Showing posts with label conformism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conformism. Show all posts

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Psychology of Social Justice Warmongers — The Addiction to the Hunt — The Predatory Nature of Mankind — Positive Identity of Jews, No-Identity of Whites, & Controlled Identities of Non-Whites — Ways of Empire in Suppressing Subject Peoples


People like peace and order. But as humanity evolved from hunters and warriors, there is also the side of us that exults in violence, craves the hunt, and thrills over the kill. And like hunger, it can never be satiated out of existence. Just like hunger returns, the hunting instinct returns... which is why hunters eagerly await the next hunting season. It's like sports fans soon forget about the trophy won the year before and look forward to the new season. And as horrible as war is, we are drawn to stories of men in combat. One of the foundational literature of Western Civilization is The Iliad, a poetic paean to war and glory. Even so-called Anti-War Movies draw in the audience with their explosions and mayhem that are as riveting as repulsive. APOCALYPSE NOW was presented as an anti-war statement by Francis Ford Coppola, but it was written by pro-war John Milius. Despite Coppola's best efforts at moralism, what came across most powerfully was the epic scope of war, its rapturous reveling in domination and destruction. The most famous scene in the film, the helicopter raid on a Viet Cong village, closed with Colonel's Kilgore's lamenting sigh that "Some day this war will end." Apparently, he's having such a great time that he wants it to go on indefinitely even though a side of him surely knows that war is hell. In the movie PATTON, George C. Scott as the great general admits that he loves war. It is the presence of death that makes one feel most alive, most intensely engaged with the world. The sentiment is surely understandable to those who risk their lives by mountain-climbing or jumping off cliffs with wing-suits. For them, merely being alive is boring. It's just sitting around with a pair of lungs that suck air in and out. They feel truly alive only when they dare death. In HURT LOCKER, the bomb-defusing expert feels bored at home and seems to want to return to battle in the final scene.


Regardless of one's ideology, there is inner drive within human nature that longs for the hunt, the fight, the struggle. It makes life exciting. Why do people go to drama or movies? Because storytelling is about conflict, the battle, the mutual-hunt between various forces deemed 'us' and 'them', 'good' vs 'evil'. We've all been told that the most important element of plays, novels, and cinema is 'conflict'. In that sense, all movies are 'war movies' though the conflict is usually resolved in rooms, streets, and halls of power than in the battlefields. But then, even men-in-combat are little more than pawns of men in quiet spaces, like the War Room in DR. STRANGELOVE or the palatial quarters where generals plot in PATHS OF GLORY. Jews dwell on mental combat; the goy pawns die in metal combat, shooting bullets and getting torn apart by shrapnel.
As Jews control the US, they control the world. Not only do Jews control the goy cuck puppets who direct foreign policy, but Jews decide which nations have access to the vast US goy market. Even though US is mostly goy, it is Jews who decide whom the American goyim can sell to and buy from. Jews have control over our purchasing power. Goyim don't decide whom Jews can do business with, but the vice verse is all too true. Jews do as they please, goyim do to appease... the World Jewry. If any nation is deemed threatening or displeasing to Jews or Israel, ALL of Goy America is directed against it by sanctions, encirclement, or threats of wars devised by Jewish puppet-masters. And as US puppet-allies depend on the US for economic and military support, they too must comply with Jewish demands. Jews not only control the media and finance but get to decide the economic choices of American goyim. If Jews say America can't do business with Russia or Iran, all goyim are made to comply as US policies are decided by goy cuck-whore-politicians of the globo-homo-shlomo Jewish supremacist overlords.

And yet, on some level, many goyim get their thrills in world conflicts cooked up by Jews. They are too craven, stupid, ignorant, and/or dumb to decide on their own as to what is good or bad for their own people or the world. They crave action but lack agency and vision. It's like dogs don't decide what and where to hunt. They are just eager to hunt ANYTHING, and as long as the master lets them hunt, they are happy whether they are running down rabbits, raccoon, badgers, foxes, or wild pigs. The master decides what is to be hunted, and when and where. He has agency and vision. Dogs just care for action and are satisfied as long as SOMETHING is to be hunted. Jew-Goy relations are much the same. Jews have a grand vision of the world. They know what they are all about and what they want. They see themselves as a proud ancient Tribe with Covenant with God or History; they see the world in terms of "Is it good for us Jews and our power?" Jews are more than 'identitarian'. They are 'covenantarian', a far more potent consciousness for it associates identity with history and destiny. Any tribe can have an identity, but it'd be just another identity among many others; an identity could be nothing special; every individual has an identity, but most of them mean nothing to the world; they are not world-shakers. In contrast, being a 'covenantarian' means your identity is special and has a unique place in the world by the blessings of God or design of history.
Now, as Jews are small in number, they naturally need OTHER peoples to serve the Tribe, and it means goy servants must have no identities or, at best, controlled identities. Because white servility to Jews is most crucial to Jewish Global Hegemony, the Jewish Agenda says whites are to have No Identity. Whites are to be 'Nodentitarians' or 'Zerodentitarians'. No-Identity or Zero-Identity for whites. After all, if whites do have identity, they are likely to become white-centric and try to make the world revolve around white interests(as in the past when the Jewish minority had to serve white elites and white nations/powers; there was a time when Jews served European kings and American Wasp elites). To make whites revolve around Jewish Power, white identity must be turned into 'nodentity'. But since humans crave an identity, whites without identity will still seek one to serve, and this is where Jews make deracinated & disoriented whites serve Zionism, Jewish pride, and Jewish holiness. Jews want whites to become like Charlie Kirk. If you want to visualize the essence of Jewish-White relationship in the Current Era, consider Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk side by side.
As for non-whites, Jews allow controlled identities. Jews don't want blacks, yellows, browns, and Muslims to have core identities, or autonomous identities independent of PC dogma. Take the identity of Palestinian-Americans for instance. If their identity were like that of Jews or current Hungarians, Palestinians would emphasize Palestinian nationhood(rooted in a particular history and territory), Palestinian power, and Palestinian future(especially by resisting Zionist supremacism). Such an identity could compete with Jewish identity, especially troubling as Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map. Jews would rather have Palestinian-American identity be defined in terms of grievance toward white 'racism' and 'Islamophobia'(despite the fact that Zionist Hollywood did more than any institution or industry to spread anti-Muslim tropes). Political Correctness is, of course, a game of Grievance Envy where various non-white groups claim to be bigger victims of whites or at least on the better terms with blacks and homos, two groups that, along with Jews, are favored above all others by the Jew-run media. Thus, Palestinian-ness becomes a negative-identity than a positive one. It's an identity of opposition to Evil Whitey than an independent identity that has value regardless of its relation to white folks. Instead of thinking, "I am first and foremost a Palestinian with deep history and national aspirations in the Middle East", the controlled identity of Palestinian-Americans becomes, "I'm first and foremost a victim of White Power & Privilege, therefore defined mainly by my commitment, in alliance with other non-whites, against Evil Whitey." Thus, Palestinian-Americanism becomes a matter of virtue-signaling about 'white racism'. Instead of focusing on what is essential for Palestinian survival and revival, Palestinian-Americans come to focus on forming alliances with non-Palestinians against the Evil Right or 'white supremacism'. And this alliance effectively dilutes and weakens Palestinian consciousness by directing the emphasis of Palestinian politics toward an identification-of-shared-grievance with blacks, yellows, browns, and etc.(against Evil Whitey of course), with whom Palestinians have nothing in common except for the Jewish canard that all non-white groups are oppressed by Evil Whitey in the West. Jews would rather have Palestinian consciousness be generic as just another voice in the anti-white PC mantra than remain distinct & autonomous in calling out Jewish Power for having wiped Palestine off the map and stealing the remaining land from Palestinians in West Bank. BDS Movement that represents the true national interest of Palestinian Identity is to be suppressed. As far as Jews are concerned, Palestinians can have negative identity as anti-white Palestinian-Americans but NO IDENTITY as Palestinians longing for Lost Palestine, i.e. Palestinian Identity can hate whites but not love Palestine. Only Jews are to have a real identity in the US. Whites are to have No Identity, and non-whites are to have Controlled Identities that are essentially negative-identities as they have 'worth' ONLY IN OPPOSITION to whiteness(as orchestrated by Jews).
After all, PC and multi-culturalism never remind non-whites such as Palestinians to cling to their history and culture; rather, non-whites are urged to identify themselves in opposition to whiteness.

Ultimately, the rule of America is that whites and non-whites must, above all, serve Jews and homos. Imperialists have always had problems with the politics of identity because Other peoples with their own identities are less likely to serve the power of the dominant people, the imperial hegemon. Empires could be tolerant and let other identities & cultures survive but only in loyalty & service to the Core Power of the Empire. In some cases, the Imperial Power Dynamics took on a game theory logic of its own. Though the empire expanded from a core ethnic group, the main purpose went FROM the use of power to make the World serve the Core TO ensuring that everything(even the core) be sacrificed to expand the imperial power. There was the danger that the Imperial-power-for-imperial-power's-sake could become the main obsession of the empire. Thus, it no longer mattered if the original Core Group maintained grip on power or not; even if members of OTHER groups gained dominance, it was acceptable as long as the empire continued and expanded. The Roman Empire became like this. The surviving Byzantium or Eastern Roman Empire was mostly ruled by non-Romans. And the US has also become like this. It went FROM an Anglo-American empire that brought over non-Anglos to serve Anglo-American Power TO a World Empire where it no longer mattered which group was dominant AS LONG AS the world was turned into Pax Americana as envisioned by the enthusiasts of the American Century(or American Millennium as the case may be). If not for Jewish Power, the US might indeed have turned into a World Empire without a Core Group at its center. But the decline of Wasp Power wasn't followed up by the rise of colorblind elites but by Jewish-Supremacist takeover; as a result, the US as lone-superpower is now about making the world serve the Jews uber alles. Still, it is interesting how the American Empire went from mainly serving the power and glory of one racial-ethnic group(the Anglos) to serving those of another. Instead of the Anglo-American Empire falling apart like the Western Roman Empire, its reins were handed over to nouveau overlord Jews, much like Roman power eventually went over to non-Romans in the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. But just as the meaning of 'Roman' became meaningless as non-Romans became New Romans, the meaning of 'American' has become meaningless except as access to riches and power, either as lords or servants.
There are various cultural strategies employed by the empire to suppress, control, or manipulate the identities of subject peoples. The empire can paradoxically pose as a 'liberating' agent for the subject people. This is especially useful when the subject people happen to be caught between two or more empires. Then, Empire A can claim to defend the rights and freedom of the subject people from Empires B and C. Or Empire A, B, or C can claim to have liberated the subject people from their own tyrant. It's like the US justified its invasion of Iraq on grounds that Iraqis had to be 'liberated' from tyrant Saddam Hussein. Same rationale was proffered in the destruction of Gaddafi's rule in Libya.
If the empire has much cultural capital, it may entice its subject peoples with the fancy benefits of remaining within the imperial tent. The French Empire was advantaged in this regard as there was much that was glorious about French arts, culture, food, & wine. Use cuisines-and-sticks than mere carrots-and-sticks to seduce the subject peoples into compliance. Use the fist but also the feast. Consider the sheer effect of French cuisine in BABETTE'S FEAST.
Or, the empire can degrade the culture of its subject people into something small and humdrum. Ottoman Turks allowed Greeks to keep their culture, but it had to be humble than proud. Greeks could have their folklore, food, and dance, but they couldn't unite to politicize Greek culture as a national identity. Japanese went further and decided to erase Koreanness by forcing Koreans to take on Japanese names and speak Japanese as if they, as fellow a Yamato people, must forget they were ever Korean. Another imperial strategy is Mass Migration and Diversity. By moving peoples all around, the empire can undermine and weaken the connection between a people/culture and their ancestral soil. Stalin was an expert at this, moving entire populations from all around to replace tribal consciousness with ideological uniformity and his cult of personality.

In the US, Jews use many time-tested Imperial methods to weaken white power. Like Japanese in Korea, they wage war on White Identity and say it never existed. Or, if it really did exist, it was 'racist' & evil and have no reason to exist further. It was so wrong for British and French histories to have been almost entirely white. So 'racist'! Such historical injustices must be rectified with mass-immigration & mass-promotion of non-whites and by retro-fitting the past whereby the great white heroes and historical figures are re-imagined as non-whites, especially blacks.
Jews use 'restaurants' to entice whites into surrendering their nations. Let the foreign hordes with their cooking pots to create the melting pot. So what if you lose your nation? You will have 'better food'? And make white nations 'include' tons of non-whites to boost Diversity, now a Magic Word that has so many idiots believing that Diversity is a magic panacea for everything when, by and large, less diverse nations are much better off than diverse ones around the world, the only exceptions being homogeneous black nations like Haiti and those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Granted, just like Turks tolerated humble Greek culture, Jews do tolerate humble whiteness like the Amish who have NO chance of power or influence.
In a way, the Jewish Empire is more problematic than goy empires of old. At the very least, White Imperialists were willing to embrace non-white subjects as 'fellow Christians'. Communist Imperialists(like Russians for example) of one nationality were willing to accept communists of other nations as fellow comrades. And white Americans came around to a compromise, whereby both White Americans and Non-White Americans would primarily be 'American' and meet in the middle as 'fellow countrymen'. Furthermore, there were British and French Imperialists who were willing to regard non-white subjects as Fellow British or Fellow Frenchmen.
In contrast, Jews are NOT willing to regard non-Jews as New Jews or Fellow Tribesmen. And yet, they want total control over other peoples. As brutal as imperialism often was, there was still a generosity of spirit in Christian Imperialists willing to regard the conquered as fellow Christians. Or in the cases of the British and French imperialists willing to accept loyal non-white subjects as 'British' or 'French'. Or in the Japanese acceptance of Koreans as 'Japanese' even though Koreans weren't give a choice in the matter. But Jewish Imperialists don't regard their subject peoples as Fellow Jews, and the only time they invoke the meme of 'fellow white people' is to berate white goyim about 'white privilege' when, if anything, it's the Jews who got the most power and privilege. Jews are totally stingy with their own identity. Israel is for Jews only, and Jewishness is a closed club. And yet, the Jewish-American Empire expects non-Jews to serve Jewish glory unconditionally and wholeheartedly, indeed like the faithful are supposed to serve God. On some level, Jews surely sense this is a tall order that reeks of hypocrisy as well as tribal supremacism.
And this is why Jews have promoted Globo-Homomania as the main proxy of Jewish Hegemonic Power. While only Jews can be Jews, there are homos in every nation and group, and those homos can serve as agents of Jewish Global Power. Jews know that homos in every nation feel some degree of alienation from their core culture and tend to be vain & narcissistic in their nihilistic self-aggrandizement, therefore willing to betray their own people, nation, and culture for their own 'pride' as neo-aristos. Jews also know that homos have special talents and tend to be more driven, making them more successful than on average, like the homo guy in NO WAY OUT who always has a facial expression like he sucked cock in the washroom a minute before. And homo collaborators around the world know there are rich rewards for sucking up to Jews. Consider Palestinian homos and trannies who work with Israel because Jews finance the celebration of globo-homo. Homos of all stripes are so diva-like that they will even sacrifice their own nation & people for catwalks at fashion shows and the attention of paparazzi.
Anyway, what can be said about the human nature that thirsts for the hunt? When American Indians were forbidden to hunt and turned into farmers, many of them no longer felt alive. In BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, the men are glad to be back home but realize they are 'nobodies' back in civilian society. War was hellish but they were heroes and tough guys. But in the world of peace, they are clerks and salesmen selling sodapop to teenyboppers. It's like retired boxers often hanker for life in the ring because, as brutal as it was, it made them feel most alive as warriors who held nothing back to the cheers of the masses.
Even though Oliver Stone's trilogy of Vietnam films are considered to be Anti-War, the fact that he revisited the subject repeatedly suggests that he felt most alive in war. Besides, his SALVADOR is less anti-war than pro-revolution, a form of war against the existing order. And his works such as ANY GIVEN SUNDAY and ALEXANDER leave little doubt that he is as obsessed with the Hunter Nature of Man as Patton was. And it's telling that George Lucas, who considers himself a Political Liberal, made his mark on Movie History with the series STAR WARS, which is about nonstop warmongering in outer-space. And for all their rhetorical denunciations of 'fascism', all those Hollywood Jews now rake in most profits from movies that exult in mega-violence carried out by cool superheroes and supervillains, both of whom revel in what could easily be characterized as 'fascist tropes'. And for all the association of blacks with 'social justice', the dominant black expression is Rap Music that is all about the thug-hunter and neo-jungle-warrior obsessed with guns, fighting, murdering, and raping. And even though Jews tend to loathe traditional military culture of America, they sure love to sign up for the Israeli Military and gun down Palestinians. Jews also denounce the Gun Culture of America but have no problems with gun-ownership in Israel because it means the Jewish majority population are armed against Palestinians.
Serving in the US military is for White Goy Suckers who aren't allowed to fight in the name of European-American Identity. Jews, such as David Brooks' son, join the ISRAELI Military, and they explicitly serve Jewish Identity & Interests. No problem with Jewish militarism and Jewish gun ownership.
Just because the hunt is over doesn't mean that the hunter-instinct is gone and done with. Just because the war is over doesn't meant that the warrior-instinct is over. Granted, there is no single human nature. Human nature is both individual and social. It is both aggressive and defensive. It is both self-interested and selfless. Every man can be greedy and generous. Some people have more of a certain nature than another, but few people are entirely one thing or another, which would be pathological. Some people are clearly more greedy than generous, while others are the reverse, but even greedy people can be remarkably generous, and even generous people can be overcome with greed.
Dogs have been bred to be far less aggressive than wolves, but wolf-nature is always there in the dog. Even the mildest dog can lurch into predatory mode and suddenly chase after rabbits. Cats and dogs may feel close to their masters/owners and appreciate the comfort of home, but they are also eager to go outdoors and run around in hunter-mode. Granted, as pets, they are allowed to act out their predatory instincts in ways that are acceptable to and approved by the human community. As such, we may think of them as 'good dogs', but they are still acting out their bloodthirsty wolf nature. Jews regard goyim as human dogs, and they've trained scum like Antifa to act out their hunter-instincts by going after 'nazis', which is just about any white person who says NO to cuckery to Jews. Even though the aggressive hunter-nature of Antifa dogs is being exploited by Jewish Power, they are too stupid to realize they've been led around on a leash and believe themselves to be devotees to the higher cause of justice. Antifa is essentially a sports club for weaklings like Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. The kind of people who join Antifa could never cut it as alpha males in athletics or get the best girls. So, they cover their faces and pretend to be tough guys at war with 'Nazis' when they aren't even smart enough to realize they're tools of the Establishment.
There seems to be a similarity between people characterized as warmongers and those who are called 'woke'; they could be called 'woke-mongers'. Both suffer from an addiction to the endless hunt, endless conflict, endless conquest. A warmonger hates peace even as he claims the next war is necessary for peace and order around the world. Even when wars end and their objectives have been met, warmongers must find new reasons to wage more wars, cold or hot. The military establishment seems to be full of them, the New Pattons who never say NO to prospects for new conflicts. It's their chance to go globo-hunting again around the world. Wars for them is an endless hunting season to bag new trophies. They are Game Theory Hunters. Granted, there are plenty of sane men in the military who understand the tragedy of war and regard war as an 'evil necessity' of the last resort. Still, many people who join the military tend to be the type with a penchant for aggression and destruction. Chickenhawks in civilian government can be even worse. At least military men feel pangs of conscience about needlessly expending the lives of their men.
But the hunter-instinct need not be restricted to use of lethal weaponry. Power manifests itself in myriad ways, and the Warmonger Mentality is alive and well in all fields. Just like there is no Final War for the warmonger who is always eager for more wars, there is no Final Progress for the Woke-mongers. They feel this obsessive need to find the New Evil and stamp it out. An extreme form of this was the Trotskyite Theory of the Permanent Revolution, whereupon there would be infinite new upheavals even after the triumph of communism. Mao Zedong unleashed the Cultural Revolution in 1966 on grounds that, without new campaigns and renewed vigilance, the reactionaries will regain power. But, such fanaticism often leads to a kind of cannibalism. After all, if all the bourgeoisie have been destroyed, whom should the new campaigns target? In communist nations, it often led to one bunch of communists accusing other bunch of communists of being the 'bourgeoisie'. Communists came to devour other communists, a bloodier replay of radicalism gone off the rail in the French Revolution. Worse, such blood-thirst fails to consider that, maybe just maybe, there is some value to the bourgeoisie in the development of modern economies, a fact that Karl Marx himself admitted in his observation that the industrial revolution was the product of the bourgeoisie. But then, fanaticism abhors complexity and ambiguity, insisting that history and the world be divided into Simple Good vs Simple Evil. Even Marx, for all his deep thinking, succumbed to the simplistic formulations of radicalism.
Some may argue that Woke-mongers or Wokesters are motivated more by ideology than by instinct, but this is doubtful. After all, if ideology premised on logic & principles matters most to Woke-mongers, why has 'progressive' thought been so malleable, illogical, contradictory, and childish especially since the end of the Cold War? It seems the new 'progressivism' is more about animal-like emotions of Outrage than cerebral understanding of reality and the world. The what and why of human events hardly matter to these Wokesters. And notice that they don't decide on their own as to the terms of their so-called progressivism. Rather, they are told what to be outraged about and then run after it like dogs after rabbits. The only 'agency' they have is in the tendency to be MORE outraged than the next person. So, if they are told that 'homophobia' is bad, they never question the validity of 'homophobia' as a concept but only go the extra mile to dig up another bone where others failed to. It's like the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution never questioned Maoism itself. Instead, they only competed among themselves on who was more 'woke' on Maoism. It's so much like dog behavior. When made to chase after rabbits, they never ask why they should chase rabbits or why they shouldn't chase after other animals. They just compete among themselves to hunt down the most rabbits.
If there were a core logic or principles to current 'progressivism', it wouldn't be so easy to manipulate or alter. Indeed, old manifestations of progressivism did have some core logic or meaning to them. And the radical socialism of Marxism also had its core tenets. In contrast, current 'leftism', 'progressivism', or 'woke-ism' seems to have no rhyme or reason except What-the-Jews(and-their-Homo-Allies)-Want. So much of what goes by the name of 'leftism' has no relation to classic leftist principles or broadly defined goals. We are to believe that Wall-Street-funded-homos working for the Deep State to wage wars with the Pentagon against nations hated by super-rich Jews is about being 'woke'. The new 'leftism' is about Jewish-funded Antifa serving as the thug force of Wall Street and capitalist oligarchy to shut down peoples who dare voice opposition to globo-corporatism.

In a way, the instinct came to override ideology because we live in a post-literary and post-intellectual age. With the rise of Image Culture via Electronic-Idolatry, people's sense of the world are shaped more by celebrity, adulation, pageantry, and hype than by books, theories, and ideas. Specious is favored over the serious, the trivial
over the trenchant. Communists in the past had serious blind-spots, but they still knew what they stood for in terms of core ideology, and for sure, they were not about celebrating homo vanity backed by Wall Street and the Gaming Industry. Given their core principles, such was unthinkable. The same could be said of Christian Churches in a more serious and devout time. The very thought of desecrating churches with homo 'pride' flags would have been deemed sacrilegious, like the vandalizing of the Madonna statue in THE EXORCIST(though one could argue that William Friedkin's horror classic was really a desecration of Christianity under the guise of sanctimony). But beginning with the rise of youth-centrism and mania for pop culture(especially with TV in every room) in the late 50s, we ended up in a world where most people's idea of Good or Evil came to be determined by hysterics of fad and fashion. Without serious ideological or philosophical underpinning, the worldview of the majority is entirely at the whim of media-manipulators. Given the sign of the times, if THE EXORCIST were released today, people are likely to see the devil-possessed girl as 'woke' and 'empowered' like the many 'amazing' child trannies now promoted by the sick Jew-run media.
Another problem is that Jews went from ideology to identity. While identity was always a key factor among the Tribesmen, many Jews in the past never thought they would come to rule the US(esp as the sole superpower). As such, Jews thought they had a better chance at power, protection, and influence by championing certain universal ideas and principles. But as Israeli-Zionist Pride and the Holocaust came to define Jewishness, Jews came to favor identity over ideology. Also, as they grew in power and gain hegemony over the US, they began to think less in terms of "We-the-People against Wasp Privilege" than of "How do we Jews remain on top?" Granted, Jews continue to employ the Old Progressive Narrative of Non-Wasp Diversity united against the White Privilege of Wasps, and enough dummies still fall for the trick, but such has no resemblance to reality. Jews are no longer a bunch of Spartacuses leading the unwashed masses against Wasp Privilege. If anything, they are the 'New Wasps', the new ruling elites. Amusingly enough, the Wasp Elites have attached themselves to Jewish Power as total cucks like the Romneys and the Bushes. In the past, Jews were likely to side with the White Working Class(of all ethnic groups) against the Wasp elites, but today, they are more likely to work with cucky-wuck Wasp elites against the White Working/Middle Class who are demeaned as the 'deplorable' representatives of 'white supremacism'. (For one thing, white 'deplorables' are not 'white supremacist' in their thinking. Unfortunately if anything, too many of them are more likely to support the Jewish Supremacism of Zionists than think of their own people. Secondly, even if they were 'white supremacist', why should it matter when they have no power? Supremacism without power is like a palooka pretending to be the champion. Why should it bother anyone? Of course, what Jews really fear is not white-nationalism-as-the-latest-manifestation-of-white-supremacism but white nationalism as insistence on white national liberation from Jewish Supremacism that insists that white goyim serve as Janissary for the hegemony of World Jewry. What a strange world we live in when so many 'conservative' Christians practically worship Jews, the very people hellbent on desecrating Christianity with Homomania or Queertianity. Christian 'conservatives' are so reverential toward Jews that some are even coming around to waving the 'gay pride' flag as what conservatism and Christianity are all about.)

Because of vast demographic changes, the replacement of literary/ideological culture with an electronic/idolatrous culture, Jewish elites' refusal to admit their supremacist control of America(while pretending that the 'white privilege' of the 'deplorables' is the main threat to justice & peace), and general vulgarization of society, ours is a truly chaotic time in terms of reality vs perception. So much of what people think and 'know' is at odd with the truth and how things really are. But many seem not to mind, especially among the 'progressive' or 'social justice warrior' types because what they really after is not the truth and understanding but constant rushes of righteousness. They are all about feelings, with which they are satisfied in their convictions of right and wrong. (In the past, liberals were more likely to question the prevailing morality, the official dogma, or the social norm, whereas conservatives were more likely to accept it on habit or faith. In the present, conservatives are more likely to reflect on and resist what the Power commands as the Good. In a dominantly conservative order where most people stick with tradition, the liberals stand out as relative free thinkers who are willing to deviate from the established norm. But in a society where constant change has become the norm, the liberal-minded are likely to conform to the latest trends without thinking. As liberal pride is premised on enthusiasm for change, liberals face the danger of losing their critical faculty in their gushing adoration of the New. In contrast, the conservative, being less enthralled with the conceit of change as progress, is more likely to question the existing power and its agenda. In a way, liberal conformism in a liberal age is more dangerous than conservative conformism in a conservative age. While tradition can be foolish, it has the pedigree of deep history and experience over the ages. Thus, the core tenets of conservatism are often fundamentally sound. In contrast, liberalism's faith in change overlooks the fact that its truisms have yet to pass the test of time. So, if conservatives at least bet on what has been proven to work, liberals place their faith in new ideas in uncharted territories. Faith in experience is usually a better bet than faith in experimentation. Liberal experimentation is valuable ONLY IF done with caution as, after all, every new hypothesis in science or idea in technology is approached with caution, like wandering through a minefield. Furthermore, while one can be a true conservative in a ultra-conservative world, one cannot be a true liberal in an ultra-liberal world. If the essence of liberalism is critical thought, skepticism, and acceptance of controversy, such cannot survive in an ultra-liberal order where liberals are expected to forgo their individuality and critical acumen in favor of conformist commitment to the cause of change for change's sake. This is why Norman Mailer said freedom is truly endangered when even liberals give up freedom for dogma. If the great value of liberalism was the will to break out of the conservative shell in the name of freedom, what freedom is left when liberalism turns into a blind quasi-totalitarian commitment to change as decreed by Big Brother or Big Money?)
So, as long as the Social Justice Warmongering or NPI types are given something to feel outraged or angry about, they are content. It's like dogs are content as long as they are given something to bark at, something to chase after, something to bite and maul. Some on the militarist right are the same in their basic psychology. Men like John McCain and John Bolton don't really care about the What or the Why AS LONG AS they are given something to be outraged about, beat the drums of war, and flex their muscles as 'tough guys' or 'men of importance'.
If Jews were weak while the US were ruled by Arab-Americans, these cuck-dog white men would be barking for their Arab masters and beating the drums against Israel. While all people are capable of moral outrage and finding righteous emotional satisfaction, there are those who need to really understand what is going on and why. They want to feel righteous about WORTHY matters and causes in the Real World. They don't want to waste their passions on something as dumb and trashy as the Pussy March where a whole bunch of spoiled privileged brats played at being 'oppressed' because Monster Bitch Hillary, the favorite of the Deep State and War Department, failed to become president.
When the US was a more serious nation with men and women grounded in deeper creeds like Christianity or concerned with genuine intellectual ideas, they were less likely to be at the whims of fashion. Passion rooted in deep faiths or big ideas are less likely to bend to every new social trend that comes along. But religious roots have withered away. Cultural traditions and customs are almost non-existent. And the so-called End of History means that the Age of Ideas are over. All that is left for people to do is, "Don't Worry, Be Happy." But the so-called End of History didn't bring about the End of Human Nature that craves something to 'hunt' and something to feel excited over, be it politics or pop culture(though the two are increasingly difficult to tell apart). But without religion, roots, or deep ideas, what are people supposed to get all excited about? What great cause can they believe in? What noble value can they defend in a world defined by vapid consumerism? Well, the Jewish Power decided that the deracinated and 'devaluated' population can be manipulated by propaganda, pop culture, and advertising into moral outrages over just about anything. As most Americans have no Core Values or Essential Understanding of anything, their 'truth' is whatever happens to be hot at the moment. As unthinking dogs, their idea of Good or Bad is about turning their ears to the latest signals from central command and seeking the approval of like-minded drones. Since most of them are dogs and sheeple, few have the agency to decide what is Good or Bad on their own. They are like TVs with antennas that can pick up signals but cannot produce autonomous programs. The 'programs' are concocted and controlled by the mavens of mass media, entertainment, and state propaganda, and needless to say, the most important contingent of this power is Jewish and Homo.
The current Wokies are so stupid that they are utterly unawares of the contradictions of all the nonsense they spout. And this is true of Wokies in elite institutions as well as in lower ones. Elite institutions have plenty of people with intelligence, but high IQ is useless without emotional maturity and core virtues such as courage and integrity. Being emotional children, even high-IQ Wokies are easily swayed by the passion of the moment without questioning. They just love the FEEL of being swept along on the waves of righteous indignation and preening self-regard. Granted, righteousness can be as vexing as comforting. If one is outraged 24/7, he or she will have to pay an emotional toll, no matter how justified he or she may feel. Furthermore, self-righteousness can easily turn into a pissing contest of who is MORE righteous. Also, as righteousness is now so wedded to identity, white wokies must try ever so harder to be 'righteous' because whiteness is blamed for just about anything. But black wokies can become frustrated too. On the one hand, the official dogma says blacks are noblest and coolest... but the reality says blacks lag behind other groups in so many fields. How is it that intrinsically cooler and nobler blacks are less accomplished than other races in everything but sports and pop music? This discrepancy drives many blacks crazy. Also, black males are far more prized by pop culture than black women are, a reason as to why so many black women are 'angry'. Also, the so-called 'intersectionality' tends to lead to political gridlock than unity. After all, what happens to an intersection when cars come from all directions? The traffic drastically slows down. There could even be crashes. Indeed, 'intersectionality' has to be one of the dumbest ideas in politics as the identities, values, and leanings of the various ethnic, cultural, and sexual groups have little or nothing in common. PC says we must respect Islam and Globo-Homo both. It says we must be feminist but also support tranny men beating women in sports. It says Jews and Muslims are united against Evil Whitey, but in fact, Jews are eager as ever to make Evil Whitey destroy Muslim lands while whispering into Muslim ears that Jews and Muslims must work together to destroy white Europe and white America. We are told that race is just a myth, a social construct, but it is the so-called Liberal Media that disseminate so much of 'racist' or 'progracist' propaganda whereby the various races have been pigeonholed into familiar stereotypes. Consider the black-male-white-female pairing in popular culture. It's not about colorblindness but based on the perception/proposition that black males, as the top males, are most deserving of white women as the most desirable females.
Also, PC's clampdown on free/honest speech has less to do with attempts to eradicate 'racism' and supremacism than to conceal them as practiced by the globalist elites. After all, even honest 'bigoted' speech is more revealing of the truth and in waking people up to reality. For example, suppose someone in the Deep State said, "We admire Jews as the high-IQ superior race, and we will serve Zionist power to bash and destroy all those dumb worthless 'Muzzie' Arabs, a bunch of subhuman camel jockeys." That would be nasty stuff, but it would expose what US foreign policy is really about. And then, the American people might wake up and stop supporting Zionist hegemonism around the world. In order for the Jewish-controlled Deep State to make the American foreign policy palatable, it pretends that the US respects Muslims and that American power is a fair arbiter to all sides in the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, that is a fiction. US foreign policy IS Jewish-Zionist-supremacist, but that fact has to be covered up to justify Wars for Israel against Muslims. And in order to mask the Jewish Supremacist nature of supporting Israel over Palestinians, the US must pretend that pro-Israeli policies are not about Jewish supremacism but about protecting poor poor Jews from 'another holocaust' at the hands of 'Anti-Semites'.
Likewise, the anti-black policy of urban gentrification is most effective when anti-black rhetoric is suppressed. To DO the anti-black thing, one must suppress anti-black speech lest people realize what is REALLY happening. For instance, suppose gentrifiers spoke HONESTLY about their agenda. They'd say something like, "Too many blacks act like crazy niggers. They commit too much crime and mess up entire neighborhoods. Blacks are the biggest destroyers of cities. Just look at Detroit or Baltimore or any place where blacks gained the upperhand. To make urban living amenable to affluent whites, Jews, and Asians, there must be ways to drive urban blacks out of many parts of the city. And there must be ways to lock up many black males because, out in the streets, they have a tendency to act like louts and thugs." That would be honest speech, but it would also give the game away. White/Jewish gentrifiers would no longer be able to conceal their true agenda, and blacks would wake up and realize what is really being done to them. So, in order to gentrify and drive the problematic blacks out — the Black Nakba or Blakba — , the Power must suppress free/honest speech that spills the beans and gives the game away. Speak BS and Carry out the Plan, a more effective way than 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick'.

Anyway, the so-called Social Justice Warriors might as well be called Social Justice Warmongers. Just like warmongers feel stifled and constricted in peace time and crave more wars to feel truly alive, social-justice-warmongers can never feel at ease because they feel alive only when AT WAR against some evil. As most Social Justice Warmongers are pretty dumb, stupid, or insipid, they are incapable of assessing what is really wrong with the world. Thus, like dogs, they are vulnerable to manipulation by those who hold the whip-hand in media, academia, and deep state. Incapable of seeing with their own eyes or hearing with their own ears, they need to be told what to be outraged about, what to bark at, and what to bite in the ankle. Thus, they have far more in common with the likes of John Bolton and John McCain than they would ever realize. McCain, Bolton, and the Social Justice Warmongers crave the hunt, the fight, the crusade. But being feeble-minded, they have no way of surveying the world and seeing what is really wrong with it. Rather, they depend on their Masters to tell them what to growl about. And in both cases, the Masters are Jews. Jews order the likes of McCain and Bolton to wage Wars for Israel. "White dog, go attack Muslims and Russians." And Jews order Social Justice Warmongers to bark and bite at white identity and white pride. In a way, both sets of dogs are complementary in service to Jewish interests. After all, in order for Jews to make whites suppress their own identity & interests to serve Jewish Power, white identity must be disparaged and vilified. Thus, the likes of Bolton and McCain(and Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney) have been well-trained and groomed to never do anything that is in the interest of white people. By fanning anti-white rage among the Progs, Jews effectively castrate white identity. Then, without an identity and interests of their own, whites have no choice but to be dogs to another identity and its sets of interests, and of course, it is Jewish and Zionist. Yes, the world spins around the axis of Jewish supremacist neurosis, and white goy warmongers and Social Justice Warmongers are two sides of the same shekel.

Monday, January 7, 2019

Commentary on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb's IQ Controversy on Twitter



In a way, maybe Nassim Nicholas Taleb speaks a certain truth about IQ, at least in the socio-political sense if not so much in the cognitive-scientific.

Now, IQ can tell smart apart from the dumb, but it is now essentially a ideo-economic tool used by the IYI('intellectual-but-idiots') to favor their own kind. The great contradiction of the Current Order is that the 'right' supports the concept of IQ whereas the 'left' tends to suppress it, BUT it is the 'left' that benefits from it far more than the 'right' does. Look at all the elite academic institutions that rely on IQ-esque tests, and they are totally 'leftist'. So, even as the 'left' tends to downplay IQ, it is the biggest beneficiary of it. And even though the 'right' emphasizes IQ, it is the biggest casualty of it. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of IQ meritocracy, the Jews and the 'left', use all their power to shut down the 'right'.

Even if affirmative action were to be eradicated and pure meritocracy reigned supreme, the fact is the elite institutions will remain 'leftist' and anti-'right'. Why? Because people aren't just rational beings but righteous beings, and 'leftist' ideology is simply seen as more on the side of 'justice'. (Also, the modicum of 'diversity' on campus gives the elites the justification for their own position and privilege on the basis of IQ. Affirmative Action & Diversity create just enough impression that the most prestigious institutions operate on the basis of 'inclusion' than elite exclusion based on IQ.)

The problem with Taleb is he throws out the baby with the bathwater. He should have said IQ, while measuring real cognitive abilities, doesn't measure integrity, individuality, courage, and honor. It only separates the smart from the dumb. But in a society where both smart and dumb are inundated with PC from cradle, even the smart grow up using their mental skills to aid and abet the Official Holiness.

This is why the 'right' is foolish to put all its eggs in the IQ basket. IQ alone is just a cognitive tool. It's like an advanced computer has super-fast processing power but works according to algorithm. If Google rigs the algorithm to ban certain ideas and information, the processing system does as programmed no matter how fast and efficient it is. So, IQ alone won't lead to truth. IQ serves something deemed 'higher', something holy. And all kids, smart and dumb, are raised to worship PC gods.

To break out of this mold, society needs people with traits other than IQ. Even though higher IQ is always better than lower IQ(all things being equal), higher IQ doesn't guarantee anything. Even a high IQ person may get all weepy about MLK and Mandela because of childhood indoctrination. Or even a high IQ person may be conformist in personality, craven and cowardly. China had a system of choosing smart people over dumb ones for over 1,000 yrs, and it produced little more than IYI obsessed with passing eight-legged essays.
In China(past and present) as well as in the current West, IQ is mainly associated with careerism, so the Smart Art is mostly about test-taking and memorizing knowledge WITHOUT the individual-and-independent will to ask questions as to WHO is pushing the knowledge and WHY. It's been said the Deep State is brimming with smart people with super-credentials, but notice there is hardly any real integrity-and-independence of thought. It's filled with cretins like Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey. Things are so bad that one guy with a modicum of integrity finally said enough and quit.




Anyway, it's too bad that Taleb went the throw-baby-with-bathwater route. He would have done better by saying that even as IQ measures real mental ability, it does little to separate those with integrity and independence of mind from craven careerist-minded sheeple whose main passion is status and social approval. And status according to whom? That would require the JQ(Jewish Question), and most people don't want to go there(because of conditioning-from-cradle that Jews are the Holy Holocaust people who must never be criticized or doubted). What the world needs is ICQ or Integrity-Courage-Quotient, the will to break out of the mold and speak the truth against social opprobrium and political pressure. Something Socrates had(and Galileo too though not as much).

Anyway, the mob-lynching of James Watson by none other than the cognitive elite goes to show that IQ is no guarantee for honesty, integrity, and courage. All said and done, most smart people push the Big Lie for two reasons.

(1) Cynical power play. Smart Jews privately know that Watson is right, so why do they torment him? They need to perpetuate 'white guilt' about blacks to keep whites browbeaten and servile to Jews and their allies(mainly homos and blacks). 'White Guilt' paralyzes white pride that enables white independence that leads to white agency liberated from Jewish Power. So, Jews feel a need to push 'white guilt'(especially about blacks) as long as possible.

(2) As for smart goyim who attack Watson, they act as they do because they've been raised since cradle in the secular church of Magic Negro Worship. They've been instructed from a young age that blacks are holy and that whites can atone their 'historical sins' only by helping blacks fulfill their destiny of becoming First Humanity, the Wakandans. So, if blacks are lagging in schooling or some such, it's all due to ANYTHING(often associated with 'white evil) except the mundane facts of biology. Blame history, geography, or economics.

-------------------

Now, a theory as to why Nassim Taleb may be the way he is.



Nassim Nicholas Taleb claims to admire the Romans than the Greeks; he called Ron Paul a 'Roman among Greeks' as high praise. Romans got things done whereas Greeks theorized without solid grounding in reality. But it seems like the Romans he feels closest to are the Byzantines than those of the Western Empire. Taleb comes from a world that was once part of Byzantium, a world where everyone cautiously eyes the hidden power, the shadow hand, the ‘deep state’. Turks, Lebanese, and etc don’t trust anything at face value. And it seems Persians are much the same. Watch any Iranian movie, and there are no straight lines, physically-emotionally-dramatically. It’s all about navigating roundabout ways, with the shortest distance from point A to point B avoided for any number of reasons ranging from tragic to farcical.



BLACK SWAN’s success, as I take it, was the argument that what people consider to be straight lines of cause-and-effect in history really aren’t. It’s just the illusion of straight lines of cause-and-effect. Sometimes, the suppose straight lines are false or illusory. In fact, there are OTHER hidden factors at play almost everyone fails to notice.
And this is where Taleb was right about the financial crash in 2008. So many experts were speaking in terms of cause-and-effect straight lines between home-ownership and economic growth. Everything was getting better because more people were ‘owning’ homes. And yet, this supposed straight line between cause and effect was bogus and illusory because it required so many crookedness and devious instruments — derivatives that allowed for bad loans which could be bundled, sliced, and sold around the world — to keep it afloat. But people willfully ignored these hidden factors and just thought in straight-line terms of cause(the policy of ‘ownership society’) and effect(economic growth and rising home prices making everyone richer).
Taleb, having worked in the financial industry, knew what kind of devious forces are at play to distort prices and value, to effectively bribe politicians into supporting nutty policies based on dubious high-sounding ideology, such as that led to ‘compassionate conservatism’ which should really be called ‘compassionate libertarianism’(and let’s not forget ‘compassionate neo-imperialism’ of warmongering and ‘spreading democracy’).
It’s interesting that Adam McKay who made BIG SHORT, a movie about ferreting out the hidden factors behind the mess, failed to really address the role of Jewish power. He was even more negligent in this regard in the new movie VICE where he blames Big Oil for the war. When a movie purports to expose the hidden truth but does a switcheroo with an even bigger lie, it’s worse than a simple lie.

Anyway, Taleb comes from the Byzantine part of the world. Christian-Greek-Lebanese, his 'emotional' and 'temperamental' worldview isn’t much different from Turks of the Gulen School.

And this could be why he finds it difficult to trust the methodology of IQ. It’s too simple, too much of a straight line. He’s used to black swan thinking. In his worldview, there are no Occam’s Razors, just the Assassin's Daggers(hidden behind shadow behind a shadow). So, Taleb has a tendency to be distrustful of ANY theory or argument put forth by the western intellectuals(most of whom he dismisses as IYI) who, in their naivete or childishness, still believe in straight lines and cause-and-effect when, in fact, the truth is hidden and/or lurking.

But what Taleb fails to understand is that IQ theory is NOT part of correct or approved Western PC ideology. If anything, it is PC ideology that is downright ‘byzantine’ in looking for the ‘black swan’ excuses as to why blacks fail. It can never be the simplest answer that blacks are less intelligent and more impulsive(thus less likely to focus on study because their cultural life is all about fun and jiving). Besides, the current IQ theorists are the crime-thinkers who are going against the grain of Western PC, a true poison of the mind. A true black swan is what everyone fails to see. PC, in contrast, constructs fake black swans(or rubber ducks) as explanations for black failure in school. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Even Freud said so. And IQ is real. But it doesn't measure integrity.

--------------------------------------

To understand Taleb, you have to consider his cultural personality. Emotions, often unchecked, override reason and logic. This is true of Jews with excess chutzpah as well. You have to know their mindset before you really understand their minds. Tucker Carlson said he often felt confounded in the presence of Robert Kagan. Kagan's a smart and erudite guy, so one would think someone like him would be cautious and thoughtful. But no, too many like him get all boorish about certain matters, esp pertaining to Jewish power and advantage, with which their egos and pride are invested.

Some people have smaller personalities and bigger minds.
Some have bigger personalities and smaller minds.
Big minds with small personalities tend to be more rational, but they lack direction because reason is 'adirectional'. Reason doesn't favor one agenda over another. It tries to understand all sides. Reason lacks emotions or passion and is 'blind' as judge and jury. It is passion(love, hate, pride, paranoia, greed, resentment, envy, etc) that pushes reason in a certain direction. Big personalities with small minds do have a sense of direction, but they fail to see the big picture because they're stupid. It's just a matter of 'me, me, me', and such narrow-minded egotists burn out fast.
And then, there are big personalities with big minds. Now, which guides which? The big mind or the big personality? It's the latter because the mind, no matter how capable, is 'adirectional' and neutral(and objective in analysis of all things), whereas personality is about ego and passion.
This is why big personality with big mind will push around small personality with big mind. This is why Jews gained over Wasps. Wasp culture was about controlling emotions, and Wasps may have been bred to be reserved than temperamental(a trait that was sent to the gallows for bad manners). Also, small personalities with big minds are drawn to big personalities with big minds. Because they lack passion of their own, they latch onto the impassioned egotism of others. It's why Albert Speer was drawn to Adolf Hitler, why Zhou En-Lai was drawn to Mao Zedong. It's why cucks like Romney and Ryan are drawn to Jews with big big personalities.
The key difference between big personalities with big minds and big personalities with small minds is that the former see the big picture. They realize that 'me, me, me' isn't enough for sustained power and reach. It must be 'we, we, we'. So, while Nicky Santoro -- big personality but small mind -- in CASINO can't think beyond 'me, me, me', the Jewish moguls who eventually take over Las Vegas have a sense of 'we, we, we', i.e. We Jews working as one. After all, individuals don't last forever, but the Tribe can last a long long time.


Of course, there are white goyim with big personalities and reasonably big minds. Trump is such a person, and that's why Jews fear him and what he stands for. He has White Chutzpah though, to be sure, he can't do much as he is hemmed in by all sides by Jewish Deep State chess moves. Still, his own ego and passion are big enough that he doesn't need to latch onto Schlomo-Ego to feel pride and show bravado. Jews don't fear the White Negro, but they fear the White Jew, the Goy with chutzpah to match that of Jews.

Taleb is obviously smart, but he is also a big personality, and his egotism drives his reason... sometimes unwisely, as with the recent IQ controversy. But then, his perspective on IQ is different from our own. We tend to see the IQ issue as breaking the PC ice so that truth can be told. It is the battering ram against the Establishment's Wall of PC.
In contrast, Taleb sees IQ testing as the tool of the IYI establishment to keep the power and pat themselves on the back as the 'best and the brightest'. How many times have we been told that Obama Administration had the Most Qualified people or that Hillary is the 'most qualified' candidate who ran for president? The elites justify their grip on power on the basis of 'meritocracy', which is primarily grounded in various forms of IQ testing. But Taleb regards so many individuals selected by means of 'meritocracy' to be worse than retarded. So, he considers his anti-IQ stance as anti-Establishmentarian. Still, he failed to be measured on the matter because it became so contentious and personal(and because he made it so personal).

He comes from a part of the world and gene pool where people tend to be Infuriating. A diverse world of many religions, sects, ethnic groups, clans, and etc. Even within the same ethnic group, it was often more a matter of kinship than shared identity. So, no one got anywhere in such a world without the personality of a haggler or bully. In a diverse world, one has to be willing to raise his voice to be heard. You have to hustle and tug at harder to get 'what is mine'. In a homogeneous trust-society, people believe that 'what is mine' will come their way in time if they wait with trust and patience. In a diverse world, you get nothing unless you make a fuss, and Taleb sure knows how to make a fuss.
The extreme opposite of Taleb's culture of Infuriating-ness is the Inscrutable-ness of the Japanese who, even when upset and angry, try not to express their real feelings lest doing so upsets the social order. In between Far East personality and Near East personality is the culture of Indecision of the Anglos. Anglos aren't as restrained as the Japanese but aren't really keen on speaking their minds because it might constitute bad manners and form. So, there's a ironic micro-push-and-pull between repression and expression. Much is intimated and hinted but never really laid out.
In contrast, the culture of 'infuriation' is never afraid to speak one's mind though it doesn't necessarily mean honesty or truth. It's more like expression of ego and personal pride than well-reasoned thought. (There is the Insane cultural personality of blacks, but that belongs in a world of its own.) But 'Infuriation' is often a ploy. It can be personal but can also be a game of how far you can push before being pushed back. It's a measuring tool in social situation. It's about acting as if you take everything personally without really doing so. So, people of this culture can switch emotions in a heartbeat. They can go from trying to slit your throat to hugging you as best-friends-forever.

Anyway, the essence of Taleb's personality can be seen in the MR. SHOW video below: People from that part of the world emote and act like that. Too often in the West, people try to understand others by their stated views and ideas. It's the product of the Cult of Reason and Enlightenment, the notion that humans are, above all, thinking beings with reason.
More often than not, knowing their personality(individual and/or cultural) hits closer to the mark of what they are really about. If one really wants to understand people like Max Boot, Robert Kagan, and Victoria Nuland, one should first study their cultural personality than their stated reasons. More often than not, their reason follows their passion than vice versa. In THE GODFATHER, it's not just about conflict of abilities but personalities.



-------------------------------------------------------

Nassim Nicholas Taleb vs Stefan Molyneux(on Twitter) suggests the real reason why Taleb dislikes IQ as the measurement of all things. It makes Europeans and East Asians look smarter than his own folks. It might matter less if not for the cultural baggage of the Near East and Greece, the cradle of civilization. But those parts had long been surpassed by Western Europe and even by East Asia. Taleb is nothing if not proud, and the idea that Northern European upstarts got the better of the people of Greece and Near Easterners is too much for him to bear. He attacks Molyneux of Nordic supremacism, but Taleb's pride is animated by Levantine Pride(if not supremacism). If IQ tests showed his folks to be as smart or smarter than Northern Europeans, maybe he wouldn't be so anti-IQ. Taleb sees himself as a wise man from the Levant who has arrived to teach the bright but childlike people of the West. Sure, the West reached great heights, but it is too materialistic and trusting in the Cult of Reason(which is too often manipulated by Deep Reason, the hidden undercurrents of Official Reason. Official Reason: Home Ownership For All makes perfect economic sense vs. Deep Reason: It's a killer way for Wall Street to rake in billions).

But there are ironies about Taleb's thinking. He prefers Romans over the Greeks but thinks like a Greek. Romans were more pragmatic in politics and technology. They were doers, whereas Greeks, in their preference for theories and ideas, were talkers. And yet, Taleb's role is as a talker who sticks up for Eastern Cultural wisdom & prestige against Western arrogance & materialism. Taleb consciously roots for the Romans but thinks and feels more closer to the Greeks(and presumably Persians and etc). Molyneux mentions real material achievements of the Modern West, and Taleb dismisses them by invoking the once-greatness of the East.

Now, I think Molyneux's argument about Iraq and Jeffersonian democracy was stupid. The democratic project failed in Iraq because of diversity more than anything else. Sunnis who'd had the most power were suddenly shut out. Shias and Kurds, with less practice in politics, took power. Also, they were in revenge mode and made things bad for Sunnis.
Furthermore, the US didn't pound Iraq like it pounded Germany and Japan. At the end of WWII, all Germans and Japanese knew they better go along with the new order or it'd be extermination by rape, bombs, and nukes. US and USSR invaded those nations as victors with all the righteous fury and pride. In contrast, the US entered Iraq as liberators and friends. So, the moral advantage was with the Iraqis. US position was Iraqi folks are wonderful and ONLY HUSSEIN AND BAATH PARTY were bad. So, Iraqis never felt defeated by Americans. They just saw an opportunity to grab whatever under the New Order.
Also, keep in mind that the US has been extremely cynical, devious, and hypocritical in its promotion of democracy. When Hamas won in the Palestinian territories and Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt, the US did everything to subvert those democracies. US also pulled a coup in Ukraine and toppled the democracy that was replaced by an odd alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazis. If Iraq had been homogeneous upon US invasion, maybe things would have worked out better. But Sunnis couldn't swallow defeat, just like the white South had difficulty accepting the terms of defeat imposed by the North after the Civil War.
Also, did Japan and Germany really become democracies? Japan became a one-party state with the backing of the US. The Japanese Left was powerful after the war and with US backing. But once the Cold War set in with Mao's takeover of China, US worked with the Japanese Right to effectively suppress the Japanese Left, and Japanese politics has been more like Chinese one-party system ever since. Except for few yrs, the LDP has ruled Japan. (Oddly enough, both homogeneous Japan and diverse California became one-party states albeit for different reasons.) And German Democracy didn't really matter because regardless of the party in power, Germany was just a puppet of the US. Look how worthless Merkel is. And when Europe elects real leaders with the will of the people(like Viktor Orban), the US elites lead the way in condemning it as 'anti-democratic', 'autocratic', and 'far right'. As far as US elites are concerned, 'democracy' around the world means national leaders taking orders from Soros & Co. and submitting to Homomania. If success of democracy = High IQ, then why are Jews, the people with the highest IQ, doing everything in their power to subvert real national democracies all around the world? Maybe democracy works best when the IQ of the upper class isn't all that different from IQ of the rest of the population. Higher but too much higher. But when IQ differences are considerable between elites and masses, the the former may want to lord over the masses than merely rule over them.
Anyway, democracy certainly didn't work in Yugoslavia due to diversity. So, I don't necessarily agree with Molyneux that democracy = high IQ. Singapore is high IQ but found a rational non-democratic way of rule that is effective.

But Taleb's argument fails too. He says the Near East came up with all the great stuff until recent times. But this isn't really true. Even during most of the Ancient Era, most of the great civilizations stopped advancing. Egypt was a fossilized civilization for 1000s of yrs, even at its peak. And Greeks stopped being inventive long before the rise of the Modern West. What was the great achievement of the Byzantines or even before that? Except in some periods of the Ancient Era, the Near East didn't produce much that was revolutionary. And much of Arab achievements in the Middle Ages were due to rediscovery of ancient Greek learning.

But even if we agree with Taleb that the East was far more accomplished than the West until about 500 yrs ago, it doesn't follow that those who invent or found something are naturally better at it. Japanese invented Judo, but bigger whites and blacks have natural advantage over Japanese(all things being equal in training and diet). Whites invented boxing, basketball, football, and etc, but blacks are naturally better at them. White people invented the saxophone, but black Jazz musicians were most creative with it. On the other hand, blacks invented blues and rhythm-and-blues, but British whites took the forms to new levels of sophistication. So, there is no guarantee that the people who found or invent something are going to be naturally better at it than those who didn't.
Due to reasons of climate and trade, the East was more advantaged than the North West in Ancient Times. North West was too cold, and people there focused mainly on survival(though not as much as the Eskimos). Also, as the Near East was situated among Europe, Asia, and North Africa, it could draw ideas, goods, and talent from all sides. But trade and communication routes could be a disadvantage as well. While people in the Near East could gain access to new goods and new ideas(and new blood in talent and intelligence), it could also be invaded by peoples of lower IQ or enslave them in great numbers. Tyrants were addicted to slavery as easy source of labor. So, great civilizations oftentimes brought in tons of foreigners as laborers. Egyptians enslaved a lot of blacks, but what did this to do the Egyptian gene pool? And maybe Greeks used a lot of dummy foreign slaves who came to mix with Greeks and mess things up. Would it really be to Japan's advantage in IQ if it took in lots of less intelligent people as labor force? Japan is doing just this, and it will be profitable in the short term for Japanese businesses, but what will it do to Japanese gene pool and IQ? Not good. Japan will be Philippinized... just like European IQ is being Arabized and Africanized. But for awhile, all that cheap labor was surely great for businesses.

Finally, the Taleb Controversy is amusing because so much of Taleb-ism isn't really about East vs West but East vs East. Taleb won't say it, but he knows that the West came under the control of Jews who originated from the East. And Taleb himself originated in the East. So, much of Taleb's tirades over the years have really been against Jews. He can't believe that a handful of Jews hoodwinked the West so effectively and sold them on PC, financial fraud, and wars for Israel. Naturally, Taleb has been an admirer of men like Ron Paul who refused to play along to Neoconism and such.

Taleb feels that the West has become a platform for one part of the East: Jews who originated in the Levantine East. So, the West is all about supporting Israel, waging wars for Israel, and praising Jews to high heaven. He sees himself as the OTHER side of the East: Christian Greco-Arab side. Though he's not too crazy about Muslims, he has much in common with them because both Christians and Muslims in the East have been pounded by the West controlled by Jews. Deep down inside, he may wish that the West would wake up, stop sucking up to Jews, and come to appreciate a better relation with the Other East, the non-Jewish one.

IQ debate goes against his agenda because it says (1) Jews are smarter, so they deserve all their power and privilege(the argument of Jordan Peterson) and (2) Northern Europeans are smartest after Jews, so they should feel closest to Jews(the argument of Jared Taylor despite being bashed by Jews from all sides). All this IQ debate puts Jews at the top and makes whites aspire to be accepted by Jews, the royalty of IQ. This makes it more difficult for whites to wake up to the dark side of Jewish power and take sides with the Other East.
And this is why Molyneux's remark about Iraq and democracy is especially hurtful to Taleb, and I'm inclined to agree with him here. Blaming the failure of Iraqi democracy on IQ is besides the point. While higher-IQ people may be better suited for running a democratic system, the implosion and destruction of Iraq owed other factors. For instance, real achievements in living standards had been considerable under secular Hussein. Iraq moved from Third World nation to Second World nation, and that was precisely why Israel was so triggered by Iraq as a rival power. Not because it was a total basketcas but because it was making real gains. (Iran is sanctioned for the same reason with bogus nonsense about nukes.) Contrary to official line about 'Muslim Terrorists', the US(under the control of the Jewish Levantinians) has been most opposed to secular modernizing Arab nations. It has been in bed with arch-Islamic monarchies with which it colluded to spread terrorism against secular regimes and the Soviet Union. The one exception was when the US aided secular Iraq against Islamic Iran(which however, contrary to Zionist-US claims has NOT been one of the main patrons of terrorism). After the Gulf War, Iraqi economy and healthcare were destroyed by sanctions, not lower IQ. And by the time the US invaded, the Iraqi economy was a mere shell of itself and civil society had all but vanished in a world of misery. Imagine if the US sanctioned Israel over its human rights abuses in West Bank and starved 100,000s of Jewish kids to death. People would have called it another holocaust, but the West mostly pretended not to notice all the misery in Iraq except in the alternative media.
So, sometimes, this talk of IQ can be obscene in explaining the failure of nations. Recently, the fall of Libya was engineered by the West(controlled by the Jewish East). Given the total domination of the West by the Jewish East, it's not a bad idea for the West to pay more heed to the Other East: the Christian/Muslim Arabs, Greeks, Turks, and etc. of the Near East. While IQ is important, it isn't everything. If the West applied the kind of pressure it placed on Iraq on Israel, there would be great social crisis in Israel despite the presence of some very high IQ Ashkenazim there.

Enlightenment was great for the West in paving the Way for Reason. But the Cult of Reason and Freedom has fooled so many in the West into believing that they live in a world defined by facts, logic, reason, truth, and liberty. Well yes, the West has comparably been more rational and free than other parts of the world. But, the real power in the West happens behind the scenes, and in this, the West is like the non-West.
Indeed, the non-West may have a better grasp of power and its dark ways because it is less under the Cult of Reason. In contrast, Westerners think even the power that governs them is guided by concern for facts and logic. In fact, reason can be used in a million ways by those who control the platforms and outlets of 'rational discourse'. The Power can use 'reason' to fool people into thinking that men are 'women' and that Iraq with its WMD poses an 'existential' threat to the US.
Reason is good, but power will always be about something darker and deeper than reason. It will be about passions of ego and/or ethno. The West is now controlled by Jewish East because of its immense ego/ethno. Wasp Episcopalians have been known to have IQ equal to or even higher than Jewish Ashkenazim, but they lost out big. Why? They subscribed to the Cult of Reason whereas Jews were animated primarily by the dark powers of ego/ethno. Jews used reason alright but as directed by their deep passions.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Contradictions in the ‘Progressive’ Theory on Essentialism


Lately, so-called ‘progressives’, who are really a bunch of Decadents, have waged a Culture War on Essentialism, by which a person is defined by his birth, sex, race, cultural background, religion, and/or nationality. According to Decadents, Essentialism is unjust in predetermining a person’s identity instead of allowing him or her to formulate, choose, and decide what he or she REALLY is.

This is obviously a vulgarization and degeneration of a philosophical debate between essentialism and existentialism. According to existentialism, a individual should accept his freedom, learn to think on his own, and arrive at his own meaning of life. It had more to do with credo than ethnos or any identity.
An existentialist’s primary concern is man's cultivation of ethics and ideology. Instead of just receiving and obeying what is foisted upon him by the established system, he should question everything, learn as much as he can, think about his place in the larger world, and gradually arrive at a set of values and course of action based on his free will.

Whatever one thinks of existentialism, it has been part and parcel of modernity. And men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus didn’t so much invent as illustrate the modernist way of thinking and reacting in a rapidly shifting world where certainties could no longer be taken for granted. At the very least, this kind of existentialism was meant to be rigorous, and it encouraged, indeed compelled, people to be well-educated, well-read, well-conversed, and always questioning and seeking. After all, if people are to be free individuals is search of their own meanings and values, their moral reasoning has to grounded in erudition and sharpened by experience, the trials and errors of life.

But as higher education has grown more democratic and ‘inclusive’, Ph.D’s came to be handed out like flyers, and second-rate and third-rate academics now fill the minds of dimwit or neurotic students with all sorts of silly ideas appealing to the stupid who are incapable of thinking or soul-searching. Just like Modern Art degenerated into Pop Art, Modern Education degenerated into Pop Education. Thus, even philosophical concepts have been turned into pop fads for easy consumption by shallow dolts whose main cultural mode is ‘celebrity’.

So, what had been intended as an arduous journey of self-discovery and attainment of personal truth based on experience, learning, & logic has degenerated into a vehicle of fast & easy self-promotion as a darling freak. It’s been made especially easy by turning the focus away from philosophy to identity(as opposed to inheritance that is rooted and received than invented on a whim). Right or wrong, wise or foolish, every school of philosophy requires lots of reading, reasoning, and contemplation. One cannot declare oneself to be part of any school of thought just by making noise or hoisting a banner. One has to read essays and tomes on the idea and formulate one’s own interpretation of those ideas. One also has to be acquainted with alternative & opposing schools of thought and logically argue why he believes his chosen ideas are superior or more useful than other ones. Or, one must come up with a new school of thought by rejecting or radically reformulating previous ideas. Such an endeavor would require real devotion to scholarship, as well as tremendous discipline and diligence of mind. And of course, such thinkers still do exist.
But how can masses of shallow idiots(addicted to trashy pop culture) be persuaded to embark on such a challenging, though ultimately rewarding, path? Also, given that so many professors are idiot ideologues than true thinkers themselves, their main objective is to amass or at least FEEL the power. It’d be difficult for a professor to FEEL the power if he or she must devote so much of his/her energies toward turning students into real thinkers. For one thing, if students do learn to think freely, they might think differently from the professor. So, in order for the professor to OWN his/her students, they must be fed PC nonsense whose emotional appeal isn’t much different from the childish Little Red Book or Quotations of Chairman Mao. After all, Mao’s main obsession was power, and he had no use for real intellectuals and philosophers who might disagree with him, better him in debates, and even see him as stupid and crazy.
Whatever one thinks of Marxism, it was the product of much research and intellectual labor. Even though Marx was full of contempt and intolerance for those who disagreed with him, he did embark on a formidable intellectual journey to understand and explain how history really works and where it is headed. And he wanted others to understand and respect his elaborate and ‘deep’ ideas. In this sense, Marx was a true thinker who abhorred the idea of compromising his intellectual vigor with easy opportunism.

In contrast, second-rate thinkers like Mao(though a first-rate strategist in his path to power) couldn’t hold a candle next to real intellectuals and philosophers. He couldn’t even win debates against the cleverer colleagues in the Communist Party. So, his way of regaining absolute power in the 1960s was to appeal to the masses of young dolts who would be his Red Guards intoxicated with fortune cookie radicalism of the Little Red Book, a kind of Communism for Morons. If Marx was spectacularly wrong but intellectually profound, Maoism was just spectacularly and profoundly retarded. But the, stupidity is always far more appealing to the masses. It’s like people understand astrology better than astronomy. This is why 'progressivism' has degenerated into winning hearts-and-minds with new STAR WARS movies as SJW fantasies.

So, if ‘radical’ professors with chips on their shoulders(especially in second-rate colleges) want to FEEL the power and want to play at Little Mao, what better way than to dispense Pop Ideas to their none-too-bright or neurotic students? Appropriate certain ideas from philosophy & past ideologies and vulgarize & popularize them into bite-size cliches and slogans that especially pander to the students’ sense of celebrity.

Celebrity is about idols and icons than about ideas. Most celebrities are famous for their ‘star’ quality in sports, music, movies, humor, and etc. As it turns out, most people don’t have the talent to succeed in the ‘cool’ fields. Then, how can everyone earn their 15 minutes of fame/celebrity? By imitating the most vain and narcissistic group in the world, the so-called LGBTQ community filled a self-promoting self-worshipers. And so, the Culture War on Essentialism is now centered on the issue of gender.

Gender Wars say that LGBTQ people are holy, magical, noble, saintly, wonderful, and glamorous. The home team has to win the Superbowl or World Series to have a parade in its name. Musicians have to make hits to win awards. Actors must do good work in movies to win the Oscar. But, people just need to be homos or trannies to be showered with love and adulation every year in massive homomaniacal parades and festivals. Due to influence of the Jew-run media, the widely shared assumption is that LGBTQ = Celebrity & Glamour. Indeed, a bunch of homos or trannies need not accomplish anything in life. Homos are cool and holy simply because they are homo and do fecal penetration, a behavior that is now consecrated with ‘rainbow’ colors.
And Bruce Jenner only needed to put on wig and dress to be showered with praise as ‘woman of the year’. Just like just being Obama got him the Nobel Peace Prize, just the fact of being ‘gay’ or ‘trans’ makes a person a cut above the rest. To be homo in our world is like being born an aristocrat in the pre-modern world.

This is why so many young people gravitate to LGBTQ worship and gender wars. As they grew up in a celebrity-saturated culture, they also want to be or be associated with celebrities. But most people just don’t have the talent to be good in music, sports, acting, comedy, and etc. Also, most of them have no access to famous people.
So, what are they to do? Should they pretend to be ‘gay’, lesbian, or tranny? Some non-homos do gravitate in that direction because people are naturally emulative of what is considered prestigious or respectable. It’s like all those Chinese women got their feet bound because it was deemed the privileged and noble thing to do in pre-modern China. As most people are unoriginal, weak in individuality, and sheep-like, they are followers than leaders or rebels. Even their acts of ‘rebellion’ are usually just imitations of others who lead the way. Most hippies were just imitating the trend-setters of Counterculture.
So, it’s not surprising that non-homos and non-trannies are now eager to be homo-like or experiment with being tranny. Even so, most non-homos can’t play that game for long. Non-homo guys will not want to experience fecal penetration. And most non-tranny guys will not want to get their penises and testes removed.

Still, so many straight men and women want to be associated with the ‘gay’ community and themes because mainstream media and pop culture have conflated LGBTQ stuff with glamour and even spirituality. Besides, while it’s difficult for a normie to come face-to-face with a famous star, he or she has a good chance of rubbing shoulders with a genuine fruitkin.

Still, because it’s too much for straight people to become homo or lesbian, the Gender Wars has made available something like 50 genders to choose from. Now, most of these ‘genders’ are just variations of homo or straight, but words are funny things. Words can create the impression of ‘fluidity’ even in things that are essentially fixed. If the only categories were homosexual, trans-gender, and straight, then 97% people would realize they are straight, and that’s that. Thus, they would have less reason to dilly-dally with the LGBT community. But if there are 50 genders, maybe all those straight people are not really straight but one of the many alternative ‘genders’, like the many ways of 'walking' in DEAD POETS SOCIETY. (Conformism is a problem when people are forced to consent to something stupid, retarded, or evil, like forcing young one to conform to PC. But, normal people doing what comes naturally is not 'conformism' but 'confirmism' of what they really are and are prone to do. So, the scene in DEAD POETS SOCIETY is a stupid lesson on 'conformism'. There is nothing wrong with people walking normally and properly because it comes naturally to them. If anything, willful non-conformism by walking like idiots is the real stupidity. If a society were pressure women to conform to foot-binding, that would be bad. But if women walk normally in a natural way, they are merely confirming their true selves, and there's nothing wrong with that. PC and Pop Culture pathologize what is healthy and normal while applying pressure to conform to what is deviant, demented, and degenerate, like getting body piercings, tattoos, and green-colored hair as false emblems of freedom and 'empowerment'.)

Anway, by feeling so preciously ‘different’ by adopting one of the 50 genders, maybe even people who formerly thought of themselves as 'straight' have far more in common with homos, lesbians, and trannies than with lame and boring cis-gender types. Cis are the new sissies.
Such nonsensical logic is the gist of the Culture War on Essentialism. It rejects the notion that straight people are essentially straight. It says each straight person should seek out ‘his’ or ‘her’ own gender-identity among the 50 or maybe 500 genders. Or maybe an individual isn’t a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ but a ‘they’.

And this game is especially appealing to young idiots because there is nothing easier than gender politics. It’s all a game of genitals and pronouns. ‘Muh dick’, ‘muh pussy’, ‘muh dick is a pussy’, ‘muh pussy is a dick’, ‘muh dick is a dick and a pussy’, ‘muh pussy is a pussy and a dick’, ‘muh dick has been replaced by a pussy’, ‘muh pussy has been replaced by a dick’, and etc. It’s really on the level of Beavis and Butthead but in bogus intellectual packaging.

But then, this Culture War on Essentialism has huge contradictions. If indeed straight people are not essentially straight but must seek out their ‘true’ genders, why does the LGBTQ community argue that homos were born homo, lesbians were born lesbian, and trannies were born tranny and THERE’S NOTHING THEY OR WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sounds pretty essentialist on a biological and inborn level.

A key contradiction in the Cultural War on Essentialism stems from the positing of gender as both biological and anti-biological. Decadent ‘progressives’ prefer to use the term ‘gender’ than ‘sex’ because the latter denotes biologically determined differences that demarcate males and females. Now, both terms can have merit in this sense: While the biological sexes of male and female do exist in reality, sexual identity is very complicated because cultures define masculinity and femininity differently. So, in some cultures, it is manly to cry, whereas other cultures see crying as essentially a feminine trait. So, even if there are only two sexes and even if the notion of masculinity and femininity is generally sound, different cultures have their own ways of defining norms in the male domain and female domain. However, that is not how those in the Gender Studies Departments approach the matter. They tend to argue that the concept of sex must be discarded entirely and be replaced by gender theories that argue that all ‘sexual’ identities and norms are ‘social constructs’. (And yet, these same people argue that some boys are born homo and want to play with dolls because they are genetically predisposed to do so. So, while there is no female nature among girls that prefers to play with dolls than with guns, that nature suddenly exists when manifested in young homo boys who prefer dolls over toy guns.) But despite all the efforts of gender theorists, the fact is gender theory cannot be understood apart from the reality of sex. After all, if we were to imagine a sci-fi clone world where everyone is a copy of Hulk Hogan, could ‘gender theory’ even exist? How could there be femininity in a world where all the people are macho Hulk Hogans? And which members of this Hulk Hogan community would suddenly want to act ‘gay’ or girlish? No, gender theories are possible because biological sexual differences are real, and these differences go way beyond different genitals. Emotionally and cerebrally, men and women are different, and homos and trannies are different from straights due to biochemical factors related to hormones.

So, the entire field of Gender Theory that wages war on Essentialism is one big contradiction. On the one hand, it encourages young people to put aside ideology & credo as the core source of their identity and instead focus on their biology and genitals. Instead of "I think, therefore I am", go with "Muh dick, therefore I’m man" and "Muh pussy, therefore I’m woman." So, your core sense of self should be more about what’s between your legs than what’s in your brains. Biology over Ideology, or Biology is ideology. But then, as if Gender Theory realized its mistake of Essentialism(rooted in birth or biology), it argues that gender identity isn’t biological but ‘creative’ or ‘constructed’. It’s a strange kind of game where you tell some kid, "What’s inside your mind is secondary to what’s between your legs. If you got a ding dong, you are a male chauvinist pig and evil patriarch, and you can’t do anything about it(unless you’re a homo, in which case you’re excused)... but then, never mind, because having a ding dong doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a man because you might want to put on a wig and dress, in which case, you’re a ‘woman’ and suddenly have more pokemon points than real women..."

This is why tranny business is so essential to the anti-essentialists. After all, even homo men are still male, and homo women are still female. So, even homos uphold the essentialist template of the reality of sexual differences. Homos may have different orientations than straight men, but Gore Vidal was clearly a man, and Susan Sontag was clearly a woman. It is only with trannies and theories of 50 genders that the essential notions of sexuality are really subverted. So, if a man puts on a wig and dress, he is a ‘woman’ and even feminists better accept ‘her’ as such or else they are the essnentialist ‘bigots’. Ridiculous, eh?

There is also the Political War on Essentialism, and this has to do with mass colonization of the West by hordes-of-color. Again, this has nothing to do with ideas or philosophy. It’s all a game of labels and brands. In order for globalists to realize their radical agenda of turning all the world into one big mass of interchangeable consumerist units, all racial-cultural-national identities must be subverted, undermined, and eradicated. So, any essentialist definition of a culture and people must be denounced and discredited. So, there are no Real Hungarians, no Real Poles, no Real Russians, no Real Japanese, and etc. All national identities must be ‘Americanized’, especially as the meaning of American is no longer essentially European or Western. Even up to the 1980s, an American was quintessentially a person of European heritage due to history, culture, and demographics, but the massive rise of non-white numbers has effectively redefined ‘American’ as whoever wants to come to America. Thus, Future might-be-Americans are more ‘American’ than Americans with deep roots in America or racial ties with those with deep roots. After all, if the meaning of ‘American’ must be anti-essentialist and ‘inclusive’ of anyone, any notion of American identity based on history, culture, and roots must be rejected because it will imply that those with deeper roots in America are more American or have more claim to America than those just off the boat or those who have yet to get on the boat.

This is one reason why the globalists have lost all interest in American Indians. If people were to feel that American Indians have a special claim to America because of their deep roots, then it also follows that whites also have a special claim to America since they have deeper roots than most recently arrived non-white groups who have historically contributed little to America.
Also, if indeed the main narrative of America is "whites took land from Indians", then the main moral obligation of white people should be to make amends to the American Indians, and surely massive colonization by non-whites is NOT any way to help the Indians. The result will be Indians losing their lands not only to whites but hordes of non-whites who can’t even make the claim of having founded and developed America as a modern nation.

But what do globalists care about real justice? Real justice is about a people owing something to the people they’d wronged. On this basis, one could argue that white Americans do owe something to the Red Man(who lost their lands) and blacks(who were brought over to work as slaves). But what do whites owe to the whole world when white Americans didn’t do them any wrong? Only demented globalist logic argues that white Americans(and white Europeans too) exist only to make life better for non-whites and Jews all over the world.

But even the Political War on Essentialism has its contradictions. After all, if indeed no race-culture-nation has any essentialist claims, why do Jews insist that Jewishness and Jewish nationhood cannot be negotiated? We are to believe that Jewishness exists as a fact, identity, culture, and history, and of course, Israel has a RIGHT TO EXIST as a Jewish state.

Another contradiction is the cult of White Guilt. If there is no essentialist history, culture, race, or identity, why can’t whites wash themselves of the social construct of the ‘original sin’ of ‘white guilt’? And why must ALL white people atone for the ‘sins’ of other whites? Why must Poles and Hungarians pay the price for what the Germans did? After all, if the argument is German people must commit national suicide for their crimes in WWII, why does this apply to other Europeans who were victimized or bullied by Germans? And why are Russians being compared with Nazis by Jewish globalists when more Russians were killed by Nazi Germany than any other people? And why are all white people in America made to feel ‘guilty’ about slavery when most whites never owned slaves and many came to America after the Civil War? And why does ‘white privilege’ essential-istially apply to ALL whites, even to generations of poor white folks who worked in coal mines or factories? In contrast, even the richest Jew whose ancestors had it so good get to flaunt his ‘essentialist’ identity as a member of the Holocaust Tribe.

It’s obvious there are no principles or consistency in the Cultural and Political War on Essentialism. Like most things pushed by Jews, the goal posts are changed ever so often to suit the agendas of people like George Soros and the loathsome Pritzkers. If one thing is for sure, Jewish Power is essentially hideous and vile.