Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find:
“It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
You did not choose your ethnic identity.
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
Ethnocentrism fuels tribalism.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Competing for limited resources.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
Ethnocentrism leads to conflict, even within ethnic groups.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
And here is my response to why it [ethnocentrism] will never work.
What you are ignoring is that IT ALREADY HAS WORKED -- in White societies, in Japan, and to some extent in other societies, as well.
Whether or not it has worked in black societies (Africa) is another question.
But those of us who love the history of Europe, and all it has accomplished over many centuries, are throwing off the propaganda and rediscovering our pride in our own history.
If blacks can be proud of their history; if jews can be proud of their history; if others can be proud of their histories, then so can Whites. But Whites are the ONLY ones who others claim cannot or should not be proud.
Yet, our people accomplished more than all the others, combined.
We are looking at the recent history of the attempt to destroy ethnocentrism IN WHITE SOCIETIES ONLY, and realizing that this "progressive" era has been an absolute disaster ... for White people.
It has been entirely destructive, and NOTHING about it has been an improvement.
Naturally, we consider the possibility that maybe Whites would be better off going back to the idea of having a society without non-Whites, by letting them do their thing "over there" and us doing our thing "over here."
I will give you a hypothetical.
Let's say that we split Texas. Blacks take half and Whites take half.
Within 20-50 years, I can predict with reasonable accuracy that the history of each race will play out again in the future, and Whites will have a thriving society, while blacks will be in chaos and poverty. Sure, some blacks can thrive, but on the whole, the rest of the black population will bring down the whole of the population (see: Africa).
The problem today is that the chaos comes mostly (not entirely, but mostly) from outsiders, from the perspective of White society.
Yes, I know that non-Whites will cry about these statements, but these statements are for the Whites to consider, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
The biggest problem most Democrats have is that they have these ideals of how they think society "should" be, and how we should acheive such an end goal. Their ONLY solution to the "how" part is more government spending.
OK, but they NEVER take a step back to LOOK at the RESULTS of their ideas. Did their ideas from 50 years ago about education, poverty, liberty, etc. ACTUALLY ACHEIVE THE RESULT they said they wanted?
In every single case, the answer is: NO.
That's BECAUSE their solution is FLAWED. It does not work the way they think it will because people are more complex than just pushing a button and spending money (money that is STOLEN from other people).
The same is true of the experiment in desegregation and the forceful interaction of different races.
IT HAS NOT WORKED ... for Whites.
That is my point, and non-Whites will either (a) not get it, or (b) not accept it, because it has benefited them, and they don't know what their own life would be like if the Whites just picked up their toys and left town (hint: look at Africa).
There is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. Only the propagandists who want to destroy White society push that narrative. And it is long past time that we ignore their opinions on this subject.
Sure, we all should work together to destroy the Deep State, who come in all colors (though jews are vastly over-represented), because those people harm us all.
That, however, does not change anything else I said here.
It is the Deep State who has pushed these harmful ideas in the first place. These ideas are not natural to humans.
THAT IS WHY they don't (and won't ever) work.
We should accept that and deal with reality as it is, not as someone in an ivory tower thinks it should be.
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find: “It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Edit: found the first quote, Aristotle on democracy, diversity and Philia: https://www.reddit.com/r/democracy/comments/a1vp64/i_feel_aristotle_was_correct_in_his_assessment_of/
Well said.
"Muh diversity" has been promoted by jews for the purpose of destroying the White race through miscegenation (race mixing).
Muhammad Ali said it well:
"You're a hater of your people if you don't want to stay who you are."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4
“Diversity is our strength” is the greatest lie of our modern age and such a hard frame for us to break because the programming is so strong.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
What you are ignoring is that IT ALREADY HAS WORKED -- in White societies, in Japan, and to some extent in other societies, as well.
Whether or not it has worked in black societies (Africa) is another question.
But those of us who love the history of Europe, and all it has accomplished over many centuries, are throwing off the propaganda and rediscovering our pride in our own history.
If blacks can be proud of their history; if jews can be proud of their history; if others can be proud of their histories, then so can Whites. But Whites are the ONLY ones who others claim cannot or should not be proud.
Yet, our people accomplished more than all the others, combined.
We are looking at the recent history of the attempt to destroy ethnocentrism IN WHITE SOCIETIES ONLY, and realizing that this "progressive" era has been an absolute disaster ... for White people.
It has been entirely destructive, and NOTHING about it has been an improvement.
Naturally, we consider the possibility that maybe Whites would be better off going back to the idea of having a society without non-Whites, by letting them do their thing "over there" and us doing our thing "over here."
I will give you a hypothetical.
Let's say that we split Texas. Blacks take half and Whites take half.
Within 20-50 years, I can predict with reasonable accuracy that the history of each race will play out again in the future, and Whites will have a thriving society, while blacks will be in chaos and poverty. Sure, some blacks can thrive, but on the whole, the rest of the black population will bring down the whole of the population (see: Africa).
The problem today is that the chaos comes mostly (not entirely, but mostly) from outsiders, from the perspective of White society.
Yes, I know that non-Whites will cry about these statements, but these statements are for the Whites to consider, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
The biggest problem most Democrats have is that they have these ideals of how they think society "should" be, and how we should acheive such an end goal. Their ONLY solution to the "how" part is more government spending.
OK, but they NEVER take a step back to LOOK at the RESULTS of their ideas. Did their ideas from 50 years ago about education, poverty, liberty, etc. ACTUALLY ACHEIVE THE RESULT they said they wanted?
In every single case, the answer is: NO.
That's BECAUSE their solution is FLAWED. It does not work the way they think it will because people are more complex than just pushing a button and spending money (money that is STOLEN from other people).
The same is true of the experiment in desegregation and the forceful interaction of different races.
IT HAS NOT WORKED ... for Whites.
That is my point, and non-Whites will either (a) not get it, or (b) not accept it, because it has benefited them, and they don't know what their own life would be like if the Whites just picked up their toys and left town (hint: look at Africa).
There is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. Only the propagandists who want to destroy White society push that narrative. And it is long past time that we ignore their opinions on this subject.
Sure, we all should work together to destroy the Deep State, who come in all colors (though jews are vastly over-represented), because those people harm us all.
That, however, does not change anything else I said here.
It is the Deep State who has pushed these harmful ideas in the first place. These ideas are not natural to humans.
THAT IS WHY they don't (and won't ever) work.
We should accept that and deal with reality as it is, not as someone in an ivory tower thinks it should be.
You have all you need.