews don't get high on their own supply, though there are less-smart Jews, like Naomi Wolf, who get high on PC themselves. Jews look down on her as an idiot who smoked the PC that she was supposed to push onto others, the goyim. To be sure, there are some principled smart Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Philip Weiss who are critical of Jewish Power & Israel out of higher ideals, however misguided or naive they may be.
Anyway, the ever-'creative' ingenuity of capitalism managed to monetize decadence and degeneration in ways that made society even richer and more powerful. And first real understanding of this potential perhaps arose during the Prohibition. Back then, many people worried that alcohol would have a debilitating impact on family, morality, and the economy, made all the more worrisome with immigrant populations and growing licentiousness of the Negroes and their music. (Gorbachev dabbled in limited prohibition in the USSR in the 1980s because alcohol-related problems were taking a toll on the Soviet economy.) Many hoped that Prohibition would lead to a more sober, sane, and productive America, and maybe such would have been possible if US was not a democracy. But being a democracy, a relatively free society compared to much of the world at the time, people could get away with all sorts of illegal activity, and the Prohibition led to rise in urban organized crime and corruption in government. So, the US eventually ended the Prohibition but with rules and regulations that gave the state increased powers to contain alcohol-related problems, all the more necessary due to the rise of the automobile. (Prior to the automobile, a drunkard on feet or atop a horse, was hardly a threat to others. But put a drunkard in control of an automobile, and you have a machine of death for both the driver and other people.)
Vice can be controlled and even serve as a useful incentive in a moral society. It's like some junk food and soda/beer won't destroy health as long as people believe in exercise, remaining fit, and eating healthy. Indeed, some vice-food-and-drink serve as incentives so that one can have some fun in life too. But what happens when vice-foods are promoted as being of equal value with virtue-foods? What happens when the casino becomes as much a family-place-to-be as the church? What happens when a slickster phony like Barack Obama is made to the equal of Jesus, a 'kind of god'? What happens when a homo's anus is said to be equal sexual value as a vagina? Is it any wonder that we are now seeing homo symbols displayed even in churches? And look at the state of Fine Art today. Most of the stuff is only good for hype, speculation, and investment among the money-men who keep the charade going just to have something through which to launder their money. When society becomes this demented, decadent, and degenerate — where the solid-silent-majority itself is turning into a minority — , the system itself will eventually buckle and fall. It will be like yeast feasting on sugar and eventually dying in the very alcohol it produced. The glamour and glitter of modern globalist cities are built on the fecal muck of moral degeneration and social decay.
There are SwEdens all across America, places that are mostly white, prosperous(compared to other parts of America), well-educated, and politically correct(above the national norm). Though most SwEdens are not inhabited by Scandinavians, they benefit from the same advantages and suffer from the same deficiencies. The problems of Minnesota can also be found in Maine, Vermont, and Washington, especially around the cities. Being overwhelmingly white, these places are less aware of the dangers posed by blacks and excessive Diversity. Their view of Negreality(Negro-reality) and Diversity comes mainly from the Jew-run media that indoctrinate minds with the mantras 'blacks are holy and cool' and 'diversity is our strength'. So, even though SwEdens are nice places because of lack of blacks and Diversity, they go out of their way to bring more blacks(even from Africa) and immigrants. Like Sweden the nation, SwEdens are populated with white people who are bored, naive, and trusting. Being bored, they want some excitement or vibrancy. Being naive, they fail to see that other races/cultures can be threatening and destructive. Being trusting, they fall for Jewish-promoted PC that is programmed to instill homogeneous societies with 'guilt' of lacking 'inclusive' diversity. Also, being societies of spineless Tolerance, the only way that the people of SwEden can feel righteous is through Intolerance of those who remain skeptical of the panacea of Magic Negroes, Divine Diversity, and holy homos. (In a way, the puritanical mindset of Protestantism has never left them. If their forebears denounced the corruption of the Catholic Church and went about purging impurities of faith, the current secularized crop of rectifiers, pegged with same mindset, call for the casting out of all evil spirits in accordance to PC, the reigning faith of the age.
One problem of Sweden or SwEden is that the peace-taken-for-granted leads to an unrealistic impression of nature. Just like cinema can give the wrong impression of war as 'heroic' or violence as 'cool and fun', social peace can lead to the naive misreading of nature and the larger world. Such protectiveness has the same impact on animals themselves. If you raise wild animals in a safe surrounding with love and affection(and plenty of food), they are less likely to have the necessary ruthlessness and 'cunning' to survive in Real Nature. In a man-made zoo-setting, even wild animals can be raised from early age to be trusting of humans and other animals. So, tiger cubs, wolf cubs, bear cubs, piglets, and calves can be raised to 'trust' one another, tolerate one another, and get along. Even though predatory instincts remain even in human-raised carnivores, they are likely feel fondness even for 'natural enemies' with whom they were jointly raised. It's like dogs and cats raised together as puppies and kittens become lifelong friends... as long as there is human supervision and provision of food & comfort for both. But outside the man-made enclosure or environment, the 'learned' or 'instilled' affections and attitudes of the animals have little use or relevance in the natural world. A bear in the wild must fear the tiger. Pigs must run from wolves. Real nature is a world of merciless conflict.
Humans who live in close proximity with nature know this. They don't romanticize about lions that can kill them or eat their mother. Eskimos or Inuit in Alaska fear the polar bear and brown bear. They don't play games like the 'Grizzly Man' did(in Werner Herzog's movie). Indeed, the German romanticism about nature was possible only because all of nature was pretty much under human control in Germany and Western Europe. (When a group of Germans went to colonize some area or Brazil in the 19th century, they were met with forces that undid them much like the expedition came apart in Herzog's AGUIRRE THE WRATH OF GOD. If you want to create your own Racial Zion, don't attempt it in the jungle.) The white frontiersmen who had to fight Indian savages and survive against bears, wolves, cougars, moose, and rattlesnakes knew nature was not about funning around. Even so, the white American conquest of the gigantic North American continent was so swift and dramatic that it wasn't long before a romantic myth grew up around the 'red savages'(as noble savages) and the lost wilderness. Out of guilt or nostalgia, the white man came to favor myths than reality about Indians and nature, both of which survived in a world of brutality and cruelty. By the time the 60s came rolling around, the the romanticism about 'touching Indians' and going 'back to the garden' had the whiff of naive German idealism about nature, albeit without the German discipline and tidiness; German nature-worship, naive as it could be at times, didn't lead to something as gross as Woodstock or demented as Altamont. One reason is Germans have fixed territory, and every inch of Germany is seen as homeland or heimat. So, if you made a mess of things, you needed to clean up. In contrast, there is an element of American psyche that is somewhat similar to the Russian one: Both people have vast territories, and so, they(or some of them) developed this tendency to just run off to greener pastures if they made a mess of one area. American Mythos was built around 'getting away from problems of Europe' and starting over in the New Land. And if they couldn't make it in the East Coast or if they made a mess of things, they could just move inland, and then move westward ever still. And when the US was all settled and unified, move from cities to ever-expanding suburbs. US could indulge in endless sprawl from the cities because of all that space. If white men once chased after Indians to take more land, they could later run from Negroes to live in safer neighborhoods. In contrast, people of smaller nations have no such option... that is unless they themselves decide to forgo domestic responsibilities by moving to the US or Canada. But given what is happening to UK, Sweden, and France, it seems even the mentality of small(er) nations have been Americanized. Even nations that can't afford or accommodate endless sprawl are going the American Way, inviting more diversity, and forcing European natives to seek residence away from darkening cities. But how far can this go on in cramped Europe? As for Germans, who've been world-renowned for orderliness and cleanliness, they've decided to open their nations to waves of brutish, vulgar, and uncouth Arabs, Muslims, and even Africans who throw garbage and urinate/defecate all over. Germans, who are so hard on one another over issues of sanitation and recycling, have decided it's wonderful to let Germany be flooded with people whose culture of hygiene and sanitation is completely at odds with the German model. It'd be like a school where every student is pressured to be respectful and diligent letting in tons of students who have no use for discipline and respect. Could it be that, on some level, Germans are vicariously enjoying the barbarism of non-Germanic invaders who don't give a damn about social rules and regulations? Since Germans themselves don't have the guts to give a middle-finger to social order, they've outsourced social rebellion to the invaders who, furthermore, don't give a shit about the Jews and the Holocaust, two things all Germans must worship. So, even as Germans are appalled and distraught by the mess caused by the invasion, there might be some repressed glee upon witnessing the invaders act in vibrant unrestrained ways that are not permitted to Germans who've become slaves of Political Correctness and National Shaming.
Anyway, just like those who don't know real nature tend to romanticize nature(as a kind of wild eden) — pictorial wonderland show in PBS documentaries where even brutal hunts are made 'thrilling' and 'exciting' with pulsating music and slow-motion cinematography — , people who don't know the reality of the Other tend to underestimate its savagery, barbarism, hostility, and/or degeneracy(due to cultural, ideological, or genetic factors). People of Sweden and SwEden see the entire world/humanity through the prism of their ideology of PC, which is naive and stupid as hell but drills confidence and conviction of absolute faith in its followers. This is because PC dominates big media and elite academia.
Naturally, people who pay attention to the news(what's going on) and devote themselves to study(higher knowledge) know more than most people. Ideally, that should be the case IF the media and academia are doing their job. But as PC is the reigning ideology in the West, those who rely most on establishment media and higher education for the truth often tend to be the most naive and stupid. They may be smart, diligent, and dedicated, but in their trusting earnestness, they swallow whole hog all the crap that is fed to them by the Jew-run Media and PC-virus-infected academia. So, we have the current situation where to 'know more'(according to media and academia)often means to know less(of actual reality).
Now, I’m not endorsing a populist anti-elitist argument that lazily champions the 'common sense' of the silent majority over the conceits of the eggheads. When it comes to specialized knowledge in many fields, the elites and experts do indeed know best. And ideally, if social sciences and humanities were to do their job, they would do much to sustain an elite community where critical thinking, empirical truth, free exchange of ideas, and necessary revisions define the culture. But PC has corrupted elite culture with dogmatism, conformism, cravenness, cowardice, opportunism, and/or bullying. So, as long as PC dominates the discourse, many of the most 'informed' and 'educated' people are far from the truth. And unbeknownst to their inflated egos, they fail to realize that they're worthless running dogs of PC because they will do ANYTHING to gain status by spouting the approved catechisms of the Current Year.
Indeed, there is a moral contradiction in the illegal Mexican who accuses the 'gringo' of not wanting to be around 'too many Mexicans' when he himself fled from Mexico because he himself doesn't want to be around many of his own kind. The illegal Mexican may argue that he came to the US for jobs, but when the patriot should ask the Mexican, "Why can't you Mexicans build industries and create enough jobs in your own nation? What's wrong with you people that you let your own nation be run over by drug gangs and corrupt politicians while you guys don't fight and only want to jump the fence to come live in the US?"
And even though we may scoff at the naive fools of PC, in a way we can't blame them as people's sense of reality relies on available sources. If you live in some nice white community in Minnesota or Maine and have no direct contact with Negroes or Diversity, then your only source of information are Hollywood movies, news media(run by Jews), and education. Hollywood movies give you Magic Negroes and 'evil white racists'. Also, even thug Negroes are presented as 'cool', 'badass', or 'glamorous. So, even black pathology is given a positive spin. Or, even a supposedly realistic show like THE WIRE is ideologically framed and contextualized so that black problems are seen as the product of 'history' or 'society' when, in fact, they are mainly due to BAMMAMA, or "blacks are more muscular and more aggressive".
This is why some idealistic white students enter into education and dream of going to teach blacks. The result is almost always hopeless, with whites teaching little and blacks learning little while acting like louts and messing things up. Black pathology is bad as it is due to black nature that is wilder, more thuggish, and nastier than those of other races. But it's made worse by the Magic Negro cult, 'white guilt' cult(that must be shared even by non-black minorities or NAM), and 'badass nigga' cult. The Magic Negro Cult or MNC says blacks are naturally and innately more soulful and spiritual than other races. Given natural black predilection for egomania, such adulation is like adding gasoline to fire or passing a case of whiskey to an alcoholic. In association with the MNC is the White Guilt Cult or WGC that says whites(and indeed all non-black minorities) must atone and apologize before the Negro who suffered like no other race has done. This, of course, is nonsense, but since whites came to dominate the world, even 'white guilt' has been universalized. If in the past, whites pressured the world to worship the Christian God, today's West pressures the world to worship Holocaust Jews, holy homos, and Magic Negroes. When whites worshiped God & Jesus, whites tried to convert the world to Christianity to worship the same God and His Son. Now, that whites have lost faith in God & Jesus and instead worships Magic Negro, Holy Homo, and Holocaust Jew, they apply pressure on the entire world to worship the same gods. Of course, Jews, Negroes, and Homos love this since it means all of humanity will be made to worship them and put out to them. This is why those three groups love globalism as conveyors of the PC religion that seeks to convulse and convert the entire world toward worshiping the new holy trinity of Jews, Negroes, and Homos.
The best way is to appreciate the artificial world and the natural world for what they are. One must understand that the artificial world cannot exist without the natural world, but then, neither can it exist without barriers against the natural world. So, artificial world has to be appreciated as providing humanity with safety and security, and the natural world must be respected as a awesome amoral force that poses a threat to humanity but also possesses the raw materials necessary for all life on earth. Without trees, there wouldn't be enough oxygen. Without ants, much of vegetation would die, and humanity would also face extinction.
Likewise, every people need to value their own nation as a repository of their ethnos, culture, and history. But other nations have things of value in materials, goods, services, ideas, and arts/culture. Therefore, a balance must be struck between protecting & preserving one's own nation from other nations & people while, at the same time, being open to the ideas, goods, and expressions of other peoples that may be of value as utility, instruction, or inspiration.
But PC has undermined such balance. When it comes to nature, PC paints a simpleminded portrait of humans(especially Westerners) as villainous despoilers and nature as holy mother victim raped by her sons. Given the power of modern technology and the extinction of so many species of animals, concern for nature and environment is certainly understandable and necessary. But such view overestimates the power of man while underestimating the power of nature.
Also, it lets nature off the hook as some Eden of harmony. But, in fact, this 'harmony' found in nature is merely the balance maintained by ceaseless warfare among the animals. It is ‘harmony’ as the end-product of ceaseless mayhem. Without predators to devour cute bunny rabbits and beautiful deers, the herbivores will eat all the plants, and then, they too will starve. So, there must be predators waging war on herbivores who, in their own way, are predators of plants. So, predators are the best friends of plants who, if they had consciousness, would fear herbivores the most. Also, if humans seem 'ravenous' and 'piggish', it is because their 'human nature' is part of nature. Nature is ravenous. Bacteria and viruses try to take over everything. A forest tries to expand in all directions. Ants will grab all they can. Lions try to conquer as much territory as possible and devour their prey without mercy. Pigs and rats are horribly destructive of whatever they run across. And locusts will eat up entire fields. So, if humans have a 'hungry', 'greedy', and 'ravenous' nature, it is because their emotions and appetites are part of nature. Nature is excessive as every organism must be excessive in its effort to hold its own against other organisms. But the flaky New Age PC version of nature would have us believe that all things in nature cooperate according to some symphonic harmony. So, even when predators attack and kill prey, it's a musical like THE LION KING. It's as if the prey animals are instinctively 'understanding' and 'accepting' of the role they must play in the natural balance of things when their only modus operandi is the Negronic "Run like a mothafuc*a".
At this point, the ONLY correctives are Neo-Fascism and Organicism that counter and repel the willfully naive dogma of PC that’s been manipulated and programmed by Jews to weaken gentile societies so as to make them more penetrable to the Jewish virus. Are all secular Jews consciously working to push such an agenda? Some Jews are surely self-aware and know full well what their kind has been up to for millennia. But many secular Jews push this agenda with only a subconscious understanding of what is really animating them.
For thousands of years, Jews have struggled and survived as an intensely tribal and nomadic people. This made them both more principled and more opportunistic than other peoples/cultures. In their devotion to God and their identity, many Jews kept the fire burning, even through the darkest times. The idea of the Covenant bound Jews to the one and only true God, and this mind-set made Jews more resolved to stick to their sacraments than any other people. And yet, especially as a people without a home after exile after exile, Jews had to hustle and wheel-and-deal with goyim in order to put food on their table. And over time, they got so good at it and perfected ways to fleece the world. And this aspect of Jewishness made them the most opportunistic, cunning, and devious people on Earth.
Perhaps, Jesus’ rebellion against both Romans and Jews was to break out of this mold. Indeed, it must have seemed outrageous to an idealist like Jesus. After all, if indeed there is the one and only God and if He has blessed Jews over all other peoples, why should Jews cower and compromise so much in relation to other people? If the Jewish God is the only God and if Jews are His Chosen, then Jews shouldn’t compromise, especially with the pagans who’ve conquered Jews. Why claim something so lofty as the Covenant — special connection between God and Jews — but then act so cravenly, bowing down before pagan Romans(and before them, other pagan powers) and begging for mercy and favors. Jesus refused to play the game, and He got killed... which proved the ‘wisdom’ of Jews who’d compromised and survived. And then, it fell to St. Paul to find a way to resolve the contradiction between pure principles and clever pragmatism(especially by saving his own neck by invoking Roman citizenship) to spread Jesus’ message far and wide. According to this formulation, there are four kinds of people in the world. (1) The highest is the person of pure principle who never compromises. Such a person is usually destroyed. Even those who admire him fear him because purity of principles threatens the way of the world. We admire such a person because he sticks to principles with courage and conviction while most of us seek compromise to self-interest and resolution. Jesus, according to Christian myth, was that kind of pure perfect person. (2) Below the person of pure principle is the person committed to the pure principle but incapable of being pure himself(mainly out of fear but also matters of self-interest) but uses his compromised pragmatism to further the spread of the pure principles. This would be St. Paul who wasn’t as pure as Jesus. Indeed, had he been like Jesus, he would have been killed much earlier, and then, he couldn’t have achieved what he did. St. Paul had to compromise and play the game at times, but he always did it with the ultimate purpose of spreading the Gospel. So, even though St. Paul was often pragmatic than confrontational(in the mode of a purist) and could even be said to be opportunistic at times, his cunning was ultimately in the service of God and Jesus. If he learned the art of living another day by compromise, he spent the next day to spread the Word to one more person. (3) Below the person-without-purity-who-nevertheless-uses-pragmatism-to-serve-the-pure-principle is the person who uses pragmatism and opportunism for no other purpose than to serve oneself. If for St. Paul, pragmatism and compromise were means to an higher end — he had to survive and live another day so as to spread the Gospel — , there are those for whom pragmatism and opportunism are ends in themselves insofar as they’re useful in helping them attain status and goods of self-aggrandizement. Such people may ascribe to some principle and, in a superficial way, believe themselves to be committed, but their bogusness will be plain to see when the ideological winds blow in the opposite direction. Their so-called ‘conviction’ will shift with the winds. Is there something lower than an opportunist-pragmatist? (4) There is the person of pure principle of the profane. If some people are committed to the purity of principled truth, the polar opposite is not the devious opportunist without principles. As contemptible as such people may be, they are not the most dangerous since they will bend with shifting winds. The bigger danger is the people of pure principle of the profane, false, and vile. A good example of such holy cretins is found among so-called SJWs or Social Justice Warriors. These morons are indeed true believers, and some of them are even willing to risk their lives to push or defend their commitment.
But what are the obsessions of their ‘pure hearts’? Worship of Jewish Power that has come a long way from WWII & Holocaust and is now the predominant evil force in the world. The ‘sacralization’ of homosexuality and trans-gender nonsense, whereby humanity is supposed to derive its moral and spiritual meaning with rapturous ecstasies around the wonders of homo fecal penetration and tranny genital-mutilation. Apotheosis of Celebrity Madness or Celebristianity as the new christianity.
Yes, we are to look to ‘inspirational figures’ like Bono, Lady Gaga, madonna, Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Oprah, Ellen Degeneris, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, gangsta rappers, and Negro athletes as founts of wisdom. No wonder Obama, the celebrity candidate, made so many shallow idiots foam at the mouth and faint left and right.
And of course, there is the false god of the Magic Negro. In our demented Jew-controlled world, the vilest and nastiest race that is most destructive and defiling of civilization is to be worshiped as the soulful chosen of the cosmos, that is after Jews and homos. While there are plenty of opportunists who go along with the PC charade just to get theirs, there are SJW-types who really and sincerely believe in all this nonsense with purity of conviction. When such purity of devotion is wasted on falsehood, corruption, and dementia, it is truly a tragic farce indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment