Is Reincarnation a sound spiritual and moral idea? Some thoughts in relation to the debate between Kevin Michael Grace and Jennifer Scharf on Luke Ford Show.

Discussion on Reincarnation begins at 1:30:00 in video below:



In the Counterculture 60s, many Westerns expressed interest in Eastern Mysticism. Hinduism was studied by artists, seekers, and scholars for insight and inspiration. Hare Krishna and Buddhism caught on with certain sectors of Western Society. Some came to favor reincarnation over the cosmology of the Bible. There is no doubt that Hinduism and Buddhism are great religions with rich culture and history. But could there be a problem with reincarnation and its implications? If so, what could they be?

For starters, the idea of Reincarnation negates the idea of 'you' or 'me'. According to Judaism or Christianity, there is a specific and unique 'you' or 'I'. Your soul is yours alone. It came into existence with your birth(or conception) and it either dies with your's passing or continues in afterlife. So, you are you, body and soul. There was no you before you(birth), and there will not be another you after you(death). And, other peoples have souls too, but it's their own souls, no one else's. Christianity says there is an afterlife where your soul can be with God, but again, it's your soul and your soul alone. Your soul can be with other souls in Heaven, but each soul is unique and belongs to one being. So, according to Christianity, there is a unique and particular 'you' or 'I' for each person.

If we follow the logic of reincarnation, there is no unique 'you' or 'I'. 'You' or 'I' would merely be a vessel through which an ever elusive and evanescent soul moves in and out of. 'You' or 'I' would merely be a shell. If a soul reincarnates from person to animal to person to animal to person to animal, then each person or animal is merely a 'clothing' for the soul. Each person or animal would possess no individuality or uniqueness. It would just be the latest in a series of vessels that holds the soul. It's like your clothes and shoes have no unique identities on their own. If you go through a hundred different pairs of shoes, those shoes only serve to support you. On their own, they are nothing. If souls reincarnate and pass from creature to creature, then each of us is merely 'clothing' or 'shoes' that holds the soul that moves in and out of endless series of ‘containers’. Suppose a soul passed from a frog to a turtle to an aardvark to a Hindu(named Babu) to a butterfly to a lion to a Mexican(named Pedro) to a catfish to a Negress(named Skankura) to a mold to a snake to a pigeon to a rat to a Frenchman(named Pierre) to you in the present form. And then, after you die, suppose the soul that had been in your body passes to a spider to a monkey to a Vietnamese(named Nguyen) to a mole-rat to an alligator to a bacterium to a squid to a penguin to a Catholic(named Kevin) to a hyena, and ad infinitum. Such process would indicate that the soul isn't any of those things but merely passes through them as temporary shells(like hermit crab goes from shell to shell). Each person or animal would merely be a ‘box’ that momentarily ‘houses’ the soul that keeps moving to other ‘boxes’. So, no human or animal would possess a soul that is unique unto himself/itself. They would merely be a series of puppets through which a 'soul-hand' passes through. Imagine a hand that goes from hand-puppet to hand-puppet. Each hand-puppet would have no agency or uniqueness. It would only seem to be 'alive' when the hand slips into it. But once the hand slips out(and enters another hand-puppet), it would be nothing, and another hand-puppet would be animated as the new vessel for the ever-migratory hand. It's like each of the Muppets on Sesame Street has no unique identity or soul. They are mere vessels animated by the creative soul of Frank Oz with his many voices.

In other words, if reincarnation is true, there would be no unique soul that belongs to Jennifer Scharf alone. Jennifer would merely be the latest sockpuppet through which the ever wandering soul happens to pass. Also, it'd be misconceived to say Jennifer was 'such-and-such person or animal in HER previous life'. All those earlier lives would have been mere sockpuppets through which the soul traveled. Given the fluid and ‘promiscuous’ wanderlust nature of this soul, it would be independent of all the life-forms it passes through. So, the soul in Jennifer would not be HER soul but an independent soul that merely sought temporary shelter in her body.

According to Christianity, each soul is unique to the person who possesses it. While the soul can transcend the body-after-death, it cannot transcend individual identity. So, according to Christian cosmology, Jennifer would believe that her soul came into existence with her birth, and after her body expires, her soul can reach Heaven and be with God. From her birth to the end of time, it would be her unique soul and hers alone.
However, if reincarnation is true, Jennifer would be soulless. What now seems to be her own soul actually isn’t hers. Indeed, this soul that is currently within her would exist even if Jennifer had never come into existence. This soul had been passing through countless series of animals and humans through the eons. If Jennifer didn’t exist, the soul would be in some other body, either of human or animal. It's like virus. A virus moves from organism to organism to organism, be it human or animal. Virus doesn't need Jennifer to exist. It can use other humans and animals as hosts/vessels. So, if reincarnation is true, it means each of us is not unique, special, or necessary because souls would exist independent of any of us. If Jennifer didn't exist, the soul that is now within her could be inside a mule, dog, cat, German, Palestinian, Jew, Russian, rat, rabbit, or Negro. Jennifer isn’t unique but ultimately superfluous. The soul that is within her isn’t hers but merely using her body as a host/vessel, and after she dies, it will pass onto another host. Indeed, this soul was in countless other animals and humans before it found residence inside Jennifer. So, according to reincarnation, each of us is not a temple or a home for the soul(that is bound to its address/identity) but merely a hostel or motel through which the soul passes like a salesman.

Personally, I'm a non-believer and always has been, but the idea of soul in Judaism and Christianity seems more reassuring because it says your soul is yours. It is unique to you and has a special relation to God and time. It's like your own toothbrush than one that goes from person to person to person. If I were a religious person, I would like to believe my soul is mine alone. Why would I want a hand-me-down soul that had been through rats, cats, pigs, pigeons, worms, ticks, Gypsies, drunken Irish, and Negroes?
According to Christianity, YOUR unique soul could enter Heaven and be with God. So, there is a special you, a unique you, after all, and your soul would always be bound to your identity. Your soul would be like a loyal dog that belongs to you alone than a stray dog that goes from place to place without being bound to anything to anyone.

Unlike Christians, Jews don't believe in Heaven, so their souls cannot ascend to the divine realm. Still, even though a Jewish individual’s unique soul fades with death, something of his essence is passed down through his ancestors, each of whom is born with a soul unique to him or her.

Finally, one might argue that the Jewish cosmology is actually closest to how the science of biology works. For starters, Jewish Covenant takes into account the roles of puds & poons and importance of blood. Jewish pud is blessed by God and meets with Jewish poon — the meat must meet — to create Jewish children through whom the Jewish blood/essence continues to flow through time. So, even though Jews cannot pass their individual souls down to future generations, they can pass down their blessed blood/essence through marriage-and-sex that births new Jewish bodies-and-souls. According to this Cosmology, every Jew has both soul and essence. Souls belong to unique individuals and cannot be transferred, but essence passes down through the generations. The passage of the essence from parents to children through sex allows for the creation of new individuals with souls. While souls belong to individuals and are un-transferable, the essence is transferred down the generations from parents to children through the act of sex(ideally within marriage). While this essence isn't the soul, it holds the secret key to creating new bodies with souls.

Now, when we study biology/science, the way of life seems closest to the Jewish Cosmology. Reincarnation says the soul, the core substance of being, can go from species to species. So, the soul within a monkey can move to a rat and then go to a human and then to a snake and so on. Biology doesn’t work like that. Now, one may argue that all of life are interconnected and recycled from the same matter, and this is true enough in a material sense, especially in what we eat and excrete. We eat animals, and their flesh are broken down into nutrients and absorbed into our bodies. And when we die, our bodies decay and become fertilizer for plants. So, there is a cycle of life where animal matter becomes human matter that becomes plant matter that becomes animal matter and so on. The proteins in your body are recycled matter from meat you’ve consumed. Even vegetarians consume animal matter because plants absorb nutrients from dead organisms. All true enough.

But the unique essence of a species — why it is the way it is and different from other species — is really in the DNA, and this is passed down through the generations WITHIN, NOT ACROSS, the species. So, if we were to trace back Jennifer's ancestry, we’d take into account the DNA she got from her mom and dad, and then, the DNA her mom and dad got from their moms and dads, and the DNA of their moms and dads ad infinitum. So, even though we materially absorb other life-forms — carrots, cows, pigs, chicken, and etc — through what we eat and digest, the reason why we are human is because of our DNA, and the human DNA code was passed down through the generations of human ancestors. Human DNA didn't leap from species to species. Granted, humans evolved from apes that evolved from monkeys and etc, but even there, we see a unique line of ancestry through which the DNA gradually progressed. Because Judaism emphasizes the importance of ancestry — the stuff of reproduction, blood, family, and remembrance — it is closest to how biology really works.

Furthermore, reincarnation would suggest that one’s special bond and intimate connection with one's parents and children are merely illusory. According to Judaism and Christianity, you are the product of your parents(who are the product of their parents and so on), and your children are the direct products of you and your spouse. Your body and soul emerged from the love of your parents, and your children’s bodies and souls emerged from the love of you and your spouse. So, family relations are real and deeply meaningful.
But if reincarnation is true, it means your core self doesn’t really owe its origin to your parents. Your soul didn't arise from the love between your mom and dad but merely slipped into your body after having been through a series of bodies, be they a monkey, rat, cat, dog, spider, Mexican, hyena, Negro, and etc.
So, your soul isn't really connected to your parents. While your parents created your body through sex, the very soul within you(which is never 'your soul' since it has traveled through countless bodies through the eons) came from elsewhere because reincarnation says souls are not uniquely linked to individuals or even species. The soul within you could have been inside a scorpion or barracuda in its earlier migration.
Therefore, you’d have no soul-connection to your parents or to your children. Only a physical connection. So, even though you, your parents, and your children are all members of a family, the soul within your father could have come from a spider, the soul within your mother could have come from a dead Hindu, the soul within you could have come from a dead cat, the soul within your husband could have come from a dead slug, and the soul within your child could have come from a dead Negro. Who needs a soul that left a dead Negro?

Human Behavior Is Mostly Animal Behavior - Humans Are Organisms & Will Act on Animal Instincts If Given the Chance

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/02/germany-34-refugees-import-130-family-members-and-second-wives/

Because the West is so rich & advanced and so proud of its achievements in arts & philosophy, there is a tendency among white people to believe that they are above animal drives and appetites. In other words, they are motivated by higher ideals and principles than by base instincts. Apparently, what they are most proud of is their sets of beliefs, the so-called ‘Western Values’. And these values are supposedly all about universalism, tolerance, compassion, liberty, and individualism. And these values are so noble and inspiring that so many people want to come to the West to partake of them, defend them, and spread them.

But this is like putting cart before the horse. All these wonderful ‘Western Values’ are really the product of Western tribal, territorial, and material successes. And even if higher values guided the West in its ascendancy, the rise of the West couldn’t have been possible without certain tribal, territorial, and material guarantees.
It’s like you can espouse moral values to do good things for your family, but first and foremost, you must have a sense of family(who is and isn’t part of your family), a sense of ancestry(history and memory), a sense of home(home-sweet-home for your family), and sense of private property(the wealth that belongs to the family). Without those foundations, any amount of ‘values’ and ‘principles’ is useless. If there is no essential family and if anyone can be a family member, you won’t have any meaningful family to belong to, serve, and lean on. If everyone in the world is your family member, then no one is a family member. The meaning of family would be rendered pointless. Also, unless your family has a place to call their own, their home can be trespassed by just about anyone. After all, if your family home should be open to all the world on the universal notion that everyone is part of your family, you and your family won’t have a home. Especially those people who are incapable of building and managing nice homes of their own will come to your home to leech off you. And unless your family has its own private property, its wealth can be taken by anyone, especially the lazy and parasitic that prefer to live off others than create their own wealth.
So, even as values and principles are important, they can be applied usefully ONLY WHEN your tribal, material, and territorial integrity has been secured.
Even on the libertarian individualist level, your freedom and liberty mean NOTHING unless you can secure the legal and material guarantees that protect you and your well-being from the ravenous appetites of others, especially those who’d rather pilfer others than be productive members of society.

But so many people in the West have grown either naive or decadent because the West was so powerful and prosperous for an extended period following WWII. Entire generations grew up without knowing hunger and war. They’ve grown soft & decadent or naive & goody-two-shoes. They take for granted that good times will last forever. Also, even if they believe the West will fall from excessive Diversity, they feel that it can’t be so bad and, besides, the West deserves it for its ‘historical crimes’. They think that way because they have no idea what real societal collapse is really like. For them, the fall of the West is purely rhetorical or theoretical. They have no idea how traumatic and horrible such an event will be. South African whites know what it's like to see civilization crumble all around you, but the Jewish-controlled media have mostly forced an information blackout to keep white people in the dark about the dangers.
Because Western people take their physical well-being for granted — the main worry even among the poor is obesity, not hunger — , their view of society is essentially abstract and concerned with ‘ideals’ and ‘values’. They believe that whatever is good about the West is PURELY the result of these ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ while totally neglecting the hard facts of identity, materiality, and territory.

So, Swedes overlook the fact that Sweden became such a nice place because Swedes came together as a people of shared history & culture, secured a territory for themselves as a nation, and worked very hard to create industry & wealth(and welfare) for the well-being of the people. Instead, they’ve been made to believe that the success owed entirely to ‘western values’ such as ‘tolerance’, ‘democracy’, and goo-goo-thumbsuckery. Therefore, since the only reason for Swedish success are ‘values’, there is no need to emphasize the Swedish tribe, secure Swedish territory, or guard Swedish material property. It doesn’t matter if tons of foreigners flood into Sweden because they can partake of the same wonderful ‘values’ and make Sweden even better. Also, because Swedes define themselves mainly by ‘values’, they project their idealism onto other peoples. Swedes want to believe that all those Africans, Arabs, and Muslims are pouring into Sweden to partake of those wonderful ‘values’.

But in fact, the ONLY reason why those people are coming to Sweden(and other parts of Europe) is because they want comfort, easy life, and free stuff. Just do a mind-experiment. Imagine Two Swedens, A and B. Let’s say Sweden A is rich & generous but autocratic than democratic. Let’s say Sweden B is poor & desperate but democratic than autocratic. Suppose a million Africans want to move to Sweden. Which Sweden will they prefer, A or B? Will they prefer the poor & desperate Sweden B over the rich & generous Sweden A because ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ are what mainly motivates them? And if indeed those Africans are so idealistic, why don’t they stay in their own poor nations and work hard to improve things for themselves and their own people? Why are they so eager to run from their own problems and find better life in another nation?
The fact is people are migrating to nations like Sweden for a simple reason. It’s for comfort and better material life. That’s about it. Their motivations are no different from those of animals.
If you offer food to squirrels, what do they do? They come for more. And in time, more and more squirrels come to realize that you’re handing out free stuff, and they come too. In time, you will be swamped by all those squirrels. It’s the same with any other bunch of animals. If you feed the geese, they will come for more and make louder demands. Worse, they will alert others, and they too will come to you for food. If you feed the animals, more animals come.
Now, it may sound offensive to some to talk about people as ‘animals’, but humans are animals. Human behavior isn’t much different from that of other mammals. Like any organism, humans seek what is easy and comforting. If you offer an airplane passenger in the coach section a free first-class ticket, you bet he will take up the offer. If you offer a free car to someone on the street, he will surely take it. If you offer free pizza to people, they will take it. When Jesus offered free fish and bread on the beach, a crowd gathered. Ostensibly, they came to listen to His ideas, but, on the more primal level, they came for free fish and chips. While "man doesn’t live on bread alone", he puts bread first before all else. Or that’s the case with 99% of humanity. Just like most people will choose money & success over ideals & poverty, most people who move to other nations have the most mercenary motives for doing so. After all, both the US and Brazil are democratic and diverse. If anything, Brazil is even more diverse. If Diversity is the great ideal for the entire world, most immigrants should prefer Brazil over America. But the fact is most would rather move to the US than to Brazil. Indeed, people who chose to move to Latin America were those weren’t allowed into Canada, US, or Australia. The theory of idealism-as-motivating-factor breaks down here because the ‘ideals’ of Brazil are hardly different from those of the US. Then, why do so many people prefer to move to the US than to Brazil even though both nations are democratic and share more-or-less the same ‘ideals’? The simple reason is the US is richer, and immigrants will have more access to material wealth and comfort in the US. That's about it.
Indeed, even if the US were run by a one-party autocracy, countless people will still want to come AS LONG AS it remains the richest nation on Earth. People are not motivated much by ideals, and this is especially true of the Third World where the cult of idealism is almost non-existent. We are often told that Diversity will effectively turn the US into a one-party state. We are told Democrats will win all future elections since non-white numbers will swamp white numbers. In that case, the US will effectively no longer be a two-party democracy but a one-party dictatorship. But would non-white immigrant-hopefuls be less willing to come to the US for that reason: Erosion of democracy? No, they don’t care if the US becomes a one-party state under permanent Democratic Rule AS LONG AS they can come to instantly improve their material well-being. It’s not about the ‘dream’ but about the cream. Immigrants see America as a dairy cow that provides easy cream for the entire world.

Granted, past European immigrants were no different. They too were seeking better material lives. White people back then were more willing to take a chance in another part of the world because few nations had social safety nets or welfare. Many people were mired in poverty without relief. So, the ONLY way to improve their lots back then was to try their luck in the New World or Australia. Of course, the new adventure wouldn’t be easy. They would have to work on farms and factories from sunup to sundown. But it was still a chance to start a new life. But ever since white nations developed a system of social security, there was far less impetus to leave one's own nation. Even if you don’t have much in Western European nations, the state provides you with enough to make your life reasonably comfortable. If non-white nations could afford similar social safety-nets, many people would be more likely to stay. But for a lot of people in the Third World, having little means your life is a constant struggle just to get by on a day to day existence. So, they figure it’s better to move to the rich West.

One crucial difference between past immigration and recent immigration is that past immigrants had to be willing to work hard, very hard. While the US offered new opportunities in land and enterprises, it didn’t have an extensive welfare system until the New Deal and especially Great Society. So, anyone who decided to come to America couldn’t expect an easy life or handouts. He had to come with the determination to work hard, even harder than in the home country. But it was appealing to many because of the promise of owning one’s own land and because there was a time when the US was one of the few democracies in the world with Rule of Law and Property Rights.
Also, because the US still had to be settled and built, most of the immigrants who came in the 20th century worked at making something out of nothing, which is so different from immigrants who come today to take something from something other people had already made.

Consider typical animal behavior. If you offer food to squirrels, geese, or raccoon, their first response will be like, "Is this for real? Is that person giving me free stuff? No way! But... but, it’s true!" So, initially, the response is amazement and appreciation. But once the animals become accustomed to you feeding them, they begin to feel that you should keep feeding them. They go from feeling fortunate to feeling entitled. They no longer see your as being nice enough to offer them food. They see you as obligated to offer them more food. Indeed, they come to see you as the main supplier of food. And then, they make demands for more and more, and then they call on more of their kind to come to demand even more. And if these animals had human intelligence, they would cleverly wrap their vulgar demands with moralistic gibberish. Moralism is also useful to hide their shame. No one wants to admit that he has failed on his own and depends on the largess of others to have nice things in life. All those people in the Third World don’t want to admit that they’ve failed their own nations. They don’t want to admit that they see the White World as superior and want to move to white lands to leech off white folks. So, they use PC moralism to pontificate that the universal obligation of ‘Western Values’ is to open up white or white-majority nations to the Third World filled with ‘dreamers’ who supposedly are motivated by the highest ideals when, in fact, they just want easy stuff. (If white people expect gratitude, forget about it. On some instinctive level, people feel contempt for the do-goody suckers who dole out free stuff to strangers. Whatever gratitude may exist melts and vanishes like snow as the freeloader is eager to get more stuff from the naive sucker who thinks people will love him because he's handing out free stuff. The fact is the freeloaders see the do-gooder as a fool. They even hate him because his compassion means he's in a position to condescend to them as those-in-need and those-to-feed, like pigeons in the park. The contempt for his naivete plus the resentment for his higher status makes the freeloaders demand even more, if only to see him finally fall to their own level.)

Against such animal behavior, there are only two defenses. You must yourself become like an animal. After all, animals guard their own territory and stuff from other animals through viciousness and counter-aggression. An animal that fails to do this will lose its turf and food to is rivals and enemies. Animals in nature are NOT nice to one another.
The other way to defend oneself is to create a domain that is separate from that of animals. It’s like human housing is built to keep out bugs, birds, rodents, and all kind of animals. Thus, humans can safely and securely live in their own homes without worrying about animal invasions.
So, if you choose to live side-by-side with animals, you must act like an animal yourself. But if you want to remain 'human' and don’t want to be brutish, you must create a world of your own that is distinctly separate from the world of animals. So, even though birds fly above, squirrels climb trees in the yard, and rabbits run on the grass, none of them will enter your house that was built to be safe and secure from critters.
But the current use of ‘Western Values’ in the globalized world is utterly contradictory and nonsensical. It calls on white people to remain in ‘human’ mode while allowing non-whites to invade the West in the most animalistic manner. So, even as non-whites increasingly burrow into the West, build their nests, and set up colonies to leech off whites, whites must remain cool, calm, & collected and pretend that all these newcomers arrived to partake and uphold the ‘highest’ principles of ‘Western Values’ that are now deemed to be Tolerance, Diversity, Inclusion, Mixing, Homomania, Afrophilia, and Hedonism. Even if we were to champion ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ as the highest expression of the West, just when did the values of the West become so insane and ludicrous? For most of Western History, the current set of ‘Western Values’ would never have been regarded as high virtues or even virtues of any kind. It just goes to show that ‘Western Values’ is a Trivialist Fantasy that is currently decided by whomever controls the academia and media.
Of course, the ‘intellectual’ elites of the West happen to be mostly cunning Jews, pathetic white cucks, and resentful token members of ‘color’ who are especially resentful because, on meritocratic grounds, they are likely to remain on the bottom, and so, they gain access to upper echelons only as tokens.

But the biggest contradiction of the Current West is that, even as the West claims to stand for the highest ideals and principles grounded in abstract philosophy and enlightenment values, the main expression of Western culture and politics often tends to be primal, bestial, lustful, crude, and vulgar. Despite the highfalutin rhetoric of politicians and the pomp & circumstances of official ceremonies, the fact is Pop Culture is THE culture of the Current West and mindless PC supplies its core ideological tenets. And what is this Pop Culture mostly about? It’s about brutish black rappers and white imitators yapping endlessly about ‘muh gun’, ‘muh dick’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh biatch’. It’s about violent movies and TV shows where characters’ behaviors are primarily fueled by raunchy instincts of sex, violence, thrills, and/or domination. And so many kids are lost in the video-game world where the main objective is to blow away as many ‘bad guys’ or even ‘good guys’ — how can anyone tell which is which is anymore in a nihilistic culture where violence is its own reward? Pop Culture, which is the dominant cultural expression and experience of the Current West, for the most part has nothing to do with any higher values or principles. It’s mainly about savage black thuggery, slut culture, or vulgar pop fascism where all races and all ‘50 genders’ get to indulge in fantasies of will-to-power.
As for PC, it’s a new kind of ‘progressivism’ that has been kosher-bled of any genuine intellectual & moral content and, as such, mostly wallows in self-pity & self-aggrandizement. Political Correctness is more like Pop Correctness. Just like Modern Art spawned Pop Art, Modern Left spawned Pop Left where narcissism, nihilism, hedonism, and egotism are the most essential elements of the Movement. If Classic Leftism was about everyone making sacrifices for the better future and the common good, PC is about the hope of every loser and dork fantasizing himself to be a cross between Lady Gaga and Che Guevara. If Classic Leftism was about the workers demanding their just share of the pie, Pop Leftism is about spoiled brats demanding stuff for free. It’s no wonder that so many young people identify with immigrant-invaders and illegal-infiltrators. They all feel entitled to make demands. They’re really motivated by animal instincts but wrap their lowly demands with cliches about ‘justice’ based on dubious notions such as ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. They act in baboonish gibs-me-dat mode, but they talk as if they’re owed something by some divine will. If they really cared about Justice, non-whites would work hard to fix their own nations, and young ones would learn some useful skills, learn to be productive, and stop acting like pigs.
Just look at feminist politics that revolve around all this Pussy Talk. On the one hand, Western ‘progressives’ act like they’re above the animal-biological instincts of tribe(our pack), territory(our land), and materiality(our stuff), but so many people on the Pop Left base their core agendas on their race(black or brown pride), genitals(my vagina or ‘muh dick’), and stuff(gibs me dis, gibs me dat). So, the very Westerner who claims to rise above biological determinism and live by higher ‘universal values’ is addicted to rap music and black expressions that reduce the meaning of humanity to savage celebration of ‘fuc*ing and fighting’. So, the very Western female who claims that ‘sex is just a social construct’ weaves her own identity on the fact that she has a vagina. A very confused vagina at that. On the one hand, these ‘vaginalists’ are into slut pride as liberation & emancipation. As vaginas want to be filled and experience orgasm, the vaginalists say the main purpose of their lives is to pleasure their animalistic poons. But then, they say their precious vaginas must be protected from Evil Men such as Trump the ‘pussy grabber’. These ‘vaginalists’ wear ‘pussy hats’ and dress up as walking pooters but then bitch about how their pussy-willows must be shielded from male attention. Feminist literature should now be called ‘Cliterature’.

For a people who claim to rise above biology and mock sex as a ‘social construct’, they sure have a funny way of grounding their identity on their strangely passive/aggressive pussies. "Don’t you dare grab my pussy, but fuc* it all night long."
To be sure, this gets complicated by trannies whose arguments are also confusedly both anti-essentialist and essentialist. Even as they denounce the essentialism of sexual differences between men and women, they also make an alternative-essentialist argument that Trannies are BORN THAT WAY and have no choice but to pursue their own kind of happiness. In other words, trannies are essentially tranny, and what they are(or want to be) cannot be negotiated.

It’s a strange world after all.

Rejection of the Biological Basis of Life is Stupid

So often in political discourse there are those who deny the biological basis of power and relations. It’s as if some people believe that humanity can be governed by ideas and icons alone. They pretend as if nations and communities are organizations formed on the basis of abstract principles. And it is as if everyone is just an individual defined by ideas & imagination in his or her head. It’s as if everyone materialized out of the thin air with total autonomy without ancestry, history, and heritage. So, parents exist only to produce self-centered individuals whose meaning-of-life is to be determined by ideologies, fashions, and entertainments. We can certainly understand the appeal of individualism. Who wants to be told by one’s grandparents and parents what to feel, think, and do? Each person wants freedom as an individual. That said, no individual, no matter how fiercely independent in will & determination, made himself. He was biologically made by his parents who were made by their parents and so on. Also, every individual, no matter how creative or visionary, was born into a ready-made world with history and heritage. Even the great Beethoven was born into a culture of music that he inherited and advanced further. Great individuals expand upon a rich heritage. Einstein built upon pre-existing scientific tradition. Richard Wagner advanced the language of opera. While some individuals have the spark of visionary genius that can achieve more in a single lifetime than most peoples in many lifetimes, they are nevertheless inheritors of pre-existing realities. Stanley Kubrick didn’t invent the cinema nor establish the basic grammar of cinema, but he could make his masterpieces only because others had been there before him.

Consider a soccer ball. It moves around in all directions, but it has meaning only because purpose animates its movement. If a soccer ball were to be randomly moved by wind or animals, it would have no purpose. If the soccer ball could move on its own, it would still have no meaning unless it’s part of a game. It has meaning only when animated for the purpose of making a goal. The purpose of a soccer ball is to be kicked into a goal at either end of the field. So, Team A will try to kick it into the goal of Team B, and Team B will try to kick it into the goal of Team A. Every individual is like a ball-animated-by-larger-intention. Without purpose, a ball is meaningless. A soccer ball or football has meaning in the game. Games are played to score points and win.
The world is always in a state of play and gamesmanship among all kinds of powers, purposes, and agendas. These forces try to either use individuals for their own purposes OR accept some individuals as ‘us’ or ‘good’ while rejecting other individuals as ‘them’ or ‘bad’. In the US, Jewish Power tries to use all individuals, Jewish and gentile, to serve Jewish supremacism. In Israel-West-Bank, the Power favors Jews as ‘us’ individuals(who are to be gathered into a unified force) while rejecting Palestinians as ‘them’ individuals(who are to be kept at the margins of society).

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

Suppose you join the military for non-political reasons. You only want to serve for a few yrs to pay for college and develop some skills. You see yourself as a free individual who’s just minding your own business. But just because you don’t care about politics doesn’t mean that others don’t care. Many American soldiers are apolitical(and signed up only for career purposes), but power-obsessed Jews are totally political, and their main agenda is to steer US power and wealth toward serving Israel and Jewish interests. So, an apolitical American soldier who joined just for career opportunity could find himself 5,000 miles away from home killing Arabs and Muslims or getting killed himself. In the end, his ball-purpose gets kicked by those who have a bigger vision of the game. Just like a soccer ball will be kicked back and forth by the two teams, an individual can never be independent in society. Even if one has no interest in politics, his or her taxes will be used to serve the interests of a group that is obsessed with power. Or his consumer habits, along with those of others like him, will enrich certain companies that have a certain bias. For example, even if you purchase Starbucks products only for the coffee, you end up doing far more since Starbucks uses its profits to fund globalism and homomania all over the world. And if you go gambling in Las Vegas, you are making power-hungry Zionists even richer. The likes of Sheldon Adelson have billions more to spend on favoring Israeli interests.

So, we are all part of something bigger and at the mercy of bigger powers all around us that can hire us, fire us, reward us, or destroy us. Because there is a price to pay for what we say and do, even an individual in a Free Society isn’t very free. See what happens to you if you freely denounce Zionism. If you exercise such freedom, you will be shut out of so many institutions and industries. For that reason, we must be mindful of the powers and forces all around us be they political, economic, ideological, cultural, criminal, spiritual-religious, and etc.
And we must be mindful to take sides. The notion of being above all sides is about as delusional as a soccer ball or football ‘thinking’ it has agency independent of two teams that kick or pass it around. If there is a difference between a ball and an individual, it is that a ball is totally at the mercy of the players whereas an individual, despite being played by both or more sides, can choose one side over others. For example, there are many sides in America that try to win over individuals as adherents, devotees, consumers, voters, activists, dupes, or etc. But individuals can cultivate a sense of what they are really about and take sides accordingly. Jews, for instance, are very conscious of Jewishness. Thus, Jewish 'balls' favor the athletic intentions of Jewish players. Jewish balls roll with Jewish kickers and try to score goals for Jewish Power. In contrast, white balls lack white consciousness and easily get kicked by Jews, blacks, and non-whites against white goals.
Jewish balls/individuals have gained Jewish consciousness, and that lends a sense of tribal agency to their motions on the field. Even if non-Jews try to kick Jewish balls in the anti-Jewish direction, Jewish balls favor Jewish kickers and work with them. In contrast, white balls either favor no side and get kicked by all sides OR they favor the anti-white side because PC has instilled white individuals with loathing for White Goals as ‘racist’. Too many white balls are like loaded dice. Loaded against their own kind.

Ironically, Jews hate gentiles who act most like Jews. The advice, "Do as the Jews do. Disobey what Jews say" will likely drive Jews crazy. Jews know that what they practice among themselves maximizes their power. Jews are into blood-and-soil in Israel. Jews are into tribal networking. Jews are into Jewish heritage and history. Jews are into feeling special, even superior, as a group.
Now, imagine if white gentiles thought and acted the same way. They would become very powerful and could challenge Jewish power. So, even as Jewish balls have tribal agency and favor the legs of Jewish kickers, white balls are either haplessly kicked around by all sides OR work with non-white kickers against White Goals.

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

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

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

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

How important is biology in all this? Everything is biology. Try holding your breath and shut off your lungs. How long will you last? You can claim to be about ideas & principles instead of biology, but the fact is you were born and live as a biological being. Without lungs taking in air constantly, you can’t live. Or, imagine your heart not pumping blood. What does it matter, you may ask? You don’t pay attention to biology and only to ideas. But if your heart, a biological organ, won’t do its job, you can’t live and then you can’t even think of ideas.
Why is murder so foul? Because it’s a biological deed. It stops a life from continuing. Why is rape so grievous, especially if it leads to pregnancy? Because it’s a biological attack on a person. Surely, the physical act of rape is far more serious than a mental fantasy of rape, just like real murder that takes a life is far graver than the fantasy of murder, like in Hitchcock movies.

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

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

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

Furthermore, even reading, writing, listening to music, and watching movies are biological processes. Thinking is a biological process. They all involve the mechanisms of biological organs. Without eyes, can we see? Without ears, can we hear? Without hands, can we hold a book? Without fingers, can we type on a computer or use a pen? Without neurons in the biological organ of the brains, can we think? So, even ideas and icons are all part of a biological process.

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