Call it tribalism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, or whatever. It’s natural for a people to prefer and favor their own side. Any people who fail to do so either out of stupidity, decadence, complacency, apathy, or persuasion(by the enemy/rival/competitor-posing-as-friend) will fade from history. That is absolutely guaranteed.

However, to make my-side-ism work within the context of larger humanity, there has to be some ground rules. All people must acknowledge the validity of nationalism(or its variants) for all groups. If People A are primarily for People A, they must expect People B to be for People B, People C to be for People C, and so on.
If, however, People A favor their own side but deny the right of other peoples to do likewise, the core contract has been violated. It would certainly be presumptuous for People A to favor themselves while demanding all other peoples to favor People A as well. That goes beyond tribalism. It smacks of tribal supremacism(or monomania) where one Tribe insists on its own sovereignty while denying the same right to all the others. Such reeks of hegemony, the stuff of empire.

Sane and sound universal nationalism respects the national identities and interests of all peoples, with the full understanding that what may be good for one nation may not be so for others. Thus, there is a need for negotiation and compromise built on mutual respect and give-and-take.

Indeed, such is the very essence of athletics. While any given side understandably cheers for its own team, it’s within the framework of rules that equally govern all sides. All sides must pledge to play fair and all sides must agree to penalties upon fouls being committed. Otherwise, it’s no longer about sportsmanship but barbarism.
Therefore, all decent sports fans, despite their passionate loyalty, would not condone their team winning dirty. A fair loss is more honorable than a foul win. Of course, some fans are so petty, lowdown, and unscrupulous that they don’t mind their team winning by any means necessary, even if it entails the use of banned substances, bribing the referees, and etc.
But among the civilized, even fans who root for their own team are for fair play and penalties upon fouls committed. Thus, you have healthy tribalism but not tribal supremacism. You root for your side but understand why others root for their own sides. While there are winners and losers, fans of all stripes feel as participants of the Good Game, one where the immutable champion is the principle of fair play. So, while one team may win the trophy for this season while another team may win the trophy for the next season, the one constant is that all must submit to the rules of the game. Thereby, even the losing side can walk away with dignity and with respect for the winning side(deemed to have won fair and square, rightfully earned).

No wonder gangsterism is despised(or at least was). It has no use for rules. When several companies compete under the rule of law, they strive to offer better products or services to edge out the competition. But suppose an inferior company gains dominance through gangsterism, bumping off executives, researchers, and managers of other companies. It has won by foulness, not fairness. Enterprisers create and produce stuff, whereas gangsters take what others have made.

When fouls aren’t called out by the legal arm of the system(as referee), fair play falls by the wayside, and then everything becomes degraded or begins to fall apart. Why should anyone play fair when foulness isn’t only tolerated but rewarded? It paves the way for eventual collapse of the system, implosion from within or invasion from without.

Granted, the decline of the West is rather paradoxical given the strange dynamic between the Northern Whites(or Europeans and White Americans of Northern European and mostly Protestant extraction) and the Jews. While no system is devoid of foulness, the Northern Whites nevertheless created social, political, and economic orders that were more conducive to the Rule of Law and Fair Play. Then, why did the fairest and most legal-bound system in the world become so vulnerable to Jewish corruption?
Because the meritocracy provided an opportunity for the Jews(accepted as fellow whites) to out-compete and gain advantage over the Northern Whites. Now, this factor alone needn’t have led to gangsterism if Jews were committed to meritocracy themselves.
After all, it made good sense for Jews to appreciate, defend, and preserve meritocracy given that their higher IQ and willpower favored them in brainy competition(for wealth, privilege, and power).

But for whatever reasons, Jews lacked an honor culture, held extreme tribal-supremacist views, harbored contempt toward goyim, were boundless in their ambition, and were given to endless cycles of self-pity, paranoia, and revenge. Long having honed their skills as ‘parasitic’ sidekicks in the shadows than as leaders in open contention, Jews failed to develop the sense of honor so essential to dignified rule.

Thus, even though they gained wealth and power via genuine meritocracy, they used their newfound advantages to secure and expand their power with little regard for rules. Had Jews committed themselves to the Rule of Law as established by Northern Whites, the result might have been a happy story for all. But Jews, who’d gained so much through fair play(or meritocracy), weren’t averse to using the foulest means to grab more and more until the entire world became their (g)oyster. One really wonders what the likes of Alan Dershowitz had in mind when they studied law at Harvard. To uphold the law for all peoples or to turn it into lawfare for Jewish supremacist gangsterism.

The strangely perverse thing about Jews is that their example violated the stereotypical formula about success and failure, the presumption being that the smart, talented, and capable favor meritocracy because they don’t need to cheat to succeed as they possess natural talent and the competitive spirit. In contrast, the dumb, the incompetent, and/or the lazy tend to resort to foul means as they lack the requisite abilities to make it through honest effort and fair play.
In some cases, certain groups very likely possess more innate talents than other groups, e.g. Whites and East Asians have higher IQs than blacks. In other cases, the national character of a people may place a premium on the prestige of integrity and conscience, whereas the national character of another people may foster a more cynical, cunning, and corrupt worldview. People of Southern Italian stock were more prone to corruption and criminality in the US. Now, one might not expect much from the not-too-bright ‘goombas’ for whom lying, cheating, and stealing come naturally, like with the scummy hoodlums in GOODFELLAS. That jibes with the formula of ethnic stereotypes: Southern Whites cannot out-compete the Northern Whites in fair competition, and so they cheat.

Video Link

But, Jews are a different matter, a real outlier. Not only have they demonstrated abilities(and awareness) equal to those of the Northern Whites but even some that proved to be superior. Thus, an objective onlooker might have expected the Jews to be even more fair-minded and conscientious once they gained the dominant position in society. But, the opposite turned out to be the case.
Jews earned like super-Episcopalians but acted like the ultra-Sicilians. Unlike the Meatball Italians(and the Dumb Polacks), Jews thrived in a meritocratic system, but they acted like termites devouring the system from within, leaving an empty husk that was only good for gangsterism. Granted, many people were blindsided. For one, because many Jews, especially the radical ones, were at the forefront of critiquing political injustices and exposing social ills(and leading revolutionary movements), many idealistic whites assumed that a Jewish-dominant order would be more fair-minded and progressive.
If so many Jews expressed such a zeal for ideals and intellect, wouldn’t the Jewish domination of the arts & letters, of media & academia, lead to a new golden age of fairness, justice, and morality? It especially seemed so as the final phase of Jewish Ascendancy coincided with the Boomer takeover of the levers of power, significant insofar as the Sixties generation became associated with idealism, expansion of rights, and various liberations. But then, the dark side of ‘liberation’-ism was the opening of the Pandora’s Box that led not only to positive and healthy freedoms but excessive, perverse, and shameless ones. Gordon Gekko’s “Greed Is Good” was just another variation of “Let It All Hang Loose.”

We may guess as to the reasons behind the Jewish penchant for corruption and gangsterism. There may be something like the Talmudic Jerk Ethic as a darker counterpart to the Protestant Work Ethic.

Also, Foul Play may be a feature of the superiority complex as of the inferiority complex. It may be that fair play is most likely among those with more-or-less equal talents and equal estimation. If groups A, B, and C all regard each other as more-or-less equally worthy, they are likely to play fairly amongst themselves.
However, if one group, say B, feels inferior, its members may feel they must cheat or make bogus excuses for special favors(like ‘affirmative action’) to gain something like parity in a competition for which they’re ill-suited.
But, the result may be the same if one group, say C, feels superior. If members of C believe, either by objective/meritocratic measurement or ethno-supremacist delusion(or both), that they are innately better than others, they may believe that they’re above the law or too good to concern themselves with the rules meant for the suckers, lamos, squares, and mediocrities, i.e. “the laws are for the birds.” It’s David Mamet’s vision of a house-of-games where the truly smart/talented outplay the rest who, unable to keep up, are deemed as losers deserving only of contempt, like the weary salesmen in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS.

The inferior feel that they must cheat to get ahead in life. The superior feel that they’re too good to play by the rules meant for the humdrum. Jews feel they have Big Brain superiority over the goyim and therefore aren’t bound by the same rules. They feel as prophetic-gangsters over the dogmatic-sheeple that constitute most of humanity. So, when Jews cheat and swindle the goyim, they don’t see it as foul play but as a different kind of fair play, i.e. it’s only natural, even cosmically ordained, for the smarter Jews to run circles around the dimwit goyim. It’s like how Hannibal Lecter the genius lives by his own rules and regards most people as inferior sheeple. 

Whether it’s Jewish Supremacism(or “We are the masters of the universe”) or Lecter/Lime, there’s the veneer of a higher kind of morality where the rightful superior-being or the master race lords over the inferior. We don’t expect people to treat pigs, lambs, horses, cows, or dogs as their equal. Then, why should Hannibal Lecter or the Jews treat whom they regard as inferior beings as their equals? Thus, what is objectionable from a humanist viewpoint becomes ‘moral’(or transmoral) from a superiorist view, be it based on Scripture(with Jews as the Chosen) or HBD(with Jews as the genius race).

Thus, while it would be immoral for most people to do genocide on the Palestinians, it could be deemed as ‘transmoral’ or ‘ubermoral’ for the Jews to do so because they’re either the Chosen(with the right to wipe out the ‘Amalek’) or the Genius Race(in relation to whom the Palestinians are like cattle to slaughter or, at best, like savages to exterminate to make way for civilization).
Granted, the current West is rather schizophrenic because, even as Jewish power and privilege are founded on an ideology/idolatry of innate superiority(spiritual and/or intellectual), Jews have long staked their reputation as the champions of equality(or equity) against ‘racism’ and also as the greatest victims of racial supremacism(of Nazi Germany). No wonder then there are so many Philo-Semitic whites who are utterly smitten with Jews as the superior race, the Chosen by God and gifted with genius DNA, and making excuses for the worst excesses of Zionism as an ethno-supremacist ideology, while, at the same time, making Jews out to be hapless victims of supremacist ‘Anti-Semites’ and ‘Islamofascists’. “We must protect Jews from goy supremacists because they are the true supreme race.”

But it’s wrong to only blame Jewish supremacism. If it’s wrong for a people to act supremacist, it is equally wrong for a people to act submissivist. Suppose there’s Bill & Bob, and Bill always feels entitled to everything while Bob willingly acts the toady and flunky to Bill. Bill has the master attitude and Bob has the slave attitude. Now, if Bill had forced Bob into bondage, Bob would be a victim, therefore undeserving of blame. But if Bob of his own volition chose to be a suck-ass devotee to Bill’s arrogance and nastiness, he too must be blamed for not living up to his human potential for dignity/decency and for indulging Bill’s worst tendencies. The greatest evil in our world is the partnership between Jewish Supremacism and White Submissivism. Whites have reneged on their obligations as rational, critical, and free-thinking individuals and abnegated their agency to the Jews as their masters. Whites did this freely and have thus demonstrated the evils of submissivism as the flipside of supremacism.

It’s often been noted that Global Zion was confronted with two possibilities in its search for Israel’s security. Good-willed compromise or all-out hegemony. Either negotiate with the Palestinians within the limited territories of Israel-Palestine or take out all countries in the Middle East and North Africa lending support to the Palestinians. Incredibly, Jews opted for the far more audacious, reckless, and hubristic latter, which came to be known as the Clean Break Strategy, quite a tall order for a tiny minority and a small country.

But then, the outlandish plan was within the realm of possibility only because of the Jewish takeover of the US. At some point, Jews wondered what their place in the West would be: Contentious but workable relations with White Goy communities(standing their own ground) or total demolition of all white goy resistance & opposition via total Jewish seizure of all crucial institutions and industries.

In other words, in order for the Clean Break Strategy to be viable in MENA(Middle East & North Africa), it first had to be implemented in the West with the total subjugation of white goyim rendered servile to Zion. Apparently, the Clean Break plan worked with flying colors with the spineless whites, and then, with their unconditional loyalty, Zion could direct the same strategy at those recalcitrant Arabs/Muslims who dared to defy Zion. The Jewish Way or the Highway. As terrible and foul as all this is, one had to give credit to Jewish Power for its big balls.

rest of article:

https://www.unz.com/jfreud/foulism-foul-play-replaces-fair-play-re-moralization-follows-demoralization-and-the-true-failure-of-the-imagination