Ever notice that religious people and so-called ‘progressive’ types tend to be the most self-righteous, sanctimonious, and holier-than-thou? This may seem rather odd, even counter-intuitive, considering that the two groups are usually billed as polar opposites. Religious people are said to favor faith and spirituality. ‘Progressive’ people are said to embody the secular principles of reason in search of real-world solutions.
Then, why are they so alike in their emotions? Why are they so prone to moral one-upmanship, moral narcissism, me-huggery, and pious snobbery? Why do their modes of identity derive from feeling superior to most people, i.e. being part of an elect community of special people?
True, both Christians and Progressives claim universality, a welcoming embrace of the whole world. But then, their terms of entry have been devised to be as exclusive as inclusive. After all, if everyone joined and became part of the club, those in the club would no longer feel special. Likewise, an elite university, despite its claims of ‘inclusivity’, is no longer an elite institution if anyone is admitted.

What religion and political correctness(PC or its worse variant, ‘wokeness’) have in common is the rejection of nature as the basis of understanding humanity. Christian cosmology begins with the perfection of God and the purity of His Creation. According to the Judeo-Christian view, God is perfect, and He created a perfect order, but mankind betrayed, defiled, and corrupted it. But God, in His love for mankind, sent His Son to die on the Cross so that humanity may be redeemed through holy blood sacrifice.

According to the Judeo-Christian view, the natural is sinful, filthy, and obscene. Its corruption is the aftermath of the Fall, the loss of Eden. And the redemption offered by Jesus is one of self-abnegation and condemnation of fleshly desires as fertile soil for demon seeds.
Thus, even though Christianity is open to all seeking salvation, it isn’t easy to be a good Christian and nearly impossible to be a perfect one. Christianity is obsessed with sin, like a germ-freak is obsessed with ‘filth’. A good Christian must always purge his or her soul of sinful desires of the flesh and instinctual animal drives. Both the will-to-power and the will-to-procreate are regarded with suspicion, even hostility. (Of course, even though Christianity claims to uphold and embody universal, eternal, and immutable truths, it hasn’t been impervious to the socio-politico-cultural pressures of the here-and-now. Consider how the Catholic Church made a pact with Fascists, how the Russian Orthodox Church caved to Stalinism, and how the Church of England — among many others — bent over to the cult of globo-homo-mania pushed by Jews. Given that the biggest ‘sins’ according to ‘wokeness’ or PC doctrine is ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’, much of today’s Christianity is obsessed with atoning for those said ‘evils’ than for upholding Core Christian Beliefs and Values that run counter to the vanity of Jews, homos, and Negroes. Core Christianity says Jews are to be damned for rejecting Jesus. Christianity, like true Judaism, is anti-homosexual and anti-decadence. Also, Christianity’s emphasis on humility and spirit-over-flesh is at odds with the Afro-Maniacal jungle-jivery that places thuggery and animal lust at the center of life.)

Now, the conundrum isn’t so much Christianity’s problems with nature per se. Even nature has problems with nature. Nature is in a constant state of warfare. Animals are always attacking and/or devouring other animals. Animals of the same species fight for territory and mating(and bloody violence and death often accompany the creation of new life). Survival is about fright and panic.
Because nature is so brutal, mankind could not have community, let alone civilization, by acting purely in accordance with raw nature. Natural instincts and animal impulses have to be controlled in favor of social cooperation and relative peace.
Then, the problem isn’t Christianity’s conflict with nature. Any kind of civilization must be in conflict with nature. No civilization can sustain itself by surrendering to nature. This is why black Africa has problems creating and maintaining civilization. Being naturally a wilder, more aggressive, and more animal-like race, blacks are less restrained in their ‘jungle’ nature. They are more likely to holler and loot than get down to business. They are more likely to rob and rape than respect social contracts and higher principles.

Christianity’s deeper problem derives from its rejection of nature’s validity. It views nature not as the foundation of life of both man and beast but as the work of the Devil. Instead of regarding nature as something essential, vital, and powerful, the raw material from which civilization is molded and sculpted from, Christianity sees nature as the problem itself.

Of course, Buddhism goes even further in rejecting reality as false illusion. Undoubtedly a profound religion(or spiritual philosophy), it developed, according to legend and myth, not as a reaction to the grim reality of man and nature but as an overreaction to the falsehood constructed by his overly protective father.
Siddhartha was said to be traumatized by the horrors of the world, but this was only because he was raised in an artificial bubble devised by his father who protected him from the facts of life, its cycles of birth and death and everything in between. If he had been raised with a healthy dose of reality, i.e. life is full of horrors as well as wonders, he wouldn’t have been so triggered by the sights of death and decay upon wandering outside the false-eden he was reared in.
It was the denial of reality in his formative years that made him overreact and reject all of reality as unbearable by the standards of ‘perfection’ that marked his childhood and youth. What most people accepted as mundane reality was intolerable because he grew up in an unreality. Instead of accepting reality as reality, he damned it as an illusion from which one must break free. But then, he couldn’t conceive of Heaven either because his Childhood Eden turned out to be an illusion as well. In rejection of both reality and Eden/Heaven, there was only Nirvana, the eternal void.

Christianity has a similar problem(if not as extreme) because it too harbors a severely pessimistic view of man and nature. Of course, it’s a continuation of the Judaic perspective of man’s permanent exile from Eden. Both religions believe that mankind, having ruined and lost Eden, must somehow find their way back to God. Judaism is morally more pragmatic — there is a time for everything, time to kill, time to heal, etc. — but spiritually more purist — God is pure spirit and unfathomable to man — , whereas Christianity is morally more purist — ‘love thy enemy’ and ‘turn the other cheek’, a sinful heart is as guilty as a sinful deed — but spiritually more worldly — God appeared in the form of Man, touched humanity and was touched by it. (One thing for sure, the Eden story is like a template for Jewish Behavioral History. Even when Jews found themselves in something close to a New Eden, Fin de siècle Germany or the United States, they must play games with the Serpent and mess things up, creating conditions for a new exile or worse.)

Now, imagine you come across a dog. Suppose the dog is wild and aggressive. You want to raise the dog, but the dog needs to be tamed and housebroken. It needs to be trained to obey orders. You value the dog and its canine nature. But you also understand that the dog must be tamed to be a companion to man. You value its canine nature(so vital and energetic) but also its need to be controlled.
Now, imagine an alternative scenario where you come across a dog and see it as a demonic creature(as indeed many Christians regarded cats as witch’s companions during the Middle Ages). Suppose you need the dog to serve you and guard the house. But instead of regarding the dog’s nature as healthy and vital, you see it as wicked and foul. So, instead of trying to control and tame a healthy and vital natural-force, you try to expunge it and turn the dog into a creature of total obedience that is furthermore, ashamed of its dog-nature.

The first dog-tamer and the second dog-tamer have one thing in common. They understand that the dog has to be trained and restrained. Its nature has to be controlled. But the first dog-tamer values the dog’s nature. He values the dog’s natural hunting instincts, fighting instincts, and mating instincts. He values the dog’s energy, exuberance, curiosity, and adventurousness. They are hallmarks of the dog’s nature, and he doesn’t want to destroy them. He wants to tame them to the extent that the dog is compatible with mankind.
In contrast, the second dog-tamer sees the dog’s nature as essentially ugly and lowly. As such, he would like to destroy the dog’s nature as much as possible so that it will be tamed into submission of total obedience. It’s like Muslims see nothing good about dogs and their nature.

Because of Christianity’s cosmology of the Creation and the Fall, followed by Jesus’ offering of redemption by the ritual of self-sacrifice and spiritual transcendence, it cannot accept nature — wild nature and human nature — for what they are. For Christians, nature itself is sinful. It is not something that is vital and healthy that must be controlled but something that is sinful, wicked, and obscene. Before the Fall of Eden, spirit and flesh were one. Both were immortal, pure, and eternal. But with the Fall, the flesh began to age, rot, and wither. It became part of the world of decay and death. Only the spirit retained the possibility of surviving beyond death. For Jews, the spirit was carried down through the generations via the Covenant. For Christians, the spirit could rise above flesh via Jesus’ sacrifice and gain entry into Heaven.

Such a mindset led to sanctimony among Christians. This may seem counterintuitive since Christianity says all flesh is wicked. That means even the flesh of earnest Christians are sinful.
Then, if Christians themselves are wrapped in impure flesh, why should they feel so holier-than-thou and self-righteous? It is because Christians feel they are at least closer to God, whereas heathens are without God and Jesus. At the very least, Christians believe that they are aware of their filth and taking regular spiritual showers. In contrast, the heathens are blissfully ignorant of the true nature of their flesh and reek of unwashed sin.
Of course, even among Christians, there is a competition for sanctimonious one-upmanship of greater self-righteousness premised on higher degrees of self-flagellation.

In contrast to Christians, the neo-fascism accepts nature for what it is. Neo-fascists don’t see nature as wicked or sinful. Nature is the product of billions of years of evolution. The process of life is brutal, ruthless, and violent. And humans are the product of this long evolution from single-cell organism to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to ape to man. Whatever we think of nature and its processes, they are what they are. They are neither good nor evil. Without nature, there is no life, and no life means no humans. We have to accept the truth of nature as the foundation of all that is.
However, it’s no less true that humans developed advanced cultures and civilizations, and for such to be maintained, we need to control and tame nature, even as we harness its power, both internal and external. Raw nature will bring down any civilization. Rock-n-Roll belongs on stage, not in life.

Nature created different species. And within the same species, there are different subspecies or races/breeds. And these differences can be significant, indeed significant enough to profoundly impact patterns in crime, violence, sex & mating, achievement, dominance, success, and status. But, noticing differences among human groups, especially if deemed to reflect negatively on blacks, has become a taboo subject in virtually all of ‘liberal'(as well as ‘conservative’) media and academia. Only Neo-Fascism and its variants now dare speak the truth.

For neo-fascists, not only species but subspecies are too evident in nature and society to be denied by any honest person. What serious person can deny that Ashkenazi Jews achieve far more than blacks in mental endeavors due to higher IQ? And who can deny that blacks attain far more than Jews in sports due to greater strength and speed?
Even though the prevalent characteristics of a race don’t apply to every member, they exist generally more among certain groups than among others. There are more individuals like Mike Tyson among blacks than among Jews, and there are more individuals like Alan Dershowitz among Jews than among blacks. And these differences have a huge impact on society in terms of finance, media, sports, sex, crime, and violence.

This is why neo-fascists, race-realists, and race-ists(meaning those who believe in the reality of race and racial differences) have little need for self-righteousness, moral one-upmanship, and me-hugging sanctimony. They are grounded in reality and make no apologies for it. And if they prioritize the survival and success of their own kind, it’s due to healthy human nature and a sense of obligation to heritage and culture.

Now, neo-fascists, race-realists, and race-ists do believe in morality as the controlling mechanism against nature. Letting nature run wild is like letting dogs and cats do as they please, a recipe for disaster. Unless human aggression, sexuality, gluttony, and greed are contained, things will fall apart.

So, we need morality and the rule of law. But for neo-fascists and race-ists, it’s not a matter of being holier-than-thou or self-righteous but being right about the ways of nature and controlling them. Neo-fascists value nature for what it is. Without natural urges, drives, and passions, we wouldn’t be human. Without emotions, we’d be anemic robots. But, letting the id loose turns into the Altamont Rock Concert of 1969, a complete fiasco. Indeed, look what happened to much of the black community once blacks reverted to their wild African-jungle nature. Many black communities seem as though populated with baboons or chimpanzees.

This is why the neo-fascist moral philosophy is about being sane, sound, and sensible than self-righteous and holier-than-thou as me-huggers. Unlike Christians who believe that God’s perfect Creation was destroyed by man’s wicked surrender to vanity and desire, neo-fascists believe that man is the way he is because he evolved from apes that evolved from monkeys. Animal nature is part of what we are. And this nature is valuable as the primary fuel that makes us seek food & shelter, compete with others, seek sex to create new life, express ourselves to gain attention, and etc.
Religions such as Buddhism and Christianity idealize the transcendence of the spirit. They favor the total abnegation of fleshly desires in favor of spiritual uplift. Christianity envisions the spirit departing from the flesh and entering Heaven. Buddhism goes the extra mile and informs the spirit that it too is an illusion and must also be extinguished in the void so that there will remain nothing in the end, neither filth of flesh nor fantasy of spirit.

The difference between neo-fascists and Christians in relation to nature is like the difference between the two aforementioned dog-tamers. The first dog-tamer values the dog’s nature but knows it must be tamed in order for the dog to be a useful companion to man. He doesn’t deem the dog’s nature to be wicked or wrong. Indeed, a wild dog must rely on its wild nature to survive. But in the world of man, a dog cannot act wild. Still, there is much in dog’s nature that is appealing and even useful to man. So, the first dog-tamer respects the dog’s nature but channels it in ways that make the dog compatible with the world of man.

It’s akin to the neo-fascist view of human nature. Neo-fascists understand the organismic foundation of man. Unless we understand the biological foundation of humanity, we won’t understand its true nature. Neo-fascism believes in the necessity of morality: A morality of realism than purism. Since Neo-fascists understand man’s animal origins and essential animal-organismic nature, they understand those factors must be controlled and channeled in order for man to rise above savagery and barbarism.
Shorn of animal nature and drives, mankind would lack the fuel for power and competition. But if mankind fails to control those drives, it will remain on the level of the savage, like among Negroes who hardly developed great civilizations and turned Western cities like Detroit into jungle-lands.

The age-old question has been, “Do men want mastery over nature or slavery to nature?” All animals, even the most intelligent, are slaves of their nature and instincts. They cannot break free of their natural programming. They are driven by instincts and drives. Animals can be freed from the tyranny of nature only under the control of man, but then, this makes them slaves of man.
Only man can begin to understand his own nature via heightened consciousness, reason, morality, context, and wider perspective. Man can go from running with horses to riding them, literally and metaphorically.
Only man can create culture as a bulwark against nature but also understand how culture, made tyrannical or corrupt, could rob him of both mind and instinct. Man’s search for his true self is like the myth of Sisyphus: A never-ending struggle. The Hellenic ideal envisions the man of reason & will who shapes his own destiny, thus gaining mastery over nature both internal and external. The Hebraic ideal seeks mastery over nature by having man serve the only true master, the one and only God.

Then, rules and codes, of which morality is a part, are of the essence. Even among animals, especially social ones, certain crude ‘understandings’ regulate their behaviors. Without such factors, a wolf pack or a lion pride wouldn’t be possible as those species rely heavily on cooperation.

The purism of Christian morality can be traced back to the tragedy of Eden that was lost through man’s ego-driven disobedience, even though one could argue that Adam and Eve were undone more by childlike innocence than any ‘Faustian’ bargain as they were ill-prepared to appreciate the full effects of the fruit. God ordered them not to eat from the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge, but as they only knew of goodness, perfection, and bliss, they had no way of conceiving what lay on the other side.

Paradoxically, Christianity is at once most demanding and most forgiving. The example set by Jesus, one of the highest virtues, is upheld as the gold standard of morality and spirituality for all converts. But then, precisely because it is so difficult to attain in life(even among self-sacrificing saints), Christianity allows for man’s failings, as when Jesus essentially forgave Peter’s betrayal before the fact. Jesus, in pushing moral and spiritual logic to the very end, knew that no man could come anywhere close.
This paradox has led to no small amount of cultural schizophrenia, with some interpreting the Christian God as a moral germ freak and stickler for detail while others portray Him as the life-of-the-party for whom just about anything is forgivable.
Furthermore, if some see Jesus’ sacrifice as a model to emulate, others see it as a meal-ticket, i.e. since Jesus went through the trouble for mankind, one need not try too hard.

The Christian Way is akin to that of the aforementioned second dog-tamer. If the first dog-tamer values the dog’s nature even as he controls it, the second dog-tamer reviles the dog’s nature as inherently wicked despite its usefulness. He not only tames and controls the dog but instills it with guilt over its very nature.

Given PC’s official secularism and, for the most part, non-religion-ism, you’d think ‘progressives’ would be like the first dog-tamer. For one, they accept the animal origins of mankind, aka evolution. They know that mankind’s animal drives are natural, formed by millions of years of natural selection, not the work of the devil. For the most part, they don’t believe in God and reject Biblical precepts. They don’t believe in Eden or Jesus and the Resurrection. So, why are they so much like the Christian moralists? Why are they like the second dog-tamer?

It’s because the proglodytes and ‘wokesters’ have their secular twists on the Edenic and Christo-redemptive narratives.

For starters, the French Enlightenment, even as it championed materiality and reason, was less the product of scientists than philosophers or philosophes. And the proto-social-scientific views of these philosophes were more idealistic than realistic. They imposed their vision of hope, redemption, and progress on the cult of reason. Thus, their idea of ‘Reason’ wasn’t necessarily rational or even reasonable. Later, Marxism posited its theories as ‘scientific materialism’ despite the sketchy or flawed evidence, downright falsehoods, intellectual egomania, and Messianic fervor.

The French Enlightenment was defined by the overly optimistic Cult of Reason. The philosophes believed that the triumph of Reason would lead to their desired social or political goals. Their Cult of Reason lacked reasonableness and the cautious curiosity of the skeptical mind. No wonder the supposedly Rational French Revolutionaries were soon massacring one another. If Christians butchered one another over “God on my side”, the Rationalists butchered one another over “History on my side”.

It’s one thing to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in mathematics. But there are too many variables among humans, society, and history for any single theory to be conclusive. And even things that are correct may be so only in certain contexts. For example, one can argue that democracy is a good political system. But democracy can only work within certain historical, economic, political, and demographic contexts. Just because liberal democracy works well in one nation is no guarantee that it will have the same effect on another nation with very different content and context. It’s like what works for one breed of dogs will not work so well with other breeds, let alone cats. Try using bloodhounds to herd sheep.

The French Enlightenment had its Edenic vision in the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and this optimistic vision of human nature has always been a feature of ‘progressivism’. This Edenic view of human nature says that all humans are born with positive, noble, and wonderful qualities. But society, burdened with the history of oppression and corruption, tarnishes human souls and leads them astray. Anarchists believe in the innate goodness of human nature and blame social institutions for corrupting individuals into nasty exploiters, oppressors, or criminals.

A variation of Rousseauian view is found in J.D. Salinger’s THE CATCHER IN THE RYE where Holden Caulfield is distraught over the compromised, hypocritical, and even corrupt world of the adults. And this mentality carried over into the 60s where one of the biggest hits of the decade was THE GRADUATE, a story of a young man unnerved by the prospect of graduating into a world of ‘plastics’. Woodstock Concert was about going ‘back to the garden’. Apologists of black pathology have insisted that naturally vibrant and exuberant Negroes fail in society because of the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination, i.e. the Edenic Negro soul and the once-Edenic Africa are in troubled states because of the Greedy West that perverted and corrupted their true sunny and warm nature.

Also, the entirety of Jewish history is narrated as one of victim-hood under Gentiles, especially white ones. So, these nice, innocent, and wonderful Jews were oppressed, exiled, and brutalized by these bad nasty goyim, and that explains Jewish neurosis. (Granted, the famous Jewish neurosis is expressed through both Adam/Eve and God. Adam’s troubles begin upon gaining a greater vision of reality beyond the confines of Eden. Knowing more, Eden is no longer enough for him. Likewise, when Jews remained within their closed tight knit community, they were content with a world of their own. But once their eyes fell on what the goyim have — greater wealth and power, more attractive sexual mates, vaster territories, and etc. — their own world was no longer enough, and they had to have the world beyond their own, which had been enough in their self-enclosed ignorance. Once Jews got a taste of the forbidden fruit of the goy world, they could no longer be satisfied with their own world that suddenly seemed small. But Jewish neurosis also identifies with God in seeing goyim as Adam and Eve who must be harshly punished IF they dare to venture beyond what Jews deem permissible. To know more is condemned as ‘antisemitism’ and results in swift exile from the Jewish Plantation.)

And according to feminists, female nature is loving and kind(and powerful in a good way), but evil patriarchy kept it inside a cage and distorted it. So, for women to be free, they must run wild and do as they please.
And the Counterculture was in no small part premised on the natural idealism of youth against the Man and the System standing in the way and stomping from above. As Times-they-are-a-changin, the Man and the System need to step aside and let the youth run wild and free.

So, the end-result of all these strands was a kind of neo-Edenism, a secular variation of Christianity. Certain groups — Jews, blacks, womenfolk, youths, and later homos — were deemed innately noble and wonderful but held back from reaching their potential by the Man and the System. There was a burst of optimism in the 60s when social barriers fell one after another.

Finally, blacks could be freer and more equal than ever before. Young people had the leisure and freedom to indulge in their dreams and desires. Women, encouraged by the feminist movement, chose to do their own thing. And later, homos began to run wild, topped only by Negroes. And Jews began to challenge and even eclipse the Wasps as the dominant elites in America. There were no more brakes by the Man and the System. According to the logic of neo-Edenism, everything should have gone well as all these wonderful people were no longer hamstrung by the Man(especially the Wasps).

But, what happened? Something like the crazy-birds-gone-wild in Alfred Hitchcock’s famous movie. Youth movement degenerated into excesses of drugs, sex, and alienation. Negroes ruined city after city, and crime went through the roof. Womenfolk turned into nasty unhappy bitches, with rising rates of eating disorders and sexually transmitted diseases. Homo orgies led to the HIV epidemic and worse. And Jewish power led to the New Cold War, mass corruption on Wall Street, destruction of the Near East, a culture of greed to make previous greed seem piddly by comparison, and the degeneration of culture by Jewish control of media.

Given these outcomes, one would think that the Progs would have wised up a bit. And some, like Steven Pinker, saw the light at least halfway. He realized the dark-side of the libertine-ism of the 1960s and 1970s. But most ‘progressives’ never saw the light and remained stuck to the neo-Edenic vision. Why?

Yes, they will admit that a lot of things went wrong with blacks, womenfolk, homos, youths, and Jewish power. But, they still blame OTHERS for the failures. It is always The Man. So, how do we explain the STD that devastated the ‘gay’ community? Should homos be held accountable for their irresponsible mass orgies that spread all manner of germs via fecal penetration? No, that would violate the neo-Edenic view of homos as angels and saints. Just blame “Reagan’s Indifference” and pretend that homos did nothing wrong in butt-banging one another across the continents. The real culprit was Reagan who didn’t spend enough on some magic cure so that homos could do their thing without worry of disease.

As for the youth culture, we are fed the same theme over and over. Blame the Adults for standing in the way of youth(whose minds are ironically molded by Jewish adults with control over media and academia). This has gotten tricky for boomers who first identified Youth as an Identity. Now, the boomers are in their 60s and even 70s. So, shouldn’t today’s young blame them? Liberal Boomers have dodged this responsibility by always pandering to a new batch of young people by vilifying the Conservative Boomers. Following this logic, all would have been well if every Boomer was more like Bill Clinton than Newt Gingrich. But then, didn’t even Liberal Boomers go for big money, privilege, power, and stuff like locking up record numbers of blacks to revive cities?

As for feminism, it’s still stuck on blaming men(especially white gentile straight men) for whatever is perceived to plague women and girls. So, even though Jews and Homos run the fashion industry that make women feel neurotic and insecure about their looks, the blame only goes to White Male Patriarchy. And even though the problems faced by non-white women owe to culturally distinct sets of circumstances(as well as to globalism), feminism makes believe it’s all the White Male’s fault.

As for Negroes, it is never their fault. So, if black students get suspended more, it must be the fault of ‘racist’ teachers. If too many blacks are dying by gun violence, it must be the white police than blacks killing one another. Even the GOP will never blame blacks. Donald Trump pandered to blacks and blamed their problems on the Democrats, a twist on the Democratic shtick of blaming all black problems on the GOP and ‘racism’.

Now, a sensible attitude would call for the realization that human nature is a form of animal nature, and as such, it needs to be restrained, tamed, controlled, and channeled AMONG ALL GROUPS. Just as white males allowed to do as they please will likely act like barbarians or drunken frat-boys, the same holds true for other demographics as well.
Now, ‘progressives’ will admit as much about the white males. White-boys-gone-wild is a familiar trope of moral degradation. It became a sensation with the Duke Lacrosse Gang-Rape of a black woman that, by the way, turned out to be a hoax. It was associated with the UVA Gang-Rape of Jackie Coakley that also turned out to be a hoax. But then, white-male-craziness isn’t blamed on unrestrained male-animal-nature but on ‘white privilege’, as if it is the evil of privilege that makes males want to act like animals. (Germanic Barbarians who sacked Rome must have been filled with snotty ‘white privilege’.)

Anyway, if white males can act stupid, crazy, and dangerous if their natural urges are unrestrained, why wouldn’t the same apply to other groups? If allowed to run loose, wouldn’t they cause the same problems? And yet, ‘progressives’ have a hard time grasping this simple fact since they cling to the neo-Edenic view of certain groups as naturally good(and corruptible only by the Man and the System). So, when blacks act crazy and cause havoc, they are called ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. Or, the news is suppressed nationally and covered only locally in a subdued tone. Or, when the violence is so extreme and obvious, black rage is explained in terms of the legacy of slavery or lingering ‘racism’.

And the same logic applies to Jews. Some years ago, an Israeli-American was caught making hate-hoax bomb threats to Jewish centers across America. Jews made a big stink about the rise of ‘antisemitism’. But, when it turned out that the main hoaxer was a member of the Tribe, Jews like David Schraub of Berkeley Law School cleverly twisted logic to argue that the guilty Jew is really just another ‘Anti-Semite’ who targeted Jews than a Jewish-Supremacist who defamed white gentiles to serve Jewish interests. So, even when Jews do bad things, the fault is with the others. A Jew who pretends to hurt Jews in order to defame white gentiles is said to reflect badly on ‘antisemitism’ than on Jewish Supremacism, the true motivating factor.

There seems to be two kinds of Difficult Truths.
The first kind is due to the mental challenges inherent in the advanced sciences, philosophy, and other intellectual pursuits. It’s no easy feat to make breakthroughs in biology, chemistry, physics, or philosophy. Such difficulty is challenging but rewarding, a tough climb but backed with encouragement and support.
The second kind of Difficult Truth may be plain as day, easily demonstrable, or obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of honesty and integrity. It isn’t rocket science and doesn’t take a genius. And yet, this truth is very difficult because the social, cultural, and/or political taboos militate against it. One would think this kind of difficulty could only exist in a theocracy or tyranny, but it is no less a part of the supposedly ‘liberal democratic’ West.
In some ways, this kind of Difficult Truth is more frustrating than the other kind, which however exhausting and challenging, has free rein in attaining the answer. But imagine the answer being known(by a sizable population) but not being spoken or being suppressed(or denied) by the institutions that matter.
One kind of difficulty is seeing the mountain and trying to climb it against all odds, while the other kind of difficulty is pretending not to see the mountain that is plainly there. Like “Race isn’t real.”

On some level, ‘progressives’ share the Christian rejection of nature. This may sound counter-intuitive as the ‘progressive’ types embrace the natural in sex, fun, thrills, and frills. Also, ‘progressives’ love violent sports and licentious pop music.
But, here’s the problem. Their understanding of nature is hedonistic, illusory, ‘liberational’, and/or utopian, in spirit neo-Edenic than evolutionary. They indulge in the pleasurable aspects of nature while ignoring or minimizing the dire consequences, which have been suspended or delayed with the aid of technology such as modern medicine, surplus food, welfare safety nets, and/or contraceptives. A society of plenty can sustain(and even grossly profit from) a lot of bad behavior by formulating ways to indulge in excesses without suffering the full consequences that had been virtually inevitable in the past in conditions of relative scarcity and hardship.

The ‘progressive’ conception of nature is ideological-political than biological and evolutionary. Even though they know humans evolved from apes, their concept of human nature owes more to the Narrative than to Natural History. This ‘narratural’ view of mankind or ‘narraturalism’ divides mankind into those with pure/holy natures, those with neutral natures, and those with impure/unholy natures.
In a way, it is a variation of modern ‘scientific racism’ that also ascribed different ‘human narratures’ among the races. For example, the National Socialists contended that the white race evolved to be the most noble, creative, and heroic. In contrast, the Jewish race evolved to be cunning, parasitic, and dishonest. And the black race evolved to be savage and primitive. And the Asian race evolved to be slavish, servile, and despotic.

Both the radical anti-racist and the radical racist views of various human groups have their racial rankings, and in some ways, the ‘woke’ anti-racism is an inversion of European radical racism and indeed could not exist without it.
Radical racism, once prevalent on both the left and the right, provided the intellectual and moral rationale for white imperialism, white ‘antisemitism’, and white racial domination over other races, especially blacks, often worded in progressive rhetoric of the time.
It led to much violence and oppression, as well as imperialist wars(between imperialists and subject peoples & among the imperialist powers vying for mastery), and the horror of World War II. (It also led to the spread of many advanced Western ideas and values around the world.)
With the decline in Western civilizational confidence in the aftermath of World War II & the post-imperialist world order due in part to increasing Jewish influence, the official narrative inverted the earlier racial hierarchy. The new order called for racial equality, but in terms of symbolism, iconography, and storytelling, the narrative was skewed to present certain groups — especially Jews, Negroes, and later homos — as intrinsically holy and pure while making the white race, especially the males, out to be ‘innately evil’, e.g. ‘white babies are born racist’ and ‘the biggest threats to white co-eds are white male date-rapists’.

Given the white domination over the world for so long, the PC attempts to redress past wrongs might have been understandable, at least for a time. And it was good to tear down nonsense ideologies such as ‘Aryan’ supremacism that could only lead to nihilism. National Socialism turned so monstrous because its concept of right-and-wrong was ultimately determined by race. So, even a bad ‘Aryan’ is better than a good decent Jew. The great irony is that PC and its cancer ‘wokeness’ work in the same way. By ‘sacralizing’ certain groups as the Noble Peoples of Eternal Victim-hood, peoples such as Jews, homos, and Negroes needn’t make an attempt to be good, and when they do bad, the deeds are easily forgiven or forgotten… or blamed on ‘systemic racism’ or the Eternal Anti-Semite that made them do it. PC is a form a nihilism because right-or-wrong becomes a matter of group inheritance than individual action. PC ‘morality’ is for the lazy and spoiled.

Interestingly enough, even though scientific race-ism and radical racism could be offensive and simplistic, they were still closer to the truth than the current PC anti-racism. Even the old scientific race-ist views of Jews, blacks, and Asians were more factual than today’s PC anti-racism. Jews do have a more cunning and devious nature than whites do. Blacks are more aggressive, wild, and demented. Asians are more servile and slavish, which explains why so many Asian-American academics are mere yellow dogs of Official Dogma of PC.

If the world carries on with the currently fashionable ‘woke’ anti-racism, the result will be far more dire than even WWI and WWII combined. While those wars were devastating, European civilization still survived. Whites destroyed one another, but whites emerged from the rubble, and they quickly rebuilt their nations. But what will happen when the West continues to let Jews dominate the institutions, infect & paralyze white minds with the ‘woke’ virus, encourage Afro-Colonization of White Wombs(or ACOWW), and welcome endless non-white immigration to the point where the US turns into New Brazil while Europe turns into Afro-Arabia? Then, it will be the end of the white race, and the once-great-center-of-civilization will be just one big Bongomania.

Political Correctness and ‘wokeness’ are premised on the rejection of nature. This may seem odd as PC is nevertheless secular and adopted by the intellectual class that favors science over religion. But science can also be affected by ideology, dogma, and fanaticism. This was true enough of the more zealous National Socialists who rejected certain scientific ideas as ‘Jewish Science’. By rules of National Socialism, Jews were a Problem People, therefore ideas that originated from Jews tended to be suspect and devalued. And consider the role of ideology in communist science. What came to be known as Lysenko-ism was a case of ideology over biology.

When PC and ‘woke’ types accuse Western Science of past prejudices, they aren’t entirely wrong, but their criticism is ultimately useless because, instead of rooting out anti-scientific biases, they merely enforce biases of their own.
Worse, their biases lead them to condemn and purge even real science if not aligned with the currently fashionable dogma of favoring Jews, blacks, and homos.

In a way, such animus, sometimes approaching inquisitional zealotry, is really a form of masked envy because only those in hard sciences and technology seem to make a real difference in the world. As such, the hard sciences and technological fields attract the most advanced intellect, and their findings can be verified as factually true, that is independent of any agenda.
Thus, the hard sciences are above politics, ideology, and opinion, though there are clever charlatans like Elizabeth Holmes. For this reason, science is an object of envy for those who specialize in religion, ideology, culture, and popular opinion. Science is threatening to other fields of knowledge because its only objective is the verifiable truth regardless of dogma or cause. Then, it’s hardly surprising that PC is just as ‘triggered’ by science as was the Church of yesteryear. Whether it’s the fact of heliocentrism or racial differences, those driven by religion or ideology have a hard time accepting anything running counter to their concept of the sacred or righteous.

If humans were computers programmed to strictly follow the rules of logic and facts, political correctness wouldn’t matter. But, humans are emotional, and feelings, not facts, lend meaning to life, as well as the fuel for the lifeforce. It’s why religion/spirituality is still going strong despite all facts pointing to a godless cosmos.

From the cradle, many were raised to believe in God & Jesus, that God loves everyone equally, implying that we must love everyone equally as God’s creation. As for non-religious families, their kids were raised from the cradle to worship MLK, see ‘racism’ as the greatest evil, and associate scientific theories about races & racial differences as ‘Nazi-like’.

Much of PC is about ideological passion and sanctimony, and the emotions are so powerful that ‘woke’ minds rage and recoil from facts and ideas deemed ‘racist’. That said, they’re deluded that facts and science are on their side because most of the media and academia subscribe to PC ideology(for reasons ranging from cultural bias to speciousness to cravenness).
For example, Charles Murray’s (rather milquetoast)ideas have often been dismissed as ‘invalid’ or ‘discredited’ by the ‘scientific community’. To impressionable young minds, such assertions have a double effect: “Don’t even consider Murray’s ideas because they are just flat-wrong and NO ONE in good standing takes them seriously” and “If you desire professional success, such views are unacceptable.” There’s the smear factor and fear factor. Humans are socio-economic players, and status & peer-approval mean a lot to them. With the rising numbers of servile East Asians in the academia as toadies and commissars, the problems of ‘wokery’ will grow worse.

Another problem arises from Jewish control of the Narrative. How important is the power of Narrative? Consider how the Judeo-centric Narrative came to dominate so much of our views of the Ancient World and History. It is because the Jews wrote the Torah that centralized their accounts as THE TRUTH as to what happened and why. Even though other peoples and cultures also produced written texts — even in greater volume than the Jews — , the Torah formulated a powerful unity of narratives. The Torah brought together holiness, mythology, history, genealogy, poetry, prophecy, laws, ideology, and politics in one unified volume. It’s everything in a single canon. (Bob Dylan’s central place in Rock history owes largely to his two albums, HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, regarded as having interwoven the various strands of arts & culture, everything from rural blues to haute poetry, into a unified expression.) It was to knowledge what the Ark of Noah was to all of life. The essential core. So, even though Jews were never a great political power in the Ancient World, their Narrative came to dominate the world, in time leading to the Christian-ization of the West and Islam-ization of the Middle East. Neither the New Testament nor the Koran is conceivable without the Torah.

The story of Jesus illustrates the power of the Narrative. He got whupped and killed real bad. When He was whipped, stripped naked, and nailed to the Cross, it’s hard to imagine a bigger loser. And that would have been that… but for the fact that a handful of men spun an inspired narrative about Jesus and then worked tirelessly to disseminate their accounts and messages all around. It was the power of Narrative that resurrected Jesus from a hapless loser to the King of Kings. The Narrative has the power to do that. People love a good story. And Jews, the craftsmen of the Torah and the New Testament, have known the art of storytelling and ‘sacralization’, from St. Paul to Steven Spielberg.

So, how does the Jewish control of the Narrative play into the neo-Edenism that led to White Guilt? By arguing that the US is a ‘proposition nation’, Jews claimed that America was created as a New Eden of equality, justice, love, and harmony. But, according to the Jewish PC-narrative, whites befouled this New Eden with the ‘genocide’ of Indians and the slavery of blacks. (To be sure, the ‘genocide’-of-Indians Narrative gets far less play, not least because it undermines the idea of America as a ‘nation of immigrants’. Immigrants are, after all, invaders, which is to say favoring immigrants necessarily disfavors the native inhabitants. Jews prop up Emma Lazarus as the prophet of justice, but if she really cared about the ‘huddled masses’, she should have said something about the huddled Indians who were losing their lands to whites & Jewish immigrants? In the end, Jews favor their own tribalism over the interests of others. Indeed, the championing of Indians in the 1960s was more a neo-pagan thing among the hippies, who took their cultural cues from aspects of German Cult of Nature, than the main topic among Jews who preferred the Negro Narrative and then the Homo one.)

According to the Jewish Narrative of the US, the white Adam and white Eve failed, especially with the Original Sin of Slavery. Notice that the ‘genocide’ of Indians is not considered the ‘original sin’ of America even though whites had to conquer the red man’s land before blacks could be brought over. Also, consider the oddity of associating slavery with ‘original sin’. Slavery has existed for 10,000 years according to anthropologists. It existed for eons in Africa, Arabia, Asia, Europe, and in the Americas among the native Indians themselves. Slavery existed in the Americas for at least 10,000 yrs before the white man came.
Also, the Spanish and Portuguese who conquered Central and South America practiced slavery BEFORE Anglo-Americans founded America(and after it was abolished in the US).

So, why is slavery the ‘original sin’ of America? The accusation works ONLY WHEN we adopt the notion of America as a ‘proposition nation’. Supposedly, that ‘proposition’ promised a New Eden. Thus, America was no longer part and parcel of human histor