Liberalism has Genuine Value but Not as Centrism or Foundation of an Order or System — Liberalism must serve Something, and It must be something bigger than the Individualist 'Me' — How the Liberal End-of-History led to Tyranny of Identity

Words matter, and in the contest between ‘liberalism’ and ‘conservatism’, both have taken on the cachet of political labels. ‘Conservatives’ see ‘Liberals’ as the bad guys, and vice versa. As such, Conservatives reject the notion of ‘liberal’-ness along with the so-called Liberal Camp. ‘Liberals’ do likewise with ‘conservative’-ness. The end result is something akin to a community divided between those who believe only the left hand/arm should be used and those who think only the right hand/arm should be used. Of course, a person needs to use both left hand/arm and right hand/arm. The binary mentality in Western Politics is one of the most toxic and indeed idiotic developments in the World. So, to be liberal means you must be anti-conservative, and to be conservative means you have to be anti-liberal. A more sensible approach would be to ask how liberalism and conservatism can fit together like two pieces in a puzzle. It’s like Yin and Yang are complementary in Taoism, and the meaning of life and life itself are founded on the complementary unity of man and woman. Current ‘liberalism’ is like feminism, a stupid ideology that appears to regard women as a separate ‘race’ apart from the men when, in fact, neither men nor women would exist if not for the unity of men and women. (Of course, Jewish Power that rules the West is all for man-woman union when it comes to ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. What Jews really hate is the sexual unity of white men and white women. Jewish men see white man as rivals for power and see white women as their sexual commodity to buy and sell. And Jewish women are so envious of white 'Aryan' beauty that they want it to be destroyed via race-mixing with blacks.)

Now, when so-called Conservatives decry Liberalism, a good many of them know that they are not opposed to liberality per se. Even most Conservatives will admit there are positive and beneficial things about liberalism: Greater tolerance, curiosity, creativity, openness to sensory delights, intellectualism, willingness to take risks, and etc. Indeed, even much of the canonical ‘conservative’ ideas and values of today were once considered ‘heretical’, ‘radical’, or ‘dangerous’. Who can deny that the reason why the West move ahead of the Rest owed something to the rise of the liberal spirit for adventure and discovery? The Rest wasn’t held back by too much liberalism but by too little of it. The Ottomans, the Chinese, the Hindus, and Arabs were far more conservative than the West that caught the spirit of movement, exploration, discovery, and revolutions in thought. One of the reasons why the arch-conservative Byzantium East fell into stagnation, stasis, and then utter ruin had to do with the lack of liberal spirit for change and revitalization. Excessive conservatism is like a mausoleum with decay and stale air. It's like a algae-infested pond without inflows of fresh water supply. Arch-conservatism can only sustain itself by freezing the status quo. But frozen things are barely alive. It’s like the Ancient Egyptian civilization became one big mummy. It was so obsessed with preservation of the status quo and 'sacred truths'(invested in the ruling dynasties) that it lost the sense of time, backward or forward. While there are timeless values, timeless existence is rather like being stuck in a forest without a compass or sense of direction. Forward and backward become one and the same. Byzantine civilization may have considered itself in harmony with timeless truths, but such mindset sucked the vitality and virility from the empire. It lasted a long time but died a sure, steady, and dreary death as it lacked the foresight to awaken from its doldrums and speak the truth.
A useful metaphor for arch-conservatism is the Chinese practice of foot-binding where a girl’s feet weren’t allowed to grow beyond a certain size. This kind of Conservatism is anti-natural and defies the organic process of birth, growth, death, and rebirth. Even though it claims to defend and preserve the sacred, it breeds a kind of sick decadence because it goes on and on like a broken record with the same mantra and same set of memories, as with the father & the sickly child in THE SECRET GARDEN and Ms. Havisham in GREAT EXPECTATIONS. (In SECRET GARDEN, the father cannot let go of his late wife's memory, and his son is confined in the house for the sake of his health when, if anything, fresh air would do him some good. In contrast, the young girl, though orphaned by a tragedy of her own, has the will and spunk to carry on with life. Holding dear of one's memory is good but not to the point of shutting oneself off from life and future. The good side of liberalism is it has the audacity to forget to forge ahead or has the curiosity to revisit the past to understand it from a different angle.) Ironically, communism was brought down by its own dogmatic ‘conservatism’. What had energized a generation with hope and promise grew wearier by the year with the same chants, catechisms, songs, spectacles, rituals, and etc. The Party, once dominant in power, wouldn’t allow much in the way of change and renewal. Just like no one wants to eat the same thing morning, noon, and evening day after day, year after year, people grow weary and enervated in a culture that insists it has everything it needs from the dominant theology, ideology, and/or iconography. It’s human nature to want to experience new and different things. It’s like dogs and cats feel especially alive when they are allowed to venture outside the house to see, smell, and hear new things.


This is why ORGANICISM is a better concept than ‘conservatism’. While conservatism emphasizes the need to keep things the way they are, organicism is about regulating the natural processes of change and development that are a healthy part of every system, biological, social, spiritual, and conceptual. Just like religions have changed over time and sciences must develop with new findings, it is natural for society to change and grow. In organicism, both conservatism and liberalism have their place, sometimes in conflict but ultimately complementary IF the organic whole is to survive and thrive. Conservatism is the grip/cling principle, and Liberalism is the release/leap principle. A mountain lion is always anxious to cling to the rocks so as not to fall off cliffs. And yet, an extreme scaredy cat that only clings(like the Cowardly Lion in THE WIZARD OF OZ) wouldn’t be able to do anything. So committed to self-preservation against all risks, it will fear any movement lest it might lead to falling off the cliff. But, such a cat will likely starve to death because it can’t run around to catch the prey. But then, a mountain lion that is utterly released from fear and leaps around dangerous cliffs will likely fall off sooner than later and end up dead. This is why cats are optimally calibrated for grip/cling mechanism and release/leap mechanism. They have the artful balance of caution and daring.


Now, the ‘liberal’ principle gets more attention and admiration because it seems more exciting. There is always more thrill in the Risk than in the Preservation. At the end of PAPILLON, our hearts are with the eponymous character who takes the leap off the cliff even though our sober heads know that the character(played by Dustin Hoffman) who chooses safety and security decided more sensibly. Many sensible Western folks chose not to go on ocean voyages to the unknown as there was a good chance of horrible death in the high seas. (To be sure, in some ways, the conservative principle can be more adventurous, at least in the physical sense, because it is more masculine and dominant. Many men have been known to participate in risky endeavors to prove their manhood. Even if lacking in liberal curiosity, they were fired by the need to play out their traditional role as tough dominant males. In some ways, liberalism can be risk-and-action-averse due to its higher levels of anxiety and ambiguity. The liberal-mind is more likely to empathize with the Other side and question if 'our cause' is always right. Also, many liberal types tend to be more cerebral than physical, thereby limiting their spirit of adventure to the world of ideas and institutions than physical risks. Of course, liberals can also be more aggressive and war-oriented when they fall into the save-the-world crusade mode. Conservatives generally like to fight for what-is-ours, whereas liberals generally get the biggest war-fever over what-is-right, which is why they will often support wars premised on 'just causes'.) But the glory belongs to those who managed to break through the unknown and discover new lands. It’s like we are more fixated with our senses than with our inner organs. Even though or precisely because our organs such as hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, bladder, and etc. silently and steadily work to keep us alive, we hardly think about them, that is unless they begin to grow sick and begin to malfunction. No one thinks about his/her bladder until he/she gets bladder stones. No one thinks much of his/her lungs unless he/she gets lung cancer or emphysema. At most times, people are fixated on their senses such as eyes, ears, tongues, and nose. The more sensually-oriented liberal types care more for genitals, and the more cerebral-oriented liberal types care more for the brains. Jews are a strange group in that they seem equally obsessed with matters of the pud and pen. Philip Roth, one of the most highly regarded Jewish-American writers of the post-war era, wrote thoughtfully but also obsessively about the life of his pud.
We tend not to appreciate what we take for granted even though they are the most essential factors for our existence. Because people take the health of their lungs for granted, they turn to smoking for sensual pleasure. So often, sensual pleasure of the surface overrides organic health of depth. Because even the lungs of a heavy smoker tend to be hardy enough to last for a long time, the smoker disregards what is good for the lungs and inhales toxins for pleasure. Most of what we FEEL operate on the surface-senses of sight, hearing, taste/smell, and touch. We FEEL the 'cruciality' of the inner-organs only when they grow sick. It is only when the smoker comes down with cancer that he or she is finally reminded of how foolish it had been to fill up the lungs with tobacco smoke. Especially in our electronic-sensory pop-cultural world, ‘conservatism’ is seriously disadvantaged against ‘liberalism’ because we are bombarded with more sensory stimulation than ever before. Indeed, many kids now grow up with electronic gadgets as their first ‘toy’, and it’s not unusual for black toddlers to learn to ‘twerk’ by watching Youtube even before they understand what sexuality is. Part of the reason why globo-homo-mania is taking over christian churches is because it is so sensory-directed whereas Christianity’s spirituality is deep and essentialist. The deep conservative aspects of Christianity is too boring, dark, and heavy for those in our age who are addicted to sensory overload. Homos with their shameless flair and flamboyance sure know how to get the crowd going with shameless fanfare, celebration, and spectacle, and given that so many people(even old people nowadays) grew up with electronic media, their highest value is associated with glitz, distractions, and celebrity. Since homos are the masters of pop cultural vanity and narcissism, their self-worship has become the object of worship for so many people whose main culture is now really pop culture. It's like a world where amphetamines have become the New Vitamins.

The important question for us shouldn’t be a matter of Conservatism versus Liberalism but how the two may complement, support, and serve one another. If we come to an understanding of this equation, then there might be less feuding between those who call themselves ‘conservatives’ and those who call themselves ‘liberals’(especially among whites who have foolishly put ideology before identity, the very opposite of what Jews do). In a way, the most admirable aspect of American History(before it finally went off the rails under the power of Jews) was the careful balancing act that allowed the rise of US to benefit from both the conservative imperative and liberal impulses. Whereas ‘Latin’ civilization in both Spain and New World empire became overly conservative and reactionary, the Anglo-American Civilization of the United States found a way to form a social order that both emphasized continuity, memory, & tradition AND dynamism, liberty, and innovation. It was in this way that American Civilization grew big and sturdy like a great tree. The founders of the American Civilization were aware of the need for roots in the ground and leaves reaching for the sky. Look at any church, and there is a need for both foundation and spire. Only an idiot would argue as to whether a church should be about foundation OR spire. Church obviously needs both but has to know which goes where. Using the spire as foundation and foundation as spire would be most ludicrous. It’d be like planting a tree upside down by putting leaves in the grounds and the roots on top. Such a tree couldn’t last long. In a similar way, what is called ‘conservatism’ must serve as the foundation of any stable social order, and liberalism must be the spire on top. Given its libertine spirit, achievements of liberalism often soar higher than the properties of conservatism, but just like the top of the pyramid needs its main body, liberal heights must be founded and rooted on conservative grounds. Liberal elites may believe themselves to be better-educated, more intelligent, and more creative, but just like the brains cannot function without the body, high-achieving liberals cannot last long without the solid foundation in deep identity, core values, and moral populace.

Jack London was a leftist and socialist but also a most excellent race-ist who loved his own white people.

Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery, but he was also an awesome race-ist who said, "Slavery is bad, and we should free the slaves, but as blacks are tougher, meaner, and could kick our white butts and take our white women, we need to give them a separate nation after Emancipation."

When the US was a white-ruled and white-populated nation, this was more-or-less well-understood, but ever since Jews took over as the new elites, the US has faced the problem of being ruled by a people who feel little or no organic connection to the masses below them. Jews are ‘white’ but don’t really regard themselves as part of the European race because their own identity is deeper and more ancient than any European identity or culture(especially those of Northern Europe). As such, Jews don’t seek to connect with white goyim as racial brethren(if only out of fear of losing their Jewish Tribal essence by excessive assimilation) but regard white goyim as an alien body that might reject Jews as New Elites like the host body often resists the implantation of another person’s organ. Jews are like wandering brains without a body. They seek to take over the brain centers of a Goy Order, but the problem is they don’t feel organic unity with the goy majority. Jewish immigrants to Palestine didn't strive to be New Palestinians or leaders of the Palestinian people. Jews felt that the Palestinians would reject the Jews, and they in turn resolutely rejected the Palestinians as long-term national brethren. In the US, Jews did everything possible to take over as the New Elites by toppling the Wasp elites(who were traditionally the brain-center of America) but feel no organic connection with white goyim. They feel as conquerors than as consecrated with the task of serving as the new leaders of the white race, not least because Jewish history in the White World has often been contentious, troublesome, and problematic, even leading to traumatic events like Jewish role in communism(that led to deaths of millions of Christian Slavs) and the Shoah(in which Nazi Germans killed millions of Jews). But then, white people were also stupid to allow Jews to take over as the new elites. To be sure, MOST white people had nothing to do with the transition of elite power to the Tribe. Jews took over because the Wasp elites lost their will, confidence, and resolve to keep power for themselves in the name of the greater white race. Just like the horse doesn't decide whom it belongs to, the great white majority didn't choose Jews as new elites. Rather, Wasp elites sold or surrendered the title to the Jews, and that key decision put ALL OF AMERICA under the control of Jews.
Of course, Jews had artfully manipulated the rules of the game set forth by Anglo-Americans so that they would benefit most with their higher IQ, pushier personalities, deeper identities, and tribal networking. Anglo-Americans had made a big deal of America as the land of freedom, fairness, justice, and meritocracy, and this was something Jews could toy with to mess with Wasp minds. Jews or BUGS(busy urban globalist semites), with their higher IQ, sensed that they could use the Anglo-American-made system to expose the failings, hypocrisies, and contradictions of Americanism. Jews, by hyper-idealizing Americanism as a Utopian vision, de-legitimized White Power by demonstrating that it had failed to turn the US into a ‘perfect union’. It’s like how Ayn Rand hyper-idealized American capitalism and threw tantrums about how it failed to live up to the ideal of perfect private enterprise and total individualism. Jews of all stripes, from left to right, effectively damned White America by praising it. By praising it as the New Eden founded on shining principles, they had reasons to find fault everywhere as no society can come close to perfection. A nation is real before ideal, and most white Americans had known this as they weren’t radicals. They took pride in America being an improvement on the Old World in many ways, but few believed that America was or could be a Nation of Perfection. In contrast, Jews came to the US with fulsome praise, and initially such flattery made a positive impression on the Anglo-American elites. In some ways, these enthusiastic dreamy-eyed Jews seemed to love America even more than white Americans did. Jews seemed to idealize and romanticize America beyond what it was about. What Anglo-Americans failed to realize was that it was a Jewish Hustle, conscious or subconscious. By overly praising America as an ideal nation, Jews were laying the grounds for exposing the myriad ways in which White Americans(especially the Anglo-American elites) had failed to create heaven-on-earth. And as Jewish criticism got ever more vicious and venomous(especially after World War II when Jews felt that immigration-restriction and FDR's foot-dragging had prevented the saving of more Jewish lives from the European conflagration), successive generations of white elites lost confidence and pride in their history. They would have been less upset with faults found in a Real Nation, but as Jews pushed the template of America as an Ideal Nation, every American failing became magnified as especially tragic, sinful, and unforgivable. Thus, the Anglo-American elites were softened up for the kill.
It’s like an octopus injects enzymes into a crab and turns its flesh into liquid before sucking it up. Likewise, Jews injected a ‘tenderizing’ substance into the crab-minds of white elites, and once white minds were turned to mush with ‘white guilt’, the Jewish octopus sucked it up and took over. It’s like that film UNDER THE SKIN in which space aliens lure humans into a trap where their inner flesh and blood are sucked out. Jews are expert-hustlers and con-men, and one needs to be especially vigilant when they come bearing gifts and favors. Jews never give just to give for the sake of generosity or magnanimity. Jews give to take back much more. It's like the fisherman offers worms to fish only to catch the fish. It’s like business of money-lending. You are not really giving the money but only loaning it to get back More Money. When Jews shower you with gifts, aid, or flattery, it is almost never out of good-will, compassion, or respect. Jews are acting with expectations that you will be hooked to their scheme and end up forking over much more back to the Jew. When Jews sold opium to the Chinese, did they really care about the well-being of the users? No, the users were offered visions of bliss and peace, but they were really being addicted to the drug and thus willing to hand over all their money to the Jews to get a another dosage of false paradise. So, one must be most wary and suspicious when Jews act kindly and generous. Such Jews are really up to no good. If anything, one reason why even genuine goy goodwill toward the Jew makes so little impression is because Jews think (1) the goyim must be like us Jews and offering gifts merely to trick us OR (2) goyim must be really dumb to waste sympathy on a people as cunning and sneaky as us Jews. A most useful rule of thumb is NEVER TRUST JEWS. Remember how Google hustled all of us? Google Jews said they would never do evil and would be fair and neutral. Trusting the Jews, so many people around the world opted to use Google as the best, most honest, and fair-minded search engine. But once Google gained monopoly position, it began to rig algorithms and manipulate results so that the entire world would be shaped by Jewish supremacist and globo-homo bias and agendas. What a vile people: A bunch of vipers and hustlers. No wonder Jews came to be loathed in so many nations. It is about time for Americans to wake up and admit that they also made the mistake of giving Jews a chance because, as recent history has shown, when Jews get the upper-hand, all principles go out the window in the game of "Is it good for Jews?" Just ask the Palestinians if Jews act with any decency or principle on matters regarding what they really want? If Jews want it, they will do just about anything, no matter how lowdown and dirty, to get it. Long ago, Jews settled on 'gay marriage' and pulled every shtick to bend the laws and subvert the culture to make globo-homo-mania as the new reigning faith of the West. Sadly, dirty Jews lead, dumb goyim follow.


Often in life, what really matters is not Either/Or but Which/Order. While some things must indeed be discarded, with other things it’s really a matter of which goes where. For example, sardines don’t belong on a hamburger, but there is a place for the buns, burger, lettuce, pickles, tomatoes, and onions in an hamburger. So, making a good hamburger is a matter of putting the ingredients in the right order and in the right amount. Should the hamburger patty go between the buns or should the bun go between the patties? Should the vegetables go on top of the patty or below? When it comes to liberalism and conservatism, a similar dynamics apply. We need both, not one or the other. The real question is what goes where? While a horse in front of the buggy and buggy in front of the horse have the same components, one will work while the other will not.
The problem with our current world is what might be called Inversionism, i.e. the natural order of things have been inverted. Liberalism must be like the horse that pulls the buggy, but we have a situation where the buggy is expected to pull the horse. Or imagine the solar system where the planets are at the center while the Sun is expected to revolve around them. In a sane and sober world of both conservatism and liberalism, the sexual deviants should be at the periphery of society and culture. As most people are normal-straight-male-female-real or NSMFR, they should constitute the CORE of society. Still, as some people are indeed born with weird deviancies, a society should be liberal and open-minded enough to accept them for what they are. At this point, it should be obvious to all that some people are born homosexual and have tendencies at odds with most people. Conservatism must insist on the dominance of straight society as the backbone of life and morals. But liberalism should urge people to be open-minded and tolerant enough to accept that some people are born with sexual deviancies, and it’s not their fault. But we have now gone way past that. In our Jew-run Globalist World Order, we are to believe that homos and trannies deserve the central place in sexual politics, morality, and even spirituality. (We went from 'God hates fags' to 'god loves fags'.) Under globo-homo regimen, all of straight society must revolve around such deviants and freaks.

Sex change surgery (Transsexed). pic.twitter.com/W5jQk5dMqO

— Learn Something (@EarnKnowledge) August 14, 2019

We must elevate homos and trannies as the true paragons of virtue. According to the new globo-homo theology, instead of homos seeking redemption by repenting their sins before the eyes of God, we are to believe that god and jesus value nothing more highly than a bunch of men who indulge in fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. But then, the domination of Jews is itself the central problem of the Current West. In the US and other Western nations, Jews are just a tiny minority. Proportionately, the US has more Jews than most European nations, but even in the US the Jewish population constitutes only 2% of the population. And yet, we’ve been told that the principal purpose of America is to serve Jews, obey Jews, admire Jews, appease Jews, and worship Jews. Is it natural for a society that is only 2% Jewish to hyper-emphasize Jewish interests, Jewish power, and Jewish privilege to such degree, especially when Jews are known to have a 'jealous' personality for whom enough is never enough(just like the Jewish God could tolerate no god before Him)? This is especially galling since the US bills itself as a liberal democracy of equality under the law. If so, why does American Power operate in the Imperial mode, not unlike the British minority elite rule over India and other parts of the world? Why are Jews above the law, rules, and principles? Indeed, Jews even piss on the very rules that they push on everyone else, especially whites.

Jews say whites must forgo and even denounce any semblance of white identity because there is no place for such mindset in a nation that is all about individualism and universal values. And yet, the FIRST thing that Jews demand of whites once whites give up their own identity is: "You whites must do everything to serve us Jews, our Jewish interests, and secure our Jewish supremacist hegemony around the world." Once again, it’s the con-game of the Jewish Hustle. If indeed whites must abandon their own identity and interests as deracinated individuals committed to ‘universal’ and/or ‘cosmopolitan’ values, why are they then pressed upon to support Zionist tribal-supremacism against Palestinians, Israeli imperialism against Iran, and Jewish globalist hegemonism against Russia? Just think about this. Imagine if the Jew and you both have a gun. The Jew calls for disarmament, and so, out of goodwill you put your gun on the ground... but the Jew still holds the gun and then orders you about. THAT is how Jews play the game. Jews tell others to lose their tribalism while clinging to their own tribalism even harder and demanding that all goyim serve, obey, and worship the Jews as god-men.

This is why white people need to conceive of and forge their own formulas for conservatism and liberalism. Don’t let Jews decide what ‘conservatism’ or ‘liberalism’ should mean for you. In the US, Jews got to define the meaning and purpose of both through their control of media, academia, think-tanks, and the Deep State... and guess what? Both the GOP and Democratic Party tell us that Americanism, ‘right’ or ‘left’, is essentially about praising Jews, serving Jews, obeying Jews, promoting Zionist imperialism, and worshiping Israel.
But then, why should it surprise anyone that Jews defined ideologies in such manner? As a people who put identity and tribalism before ideology and values, Jews were bound to mold either ideology, ‘left’ or ‘right’, to mainly further the agenda of "Is it good for Jews?" Then, the most important thing for white people is to define their own ideology and values as being grounded in their own identity, heritage, and culture. Letting Jews define your politics and values would be like the US letting the Soviets build the US embassy(or the Soviets letting the US build the Soviet embassy). Jews are going to rig the game, just like the US embassy built by Russian workers in the Soviet Union was bound to be riddled with bugs and espionage devices. Would you trust your rival or enemy to design your weapon, vehicle, or fortress? Of course not. He will surely game the design not to serve you but to serve his own advantage is getting the better of you. Even if YOU may not see the Jews as the enemy, the fact is Jewish Power sees you as the enemy. You can love the enemy all you want, but if the enemy insists on seeing you as the enemy, you will be marked for ruin and all your love would have been wasted. Jews see white goyim as either enemy or slave. Any free, independent, and confident white person is regarded as an enemy because such a person may notice Jewish power and challenge it. Such a white person must be destroyed in will, mind, and spirit. He must be eliminated or turned into a slave, and then and only then can the Jew accept his existence.

Anyway, is it natural that Jews, who are only 2% of the US population, should rule the US? Isn’t it an inversion of the natural way? Shouldn’t the goy majority have power over the Jews? In a way, Jewish rule in the US is both natural and unnatural. It’s natural in the sense that quality often beats quantity. It’s like there are many more community colleges than elite Ivy League colleges, but the latter make far bigger impact because they attract the top talents. And a handful of humans can control entire herd of cattle. In a similar way, Jews have lots of power in the US due to their talent, will, and power of personality.
And yet, Jewish Rule is also unnatural because Jews have power beyond what their talent would merit. Lots of Jews have been favored up the ladder by nepotism, tribalism, and gangsterism. Also, too many criminal Jews have been let off the hook by other tribesmen in high places. More problematic is the fact that Jews are dishonest about the extent of their power. Unlike Wasps in America and British imperialists in India, Jews don’t admit that they have the ruling power in the US. So, we have a situation where the most powerful group in the US acts like the most pitiable victim group. This is very unnatural and very unhealthy for the state of the nation. Not only power but truth itself has been inverted. Once lies become cancerous, they spread and spread. Then, it is any wonder that New Feminism has come to prioritize the ‘needs’ of tranny men who claim to be ‘women’ over the needs of real women? We are now to believe that a man-pretending-to-be-woman should be allowed to compete in women’s sports even though, on the bio-physical level, women cannot compete with men in any meaningful way. How did such lies become the ‘truth’? Because fish rots from the head, and the culture of lies emanates from the Jewish elites who now govern and disgrace the once great US of A. In EXCALIBUR, Merlin says, "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world." When Jewish elites lie, they indeed murder the world in more ways than one. And much of the murder is literal as so many innocent lives have been wasted by Wars for Israel cooked up by vile and disgusting lies of Jewish supremacist cretins.

Finally, liberalism must emanate from something. On its own, it loses in value real fast. It’s like aroma must be attached to something. Smell of coffee without coffee is useless. Smell of bread without the bread leaves people hungry. And even the spirit must emanate from the human body. While Christianity believes in life-after-death for the soul/spirit, each soul/spirit is brought into the word in the first place with the emergence of the body. Just like sensations cannot exist without the body, liberalism will soon wither and die without conservatism to serve. Why have Western universities become such a joke? Because their liberalism has become detached from conservatism. Universities are by nature both a conservative and liberal institution. It is the repository and conveyor of the best of human knowledge, histories & narratives, and ideas & values. Every generation of students learns about the past, heritage, and history in college. But if colleges only stuck with existing knowledge, they wouldn’t broaden one's horizons and come upon new ideas and possibilities. Thus, universities offer conserved knowledge in constant discourse with new critiques and perspectives(often liberal in spirit). But in recent times, the universities(especially with the advent of Jews, boomers, and radicals) have mostly dispensed with respect for history and heritage — apparently, there are too many ‘dead white males’ among the giants in the history of ideas, inventions, and creations — , and the end-result has been a liberalism that has been severed from conserved knowledge and the culture of respect. Such liberalism may initially feel liberated but soon feels confused and listless as it has lost a particular perspective from which to broaden its vision. For there to be subjectivism, it must be grounded in objectivism. Each of us has our subjective view of things because we objectively exist. So, even though our subjective reality stumbles upon new things, it is always through the objectivity of one’s existence and biography. Likewise, Western universities used to be about the Western perspective. They were about learning more about the wider world and deeper reality, but it had a sense of its own origins, interests, vantage point, and experiences rooted in the Western Experience. It’s like every idea has special meaning because each person comes to it in his or her own way. It isn’t merely the idea that matters but how it’s come to have meaning for each person with his/her own realizations and reasons. Because the Western university is the product of Western history, it was only natural that it has been about the story of the West gaining knowledge of the bigger and wider world. Then, it made sense to trace back into Western history to understand why the West came to believe what it did and how those beliefs shaped its historical adventure in the discovery of more about humanity, the world, and the cosmos. It's like the study of space and the universe has special meaning to us only from the vantage point of our human-ness. While objective reality of the universe is independent of what WE think about it, the fact is mankind came up with stuff like mythology, science, and astronomy because it is the nature of man to ask questions and seek the unknown to better understand the world around us. Universe doesn’t need us, but astronomy has no meaning apart from mankind’s need to know the universe. Universe pre-existed mankind, but astronomy developed from mankind’s perspective on the universe. It’s just the way of things.

Likewise, liberalism is the curiosity or sensuality that extends from the core conservative essence of man. In a way, every life is conservative in this way: Everyone tries to remain alive by doing what is necessary to self-preservation: Food, clothing, shelter, and etc. Even the most proggy ‘liberal’ expends most of his or her energy on self-preservation, on conserving himself or herself(even if he or she may not be aware of it).
Now, if it’s natural for an individual to prioritize self-preservation, it’s only natural for a particular society to preserve its characteristics because it is a unity of individuals bound together by shared identity, culture, and/or history. And until recently, what gave Western liberalism meaning was as a furtherance and expansion of a people, culture, and heritage whose roots extended back to Europe. Just like, no matter how adventurous and far-traveling a man may be, he is nothing more(and less) than what he is, liberalism has meaning only as the extension of a particular entity rooted in and shaped by its own past, memory, and perspective. Take a mountain. Suppose there’s a man who’s always lived near it and another man who came upon it from faraway. Objectively, it’s the same mountain to both individuals, but it has entirely different subjective meaning to each. For one, it’s the same old mountain he’s known since childhood. It is part of 'home'. To the other, it is a great discovery, a thing of thrill and excitement. To understand the ‘meaning’ of the mountain, we need to understand the perspective of those who know or come to know of it. This is why it’s stupid for people to complain that Western Liberalism has been Eurocentric. No kidding. Even as the West came to seek the objective truth via hard sciences, the story of knowledge is necessarily the story of how a people came to know the world, themselves, and the universe in their own way. Perhaps, because the West has done the most to unite the world and dominate so many fields of knowledge for all of humanity, much of humanity came to expect white folks to have something akin to super-human powers to rise above all particularities and subjectivity. Therefore, when they realize that Western Knowledge has been shaped by the ‘Eurocentric’ story of discovery, they see nothing but fault.
What this illustrates is that we need to realize that, while there is an objective world out there independent of what we think, all people are bound by their own stories and perspectives. In this way, every society has a core conservative component in its self-definition. No society can be expected to conserve or preserve everything. Just like it’s up to Hindus to preserve Hinduism, white people must preserve and defend what is uniquely theirs. (Liberal impulse can be either objectivist or subjectivist. It can be about breaking free of one's particularist/narrow culture & customs and examining the world with reason, logic, and facts to arrive at an objective materialist understanding of the world. But it can also be 'romantic' in its subjectivist insistence on the need for the individual to follow his bliss and seek his own personal truth based on creativity, imagination, and dreams regardless of limits imposed by morality, materiality, and logic. The latter kind of liberal impulse is especially fascinated with Nietzsche and Heidegger who favored subjectivism over objectivism.) Also, liberalism has long-term value only as an extension and expansion of something with a core. Liberalism is like the atmosphere around the Earth. It is vital to life, but it cannot exist without the Earth’s core and main body. Atmosphere envelopes the planet; it cannot be the core of the planet. Often, liberalism is a feeling, an impression of things. It isn’t merely about dry knowledge but a want of release, a love for adventure, a certain curiosity. All such are passions of sorts, and passion emanates from life itself. Even though passions seek to go beyond the norm & mundane, they are doomed unless they preserve the life from which they emanate. One may have a passion for sky-diving, but he better be sure the plane and parachute are all in order. In the end, the passion must serve the life, the body, not the other way around. While passion takes risks, it can lead to new sensations and knowledge that enrich the life of the body. But if it takes risk to the point to grave self-harm or death, it will perish on the altar of its mad whimsy. In the current (dis)order, liberalism is so decoupled from conservatism that it has become, for so many, the game of passion-for-passion’s-sake or pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake. It’s fallen into a tailspin of its own delirium. It’s sort of like the Burt Lancaster character in THE SWIMMER who spent his life chasing after fun after fun, delight after delight, joy after joy, until he has lost everything and doesn’t even have a home to return to... but he’s so divorced from reality that he fails to even realize that he no longer has a home and family.

Liberalism without anything to serve becomes a kind of nihilism. It’s like passion run free. Passion for passion’s sake. But without anything to serve, passion loses its nobility. (It's also like youth that fails to understand
that it is a stage in life and a learning process for adulthood and more meaningful & maturer existence. The youth-centrism of the 60s has been especially damaging as so many boomers failed to grow up and remain stuck in their youth-centric mentality. Thus, youth has gone from a time of learning and basis for future growth to the cult of forever-young. Is it any wonder that there are now so many pathetic men and women who age disgracefully and seek to remain or regain relevance with youth-centrism by dyeing their hair green, getting tattoos, or jumping on the latest faddish bandwagon wheeled out by the powers-that-be in media and entertainment? Among the Pussy-hatters were so many older women in vagina-suits who should have known better. So many people seem to be aging backward, growing more childish and insipid as they grow older. Unable to handle maturation as they are stuck in youth-dom, they desperately try ever harder to be forever-young. It's like the now sorry sight of Mick Jagger still romping on the stage as hot stuff. In the end, boomers were far less dangerous as youths than as elders. When they were goofing around in the 60s, the US still had many people who were older, sober, and mature enough to maintain the core culture and values of the nation. But as they died off over the years and boomers took over as the Old Generation, we have immaturity across the age demographic from youths to seniors. A truly sorry sight.) In a way, it even loses its reason for passion. Passion is exciting because of the sense of release from our limitations. It’s like flight was marvelous when mankind had been bound to the earth. Perhaps, because so many people take so many essential things necessary to life for granted and don’t worry about survival or self-preservation, their liberal energies have grown decadent: No longer in service of the essential core but merely a means to have fun or seek thrills. This is true of all modern peoples, but Jews and Hindus have been able to somewhat counter the decadence of liberal energies by constantly reminding their members of the absolute importance of preserving the Covenant or Dharma.

Just like a soldier has to serve a nation or cause, liberalism has to serve something. Also, it cannot serve everything as nothing can. Even universal ideologies demand that its adherents stick to a narrow and specific set of values and principles. Islam is open to all, but all must submit to Islamic dogma. Communism was a universal ideology but insisted upon all comrades to conform to the ideology of class struggle as the central force of history.
We can have a world where each people stick with their particularist identities/cultures OR we can have a world where all peoples agree upon a narrow universal dogma. In a way, particularism can be universalist in the sense that all of humanity can mutually agree with the principle that each people have its own culture, mythos, narratives, and land worth preserving. Thus, the various peoples remain distinct but universally respect and acknowledge these differences. Or, universalism can be particularist in the sense that all of humanity may come to agree that all peoples must submit to a narrow set of ideological or theological principles.
After all, universalism is impossible as unifying political system if every group insists on believing their own stuff as one unified people. Rather, all peoples must be forced to adhere to the a set of shared icons and narratives, and in order for those themes to have the power to unite all, they must be narrow and rigid, compulsory and mandatory. Whether Christianity, Islam, Communism, or PC(with its neo-trinity of Jew Worship, Negro Worship, and Homo Worship), the universalism that is disseminated is not an anything-goes mind-set but the unity of minds in their submission to rigid set of doctrines, iconography, and/or narratives. One can universally tolerate a world of distinct & separate paritcularisms, or enforce a particular dogma as a universalism upon a humanity forced to live as ONE people. Universalism simply cannot allow all ideas for all peoples as there would to be too many differences and dissensions.

Liberalism is useful as an extension of conservatism, as something that emanates and expands outward from conservatism. It must not serve as the central defining principle of any society. Just like a diver needs a diving board and a rocket needs a launch pad, liberalism needs something from which to spring. And even as it leaps high, it must come back to ground. It’s like astronauts go into space but only to return to tell us about what they learned about what is OUT THERE. Atmosphere, as a periphery, does wonders for Earth, but we know the center of Earth cannot be made of atmosphere. The whole thing will just implode as gases don’t have the power and mass to support the structure of the planet. The fatal mistake of the West has been putting liberalism at the center of its organizing principle. Liberality must serve something that is deeper, harder, and more stable. It's like the experiments in space in the movie GRAVITY are possible only because humanity is grounded on Earth that is hospitable to life. There is a will and drive within us to venture further and know more, but we must ultimately come back down to ground, and that sense of 'home' is conservatism. Just like a person feels most at ease and peace at home, a people and culture need a place to call home where they can feel as the makers, owners, and claimants without apology or justification. Jews sought to regain their lost homeland because they'd been 'neuroticized' and even traumatized by having no place where they could lie down and relax with the sure knowledge that it's their home. Now, Jews have such a place, but their greed isn't content with homeland and must totally erase what is left of the Palestinian homeland. Also, Jews not only want a world of their own in Israel but want the World as their oyster and go about fulfilling this mad vision by undermining the claims of homeland for goy nations.

So, while all societies have much to gain from liberalism, liberalism must serve what is particular to that society. So, liberalism for Germany, liberalism for Japan, liberalism for Turkey, and etc. will all differ. While all societies, despite their differences, will gain something from an attitude of tolerance, curiosity, creativity, adventurous spirit, and even a bit of radical will, the ultimate question rests on, "How can we use greater freedom and tolerance to ultimately serve OUR people and enrich OUR culture?" Jews understand this, which is why Jewish Liberalism ultimately serves Jewish identity and culture. The problem is not Jews being mindful of their own identity and interests(to the point where their use of ideology is molded to serve identity/interests) but (1) Jews urging goyim to forgo their identities & interests in total commitment to absolute liberality and pure universalism, ALL THE WHILE urging the then deracinated goyim to support Jewish supremacism & Zionist tribalism and (2) so many goyim falling for this BS shtick, which only convinces Jews further that goyim are so stupid that they deserve to live as mental-chattel of the Jews. What is worst about the Jewish peddling of ‘liberal cosmopolitanism’ and ‘culture of tolerance’ is the sheer dishonesty and hypocrisy, the ONLY underlying consistency being "Is it good for Jewish Supremacism?"
While placing liberalism at the center of worldview and value-system is unwise, we could at least appreciate Jews for their honesty and commitment IF INDEED they themselves practiced what they preached unto others. Jesus preached and then practiced what He preached, dying a terrible death as sacrifice for the redemption of humanity, or so the Christian theology says. But Jews never practice what they preach to others. Surely, many have observed that Jewish moral logic revolves around goyim being mindful of having wronged the Jews and Jews being mindful of having been wronged by goyim; there is precious little about Jews being mindful of having wronged the goyim; it's almost as if Jews regard themselves as a perfect god-like race that never does wrong unto others while always being wronged by others. With their god-complex, Jews feel they are above the law, and therefore, their violation of decency against goyim is okay because anything that makes Jews feel good must be good because Jews are godly in relation to filthy goyim; in contrast, nothing the goyim do for the Jews can be good enough even when they go out of their way to appease the Tribe because Jews, being god-like, always deserve more and better. Jewish Morality is a Master Morality whereby they are owed everything by the goyim who, however, are owed nothing by the Jews. Jews own, goyim owe.
Jewish idea of universal moral consensus is both goyim and Jews being conscious of goy guilt. You see, then Jews and goyim can 'universally' agree on something: Goy Guilt and Jewish Innocence. Notice there is NOTHING about Jews, let alone goyim, being mindful of Jewish Guilt. That being the case, how can we expect any kind of truth & sincerity from Jews? Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, Jewish individuals who are mindful of the problems of Jewishness and Jewish power, but by and large, most Jewish Power is incredibly disingenuous. Brother Nathanael is one righteous Jew.

If you try to point out their hypocrisies, Jews either throw tantrums or act like they have NO IDEA what you’re talking about when, in fact, they damn well know deep down inside. "Jews control the media? Hollywood? Wall Street? Deep State? Huh? Where did you get that idea? Why... you must be a paranoid, delusional, and crazy Anti-Semite." It’s like Jews brag about how they push for agendas to replace white people in Western nations, but if whites finally bring up this issue, Jews act like they never heard of such idea.

Jews may be smart and intellectual, but all those years of haggling as merchants and hair-splitting as Rabbinical scholars didn’t do much for their integrity and honesty. Most merchants will lie and cheat to maximize profits, and Rabbinical scholarship rested on trying to figure out the mind of God who was never really straight with humanity. In being so obsessed with the mind of God, Jews developed a god-complex when it came to goyim. (But then, what is the Jewish God but the projection of the difficult Jewish personality onto the entire universe? Jewish God is the reflection of the Jewish ego onto the sky as mirror.) What God is to Jews, Jews are to goyim... or so the Jews think. So, just as, no matter what Jews think of the difficult & mysterious God, they must honor, trust, and worship Him at the end of the day; it follows that no matter what goyim think of the difficult & deceitful Jews, they must honor, praise, and obey the Tribe at the end of the day.

Anyway, because liberalism is too thin, flimsy, and shallow as a central thesis of society, it only creates conditions for its own implosion and demise once it becomes detached from its conservative foundation. Now, when I say liberalism is ‘thin, flimsy, and shallow’, I don’t mean it is inherently bad or useless. Rather, the worth of something depends on how and where it is used. It’s like icing has value on top of the cake, not on the bottom. Same goes for liberalism. Because liberalism-as-centrism is a weak formula, it craves for something more substantive, tangible, and ‘hard’ to serve as support system, anchor, or new foundation; it's like dandelion seeds may float around freely but ultimately seek moist soil in which to spread its roots. This is why, in the West, the so-called triumph of Liberalism as the ‘end of history’ has led to what is really an illiberal order where the central themes are Jew-Worship, Negro-Worship, and Homo-Worship. As Liberal ideology was too weak as guiding, governing, and organizing principle, the real power came to be defined by Jews who formulated the ideology of ‘liberalism’ toward mainly serving Jewish Identity. (Even Negro-Worship and Homo-Worship have been engineered by Jews to indirectly and ultimately serve Jewish interests. Jews use blacks to push ‘white guilt’ and white cuckery, and Jews use vain & narcissistic homos to concoct globo-homo-mania as substitute for Christianity and goy family values. For those in the know, it’s no mystery that the ‘gay agenda’ has been the proxy tool of Jewish supremacists from day one. Jews set their eyes on a long-term target and then go about doing everything, by hook and by crook, to get what they want. Long ago, Jews decided that Queertianity would replace Christianity, and day after day, year after year, decade after decade, they changed the goal posts until they finally got what they wanted. What is truly pathetic is not only the silence among Christians who are too afraid of Jewish foulness but their numbnut embrace of globo-homo as the highest value of christianity, indeed as if jesus died on the cross to elevate homo-fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting as the highest values.)

What is called ‘liberalism’ in the West of the End-of-History is anything but. What now defines the West is not universal liberality(that too many people find confusing, alienating, and overly generic) but identity politics centered around Jewish Power. Even in the field of Identity Politics, we know some identities are ‘more equal’ than others. Just ask the Palestinians in the US and Europe. They will tell you that all these so-called ‘liberal’ white politicians almost always favor Jewish power and Zionist agendas over the most basic human rights of the Palestinians. So much for End-of-History where liberalism is triumphant against all forms of tribalism. And if the New Liberal Order is about freedom of individuals over the interests of the Tribe, why is blackness prized over other identities? Why does the West make such a big fuss about Mandela while ignoring the lifetime of struggle of Yassir Arafat? Why so many narratives about blacks in America while almost nothing about American Indians who suffered the greatest tragedy by far: Whereas blacks still have Africa as their homeland, American Indians truly lost their homeland forever to whites, Jews, and masses of immigrant-invaders. If End-of-History is all about individualism, why do the Jew-run media make a big fuss about black thugs killed by cops while enforcing near-total silence about so many whites and non-blacks who’ve been robbed, raped, and murdered by blacks? And why are homos favored over incest-sexuals and other degenerates? Why makes homo-and-tranny perversion so special and precious compared to other forms of sexual deviance?

Francis Fukuyama is really just a shill of Jewish Tribal Supremacism. He's hardly different from Fareed Zakaria who cheerleads the Zionist supremacist destruction of much of the Middle East.

So-called End-of-History is not about the triumph of individualism in the sense that every individual is regarded equally. No, it’s about the Power of Individuals who achieved the most in money and influence, and as many such individuals happen to be Jewish in many elite fields, blacks in sports & pop music, and homos in various fields of design & creativity, the End-of-History has resulted in the elevation of three particular identities above all others. Now, it’s theoretically possible that successful Jews, blacks, and homos could have just acted as individuals than members of particular groups, but that is NOT how the game panned out. Successful Jewish individuals colluded with other Jews to lobby for Jewish and Zionist interests. Blacks in sports and music don’t merely regard themselves as successful individuals who happen to be black but as BLACK individuals whose success represents cultural prestige for the black community. And homos are never about mere individualism but how all the fruitkins of the world must work together to spread Globo-Homo-Mania as the mass cult of every nation.
Francis Fukuyama the fool may think and act like an absolute individual, a cosmopolitan with no allegiance to anything in the world but freedom, liberty, and rule of law. But that is not how Jews, blacks, and homos regard themselves in the New World Order(or Jew World Order). Also, even Fukuyama is really just a shill and tool of the Jews because his shtick is full of hypocrisy in remaining silent about Zionist oppression of Palestinians, supporting Israel’s supremacist agenda against Syria & Iran, and pandering to Jewish tribal animus against Russia(that was economically raped by the Jews in the 90s, something Fukuyama almost never discusses). Indeed, the case of Fukuyama perfectly illustrates how liberalism, being too generic and directionless, ends up serving the New Boss of strong identity.

Liberalism is like a world with so many pathways. All those choices may feel liberating, but they're also perplexing and disorienting. The human body can take only so many paths, and the human mind can hold only so many ideas. In a world where a hundred schools of thought are allowed, most people will eventually settle on just a few and then maybe just one as the human mind simply cannot hold 100 different contending and/or contradictory ideas. And more often than not, the strongest idea is one that happens to be attached to a powerful identity with the will to spin a persuasive narrative. For example, the theme of freedom, justice, and liberation can be found among any people. Palestinians surely dream of freedom, justice, and liberation. But how come we care more about those themes as related to Jews? Because Jews got the more powerful personality and got the more power of intelligence & imagination to spin and spread their narrative-of-identity far and wide. Or take the Immigration Narrative. On matters of justice and freedom, one can associate immigration with brutality, imperialism, and genocide because, after all, masses of immigrants from the Old World came to drive out and replace the American Indians who were indigenous to the land. But one can also associate immigration with opportunity, growth, and freedom because so many immigrants in the US found better material lives and more freedom. The issue of Justice can be applied to both narratives, anti- and pro-immigration, but how come it is currently more associated with pro-immigration triumphalism than with anti-immigration tragedy-ism? Why do we care more about how Jews benefited from immigration to America than about how American Indians experienced 'genocide' at the hands of immigrants? The answer is the same as the one that pertains to Zionism. Why does America favor what Jews gained from immigrating to Palestine(that was turned into Israel) than what Palestinians lost as the result of Jewish immigration? Why do we care less about justice for Palestinians than freedom for Jews? It's because Jews amassed the power to attach certain positive themes to their identity and narratives.

Identity is essentially conservative. It is far less mutable than ideology, which is essentially liberal. Even conservative ideologies are ‘liberal’ in the sense of their abstraction, i.e. they can apply to any people. And even identities associated with liberalism are ‘conservative’ in the sense that they’re about ‘us versus them’, the ‘immutable us’, and ‘our unique experience’. When blacks yammer endlessly about justice and freedom, they are not only speaking as liberals in favor of more social equality for all of humanity regardless of race, color, or creed but as 'conservatives' who insist upon the BLACKNESS as the main owners of the themes of justice and freedom in America, thereby implying that BLACKS deserve more recognition and rewards as a people of unique identity and narrative.
In the end, as Identity-centrism that unites a people is more powerful than individual-centrism that atomizes members of any given group, the End-of-History has led to the triumph of powerful identities over weak individualities. For example, compare Jewish-Americans and Japanese-Americans. Jewish-Americans have succeeded as individuals but hold Jewish identity as more important than any single Jewish individuality. Thus, at the end of the day, Jewish individuals unite to serve Jewish identity. In contrast, Japanese-Americans, despite having done well for themselves as individuals, have no sense of greater Japanese-American identity. Indeed, Francis Fukuyama is a good example of this. So, who wins in the game of Jewish-American Identity-centrism vs Japanese-American Individual-centrism? The former of course, but what is truly amusing is that Fukuyama also mainly serves Jewish Identity than his own generic individuality. (Jews, despite having been separated from the Holy Land, feel a stronger connection to
Israel than the likes of Fukuyama feel toward Japan even though Fukuyama himself is separated from his ancestral homeland by just a couple of generations.) Despite all his liberal yammering about ‘end of history’, his heart is with the strong horse of Jewish Identity that controls all the institutions that can make or break someone like him. You won’t hear from Fukuyama about how Jews must forgo their tribal identity in favor of generic individuality, thereby allowing true justice for Palestinians. Fukuyama put liberalism at the center of his world-view, but the end-result has been his servility to the powerful Identity of Jews(and to Homos as proxies of Jewish supremacist Power).
The sudden implosion of Wasp power is a good indication of how liberalism and individual-centrism lose out to the crypto-conservatism of identity-centrism. It’s been said Episcopalians have IQ equal or even higher to that of Jews. So, why did their power and prestige fade so fast vis-a-vis Jews? They acted as mere individuals under generic liberalism, whereas Jews bonded together as a Tribal Identity that furthermore justified its hunger for more power on the Narrative Hegemony of Special Tragedy. Identity is powerful, but one that is consecrated by tragic sympathy is even more so. Justified Identity has decisive moral advantage over Judged Identities. In the West, Jews have made themselves, blacks, and homos the three most Justified Identities, whereas white goyim became mired with the most Judged Identity, and that explains why even rich and powerful white goyim are loathe to do anything for their own race and culture that are under judgement. Even Jewish Liberals are crypto-conservatives in insisting on the importance of their identity uber alles. Indeed, notice how these Liberal Jews berate Donald Trump for his ‘racism’ but complain least about where Trump is most bigoted and hateful: Preference for Zionist imperialism against the hapless Palestinians living in poverty under Jewish supremacist-imperialist tyranny.

The reason why Liberalism ends up betting on the strong horse is because only such a power can hold the peace in a world of so many divergent liberties and contentious individualities. Only such a force can generate enough gravitational pull to create some semblance of order, structure, and pattern. Identity unites by adulation and animus. In the British Empire, the diverse non-white subjects were united in their awe & reverence for the mighty Great White Man and in their sanctioned hatred against whatever the Empire deemed to be the Bad Guy. British Identity decided what the diverse subjects must respect and revile. So, when the British Empire said the Germans are the BAD GUYS, plenty of non-white subjects fought for the Queen against the 'Huns'. The current Jewish globo-homo empire operates in much the same way. It unites the various goyim in their awe and reverence for the Jews and in their hatred against what the Jewish Power deems as especially evil: White National Liberationists, Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, and Christian Conservatives.
We know order is impossible in a classroom where every student is allowed to do his or her thing. The only way to ensure any order is by having a teacher lead the classroom or by having the top bully terrorize everyone until all the classroom looks up to him as the defacto ‘leader’(like how the alpha kid anoints himself leader and enforces his will in LORD OF THE FLIES). The big lie of liberalism is that its triumph will create a world of freedom where every individual will have his say and do his thing. In truth, it will result in excessive disorder than hankers for any kind of order. Furthermore, most people are incapable of thinking for themselves and need to be told what to think, how to feel, and what to believe(and whom to follow). Sad but true, which is why so many 'dittoheads' relied on Rush Limbaugh to be their voice while so many others looked to Rachel Maddow to speak for them(even when it came to something as ludicrous as Russia Collusion Hoax). Also, in a world of individual freedom, some individuals will gain far more wealth, power, and influence than other individuals; and in cahoots with other powerful, influential, and/or well-positioned people, the super-successful individuals will create an agenda that is pushed on the entire population via media, academia, advertising, and other organs that are mostly monopolized by the oligarchs and their agents.
The closest that the so-called Liberal West came to something like true liberality was with the rise of the internet that allowed so many different voices to have their say and speak truth to power. But when the Powers-that-be felt threatened by such liberal freedoms, what did they do? They used their monopoly muscle of social network, finance, and distortions of the law to shut down BDS and counter-Jewish-supremacist voices as ‘hate speech’. In the current West, courageous white people and goyim speaking truth to Jewish supremacist power is ‘white supremacism’ or ‘hate speech’. When it comes to Jewish feelings, even blacks will not be spared if they dare to speak about the Jew. https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/marc-lamont-hill-politically-lynched-telling-truth-about-palestine I wonder... did cosmopolitan liberal Francis Fukuyama raise his voice in support of Marc Lamont's right to speak up on behalf of the much-maligned and oppressed Palestinians?

So much for End-of-History being the triumph of Liberalism. Even though Jews gained top position in the US by taking full advantage of liberal freedom and meritocracy ensured by Rule of Law, once ensconced as the ruling elites, they were more than willing to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to consolidate, keep, and further expand their power. And even though most liberals should be angry with such power-play on the part of Jews, they mostly go along with Jewish power because (1) they prefer any strong horse in a world of excessive disorder & chaos wrought by liberalism (2) they’ve been bribed by Jewish power & don’t want to lose their sinecures & prizes or (3) they are so stupid and shallow that they've sincerely swallowed the Jewish BS that true liberalism is about sucking up to Jews, blacks, & homos at the expense of the rest of mankind and silencing all voices that are critical of Jewish power, Black idolatry, and Homo deification as ‘hate speech’.

In the end, liberalism cannot tolerate everything as each and every idea is inherently intolerant. The monotheism of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are intolerant of atheism or polytheism. Also, true Judaism must be hostile toward Christianity, and vice versa. Jews believe they are the Chosen and that Jesus was a heretic traitor. Christians believe Jews killed the Son of God and refuse to share God with all of mankind. Muslims believe that both Judaism and Christianity were corrupted and it was Muhammad who laid down the final word on Allah. All three religions are virulently intolerant of sensual decadence of the kind found in the current neo-pagan West. They are totally anti-homo, and yet, liberals assure us that Christianity and Islam can happily co-exist with globo-homo garbage that now desecrates so many churches and even encroaches upon mosques via cuck-Muslim homos and trannies whose highest value is vanity and self-worship. If we sincerely and carefully consider every religion, every philosophy, and every worldview, they are intolerant because they must be. Every idea is, after all, a proposal for a Better World, and in order for its agenda to be realized, counter-ideas must be crushed, banished, criminalized, or sidelined. At best, counter-ideas could be tolerated but they must also be marginalized, like in the current US where criticism of Zionism is officially tolerated but effectively muted by the sheer power of the Zionist power bloc. You can decry Zionism in the name of free speech, but you will be denied entry and success in most fields and occupations by Jewish neo-gangsters of ADL and SPLC that threaten any business or institution with defamation and ruin if it were to harbor 'anti-semites'.
Zionism could not prevail in the US if BDS & Palestinian Rights got equal hearing from most Americans, especially the powerful ones. Thus, even if liberalism allows a hundred schools of thought, one or few schools invariably come to dominate and effectively silence other schools either through suppression or marginalization. The White Identity School of Thought in the US is not yet illegal and it has the protection of liberal tolerance. But it’s been effectively sidelined because Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, control most of the channels of information and discourse and made it very clear to all would-be successful people that THERE IS A SERIOUS PRICE TO PAY for those who dare to consider the validity of white identity and interests especially in relation to the demands of Jewish Supremacism(that pretends to be ‘liberal’ and for ‘equality’). Well, just ask the Palestinians how fair-minded Jewish power is.

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.