The Virtue of Choosing Something Lesser than Oneself than Greater than Yourself — Why Jews, with their Contradiction of Fanatical Tribalism, are Unfit to be Imperialists — Hubris of Richard Spencer and Matt Heimbach in the Fall of the Alt Right

John McCain the 'War Hero' who called on Americans to serve something greater-than-oneself. In his case, it was serving the Uber-Tribal-Ideology of Zionist-Jewish Imperialism.

We’ve all heard from politicians and teachers that we shouldn’t be so self-absorbed and individualistic. We should live and struggle for something ‘greater than ourselves’. John McCain said as much in the 2008 campaign. Of course, ‘greater than yourself’ doesn’t necessarily mean something grand, awesome, and powerful. It doesn’t mean you have to be part of History with Capital ‘H’. It doesn’t mean you must be associated with Important People, Macro Trends, and Geo-Politics. It could actually be humble, about doing good work for little people who need it most. After all, Christian missionary work where people from the West(and now East) go to poorer parts of the world to spread the Gospel and improve lives has been regarded as doing God’s work, and what work can be greater than that to a Christian? And Peace Corp. that started with the Kennedy Administration was about bringing American Know-How to the underdeveloped Third World.
And yet, words matter in shaping our thought processes, and the term ‘Greater than Oneself’ has had a corrupting influence on people. Indeed, we can start with John McCain himself. So, what did McCain mean by working for something ‘greater than himself’? It was all about shucking for Wall Street and shilling for all-powerful Jews. Even McCain’s faux-compassion for illegals from Mexico and Central America was under the directive of Wall Street, Globalist Elites, and Jewish Power. After all, if McCain was concerned about suffering non-whites, why was he blind to the disasters wrought upon the Muslim World by Jewish Power, esp. that of the Neocons? Why was he reliably silent about Zionist oppression of Palestinians? In practice, what McCain meant by ‘greater than oneself’ was serving the biggest power(that in his lifetime became Jewish and Zionist) and participating in Big History. Of course, McCain and others like him spouted the usual talking points about ‘human rights’, ‘spreading democracy’, and ‘fighting terrorism’ — to give the impression that their political lives were devoted for the Greater Good of all Mankind — , but his main attraction to politics was about being where the Power is at.

Words matter, and when most people hear invocations of ‘greater than oneself’, they don’t think of good works or good deeds but being part of Greater History. Because History, as the conflicts and tensions on a world scale, is generally moved by the Powerful(who tend to be amoral, heartless, opportunistic, cynical, ruthless, cunning, fanatical, and/or unscrupulous), those who take part in Big History will rarely be working for the good of mankind. Rather, they will be working for the aggrandizement of the super-elites. Things are especially worse when the Great Power happens to be both intensely tribal and maniacally imperialist. If a people choose to be tribal, they should stick to nationalism: Our people, our nation, our culture. If they choose to embark on the imperial project, they need to rise above narrow tribalism and try to meet other peoples at least halfway. The reason why the British and Christian Europeans made such successful imperialists was they gave as well as took. While they could be ruthless, cruel, and greedy(and committed innumerable horrors like all other empires), they could also show genuine respect for other peoples and cultures. And they were willing to share their God with other folks via conversion. One might say Christianization of the natives was a form of ‘cultural genocide’, and there’s some validity to that claim, but it also demonstrated that white Christians were willing to regard even their subjects as fellow children of God. In contrast, Jews, like German Nazis, make awful imperialists. Jews with their current mentality, like Germans of the National Socialist period, should really just stick to nationalism. They are too tribal to ‘rule the world’. German Nazi-Imperialism became especially brutal, murderous, and insane in areas where the inhabitants, such as Russian Slavs, were barely regarded as members of the human species. There was no possibility of meeting the natives halfway. The Nazi German attitude was one of total superiority over inferiority. It could easily become a blueprint for mass-genocide or mass-enslavement.

Imperialism has partially justified itself across the span of history as a liberating or uniting force. Napoleon was an imperialist leader but spread French concept of freedom and liberty to other Europeans. Indeed, had Napoleon prevailed over Russia, Russian people would have been freer as individuals even if their nation was under French domination. Same was true of Chinese in Hong Kong under British rule. It was clearly a case of imperialism but an enlightened one. So, even though the empire's days were numbered, there was appreciation as well as resentment.
Imperial subjects may find domination by foreigners tolerable and even welcome(to some degree) IF there’s a compensatory gain over the loss of national-tribal autonomy. (In a sense, the inner-logic of immigration is like imperialism. So many people choose to come to America, abandon their own land-people-cultures, switch loyalty to a new nation[even at the risk it may attack and destroy the homeland of immigrants], and follow new narratives & worship new icons IN EXCHANGE for better material lives and more personal liberty. Muslims come to the US and have better material lives but pay taxes to support Wars for Israel that kill Muslims by the bushel. And in turn, white Americans accept demographic replacement on account of its economic benefits. There is give-and-take in both imperialism and immigration... at least until the balance is lost as in the case of Palestine where Jewish arrivals totally took over and expelled the great majority of Palestinians.) This is especially so IF the national leadership has traditionally been corrupt or tyrannical. This was part of the reason why not all Frenchmen were dispirited by the German invasion and occupation of France. Incredible as it may seem to many today, there were plenty of Frenchmen who believed that France was under leftist-Jewish-socialist domination in the 1930s and that the German invasion, though regrettable, at the very least removed Jews and the Left from seats of power. Such sentiments were possible in France because the Germans respected the French and treated them rather nicely. But such feelings were impossible in much of Poland and especially Russia where Germans invaded as exterminators and/or slavers. Even Russians who detested Stalin and Communism soon realized that German Victory would be even worse. So, if the imperialist power isn’t willing to meet the conquered & subjugated halfway with concessions that sweeten the humiliation of defeat, it’d be better for everyone if the invading power just stayed home and stuck to nationalism. If Hitler had invaded Russia with a Napoleonic outlook(as an Enlightened and Tolerant Tyrant), he might have won over more Slavs to his side; they might have thought, "It’s better to have humane treatment under foreign domination than inhuman treatment under national rule." (To be sure, Stalin and many Bolshevik rulers weren’t Russian.) But Germans invaded to take everything while giving nothing. For Russians, the options were resist, win, and survive OR surrender, lose, and die. As Germans attacked only with the stick and no carrot, Russians had no choice.

Nazi German Invasion of Soviet Union. A Total War of Zero-Sum stakes.

When we look at Jewish Power in the current world, it is obvious that they, rather like the Nazi Germans and, to a lesser degree, the Japanese Imperialists, is unfit to be imperialist mode. Anglo-Americans, for all their faults and hypocrisies, made better imperialists because they had a modicum of honor and sense of shared humanity. Despite Anglo-America’s racial views of superiority and culturally arrogant attitude, its vision of humanity was tempered by Christianity that taught all peoples are God’s children. Also, the Anglo tendency to suppress its own tribal peculiarities to arrive at a more 'generic' vision of law and order served as a useful template for imperialism and immigration -- the downside, in the long-run, was a cultural anemia that, lacking in vital tribal blood cells, lost out to the virile semen-and-blood Jewish Power fueled by Portnoia and dong-and-booty-call of Negroes who are worshiped as the Sun people by white Brits who consider themselves the frigid Ice People who'd be lost without Afro-Warmth.
So, even though Anglo-Americans could be just as ruthless and bloody in war, they tended to seek common ground and offer compensation once hostilities were over. When the time came to bury the hatchet, it was buried, and sincere efforts were made to forge a new future based on better relations. Anglo-Americans did have a sense of something greater than their identity and tribe. As a world power, they understood they had certain obligations to the rest of humanity. Such bigness of vision(and even heart) is sorely lacking among Jews. This is why Jews are just fine among themselves and in taking care of their own problems, but they are miserable and miserly when dealing with other peoples, the filthy goyim. In that regard, Jews only think in terms of "Is it good for Jews?" and nothing else. Because of the cultural and historical habit of Jewishness, a supremacist mind-set that says God favored Jews over goyim whom some Jews regard as hardly better than cattle, Jews hardly think of the higher, greater, or common good when they deal with others. Even secular modern Jews retain this habit of mind, even if only subconsciously. Just ask the Palestinians. Just ask the Russians who were fleeced by Jews in the 90s. Just ask the global victims of Jewish finance.

Chechen Bad Boys

Now, there are plenty of cutthroat peoples and tribes around the world that are just as nasty, vile, and vicious as the Jews, but Jews are far more dangerous because they (1) are smarter (2) more aggressive (3) more seasoned in manipulating and cheating others (4) adept at cooking up moral or spiritual excuses for their perfidy (5) play the eternal victim to shield their evil deeds and (6) make universal claims despite serving narrow tribal interests. Jewish actions put shame to their claim. When Gandhi heard of ‘Western Civilization’, he sardonically remarked it’s a good idea. He meant Western Imperialists talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk of enlightenment. But European Imperialists, for the most part, were angels compared to Jewish Imperialists who really care for NOTHING but their own power and privilege. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chechens are just as nasty and mendacious as the Jews, but they will never amount to anything more than gangsters, thugs, and ragtag terrorists. In contrast, Jews have made it as professors, lawyers, historians, judges, bankers, oligarchs, and deep state operators. Jews are sharks, Chechens are piranhas. Jews control the oceans while Chechens are stuck in their ponds. Both Jews and Chechens wouldn’t be problematic if they stuck to their territories and own kind. Because they are so intensely tribal, both are unfit for imperialism and foreign ventures. Chechens have spread out over parts of Russia to expand their empire of crime, and they are loathed and detested by non-Chechens of all stripes. Still, because Chechens are only good at criminality and mainly stuck in the Russian territories, they mean nothing to the world. In contrast, Jews have had the means the take over the elite institutions and industries of America, and that automatically catapulted them as the Imperial Rulers of the World. Jews prize and savor their role as the New Caesars, but they simply don’t have the perspective and attitude necessary to be good Imperial Rulers. Indeed, compare French and the Algerians, British and the Irish(or Scotch), and Jews and the Palestinians. If Algeria and Ireland had come under Jewish control, things would have been much worse for the natives. In the end, the Algerians were able to regain their land(and then some, as the French allowed Algerian immigration to France itself), and the Irish were able to reclaim their nation. But look at the plight of Palestinians. Jews are not satisfied with Israel that was established over much of historic Palestine. They must also take West Bank which is being swallowed up piece by piece, taken inch by inch. (Compare what whites were willing to sacrifice in South Africa with what Jews did to Palestinians.)
Worse, Jews not only disgraced themselves with their foul form of Judeo-globo Imperialism but corrupted Anglo-Americans as well. As top dogs, Anglo-Americans could be a force for both good and bad. They were willing to do much bad to gain hegemony and domination, but they were willing to offer much that was good to make amends. But now, as underdogs of Jews, Anglo-American elites are mindless and worthless cuck-dogs of Jewish Power that they pretend is noble for all time because of the Shoah, an event that had NOTHING to do with most of humanity. Deep in their hearts, Anglo-American cuck elites may well know that Jews are foul cretins, but they repress such dire truth because it would mean (1) they relinquished their power to a bunch of a**holes, (2) they were stupid enough to be fooled by Jews ideologically & morally, and (3) they’re a craven and cowardly bunch of running dogs to the Tribe. Fish rots from the head, and a dog is only as good as its master. With rotten Jewish BUGS(busy urban globalist Semites)at the helm, WASP cuck elites are merely their servile dogs.
Ireland, over centuries of British rule, underwent many hardships but wasn’t wiped off the map. Even Scotland, a territorial part of Britain, was allowed to remain Scottish. But now, both Ireland and Great Britain are under Jewish globo-homo imperialism and are being demographically and culturally replaced by Homomania, Diversity, and Afro-Worship. Why are the Irish and British masses so blind to what is happening? It’s because the Jewish Empire remains invisible. Wherever the British or the French went, they displayed their symbols in pageantry and declared their dominance over others. So, at the very least, imperial subjects knew they were being ruled by a foreign power, and this consciousness eventually led to resistance. But because Jewish Power operates through a Stealth Empire that isn’t detected by the Media Radar(that is also Jewish-controlled), many Brits and Irish still don’t know their nations are colonies of the Empire of Judea. Also, because Jews work stealthily to indoctrinate elite British and Irish minds through control of World Academia centered in the US — universities all around the world take cues from what comes out of Harvard, Yale, and other Ivies that also train many world scholars — , it creates the impression that British and Irish masses are being instructed by their own British and Irish scholars when, in fact, those scholars are mental puppets of Jewish scholar-agents of the Empire. So, even though Jews pushed Diversity, Afro-Worship, and Homomania to destroy Ireland and Britain, so many Irish and Brits think those are their own values and principles conceived by themselves. As for Irish and British elites who DO KNOW that Jews control the world, they can be bought off to collaborate and comply with generous bribes and sinecures. In the US, Joe Biden is no dummy and knows that Jews control everything, but notice how he goes out of his way to scrape the Jewish anus with this tongue to get his goodies.

Another factor that may redeem imperialism is if it acts in the common good of humanity. Whatever one may say of Christianity, Islam, and Communism, they did offer mankind a shared vision of equal justice under God or History. All those who converted to Christianity were part of the brotherhood and sisterhood. All those who became Muslim were the beloved of Allah. And communism was about comradeship among workers of the world. So, even though Christian, Muslim, and Communist Imperialists committed lots of atrocities, their ultimate message was about uniting all humanity under the banner of shared humanity and theory of justice. And this is why Napoleon was a much idealized and romanticized figure even among subject peoples of French Imperialism. His rule wasn’t simply about French aggression and domination but about a New Order in which the average person, regardless of identity, would have more rights, liberties, and protections. And in their own way, Anglo-Americans believed that the world could become a better place under Pax Americana that would ensure the flow of goods, liberty, and know-how to all the world. They were willing to take but also offer. It’s like what Merlin tells Uther in the opening of EXCALIBUR. "He(the Duke of Cornwall) has given, now you must." Cornwall is willing to yield to Uther’s authority but expects compromise. Uther, proud and rash, isn’t about to give an inch, but wise Merlin urges him to do so as a king must be magnanimous and make friends as well as enemies.

Jews take and take but cannot give. And even when they give, it is in the way of a hustler, merely preparing for the day when they can grab it all for themselves. Jews are about hustle than honor. Just ask the Palestinians who were assured that Jewish immigration would lead to economic opportunities and NOT lead to their demographic demise. Pure hustle. Given there are so many non-criminal Jews in law, academia, history, arts, criticism, government, and etc, you’d think they would be above con-man gangster mentality, but they aren't. Because of their essentially hostile & neurotic personality and tribal & merchant mentality, even Jews who are respectable professionals than crooks, cheats, con-men, or gangsters think more like the latter. They don’t think straight; instead, they twist logic and meaning to get their way. Everything is a pretzel logic with these people. This is surely the product of two opposing modes of Jewish behavior throughout the ages: (1) Maintaining tribal identity and superiority at all costs (2) Gaining universal domination by money, diplomacy, and ideology. One part of Jewishness is intensely tribal & hermetic and another part of Jewishness is obsessively universal & expansive. Usually, when a people try to become a world power, they need to reformulate their identity to be more encompassing of the Other, as with the Romans. But Jews are obsessed with their identity rooted in the Covenant. The Covenant says they are the blessed of God who, furthermore, willed them to rule all the world. (Christianity as formulated by Apostle Paul offered a compromise where both Jews and Gentiles could be brothers and sisters, but Jews said NO. And Jewish Diaspora after the Exile made them see the larger world and want to have it all while maintaining their zealous identity of superiority and particularity.) Because of the great contradiction between Jewish tribalism and expansionism, perhaps kind of psychological con-game trick plays out in the Jewish mind to resolve the problem. Of course, it cannot be resolved, so the Jewish Mind constantly comes up with warped rationales as to why Jews must remain Jewish and why Jews must dominate the world. The contradiction has gotten even worse in the aftermath of World War II because Jews now define themselves as both the most victimized & helpless people AND the most awesome & fearsome people. Arrogant Jews bask in their great power with nasty Netanyahu and Alan Dershowitz leading the way. But Jews also insist on being perceived forever as the poor hapless Holocaust People. When a people who insist on their close-knit tribalism demand to rule the world and furthermore play victim while ruling as the utmost victors, the world is really in a messed-up situation. Imagine a weasel with the power of a lion pretending to be a mouse. British Imperialists sought to make their subjects serve the glory of Britain, but there was the sense that even non-British were part of the empire, thus shared in the glory and, therefore, were also ‘British’ in a way. (This worked well as an imperialist strategy but is proving to be fatal as a nationalist policy as the Mother Country of Britain is now being invaded and colonized by the World.) But Jews do not seek to share any of their glory with others. It’s all about goyim praising, honoring, and worshiping Jewishness while Jews sneer and snicker at others. Consider the relation between Jews and White Evangelicals. The latter praise Jews and worship Israel, but Jews show nothing but contempt for the Bible-Thumpers. If anything, Jews pushed Homomania as the Main Theme of their globo-homo-shlomo imperialism. Unlike Christianity, Islam, Communism, and Liberal Democratic values that emphasized the greater good of the vast majority of mankind, Homomania(or Queertianity) preaches that the vast majority of people who are not homo must worship the Holy Homo minority along with the Sacred Jewish Identity. So, it’s all about Minority Supremacism, and for the great majority, the message is "Get on your knees and suck the Jewish cock and then bend over to take it up the ass by the Homo." How can Jews be trusted when they don’t admit that they are the rulers of the world? If anything, Jews use their great control and power to shut down voices to suppress the fact of their power and control. It’s like a rich man using his riches to shut down people who say he’s rich. It’s like a loud man shouting to silence people who remark that he’s loud and obnoxious. Jews are immensely powerful but deny they got the power. Jews treat Palestinians like dirt but expect others to believe that they will be treated any better by Jews. Jewish Chutzpah is incredible. Jews got so much while Palestinians got so little and continue to lose what little they got, BUT the US pours billions of aid into Israel while turning a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians. It’s about sympathy for the rich & tyrannical and antipathy to the poor & helpless. This is how Jews have corrupted the American Mind by purging US politics of ‘Arabists’, foreign policy advisers who urged a more balanced treatment in the Middle East. For Jews, everything has to revolve around them. No longer believing in the one and only God, they made themselves the one and only Power.
Also, Jews make OTHERS pay to make the Jews appear generous. If the British Empire expended its own treasury to maintain its empire, Jews squeeze goyim to pay for all the costs of empire. Jews invoke ‘white privilege’ to make all the world blame whites than Jews for all that goes wrong. Jews milk white teats to provide milk for people of the empire. The Wars for Israel will mainly have to be paid for by the white middle class. White soldiers certainly did most of the killing and dying. We know from 2008 Wall Street fiasco that Jews are ‘too big to fail’. And those who serve Jews, like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Barack Obama, are rewarded handsomely. But the white middle class must be milked dry to pay for all the mess. Or Jews will just keep printing more money and then shift the blame on China to avoid blame. Jews, who decry ‘antisemitism’, never tire of using the media to scapegoat and smear other peoples such as Russians, Iranians, and Chinese. In the US, the usual scapegoat is usually whites, mostly straight white males, but ‘Beckys’(white females) get it in the neck too. Fussy Jews who always rag and nag whites about everything have the temerity to accuse white women of complaining about bad black behavior(as if blacks are above the law, at least in relation to white goyim, indeed as Jews are). Of course, when blacks act bad in Jewish neighborhoods, Jews use stop-and-frisk to have them patted down and/or arrested. Generally, Jews ignore and even suppress all news of black-on-white violence and only highly black criminality as a problem when Jews are attacked. For the longest time, Jews said the Knockout Game is fake news, that is until blacks began to knock down Jewish men, in which case it was big news in NY.

Jewish spread of Globo-Homo around the world as agent-collaborators of the Zio-Empire

Anyway, perhaps what is best for many on the Dissident Right, Alt Right, and Left-Right(my brand of National-Humanist Neo-Fascism) is to think of serving something ‘lesser than oneself’. Now, there are plenty of people all over America and the World who devote their lives(or some time of their lives) to aiding, serving, and guiding those are less fortunate, less talented, and less able. And of course, the teaching profession is about adults who know more passing knowledge to youth who know little, though to be sure, today’s educators are more like re-educators of PC Dogma. Under Jewish control, schools have become more like reeducation centers than educational institutions. Why? Because Jews are no longer climbing the rungs of power but at the very top. When Wasps used to rule, Jews valued free speech as a means to speak honestly and forthrightly about the failings of Anglo-American elites. In any system, honest and free criticism will hit the Power the hardest as people tend to notice and blame those who have the most power. But now that Jews have the most power and want to keep it, they fear critical thought, honesty, and courage as the hallmarks of education because honest, fearless, and critical voices will target the most powerful.

Matt Heimbach the Fat Fuhrer of the Malt Right

The fact that words matter can be seen in the decline of the Alt Right. While Jewish Power had much to do with it, the blame must fall on its ‘leaders’ and ‘spokesmen’ as well. People on the Alt Right claimed to be for something bigger and greater than themselves. They spoke about how it’s not enough to be an atomized consumer or deracinated individual. One must live for something bigger, greater, and grander. But such terminology corrupted the Alt Right just as much it did guys like John McCain. The Alt Right forsook the element of humility and got wrapped up with hubris. Just like John McCain pontificated about the nobility of serving the larger humanity than one’s own ego but actually spent his entire career serving the biggest oligarchs and warmongers, the movers and shakers of History, so many on the Alt Right spoke about caring for fellow white folks but spent an inordinate time waxing romantic(or idiotic) about how they are like the new invincible ubermensch who can shake thunder out of clouds to create the Fourth Reich. Consider the gross shithead Matt Heimbach. As leader of the Traditional Workers Party that claimed to care for working class Americans and their problems of unemployment and substance abuse, he could have done much good. In other words, he would have done best to work in the mode of living for those lesser-than-oneself. Less educated and less well-off in every way. After all, while it’s pointless to help those who are richer, more fortunate, and more intelligent, anyone can make himself useful by helping and guiding the less fortunate. A one-eyed man is of no use to a two-eyed man, but he can lead an army of no-eyed blind people. A one-armed man can do something for a no-armed man. A third-rate doctor is of no use in a rich part of town with many first-rate doctors, but he will be invaluable in a poor part of town with no doctors. Thus, by seeking out those who are lesser-than-oneself, one can find meaning in life. As the path to power is shut off to the Dissident Right for the time being, many in the Alt Right could have gained moral and spiritual credit by demonstrating their usefulness to people who are without meaning, hope, or direction. And you’d think that was what Matt Heimbach was about as the leader of a Working Class Party. But like Richard Spencer and others, he was so full of himself. Serving something greater-than-oneself meant playing the game of History(even though he was no in position to be playing any such game). So, he made himself out to be Fat Fuhrer and promoting Neo-Nazism because, apparently, being a 'humble' helper to the less fortunate wasn’t fun, exciting, and thrilling enough for his big fat ego. And he had to be a ‘rock star’ among his White Power community. Being faithful to his wife wasn’t good enough. He had to hump other women, including the wife of his father-in-law Matt Parrott in pure Jerry-Springer 'white trash' style.
Richard Spencer was seen as an elite leader of the Alt Right, corralling its intellectuals, while Heimbach was regarded as the leader of the lumpen-whites, but what they both had in common was egotism and narcissism over the needs of the people. Contrary to Spencer’s Faustian fantasies, most white people were, are, and always will be just average people with modest goals in life. Spencer’s haughty egotism made it impossible for him to touch base with most whites — as he’s too busy communing with gods in heaven such as Batman, 007, and Darth Vader — , just like horny alpha-male-ism made a total mess of his married life. Being closer to regular folks, one would think Heimbach would have avoided such pratfall, but nope. Deep down inside, he’s just another egotist. He was using the theme of White Working Class and their problems to play out his fantasy of being Fat Fuhrer of the Fourth Reich in the form of beerbelly ‘white trash’ America. He wanted to be king of Malt Right.

For so many people, from John McCain to Richard Spencer to Matt Heimbach, the meaning of serving something greater-than-oneself got perverted to mean something awesome, powerful, grandiose, megalomaniacal, and etc. They forgot that greater-than-oneself means serving a certain GOOD. In the end, it’s not about serving one’s own ego or serving(or seeking) the Power. It’s about making oneself useful to those who need the help. But, via such good work, one can gain genuine appreciation, admiration, and respect that can be traded for glory and power. Of course, ‘doing good work’ is exploited for that very reason by the vain elites. Consider all those brats of rich parents who take up ‘good works’ just to fill up their college applications with ‘holistic’ credentials so that they may be accepted to Ivy League schools whereupon their lives will hopefully be smooth sailing to the bastions of power and privilege. People like Spencer grew up too spoiled, privileged, conceited, and snotty to ever roll up their sleeves to touch base with regular people. When he talks about living for something greater-than-himself, he means touching base with pagan gods of heaven who shall hand him the world on a silver platter upon a Faustian Pact. Too many Alt Right guys have hipster than humanist disposition and, as such, lack the humility to really go among the people and offer them anything. And Heimbach has been a perfect example of this. He couldn’t put away the stupid neo-Nazi paraphernalia and get down to serious work. He preferred to play fatso Leonidas of the movie 300, looking for more tussles with Antifa to make himself out to be Butterbean of the Alt Right.
Like so many SJW or NPC types, too many Alt Right guys grew up on Pop Culture fantasies, which, when mixed with Euro-pagan mythicism(related in some cases with Nazi symbolics), becomes like a drug, not unlike meth or crack, that sends young people, especially the men, into paroxysms of egotism, delusions of grandeur, and megalomania. It wasn’t enough for Eli Mosely to fight for his people. He had to inflate his resume with bogus war record. It wasn’t enough for Kyle Bristow to diligently work to defend free speech rights for White Nationalists. He had to torch his ego to the point of self-immolation. If guys like Spencer possessed more maturity, experience, and character, they might have had a sobering and corrective influence on other members.

But fish rots from the head, and when the self-appointed and media-anointed leader of the movement thinks it will all be very fun to play combo of 007, Batman, and Hitler in his role as the leading light of the movement, the result was predictable: Drunkenness, Drug Abuse, Adultery, Disloyalty, Hubris, Recklessness, Delusions of Grandeur, and etc. It’s all the more ironic because Spencer has been saying the world is really all about power, power, and power. If he really believes that, why did he think the Jewish Globo-Homo Power would stick to principles and higher values in dealing with his ilk? Spencer got the Spencerowicz treatment by the Jewish Masters who rule America. And as if he learned nothing from the fiasco, the moron goes on Youtube and says he believes in White Domination of all the world, thus revealing himself to be, indeed, a white supremacist. He could have been a defender of nationalism or national liberation from Jewish supremacist hegemony, but his ultimate message is he wants to replace Jewish Neocon Imperialism with Anglo-White one. THIS in the 21st century when the world has been much transformed by so many factors.

Words matter and, in living for what is ‘lesser than oneself’, people(especially on the Dissident Right) might find some true meaning and do some real good in the world. Sadly, the notion of serving something ‘greater than oneself’ came to mean, in too many cases, serving one’s inflated ego or the movers-and-shakers of History. If John McCain had sincerely taken the role of speaking up for the unspoken and unrepresented, he might have been a good man, the true basis of greatness. After all, he experienced Vietnam War first hand. He was a pilot who dropped bombs and killed people; he was also a POW who suffered much deprivation and humiliation. So, he saw the war from both sides: As warrior and as captive of the enemy. He experienced the tragedy of war. So, he could have stood against further wars. In other words, No More Vietnams. Furthermore, he should have known that Vietnam set a dangerous precedent and template for future problems. Not only did the war lead to death and destruction on a grand scale but it led to a refugee crisis that compelled the US to take in tons of Viets and Laotians who’d been promised protection by the Americans. Since Vietnam, US involvements in new wars have led to more refugees, a problem for not only the US but its EU puppets. In the end, the other aspect of the Vietnam War — the ensuing refugee problem — should be the main argument against US involvement in the world. Called ‘Invade-Invite’ by Ilana Mercer and Steve Sailer, it’s been an oft-repeated pattern since the end of the Cold War when the US stomped its boots on Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and etc. And US meddling in Latin America led to (mostly disingenuous)justification for Brown Caravans on the premise that US intervention messed up those nations. Invade-Invite might more accurately be called Wreck-Rescue or Bomb-Come.
Anyway, how sad that John McCain, who was once regarded as a conscientious and thoughtful moderate, turned into a vicious and nasty warmonger. When he revisited Vietnam in a diplomatic mission, he was admired as a peacemaker with the message that even once-bitter enemies can bury the hatchet and get along in the world. That is the true meaning of ‘serving something greater than oneself’. But it wasn’t long before greater-than-oneself became just another egotistical involvement of oneself in History, and of course, war-making is most exciting to people in the game. But then, McCain, never a smart guy, might have been duped in part by Jews who were clever enough to fervently moralize whatever they do(even though their motives were always tribal, supremacist, gangster-like, and ethno-mercantile). "The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." With their power of media & over whore politicians and their collective personality as tribal-gangsters — notice that most Jewish law professors with prestigious degrees think and talk more like gangsters, goons, and thugs than principles scholars — , they wrap all their vile doings and dealing with pseudo-moral blanket. And naturally, a dummy like John McCain fell for so many Jewish Narratives and BS, not least because he felt so flattered to be doted by Jews, the self-promoted and self-aggrandized Holy Holocaust People.

Given the power of words to corrupt meaning and be misinterpreted, maybe it’s better to be more blunt and straightforward. We should say we should live for something that is lesser-than-ourselves. And in a way, this is how much of the world works. A doctor treats people who lack medical knowledge. An auto mechanic fixes cars of those who know nothing about cars. A chef prepares meals for those without culinary skills. So, professions are about providing services for those with lesser talent or knowledge in certain areas of expertise. But most people provide service and instruction to the ‘lessers’ for money and self-interest. It’s about economics, not virtue or good work.
But what if people in the Alt Right, Dissident Right, and Left-Right took it upon themselves to serve the ‘lessers’ out of racial, cultural, and moral consciousness? In this big wide world, there are always people who are lesser than you. Even for a man of 100 IQ, there are many with lower IQ. Even for people with limited skills, there are those with less skills and less ability. Even for people with problems, there are those with bigger problems. And now, so many white people are without guidance, leadership, and representation as most white elites(in government and business) are all about serving Jews, Diversity, Homos, and Blacks. Even "It’s Okay to be White" is investigated as a 'hate symbol' by media and state controlled by vicious, murderous, thuggish, supremacist, and hateful Jews. When so many white people are without representation, it is about time for people on the Right to touch base and reconnect. In the 60s, there was the hippie stuff about ‘touching Indians’, but that was silly and flaky. But there is a real need to touch base with the suffering white masses, the forgotten people. Mythic grandeur is a part of any people and culture, but so is humanism and humility. Those who are overfed on myth end up like Nazis and Japanese Imperialists. Or like Spencer and Crew who acted as though some divine pagan force was on their side as they played fire with Jewish Supremacist Power that crushed them like IDF death squads regularly crush Palestinians. Things might have been different if Spencer was humbler and humanist. He could have said Alt Right is like a white counterpart of the Palestinian struggle for National Liberation. Liberation from what? From Jewish Supremacism. Thus, Jewish Power would have been placed on the moral defensive. But he said Alt Right is like white Zionism, and the implication was that Spencer simply wants his kind to replace Jews as world hegemonists. Spencer could have shamed Anglo-cucks for sucking up to Jewish Supremacism and gained moral high ground. Instead, he presented himself as a white supremacist alternative to Jewish supremacism. Given that Jews are associated with victimization in the Holocaust while the slightest whiff of white supremacism is associated with the burden of the Holocaust, it was a dumb move on Spencer's part.

For the weak, morality is the best weapon. Blacks understood this in the 50s. Jews understood this when they lacked dominant power in the US. But so full of delusions of grandeur and inflated pride, the likes of Spencer could not admit that whites are now an occupied and defeated people who, like Third World resistant-fighters, must learn to push back against the empire. Spencer is simply miffed that the empire is controlled by Jews. He’s fully into supremacism and imperialism.
With his head up in the clouds of Grand History, he failed on all counts. He failed in his reach for the top because Jews above him just kicked him down the ladder. But more importantly, he had no defenders among the white masses because he never touched base with them and instead spent all his time partying with drunken buddies, whoring around, and strutting like god-king-chief of the Alt Right. But having been raised in a bourgeois-aristocratic world with all the privileges, Spencer feels a fundamental distaste and disregard for the hoi polloi.

Serving that which is lesser-than-oneself has benefits, both moral and strategic. Obviously, people who are ‘less’ need more care and attention than those who have ‘more’. Generally, people want to rise high as possible and rub shoulders with superiors while snubbing inferiors. This is due to the naturally hierarchical side of us. It’s like men prefer pretty girls over plain ones, and women prefer handsome men over ugly ones. People want to attend good colleges and live in nice neighborhoods. Such attitude has many positives. It fuels motivation, ambition, and competition. But the end result over time is that many people not only get left behind but are held in contempt as ‘losers’. In current US, the libertarian wing of American Conservatism regards white working class as ‘white trash’, a people to be disposed of by the Garbage Truck of History. And the new so-called ‘leftism’ is all about favoring rich, vain, and privileged homos while having near-zero concern for the lower classes(except as useful helots to be drugged to death with opioids or replaced by foreigners as New Americans). This is why capitalism has to be tempered, and it once was by the power of Christianity. Judaism has a tempering impact on capitalism but only among Jews. It informs rich Jews to care about other Jews, but it says NOTHING about how Jews owe something to goyim who are regarded as sheep, cattle, or dogs by the Tribe. And even the Alt Right, with its hubris and myth-mania, had little to say about regular white people and just went off on too many silly quasi-hipster tangents or playing fuhrer. Alt Right neglected the morally worthy mission of connecting with white people across America and speaking for them. It could have created connections among small towns that dot the landscape of America via the internet. It could have raised consciousness and argued for a healthy and moral living. But how could such be possible when the very leaders of Alt Right were into hedonism, drugs, alcohol abuse, childish antics, infantilism, dumb haircuts, and obsession with Pop Culture?
It’s all very well for a movement to have an elite vanguard, and Greg Johnson with Counter-Currents at least has maintained that. But Spencer failed even in that regard, filling up his altright.com site with mostly tripe. But in order for a movement to resonate with the masses, it has to convey a message and speak in a tone that is directly appealing to them. This was true of communism. Most communists never read DAS KAPITAL but they understood the Bolshevik appeal in its call for Land, Peace, and Bread... just like many illiterate Jews of the Exodus understood what was meant by Land of Milk and Honey.

By connecting with the people, touching base, and creating a white people network via the internet through all the towns in 50 states, something new is possible. On the moral level, it is simply good because doing good is its own reward. If the Power snubs and denies you, go among the powerless. That’s what Jesus and Mao did. Jesus preached to the regular folks. Mao went to the countryside and built his base among the peasants who made up 90% of the population. But aside moral considerations, it is also strategically wise because you will have wind behind your back. If Spencer had formed a mass following, he would have been defended from below as he was kicked from the top. But at the bottom, there was no one to hold out a blanket to soften his fall. He fell hard because even ‘lesser’ whites came to regard him as a conceited and snotty rich boy playing hipster-fuhrer.
And apart from his small cult following, Heimbach got nowhere because most whites were put off by his Fat Fuhrer antics. This is why Alt Right is mostly finished. The ONLY way forth is the Left-Right. By the ‘left’, I mean the real and true left that is concerned with the masses and regular folks(who are being left behind by New Globo-Turbo-Capitalism that favors only the elites). Rightism has to be tempered and balanced by leftism, and vice versa. This is the nationalist and humanist version of Neo-Fascism. Fascism can do so much good and so much evil. It’s like fire. It all depends on how you wish to use it. Fascism was the most honest theory and vision of power in the 20th century, but it destroyed itself with hubris and pathology. A Neo-Fascism must learn from past mistakes, but the Alt Right failed to learn any though it had an ample chance to do so.

Drasilist Principle of the Need to Grow Both Ways — The More We Move Forward, the More We Need to Look Backward

In the current state of political discourse, it’s as if we have only two choices: Conservatism that looks backward and Liberalism that looks forward. Looking backward has its advantages because the past is a treasure trove of legends, lessons, traditions, and heritage. Especially if a civilization is steeped in written memory, the past is indeed a rich country. But looking forward also has its advantages. It searches for new possibilities, discoveries, and achievements. If someone only learned from the past, he might do pretty well but he will be stalled in the status quo, like Ottomans under Islamic orthodoxy or East Asia under Confucian dogma. But if someone only looked to the future, he might become unmoored, lost, adrift, and disoriented. The problem of arch-conservative order is the fear of change lest it upset the sacred balance or the existing ‘harmony’. The problem of ultra-liberal (dis)order is the foolhardy embrace of fads and fashions until culture becomes vain, shallow, and trivial(like so much of the Current West where many grown-ups are obsessed with tattoos & piercings and where many educated people think the highest value is Homomania.
In contrast to such trivialism is the deep-rooted traditionalism of Iranian Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and zealously religious Jews. However, even though they are deeply rooted in tradition, they are prisoners of dogma and the fear of the unknown. The worst example of Liberalism gone bonkers was the crazy community of Jim Jones, a heretical Christian cult that practiced all the platitudes of Love, Tolerance, and Diversity. In recent times, a terrible example of Conservatism gone bonkers was the Taliban that demolished Buddhist statues in Afghanistan out of strict adherence to Islamic laws.

But why does everything have to be seen as a dichotomy? Why are so many people prone to thinking in terms of cops and robbers, as if one has to be either ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, only ‘backward-looking’ or ‘forward-looking’? This is even stranger if we consider that even most liberals are partly conservative and most conservatives are partly liberal. After all, even though universities are said to be ‘liberal’ or even ‘radical’ places, their functions are also profoundly conservative. Universities exist to store, preserve, guard, and transmit the glories of past knowledge. If you attend art school, you learn of the history of art. If you study literature, you read the great masters. If you learn history, you read and ponder about the past. If you study philosophy, you must understand the history of ideas. If you study science, you are taught not only the latest theories but how the history of science led to current conclusions. Also, colleges are inherently hierarchical because admission operates by restrictive standards of ability.
As for American Conservatism especially, it tends to be quite open to excitement, adventure, and opportunities. This is certainly true of Mormons, the majority of whom are socially conservative. But as heirs of the Protestant Work Ethic, they believe in hard work, achievement, new knowledge, and more opportunities. They have lots of ‘liberal-ish’ energies.

One of the strange ironies of American Political Ideology is that the ‘conservatives’ tend to be less knowledgeable of the past and even downright amnesiac. When they say they love heritage, it means just a few generations or loyalty to simpleminded symbols, such as good-ole Country Music, the roots of which aren’t very deep in America. Most American Conservatives have no sense of deeper roots in Old Europe. As more rural folks, they may feel close to the soil but they have little or no sense for their roots in the ancient soils of Europe in which their race evolved. As such, many American ‘conservatives’ are more about guns and anti-literate Evangelical faith. Or they are about the red, white, & blue, the military, and cliched symbols of what makes America the ‘greatest nation on earth’. They are ‘conservers’ of symbols and gestures than of real knowledge or rich tradition.

In contrast, ‘liberals’ tend to be better-read in history, literature, arts, and culture. (To be sure, your average ‘liberal’ is a moron addicted to pop culture, trash TV, dumb fads & fashions, and vanity, BUT, given the dominance of ‘liberals’ in academia and media, it’s fair to say more of them show interest in ideas and knowledge. Some might argue that ‘liberals’ dominate media and academia because both institutions are biased and favor their own kind, and that is surely part of the reason. But I suspect that EVEN IF media and academia were skewed toward favoring more 'conservatives’, they would still attract more ‘liberals’ because more ‘liberals’ than ‘conservatives’ show interest in ideas, arts, and knowledge.

Also, ‘liberalism’ tends to attract the more intelligent because they want to believe that they are changing society for the better. In their minds, ‘conservatism’ is either about being stuck in the status quo or moving the clock backward to the bad ole days whereas ‘liberalism’ is a tireless project of creating a better and more just society. Given the arc of the 20th century, this view of Liberalism wouldn’t be wrong.

However, both ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ fail due to dogmatic tendencies. Too often, ‘conservatism’ has this idea that something has value because it is traditional. It’s a sentimental or even hoggish attachment to certain attitudes or way of doing things. In contrast, ‘liberalism’ has this idea that something must be better because it has novelty value — it’s so exciting! — or represents ‘change’. But truth or meaning cannot be determined by sentimental attachment or want of thrills. Take the issue of ‘gay rights’. Certain Christian anti-‘gay agenda’ people failed because they based their sense of truth on the Bible. So, they never gave any thought to the issue. The Bible says ‘homosexuality is sinful or evil’, therefore, homosexuals must be devil-possessed or just infected with sin-germs. In fact, the truth is some people are BORN with homosexual tendencies. At its base, it’s not a moral issue but a biological one. Some people are born to be tootkins, tooters, fruitkins, or fruiters. But because arch-conservatives stuck to Biblical truth, the discourse on the matter became one of ‘conservatives irrationally attached to ancient texts’ versus ‘liberals rationally enlightened by secular science’. Naturally, intelligent people are going to choose to be ‘liberal’ on the issue of homos and trannies.

But in fact, even the ‘liberals’ were full of shi*. They didn’t stop at the fact that some people are born with homosexual orientation but insisted that, somehow, it is uber-‘rational’ and uber-‘secular’ to believe that a homo-man’s anus is just as legitimate as a sexual organ as a woman’s vagina. One produces poop while other produces babies, but we are supposed to believe this. Or, we are supposed to believe that homo fecal penetration is just as valid as sexual activity as the union of the complementary organs of men and women. More bizarre yet, we are to believe that if a man gets a ‘sex-change operation’, his penis and balls can be turned into a real ‘vagina’. Stranger yet, we are now told that even a man with penis and balls is a ‘woman’ if he declares himself as such. So, penis and balls are no longer strictly male organs. And for all their rationalism and secular acumen, 'liberals' decided to conflate homosexuality and tranny-business with ‘rainbow’ colors. What homo fecal penetration or tranny penis-cutting has to do with the rainbow, I have no idea. But it doesn’t end there. Theses supposedly rational and secular people love to push homo colors into churches, as if there is nothing more sacred to God and Jesus than symbols that celebrate homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting.

If ‘conservatives’ failed on the ‘gay’ issue by sticking to the Bible, the ‘liberals’ failed because they conflate ‘change’ with More Truth. Of course, it is also why so many were duped by communism. Hey, it promised radical change, and it must be TRUE because it will be so different from the existing or current system. So, how true did Marxist or Leninist economic turn out to be? The sanest position on the ‘gay issue’ would have been for both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ to acknowledge that some people are naturally born as homos. That said, it remains that homosexuality is a sexual defect and deviance that have no biological value. Sex is, at the root, a bio-reproductive process, and homosexuals are like automobiles that pass through the assembly line with faulty wiring. Surely, there is something wrong when a man wants to spend all his life having other men ram their dongs up their bungs. Still, it is a natural defect, and we can’t blame homos for having been born and ‘mis’-wired that way.

To be sure, there is a reason why homos have come to such prominence in civilization. In a rough warrior society, men who can’t be manly have little value. But in civilization with surplus food, leisure, and privilege, people seek out fancier things. Homos have an edge in creating such things because they love fantasy, artificiality, and vanity. So, even though homos rank zero in terms of biological creation, they rank rather high in aesthetic creativity. That aspect of homo also need to be addressed.

Anyway, we need to understand a certain paradox if we are have a richly meaningful society. The more we need to push forward, the more we need to push backward. It’s like a rocket rises only by blasting tons of force against the ground. The energy is pushed back in order for the rocket to propel forward. Better analogy is with a tree. A young sapling hasn’t reached very high, and its roots are shallow in the soil. For the sapling to grow taller into a tree, it must also deepen its roots in the ground. After all, without the firm entrenchment of roots deep in the soil, the tree will easily topple over. So, the bigger and higher the tree grows upward, the deeper and lower it must reach into the soil as anchor and source of nutrients. After the great Yggdrasil tree of Germanic Mythology, we might call it the Drasilist Principle.

In construction, taller the building, stronger and deeper its foundation must be. To reach higher, you must dig deeper. And in war, the further one advances, greater the need for a support system of logistics and supplies.
This lesson seems to have been lost in the Modern West. There’s been such an emphasis on progress, development, growth, and change that people have forgotten the lesson that the higher one rises, deeper one must dig. Or the more one wanders, the greater the need for a solid homeland. There is always a need for a base of operation. Once the connection between the wanderer and the base has been severed, the wanderer is on his own, lost and confused... like the Burt Lancaster's character in THE SWIMMER. Imagine Odysseus without a home to return to. A state of permanent exile.
Why did Western Man forget this lesson? Was it the effect of media, academia, entertainment, and political correctness(PC)? Granted, those institutions/industries weren’t always so hostile to moral and traditional civilization, but they’ve certainly become so in the last several decades. Media promote tabloid news, academia teaches vapid formulas, entertainment is degenerate & promotes Mammonic idolatry, and PC tells most people to reject everything but the fanatical fads of the Current Year. Fanatic infatuation with fleeting fashions may seem contradictory, but the human mind works that way. Today’s mania becomes yesterday’s mania, and no one ever learns.

But the problem is even more grave. In the past, the influence of modern academia, liberal media, trivial entertainment, and ideological fashions were countered by four steadying forces: Church, Family, Tradition, and Patriotism. While much of modern influence was good, it had its deleterious aspects as well. So, everyone, especially in childhood, needed more than information, entertainment, theories, and trends. One needed the grounding of something more permanent, deeper, and ‘eternal’. Church, Family, Tradition(sense of history and heritage), and Patriotism provided such emotional, moral, and symbolic needs. But they have all lost prestige and meaning, especially for whites. Churches now hang homo colors and worship homos & trannies over God and Jesus. Family is just a lifestyle option if you want it, so much so that we are supposed to tell ourselves that ‘gays can have kids’. We are supposed to believe that single-mothers are just as capable of raising the kids alone, and men don’t need to stick around. And men and women don’t need to mature and become adults. Even with kids in the house, parents can be about tattoos and piercings. Feminism and Homomania have had a terrible impact on the Family.

There is no sense of tradition when the only culture for most Americans is amnesiac Pop Culture. When people are addicted to constant barrage of new thrills(even if much of them are recycled and repackaged trash), they see little value in ‘lame old stuff’.
And whatever passes for patriotism today is utterly meaningless. It is not about roots and remembrance but smashing memorials, digging up graves, and knocking down statues. It’s about spitting on the graves of ones’ ancestors, a most terrible crime. It is about desecration, not consecration. It’s not about defense of the realm but inviting mass invasion and convincing oneself that it’s great to be replaced by peoples of different races and cultures. So, the very opposite of patriotism is the New Patriotism.

Did modernity grow so demented due to its own inexorable logic? Or was it engineered largely by Jews who wanted to weaken gentile sense of unity, continuity, and morality? After all, it would have been difficult for Jews to gain so much control over whites IF whites had retained a powerful sense of memory and pride in who and what they are. The result was the West as a tree that keeps growing taller and wider but not digging deeper with roots to secure the base. But without the complementary growth downwards as well as upwards, the tree will eventually topple and fall.

I suspect the Jews had something to do with this because they have long understood that the source of Jewish Power derives from Growing Both Ways. The more Jews moved into modernity, the more they had to look into history so as not to lose the sense of who they are and where they came from. Because modernity is so bewildering, hectic, breakneck, and fast & furious, one can easily become lost, alienated, confused, decadent, and/or disoriented. Without roots and remembrance, one could be swept away by the relentless tides of modernity. Therefore, one needed to hold onto a rope of identity, history, and heritage so as not to drift out to sea. Jews are big in real estate and know that taller a building, greater its foundation must be. Jews are big in finance and know that bigger the investments, bigger the reserves must be. Jews control the World Empire and know that the more US military expands overseas, greater the need for a expanding military-industrial complex in the US.
This is the secret to their power, and apparently, they don’t want to share it with other peoples who may become rivals and enemies. Is this a conscious strategy or do Jews subconsciously act this way due to evolutionary traits that evolved from savvy middlemen activities that sought to maximize one’s profits and position at the expense of others.

Anyway, the secret is to Grow Both Ways. The more we look forward, the more we need to look backward. And the whole point of looking backward is to gain insight and inspiration to move forward. If one’s ambition is petty and narrow, there is no need to justify one’s actions that are of little consequence. But if one’s ambitions are truly grand and transformative, they must be justified by the lessons of history.
Of course, this can be done in a bad way. Consider the ways in which the globalist neo-imperialists hark back to the Founding of the United States and the Constitution to justify their insatiable drive for more hegemony by EOJ or Empire of Judea. Globalism’s invocation of the past to justify its ambitious vision for the future is mostly a lie. We are told that American Founding was all about how whites should eventually embrace ‘diversity’ and replacement by non-whites. We are told that Western History teaches us that Western Values are about celebrating homomania, worshiping Jews, and welcoming ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The PC sophists and globalist commissars tell us that Hungary and Poland are against ‘Western Values’ because they want to preserve their race, culture, and territory, whereas nations like UK, France, and Sweden are all about ‘Western Values’ because they not only welcome tons of Africans but cast blacks in white historical roles. According to Globalism, ‘Western Values’ are mainly to lead the White West into extinction.

Cynical manipulators, charlatans, and Machiavellian rival tribesmen will always exist, and they will always misuse and corrupt essential ideas. Then, all the more reason for white people to master the art of Growing Both Ways. Consider a spaceship. If it is only orbiting Earth, it doesn’t have to make much effort to communicate with the world below because of its close proximity. But suppose the spaceship moves to Mars, then to Jupiter, then to Pluto and then heads toward a distant star. Now, its ambition has greatly expanded. But this makes it all the more necessary to ramp up its efforts to maintain contact with the home planet because, after all, its mission has no meaning apart from the plan on Earth. The spaceship is traveling far into the reaches of space because people on Earth want to know about the cosmos. Indeed, it’d be difficult to imagine something more terrifying than to be a spaceman adrift in space without knowing how to return to one’s own solar system and planet. Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR isn’t much of a film, but the dangerous mission makes sense only because it all comes back to Earth. And in INCEPTION, the ultimate goal of the main character is to find one’s way back home where the children are.

Now, it’s been said that the past is a foreign country, and in a superficial sense, it is. But on a deeper level of sentiments and symbols, they and we are the same. Jews know this. Even though today’s Jews are very different from ancient Jews in many ways, the big themes of family, community, continuity, and spirituality are the same. This is why Bob Dylan and Darren Aronofsky feel such great rapport with the stories of ancient Semites in the Bible. If we obsess so much about technology, fashions, and ideologies, we may conclude we have nothing in common with ancestors and the ancients. And in our shallow and stupid age, such attitudes are sadly commonplace. So, today’s idiot millennials cannot conceive of a time when people saw no value in ‘gay marriage’. Pop Culture addicts them to latest fads, and Political Correctness fixes their insipid self-righteousness to the Current Year. As such, lacking in true empathy and imagination, they find it nearly impossible to feel any deep bond with their forebears who were ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘antisemitic’. Jews would love to morally invalidate all of Western/Christian history on grounds that it was ‘pathological’ about Jews. But even if we were to agree that the Western/Christian World was often deluded about Jews, it isn’t very difficult to feel a connection to one’s roots and history.

Anyway, even if all the people of the past are dead and gone forever and even though we must largely live for today, it is a sense of continuity that lends meaning to why we are here now and why we are not only justified in but compelled to work for our people and the order. After all, why do Polish patriots defend their race, culture, and territory? They didn’t create those things. If current Polish people didn’t make Poland its culture and territory, why do they feel a passionate need to defend it and build upon it? Because they know it was made and bequeathed by their ancestors. Also, it was defended with much blood and sweat. And there were tragic periods when Poland faced the threat of being wiped off the map. It is by knowing all that and feeling deeply about it that the future Poland feels justified. If the connective threads of memory are cut off and if Polish people accept Pop Culture and Political Correctness as their main culture, they will no longer feel a sense of roots and remembrance, and then the righteousness claim to one’s own domain will fade. Before UK was invaded and cucked, its culture and ideology had to be weakened. It’s like an octopus will inject enzymes into the bodies of its prey before sucking up the resultant liquid. Thus, the meat of a crab is turned into liquid by the enzymes, and then it’s easy for the octopus to suck it dry. Jews and cucks did the same to Briton. Pop Culture was used to undermine real culture, memory, and mores. And then Political Correctness was used to instill Brits with ‘white guilt’ and with sophistry such as "Britain was always a Nation of Immigrants." Thus, the body of British culture and politics was turned into liquified jelly by the enzymes of PC and Pop Culture. Next, the Jewish globalist octopus can just suck it up easy.
But before Jews and cuck took over Britain, the Brits had a profound and deep sense of their race, history, culture, and territory. They understood that the British could travel so far and be so ambitious precisely because they had a rich sense of history and heritage to draw from as inspiration and guidance. But look at today’s UK. It has lost that lesson, and most white Brits are not even complaining about the looming loss of their nation because Pop Culture teaches them to worship the Negro and PC teaches them that they are the scum of the earth if they believe that Britain belongs to the native whites who have deep roots there. For those who seek to Grow One Way without Growing the Other Way, it can’t be sustained because a people without a powerful sense of where they are from won’t know where to go. If Jews abandoned their sense of history and heritage, they will go the way of Episcopalians who, for all their individual success, are like ship without a anchor, rudder, and mast that is adrift in the ocean without rhyme or reason at the mercy of other forces.

A Response to David Yorkshire’s Review of ZARDOZ by John Boorman

ZARDOZ: Natural Order against the Left by David Yorkshire: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/zardoz-natural-order-against-the-left/

"John Boorman's films are implicitly white, as they address themes that pertain to people of White European descent, whether historical, philosophical or mythical."

Not necessarily. Boorman made HELL IN THE PACIFIC that is about cooperation between Japanese soldier and American soldier. He also made EMERALD FOREST that romanticizes the jungle natives of the Amazon as living in unity with nature. If anything, that movie is most damning of incursions of white civilization into the natural order. Boorman made a movie about Burma in BEYOND RANGOON. He also made a movie where a white woman romances a black man. So, he's not this explicitly pro-white director you make him out to be... even though his themes and treatment would be politically incorrect for many today.

"for the film is a biting satire directed at creamy bourgeois Leftists."

The Order in ZARDOZ is highly conservative, exclusive, and hierarchical. It has a clear division between civilization and barbarism. It was established on a shining ideal of eternity and wisdom, but all that power and privilege has created a society of dogmatism, consensus, asexuality, and/or jaded apathy. The people of the Order have had it so good that they can't value what they have.
Also, they fail to understand the true danger posed by the barbarians because their Order has been impenetrable and impermeable as far as they can remember. They have no reason to regard barbarians as any kind of threat.
And yet, precisely because the Order is so crystalline and immaculate in its conception and design, there is a fear of the slightest alteration or revision. It can only exist as a utopia, a perfectionist order that cannot tolerate deviance from the rule. Perfection is unnatural, therefore fragile, and must be guarded with iron resolve, like the inner mechanics of a Swiss watch. Everything must adhere to the programming.
Originally, the Order was created to expand freedom and potentiality by prolonging life into virtual eternity. But thus elevated into near-god-hood, the main priority of the Eternals came to be self-preservation, and that meant the suppression or termination of anything that threatened the basis of their exalted existence.

So, to say that the Order is just 'leftist' or 'bourgeois' misses the point. Now, it may have elements of what we might call 'leftist' by today's standards. But the Order is really about hierarchy and total exclusion. In its cult of reason and science, it be construed as 'leftist'. In the equality of men and women in the Order, it could be seen as 'leftist' too.
But then,there is no need for manliness because the Order is so secure. Also, as people are immortal, there is no need for sex and love. People are supposed to devote their energies to contemplation and leisure. But all such things have become boring without the cycles of life and without challenges to the Order.
So, it's glib to say ZARDOZ is an anti-leftist tract. It is essentially a call for reconnection with nature, the stuff of life. The World of ZARDOZ fails for the same reason the world of CAMELOT does in EXCALIBUR does. Too much success and power have led to complacency and lazy gossip and battle of egos and vanity. It is only when Arthur drinks from the Grail that he realizes he must be one with the land, with nature and the people.

Boorman isn't anti-civilization or anti-Christian(with its linear view of history), but he fears that civilization and abstract ideas can fatally sever man from nature and its cycles of birth and rebirth. Only with death and rebirth is life revitalized. Prolonging life may overcome death but could lead to boredom, enervation, and dissipation. Even decadence and degeneration. To counter decline and resignation, one may insist on the strict regimen of devotion and discipline, but this could lead to the rigid dogmatism of the Middle Ages or traditional Jewish culture that revolved around almost incestuous obsession with Ancient texts.

But more often than not, too much prosperity and security leads to a deadly combination of complacency and compassion. A carefree naivete that has forgotten the warning of 'Do not feed the animals'. Having been secure and prosperous for so long, they've come to take their well-being for granted and assume it will be painless and joyous to welcome the world with open arms. They see themselves as white jesuses taking care of lambs from around the world. They are innocent spoiled brats getting high on their own delusional virtue. They are blind to the delusion because they've had it so good for so long. They lack the experience of survival & hardship and have forgotten the lessons of their ancestors who had to struggle against great odds to secure the land and build a civilization.
And this is what has happened to Sweden. Too much ease and good life led to ZARDOZ-like conditions where overly well-fed and bored white folks welcome invasion simply because it is 'virtuous' and vibrant, the stuff of life lacking in well-ordered Sweden.

"Ostensibly, the Eternals are all at peace, free from violence and death, and forever young. Their society is democratic and imposes equality on all. (Men's) impotence has led to women becoming leaders along feminist lines in spite of the ostensible commitment to equality."

The world of Vortex is NOT democratic. It is elitist. It is equal only in the sense that Spartan Warriors were equal with one another or aristocrats are equal among themselves. But, in fact, Spartan elites lorded over the helots. And aristocrats lorded over the serfs. So, the Eternals are NOT democratic. They are equal only among themselves, an elite breed of sci-fi aristocrats.
Also, women do not rule the Vortex. Since the realm is asexual, men and women are almost the same. The women in ZARDOZ are not interested in the sisterhood or women's issues. They only identify as Vortexians.

Feminism is about women forming a sisterhood against the men. There is no such politics in ZARDOZ. Rather, female aristos in ZARDOZ work with male aristos to maintain the exclusive hierarchical order. They are more like princesses working with princes against the serfs. They are not about the Sisterhood.

"'Penic erection is one of the many unsolved evolutionary mysteries surrounding sexuality.'... The speech is a look at sexuality straight out of 1970s feminist pamphlets, with the only difference being a smugness in victory, dressed up as concern for the wellbeing of both women and men."

Actually, Boorman's point goes deeper than a critique of feminism. Boorman senses in higher spirituality, Christianity especially, the denial and repression of natural sexual drives. This goes back to the Old Testament. In Eden, Adam and Eve were nearly equal. But there was the Original Sin, and man and woman had to struggle in the world of Nature that was seen as FALLEN. And the divide between man and woman grew wide after the Fall.
In Eden, it had been peace and harmony for Adam and Eve. God provided everything. Adam didn't have to be a hunter-warrior. Eve didn't have to do women's chores. But after the Fall, Adam had to be tough and manly to hunt and procure food. And with all creatures at war with each other, Adam had to defend himself and Eve from other animals. And Eve had to be womanly and do women's things.

Christianity offered a Way out of such Fallen State. Men and women would deny the pleasures and fears of the flesh and redeem their souls to enter Heaven to be with God for all eternity. Thus, Christianity is anti-nature. It sees nature as fallen and sinful. It views human nature as a baggage of vices: lust, gluttony, greed, vanity, etc.
In EXCALIBUR, Merlin mourns that One God comes to drive out the many. Paganism is fading and nature grows silent.

Another danger is an Order becomes obsessed with more order. And this was true of Victorian England where sex was taboo as a subject. Also, the rise of effeminate style among men long predated feminism. It began within the aristocracy itself. Initially, aristocrats were warriors, tough and hardy. But as they accrued so much wealth and privilege, they got fanciful and had homos devise feathers, dress, jewelry, and etc. for them. Look at Tim Roth's character in ROB ROY. French aristocrats wore fancy wigs, used perfume, and powdered their faces.

As for feminism, it's a confused self-defeating ideology. There has been a strain of feminism that was anti-sex. But there was also another strain that emphasized little more than sex. Today's feminists are confused. They go on and on about "Don't grab my pussy" but they publicize their pussies for all too see. PUSSY-ism is new feminism. They are into slut pride and damsel-in-distress both. Also, feminists demand total happiness for women. But happiness for women comes from sexually surrendering to big tough alpha males. So, even as feminists castrate men, they also demand men with mega-dongs to hump them. As a result, we have the funny spectacle of white women castrating white men but burning with jungle fever for black mandingos who act like shameless savages. This is why feminism is self-defeating. The women in ZARDOZ are not like this. They are neo-victorian in their total denial of sexuality.

"Yet this has created anything but an idyll, with particularly the men wishing for death, as Arthur Freyn, acting as the chorus to a theatrical play, states he longs for at the beginning of the film. This introduction, however, is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the film, as it rather gives the game away, Freyn himself exposing that the film is a morality play, who he is and what the film is about. It is unnecessary and an insult to the viewer's intelligence."

No, most men don't wish for death in the Vortex. They are perfectly happy. Frayn and Friend are rare exceptions who secretly conspire against the system. But then, May the female also ends up helping Zed because a part of her also feels that the system is fatally flawed in some ways. She kept Zed alive because a part of her sympathized with him, longed for him. (Later, it becomes apparent that all the Eternals have a hidden death wish as they come to welcome the deliverance of death. But not having experienced violence for eons, they panic and run when the horror ensues. They thought it would be fun, liberating,and innocuous. It is actually brutal and ugly.)

Frayn's intro doesn't make ZARDOZ a morality play but a philosophical theorem. Frayn is not preachy or judgmental. He's a magician, a trickster, an artist. He wants to have fun toying with people. He wants to play god as puppeteer. He is the Merlin-like figure... though with only the semblance of wisdom. He'd been given the job of using the Stone godhead to fool the barbarian dummies. He had a great run messing with the yokels, and he later decides to pull a stunt on Eternals themselves.

He is not primarily motivated by morality but by creativity and artistry. The whole experiment is like a philosophical parlor game for him, and he cooks up a scheme with Friend(who is more serious). He has no idea how things will really turn out. Indeed, he dies brutally like the rest. His experiment finally engulfs him in the horror as well. The master puppeteer, the man-who-would-be-god, is reduced to a pig-for-the-slaughter for the butchers. Frayn is rendered as helpless as Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE.
If the Eternals, in their eons of seclusion, lost all sense of horror, the Exterminators have practiced nothing but horror. It's like hungry wolves set free in a pasture of sheep.
It's like today's helpless Swedes and Germans as deer-in-the-headlights prey to the brutalized arrivals from Africa and the Muslim world.

Even though Frayn takes after Merlin, the difference is Merlin understood the nature of tragedy. He knew what it is like for an Order to fall. So, against all odds, he tried to help Uther and Arthur maintain the order from chaos. When Uther proves to be hopeless, Merlin bio-engineers a super-baby in the figure of Arthur. Frayn similarly engineers a superior figure in Zed, who has the warrior vitality of Exterminators and the intellect of the Eternals.

Even so, Frayn is like a child compared to the wise Merlin. Frayn has no idea of what it would be like for the Vortex to fall to barbarism. It's all just a game that he accelerates... until it finally happens, and then, panic-stricken & speechless, he is slashed with a sword while shitting bricks.

In a sick and dark way, one can argue that the Current Left is like the Friend-Frayn Nexus in their Afro-mania.
Even though the 'Left' pretends to believe that 'race is a social construct', they really feel that white race is deficient, inferior, and missing something. Consider the rise of Rock n Roll(and the fascination with blues), especially in once rigidly ordered and finely mannered England. It was as if whites with frozen souls were thawed, warmed, and heated by the burning souls of blacks. And overly rigid and hierarchical British Society was made looser and freer by black influence in music, style, and attitude. And this is why whites became so Afromaniacal. White boys turned cuckish in their worship of Negro athletes and badass warrior-thugs. And white women got jungle fever from watching all those big-donged black athletes beating up weaker and slower whites. But we know from Africa and Detroit that blackness = savagery and disorder.

In contrast, a people like the Japanese can create and maintain order. But white people are not excited by Japanese who come across as physically shrunken, weak-voiced, servile, lackluster, conformist, and timid. White people are excited by blacks with booming voices, bulging muscles, and dongs-and-butts. GET OUT is about whites wanting to be in black skin.

Japanese can build and maintain a modern society whereas blacks can't.
But blacks can make music and do athletics that excite whites... something that Japanese can't do. Japanese have higher IQ but blacks have more Iconic value or ICQ or iconic quotient.

So, the resolution at the end of ZARDOZ is now the template for leftist engineering via race-mixing. The bloodbath at the end of the movie makes us reject both the Vortex and the barbarism. Vortex was an elitist order divorced from nature, but the barbarism of raw nature is stupefyingly ugly.

So, what is the new hope? Zed and Consuela mate and create new humanity. Zed is a blend of natural barbarism and knowledge. And Consuela is a woman of knowledge who has regained her natural self.
In today's UK, this unity is seen as mixing of the black male as the ideal icon of manhood and the white female as the ideal icon of female beauty. The blending of tough black manhood and beautiful white womanhood is supposed to create a new superior race that finds the balance of nature and civilization.
And that was the appeal of Obama, the blend of black intuition and white intellect. He represented the ideal interracist template favored by the so-called Left. This 'Left' is race-ist in its own way but loathe to admit it. It doesn't see all races as equal or valuable. Rather, its ideal vision is the blending of blackness and whiteness. Blackness represents virility, rhythm, musicality, athleticism, and prowess. Whiteness represents reason, intellect, control, and organization. In ZARDOZ, Frayn created Zed as a kind of 'interracist' hybrid of Exterminators and Eternals. Zed has the body and toughness of the Exterminators but the mind and knowledge of the Eternals. In a similar vein, the current Left prizes the mulatto higher than both blacks and whites as he or she is supposed to represent the unity of black prowess and white proficiency.

It's pretty crazy, but today's LEFT is actually closer to Frayn-Friend's plot to bring down the Order and to create a new order formed by fusion of Afro-vitality and Euro-ability. They feel that this will result from the Negro penis and white vagina. In a way, Frayn is like a George-Soros-like figure who pushes Open Borders to bring down the ossified elite order. He is like the Loki character in German mythology who plays both sides -- gods and giants -- and finally helps breach the barrier that stands between the god realm and the world of giants.

Now, this isn't to say John Boorman had such in mind, or that he wanted Europe to be invaded by masses of Africans. But the satire of ZARDOZ goes far deeper than easy jabs at Leftism. It is about the problem of civilization itself. It is a timeless dilemma. We all want to create and be part of a Shining Order. But every Order, in order to perpetuate itself indefinitely, prolongs itself to the point of violating the cyclical way of nature and man. Thus, the order survives but loses in vitality.
And yet, the condition of man is always between Scylla and Charybdis. An order that lasts too long grows either apathetic or dogmatic. But then, the cyclical way is no circus. The stage of fall, even if necessary, is horrible and traumatic. We can't escape the tragedy of existence even if we wanted to.