Every nation has its share of 'winners' and 'losers'. But nationalism upholds the common bond of blood, identity, and heritage among the winners and losers. So, in a nationalist Sweden, the Swedish 'winners' would share identity and common purpose with Swedish 'losers'.
Some Swedes may be richer and more privileged than other Swedes, but there is sense of unity of identity, blood, heritage, and territory. And that is the Socialism of the Spirit, which is more essential/important than socialism of 'materiality'.
But globalism does violence to this Nationalist Socialism of the Soul and Soil. Unlike nationalism, globalism encourages the 'winners' of every nation(except Israel, of course) to identify mainly with 'winners' of other nations while sneering at the 'losers' of their own kind. And the 'losers', bereft of national leaders to inspire them, descend into vice, mostly that which is saturated with Negro filth and peddled by Jewish merchants who are like dope peddlers pushing narcotics to addicts.
Look at what has become of America as the result of the Coming Apart of the white elites(the 'winners' who now serve Jewish globalists) and the white masses(the 'losers' who are offered rap music and porn for culture).
Thursday, September 29, 2016
The Historical Tragedy of Anti-Russian-ism and the Russo-Japanese War. And the Evil of Current Anglo-Zionism.
‘Anglo-Zionist’ as term sort of makes sense given that so much of world affairs have been distorted by the uber-national ambitions of Anglos and Jews in our globalized world.
It goes back to the Crimean War, but it got really crazy during the Russo-Japanese War.
Given that Russia is a white power, it would have made sense for UK and US to side with Russia. But UK was paranoid about Russia because of its vast size even though Russia had no designs on rest of Europe or even wanted to challenge Anglo-Franco rule of the world. (Indeed, Russia's land-centrism ensured its limited role in overseas ventures. Russia was too busy maintaining control over its territorial empire.) And US too often followed Anglo-centrism and prejudices. Sometimes, US was right to follow the UK-lead. Other times, it was stupid, and the Russo-Japanese War was a prime example.
Enabling Japan to win the war(though it was more like a tie with the advantage going to Japan) messed things up for everyone in the long run. It undermined Tsarist authority because Russia became the first white nation in modern times to lose to non-whites. That paved the way for revolution.
And it was bad for Japan in the long run because it became filled with over-confidence that led to confrontation with America. If Russia had won the war, Russians would have gained influence in Manchuria and Korea, and that would have been better for Chinese and Koreans since Russians were more tolerant and willy-nilly than the the psycho-anal control-freak Japanese. Also, Russian aims were limited in Asia whereas Japan wanted to win it all.
In a way, Japanese over-ambition was understandable given the historical context. For most of Asian history, China was the most powerful nation. And Japanese had respected that. But because Japan westernized/modernized first, it became the PREMIER Asian power. Now, if Japanese had a proper long-term view, they would have resigned themselves to the prospect that China too would eventually modernize and become the biggest Asian power. But once the Japanese got a taste of ‘greatness’ and respect(from white nations) as the premier Asian power, Japan didn’t want to let it go. Defeat in Russo-Japanese War would have cured the Japanese of such hubris.
If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, it would have licked its wounds, gained sobriety, and accepted its loss of role in continental Asia. But once it ‘beat’ even Russia, it got addicted to its role as the #1 Asian power. It could no longer accept the inevitable rise of China. It had to everything to prevent China’s rise because it would mean Japan would be #2 in Asia, not #1.
Japan got its foothold on continental Asia with its defeat of China over Korea in 1895. Next, the Japanese were eyeing Manchuria. If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, there was no way Japan could encroach further on China. Also, it would likely have lost its influence over Korea to the Russians who, being more tolerant, wouldn’t have been as aggressive against the Koreans.
So, there would have been no Japan-China War, and China would gradually would have developed and modernized and surpassed Japan — and western powers would gradually have withdrawn from China. And since Japan would have learned its lesson by losing to Russians, it would never have dared to take on the Americans.
Also, losing to Russia would not have been End of the World. Russia had no plan or means to invade and occupy Japan. Russia would have driven Japanese out of Manchuria and controlled the seas around northern China. In contrast, when Japan lost to the US, it lost all sovereignty and became a total whore-cuck nation of America. And it is still a sorry-ass whore-puppet of Uncle Sam/Ham.
So, imagine that. If Russia had won the Russo-Japan War, it would have been better for Russia, China, and Japan.
But, why did Russia ‘lose’? Because of the damn Anglo powers. Brits made it difficult for the Russian navy to get to the Pacific. They were denied the use of the Suez Canal.
And not so subtly, US favored Japan too.
Instead of seeing Russia as the Other Great White Power, US and UK saw them as the BAD BACKWARD WHITE POWER and began to favor the yellow Japanese as the 'honorary whites' who would work with US and UK to counter the power of Russia and eventual rise of China.
UK and US developed a similar paranoid-hostile feelings about Germany. Supposedly, Anglos and Anglo-Americans were good civilized whites while the Germans were Huns and Teutons.
To be sure, Germans and Russians were also to blame for seeing each other as enemies when they could have been friends. Germany vs Russia in WWI was pretty retarded. Stalin realized this, which is why he was willing to work with Germany, but that Hitler violated the pact and attacked Russia and ruined everything.
It is the Russian Jinx. Every time some great white power makes things bad for Russia, its seismic effects mess up the whole world.
The problem long ago was that UK and US saw the world in Anglo-centric terms and failed to see or acknowledge the important role Russia could play.
Fast Forward to today, and we have the same kind of petty ethno-centrism messing up the world. Now, it is Zio-centrism with Anglos playing the role of cuck toady dogs of Jews. Zios now control the US and EU. And Zios see EVERYTHING in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?”
Given the rise of yellow Chinar, it would make sense for white Europe and white Russia to come together and grow closer. And given the massive population explosion of Africans and invasion of EU by the Muslims and the black Africans, it would make sense for white nations to increase nationalism and national sovereignty and work with Russia as a great white power to fend off the Flood of Color.
But instead, US and EU are doing everything to isolate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy.
This is not in the interest of white Americans, white Germans, white French, white Italians, white Britons, and etc. So, why are US and EU at loggerheads with Russia? Because there is nothing Jews fear more than white identity and unity.
Now, especially due to WWII and Holocaust, even those who call for white identity and white unity are not for persecution of Jews. If anything, most white right parties in Europe are pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. So, why are Jews so worried? It’s because Jew are no longer satisfied with the good life under the rule of law in the West. They want Zio-centrist supremacist rule over the world. Jews totally control the US, and Jews want EU and Russia under total Jewish control as well. There are lots of Jewish oligarchs and rich Jews in Russia, but that is not enough for Jews. As long as there is Russian identity and unity, Jews fear it may one day check and restrain Jewish power.
So, Jews are totally out to destroy white power. This is why Jews push massive migration of black Africans into Europe, massive homo propaganda, massive feminist propaganda, and massive interracism via pop culture. It is a way to drive a wedge between the most crucial racial unity, that of man and woman. After all, no amount of technology , science, economy, and government can create white people. White people can only be created by union of white man and white woman. So, Jews use feminism to make white women hate white men and ONLY white men. Jews use massive black and Muslim migration to make white women mate with non-white men. And Jews promote whore culture so that white women will go with Negro bad boys than white boys.
This is bad for whites, but Jews push such an agenda. As far as Jews are concerned, the interests of white folks don’t matter at all. It doesn’t matter how much the white world is harmed and ruined as long as it is good for Suprema-Semitic power.
More than 100 yrs ago, overweening Anglo and Anglo-American hurt Russia and set off a series of events that led to all sorts of disasters.
Today, Zio-Anglo power is acting in much the same manner and once again against Russia for the sake of Zio-centric rule of the world.
Anglos long ago failed to treat other great white powers — arguably with the exception of France — with any respect. And in its overreaching, events led to Revolution and the World War II.
Today, Jews cannot accept a multi-polar world where Russia plays a role and China plays a role. But Jews are more willing to accept Chinese power since Jews figure — correctly — that whites in US and EU will never identify with China no matter what China does since China is an Asian nation. (And in the US, it is acceptable to be ‘racist’ against the Chinese, so there is a fair amount of yellow peril alarmism, and that means whites will always see the Chinese as the Them). But because Russia is white, European, and Christian, the rise-success-and-pride of Russia is a threat to the Jewish model and a model for whites in the West.
Russia and nationalism, Jews don’t like. Russia and Christianity, Jews don’t like. Russia and anti-homo-agenda(as proxy of Jewish globo-imperialism), Jews don’t like. Russia and international agenda independent of Zio-global approval, Jews don’t like. Russia and its role in WWII as the #1 destroyer of Nazi Germany. You would think Jews would like this and be grateful, but Jews don’t like it since Russians are one people they cannot pin with Holocaust Guilt.
Jews are now like Hitler. There is the combination of grandness and pettiness. Zio-globalism is grand because it has a grand vision of remaking the entire world. Likewise, Hitler was a grand visionary who wanted to remake the world.
But if you’re going to have such a grand vision, you have be for all peoples and nations.
Hitler’s grand vision only served his petty prejudices. At least Napoleon invaded Russia to spread Enlightenment values(and rule by iron croissant, to be sure). But Hitler’s view of Russians was just to see them as slaves of German invaders. If you only care about your own people, then stick to your own nation. Bismarck’s vision and his actions complemented one another. He was for Germany and came up with policies that mostly affected Germans.
Hitler only cared about his own kind and despised Slavs and other races, but he had global ambitions. If you have national ambitions, stick to your nation. If you have global ambitions, think about what is good for everyone. Hitler was incapable of such grandness of heart to match his grandness of vision.
Likewise, Jewish zealotry is too petty for a grand world vision. Jews are less than 0.1% of the world population but Jews want to steer all of global power and events in the interest of “Is it good for the Jews?”
Anglos were sort of petty too but not entirely. The Christian and universalist side of them did sincerely believe in some of that White Man’s Burden stuff. Many Anglos and Anglo-Americans were sincerely devoted to improving other parts of the world and feeling some degree of sympathy for the bloody darkies.
But Jews? Just take a good look at Victoria Nuland’s countenance, and you know what it’s all about. The world must not be ruled by people with the personality and prejudices of, say, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, and Sheldon Adelson.
Also, even though Anglos were full of themselves, they never claimed to be perfect and were open to criticism from other peoples. And there were plenty of Anglo writers and critics who were harshly critical of Anglo over-reach, hypocrisy, and etc.
But Jews? Even the slightest whiff of criticism of Jews is treated like Mein Kampf.
Consider how Gregg Easterbrook ended up in the Jewlag, or Jewish Gulag.
Jews are the most powerful people in the world but want to be seen and treated like the most powerless. Jews want the whole world to see Jews like the GOP does. Jews boss around the GOP, but GOP acts like it needs to protect poor poor Jews from all those ‘anti-semites’.
Also, if Christianity and Marxism had some universal strains, there is nothing about Jews and Zionism that is about universal good or justice. It’s all about “is it good for the Jews?” and nothing else.
When Zio-centrism is the most powerful animating force of globalism, we live in dangerous times indeed.
It goes back to the Crimean War, but it got really crazy during the Russo-Japanese War.
Given that Russia is a white power, it would have made sense for UK and US to side with Russia. But UK was paranoid about Russia because of its vast size even though Russia had no designs on rest of Europe or even wanted to challenge Anglo-Franco rule of the world. (Indeed, Russia's land-centrism ensured its limited role in overseas ventures. Russia was too busy maintaining control over its territorial empire.) And US too often followed Anglo-centrism and prejudices. Sometimes, US was right to follow the UK-lead. Other times, it was stupid, and the Russo-Japanese War was a prime example.
Enabling Japan to win the war(though it was more like a tie with the advantage going to Japan) messed things up for everyone in the long run. It undermined Tsarist authority because Russia became the first white nation in modern times to lose to non-whites. That paved the way for revolution.
And it was bad for Japan in the long run because it became filled with over-confidence that led to confrontation with America. If Russia had won the war, Russians would have gained influence in Manchuria and Korea, and that would have been better for Chinese and Koreans since Russians were more tolerant and willy-nilly than the the psycho-anal control-freak Japanese. Also, Russian aims were limited in Asia whereas Japan wanted to win it all.
In a way, Japanese over-ambition was understandable given the historical context. For most of Asian history, China was the most powerful nation. And Japanese had respected that. But because Japan westernized/modernized first, it became the PREMIER Asian power. Now, if Japanese had a proper long-term view, they would have resigned themselves to the prospect that China too would eventually modernize and become the biggest Asian power. But once the Japanese got a taste of ‘greatness’ and respect(from white nations) as the premier Asian power, Japan didn’t want to let it go. Defeat in Russo-Japanese War would have cured the Japanese of such hubris.
If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, it would have licked its wounds, gained sobriety, and accepted its loss of role in continental Asia. But once it ‘beat’ even Russia, it got addicted to its role as the #1 Asian power. It could no longer accept the inevitable rise of China. It had to everything to prevent China’s rise because it would mean Japan would be #2 in Asia, not #1.
Japan got its foothold on continental Asia with its defeat of China over Korea in 1895. Next, the Japanese were eyeing Manchuria. If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, there was no way Japan could encroach further on China. Also, it would likely have lost its influence over Korea to the Russians who, being more tolerant, wouldn’t have been as aggressive against the Koreans.
So, there would have been no Japan-China War, and China would gradually would have developed and modernized and surpassed Japan — and western powers would gradually have withdrawn from China. And since Japan would have learned its lesson by losing to Russians, it would never have dared to take on the Americans.
Also, losing to Russia would not have been End of the World. Russia had no plan or means to invade and occupy Japan. Russia would have driven Japanese out of Manchuria and controlled the seas around northern China. In contrast, when Japan lost to the US, it lost all sovereignty and became a total whore-cuck nation of America. And it is still a sorry-ass whore-puppet of Uncle Sam/Ham.
So, imagine that. If Russia had won the Russo-Japan War, it would have been better for Russia, China, and Japan.
But, why did Russia ‘lose’? Because of the damn Anglo powers. Brits made it difficult for the Russian navy to get to the Pacific. They were denied the use of the Suez Canal.
And not so subtly, US favored Japan too.
Instead of seeing Russia as the Other Great White Power, US and UK saw them as the BAD BACKWARD WHITE POWER and began to favor the yellow Japanese as the 'honorary whites' who would work with US and UK to counter the power of Russia and eventual rise of China.
UK and US developed a similar paranoid-hostile feelings about Germany. Supposedly, Anglos and Anglo-Americans were good civilized whites while the Germans were Huns and Teutons.
To be sure, Germans and Russians were also to blame for seeing each other as enemies when they could have been friends. Germany vs Russia in WWI was pretty retarded. Stalin realized this, which is why he was willing to work with Germany, but that Hitler violated the pact and attacked Russia and ruined everything.
It is the Russian Jinx. Every time some great white power makes things bad for Russia, its seismic effects mess up the whole world.
The problem long ago was that UK and US saw the world in Anglo-centric terms and failed to see or acknowledge the important role Russia could play.
Fast Forward to today, and we have the same kind of petty ethno-centrism messing up the world. Now, it is Zio-centrism with Anglos playing the role of cuck toady dogs of Jews. Zios now control the US and EU. And Zios see EVERYTHING in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?”
Given the rise of yellow Chinar, it would make sense for white Europe and white Russia to come together and grow closer. And given the massive population explosion of Africans and invasion of EU by the Muslims and the black Africans, it would make sense for white nations to increase nationalism and national sovereignty and work with Russia as a great white power to fend off the Flood of Color.
But instead, US and EU are doing everything to isolate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy.
This is not in the interest of white Americans, white Germans, white French, white Italians, white Britons, and etc. So, why are US and EU at loggerheads with Russia? Because there is nothing Jews fear more than white identity and unity.
Now, especially due to WWII and Holocaust, even those who call for white identity and white unity are not for persecution of Jews. If anything, most white right parties in Europe are pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. So, why are Jews so worried? It’s because Jew are no longer satisfied with the good life under the rule of law in the West. They want Zio-centrist supremacist rule over the world. Jews totally control the US, and Jews want EU and Russia under total Jewish control as well. There are lots of Jewish oligarchs and rich Jews in Russia, but that is not enough for Jews. As long as there is Russian identity and unity, Jews fear it may one day check and restrain Jewish power.
So, Jews are totally out to destroy white power. This is why Jews push massive migration of black Africans into Europe, massive homo propaganda, massive feminist propaganda, and massive interracism via pop culture. It is a way to drive a wedge between the most crucial racial unity, that of man and woman. After all, no amount of technology , science, economy, and government can create white people. White people can only be created by union of white man and white woman. So, Jews use feminism to make white women hate white men and ONLY white men. Jews use massive black and Muslim migration to make white women mate with non-white men. And Jews promote whore culture so that white women will go with Negro bad boys than white boys.
This is bad for whites, but Jews push such an agenda. As far as Jews are concerned, the interests of white folks don’t matter at all. It doesn’t matter how much the white world is harmed and ruined as long as it is good for Suprema-Semitic power.
More than 100 yrs ago, overweening Anglo and Anglo-American hurt Russia and set off a series of events that led to all sorts of disasters.
Today, Zio-Anglo power is acting in much the same manner and once again against Russia for the sake of Zio-centric rule of the world.
Anglos long ago failed to treat other great white powers — arguably with the exception of France — with any respect. And in its overreaching, events led to Revolution and the World War II.
Today, Jews cannot accept a multi-polar world where Russia plays a role and China plays a role. But Jews are more willing to accept Chinese power since Jews figure — correctly — that whites in US and EU will never identify with China no matter what China does since China is an Asian nation. (And in the US, it is acceptable to be ‘racist’ against the Chinese, so there is a fair amount of yellow peril alarmism, and that means whites will always see the Chinese as the Them). But because Russia is white, European, and Christian, the rise-success-and-pride of Russia is a threat to the Jewish model and a model for whites in the West.
Russia and nationalism, Jews don’t like. Russia and Christianity, Jews don’t like. Russia and anti-homo-agenda(as proxy of Jewish globo-imperialism), Jews don’t like. Russia and international agenda independent of Zio-global approval, Jews don’t like. Russia and its role in WWII as the #1 destroyer of Nazi Germany. You would think Jews would like this and be grateful, but Jews don’t like it since Russians are one people they cannot pin with Holocaust Guilt.
Jews are now like Hitler. There is the combination of grandness and pettiness. Zio-globalism is grand because it has a grand vision of remaking the entire world. Likewise, Hitler was a grand visionary who wanted to remake the world.
But if you’re going to have such a grand vision, you have be for all peoples and nations.
Hitler’s grand vision only served his petty prejudices. At least Napoleon invaded Russia to spread Enlightenment values(and rule by iron croissant, to be sure). But Hitler’s view of Russians was just to see them as slaves of German invaders. If you only care about your own people, then stick to your own nation. Bismarck’s vision and his actions complemented one another. He was for Germany and came up with policies that mostly affected Germans.
Hitler only cared about his own kind and despised Slavs and other races, but he had global ambitions. If you have national ambitions, stick to your nation. If you have global ambitions, think about what is good for everyone. Hitler was incapable of such grandness of heart to match his grandness of vision.
Likewise, Jewish zealotry is too petty for a grand world vision. Jews are less than 0.1% of the world population but Jews want to steer all of global power and events in the interest of “Is it good for the Jews?”
Anglos were sort of petty too but not entirely. The Christian and universalist side of them did sincerely believe in some of that White Man’s Burden stuff. Many Anglos and Anglo-Americans were sincerely devoted to improving other parts of the world and feeling some degree of sympathy for the bloody darkies.
But Jews? Just take a good look at Victoria Nuland’s countenance, and you know what it’s all about. The world must not be ruled by people with the personality and prejudices of, say, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, and Sheldon Adelson.
Also, even though Anglos were full of themselves, they never claimed to be perfect and were open to criticism from other peoples. And there were plenty of Anglo writers and critics who were harshly critical of Anglo over-reach, hypocrisy, and etc.
But Jews? Even the slightest whiff of criticism of Jews is treated like Mein Kampf.
Consider how Gregg Easterbrook ended up in the Jewlag, or Jewish Gulag.
Jews are the most powerful people in the world but want to be seen and treated like the most powerless. Jews want the whole world to see Jews like the GOP does. Jews boss around the GOP, but GOP acts like it needs to protect poor poor Jews from all those ‘anti-semites’.
Also, if Christianity and Marxism had some universal strains, there is nothing about Jews and Zionism that is about universal good or justice. It’s all about “is it good for the Jews?” and nothing else.
When Zio-centrism is the most powerful animating force of globalism, we live in dangerous times indeed.
Fate of Anglos in the Zio-Globalist World Order
What of the Anglos in the globalist world order? What role will they play?
And why did they lose out in the lands of their own creation?
Maybe their very advantage carried within it a seed of destruction.
The huge advantage of Anglos was the culture of principle, honor, and rule of law.
But for those to work properly, a community has to be de-culture-ized. Rule of law must apply to all individuals. Principle means one has to favor stuff like meritocracy over one’s own kind. And honor means one must maintain dignity.
Among Anglos themselves, these were good things to have; they led to social reform and better governance. Nevertheless, those factors de-emphasized culture, kinship, and heritage since laws must be fair and neutral to all.
So, over time, Anglos lost their blood-and-guts identity.
And when their nations were filled up with non-whites and Jews, Anglos didn’t have the red blooded cultural tribal sense to fight and keep the power. Their culture, if such continued, became one of golf club privilege and high-toned airs of Bill Buckley.
And if white people did express themselves with blood and guts passion, their enemies could invoke the very Anglo book of fairness and point out how ‘racist’ the Anglos were acting.
So, Rule of Law and Neutral Justice are good things… but the danger is they turn people into bland individuals who are de-cultured and favor principles over blood and homeland. When such anemic people come in contact with red-blooded folks, they lack the balls to fight and survive.
Jews learned the art/science of rule of law, but they never gave up on blood and guts cultural sense… and they esp clung to it after the problems of communism, Nazism, and Zionism.
Communism taught socialist Jews that just being ‘workers of the world’ was dull and meaningless. While social justice is good, man needs culture, history, and heritage.
So, Jews found more satisfaction in Zionism that bound socialism with Jewish identity and culture.
In some ways, Germans did same with National Socialism that bound Germanism with socialism. If Nazis had kept it national devoid of contemptuous chauvinism, it might have succeeded like Zionism. But Hitler was a racial chauvinist and imperialist. (Perhaps, the undoing of Zionism in the long run is its imperialism. Occupation of West Bank is turning out to be costly. And Zio-con messing of the Middle East may lead to some unforeseen consequences for Jews. You reap what you sow.)
Anyway, rule of law and idea of justice are good and necessary, but they must be used as mere tools. They are weak as core culture and identity of a people.
A Jew who feels as Jew-and-Zionist has meaning. But a Jew who rejects his identity and says, “I’m just for individual liberty and rule of law” has weak meaning.
Tools are good and necessary but must not be mistaken with the flesh-and-blood-people they are meant to serve.
After all, each person matters more as a blood-and-flesh product of family than any ideology he adopts.
If ideology or ideas count the most in determining identity, then it means you are NOTHING unless you believe in something. What you believe would count more than your very existence.
So, if you believe libertarianism is what counts most, a person who is not libertarian is not human and has no value. But in fact, a person’s worth remains intact regardless of what he believes.
A Jew is no less a Jew for abandoning communism and adopting capitalism. He is still a Jew. His core identity is more than any ideology. This is why a Jew must put Jewishness and Zionism first before any ideology. He may adopt parts of various ideologies to serve his Jewish interest. But the thing is to have the ideology to serve him and his people than to have him and his people serve an ideology as the end-all of truth.
Tools exist to serve humans, humans don’t exist to serve tools.
Even Marx made this point. Economics must serve man. But capitalism too often makes us believe we exist to serve the economy.
Economy must serve man and his nation.
Globalism says ALL MEN must serve the economy of globalists.
In the end, it means we all must serve the economy of Wall Street and Las Vegas.
And why did they lose out in the lands of their own creation?
Maybe their very advantage carried within it a seed of destruction.
The huge advantage of Anglos was the culture of principle, honor, and rule of law.
But for those to work properly, a community has to be de-culture-ized. Rule of law must apply to all individuals. Principle means one has to favor stuff like meritocracy over one’s own kind. And honor means one must maintain dignity.
Among Anglos themselves, these were good things to have; they led to social reform and better governance. Nevertheless, those factors de-emphasized culture, kinship, and heritage since laws must be fair and neutral to all.
So, over time, Anglos lost their blood-and-guts identity.
And when their nations were filled up with non-whites and Jews, Anglos didn’t have the red blooded cultural tribal sense to fight and keep the power. Their culture, if such continued, became one of golf club privilege and high-toned airs of Bill Buckley.
And if white people did express themselves with blood and guts passion, their enemies could invoke the very Anglo book of fairness and point out how ‘racist’ the Anglos were acting.
So, Rule of Law and Neutral Justice are good things… but the danger is they turn people into bland individuals who are de-cultured and favor principles over blood and homeland. When such anemic people come in contact with red-blooded folks, they lack the balls to fight and survive.
Jews learned the art/science of rule of law, but they never gave up on blood and guts cultural sense… and they esp clung to it after the problems of communism, Nazism, and Zionism.
Communism taught socialist Jews that just being ‘workers of the world’ was dull and meaningless. While social justice is good, man needs culture, history, and heritage.
So, Jews found more satisfaction in Zionism that bound socialism with Jewish identity and culture.
In some ways, Germans did same with National Socialism that bound Germanism with socialism. If Nazis had kept it national devoid of contemptuous chauvinism, it might have succeeded like Zionism. But Hitler was a racial chauvinist and imperialist. (Perhaps, the undoing of Zionism in the long run is its imperialism. Occupation of West Bank is turning out to be costly. And Zio-con messing of the Middle East may lead to some unforeseen consequences for Jews. You reap what you sow.)
Anyway, rule of law and idea of justice are good and necessary, but they must be used as mere tools. They are weak as core culture and identity of a people.
A Jew who feels as Jew-and-Zionist has meaning. But a Jew who rejects his identity and says, “I’m just for individual liberty and rule of law” has weak meaning.
Tools are good and necessary but must not be mistaken with the flesh-and-blood-people they are meant to serve.
After all, each person matters more as a blood-and-flesh product of family than any ideology he adopts.
If ideology or ideas count the most in determining identity, then it means you are NOTHING unless you believe in something. What you believe would count more than your very existence.
So, if you believe libertarianism is what counts most, a person who is not libertarian is not human and has no value. But in fact, a person’s worth remains intact regardless of what he believes.
A Jew is no less a Jew for abandoning communism and adopting capitalism. He is still a Jew. His core identity is more than any ideology. This is why a Jew must put Jewishness and Zionism first before any ideology. He may adopt parts of various ideologies to serve his Jewish interest. But the thing is to have the ideology to serve him and his people than to have him and his people serve an ideology as the end-all of truth.
Tools exist to serve humans, humans don’t exist to serve tools.
Even Marx made this point. Economics must serve man. But capitalism too often makes us believe we exist to serve the economy.
Economy must serve man and his nation.
Globalism says ALL MEN must serve the economy of globalists.
In the end, it means we all must serve the economy of Wall Street and Las Vegas.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Trump is right and wrong about Stop-and-Frisk
Trump is right about the effectiveness of Stop-and-Frisk as law enforcement but wrong to defend it. It is, after all, the tool of hypocritical urban Liberals who cynically employ it to their own advantage of gentrification and crime suppression, especially of blacks.
If crime rises in cities, it will be good for conservatives. It will 'red pill' liberals like explosion of crime did in the 70s and 80s.
Reduction of crime in cities and urban renewal due to gentrification and increased policing, especially over blacks, has been a great boon to Neo-Liberalism. It made Liberals feel safe, affording them the privilege of feeling sanctimonious and acting holier-than-thou. Privileged white kids who grew up in gentrified urban areas have no memory of how bad things had been when black criminals ran wild beginning in the late 60s. It is no wonder so many white millennials of urban parents are so conceited in their political correctness. They were never mugged by raw and unfettered black reality.
But if black crime were to rise in Democratic big cities, it will supply ammunition to conservatives and even the 'far right'. It will be more difficult for holier-than-thou 'progressives' to virtue-signal when black fists are smashing their faces.
So, I say let black crime blanket Liberal cities. I say let the blacks burn down Liberal Democratic neighborhoods. End stop-and-frisk. Force the Police to go easy on blacks.
It is ironic that urban Liberals, the main beneficiaries of Stop-and-Frisk, are the ones who are making all this fuss about 'racism'.
I say let them have a taste of their own PC medicine. Get rid of Stop-and-Frisk and let Liberals deal with all those 'wonderful' blacks (aka 'teens' and 'youths' or 'googles') and without police protection.
Law & Order policies did wonders for white urban Liberals, but these very people show no gratitude. The main beneficiaries of Stop & Frisk are accusing conservatives of 'racism' and police brutality. But it was Bill Clinton who locked up record number of blacks. It was Hillary who, at one time, referred to blacks as 'super-predators'.
And Obama spent the early part of his career in Hyde Park, one of the most gentrified and policed areas in Chicago. And it was New Yorkers (almost all of them Democratic) who elected Giuliani twice and Bloomberg three times.
End Stop-and-Frisk and gentrification. I say leave white, Jewish, and Asian Liberals to the mercy of feral blacks. Let them enjoy the fruits of their own sanctimonious Political Correctness. Since they claim that blacks are so wonderful, they have no reason to whine and complain when black thuggery victimizes them.
If crime rises in cities, it will be good for conservatives. It will 'red pill' liberals like explosion of crime did in the 70s and 80s.
Reduction of crime in cities and urban renewal due to gentrification and increased policing, especially over blacks, has been a great boon to Neo-Liberalism. It made Liberals feel safe, affording them the privilege of feeling sanctimonious and acting holier-than-thou. Privileged white kids who grew up in gentrified urban areas have no memory of how bad things had been when black criminals ran wild beginning in the late 60s. It is no wonder so many white millennials of urban parents are so conceited in their political correctness. They were never mugged by raw and unfettered black reality.
But if black crime were to rise in Democratic big cities, it will supply ammunition to conservatives and even the 'far right'. It will be more difficult for holier-than-thou 'progressives' to virtue-signal when black fists are smashing their faces.
So, I say let black crime blanket Liberal cities. I say let the blacks burn down Liberal Democratic neighborhoods. End stop-and-frisk. Force the Police to go easy on blacks.
It is ironic that urban Liberals, the main beneficiaries of Stop-and-Frisk, are the ones who are making all this fuss about 'racism'.
I say let them have a taste of their own PC medicine. Get rid of Stop-and-Frisk and let Liberals deal with all those 'wonderful' blacks (aka 'teens' and 'youths' or 'googles') and without police protection.
Law & Order policies did wonders for white urban Liberals, but these very people show no gratitude. The main beneficiaries of Stop & Frisk are accusing conservatives of 'racism' and police brutality. But it was Bill Clinton who locked up record number of blacks. It was Hillary who, at one time, referred to blacks as 'super-predators'.
And Obama spent the early part of his career in Hyde Park, one of the most gentrified and policed areas in Chicago. And it was New Yorkers (almost all of them Democratic) who elected Giuliani twice and Bloomberg three times.
End Stop-and-Frisk and gentrification. I say leave white, Jewish, and Asian Liberals to the mercy of feral blacks. Let them enjoy the fruits of their own sanctimonious Political Correctness. Since they claim that blacks are so wonderful, they have no reason to whine and complain when black thuggery victimizes them.
Blacks are re-emerging as the Face of the Democratic Party once again
It looks like the homo stuff that dominated Liberal politics during the Obama administration has run its course; it is effectively over. And the tranny stuff isn't inspiring for most people. After 'gay marriage' passed, the homo agenda is now in anti-climactic spiral.
So, blacks are making fuss and noise to emerge once again as The Face of the Democratic Party. Blacks are especially frustrated because they feel that the Obama Era(the one with the black guy in Oval Office) was wasted mostly on serving Wall Street and homos. Blacks kept a relatively low profile because a black guy was president, but it dawned on them a few yrs back that Obama did more for others -- homos, Wall Street, globalists, and immigrants -- than for blacks.
With 'gay marriage' now a moot issue after the Supreme Court decree, the homo agenda lost its urgency and fire. Homomania is still around, but the hysteria has petered out.
But because blacks are always angry and demanding(and always causing problems that they blame on others), it is natural that blacks would once again hog the limelight of Lib Politics. Politics focuses on serious problems, and blacks have always been problem #1 in America because they are naturally stronger, more aggressive, and dumber. Blacks act like children who are stronger than white adults. Black problem will NEVER go away. Worse, blacks will never be blamed since they've sacralized with the slavery & Jim Crow narrative by the Jewish-controlled media that paralyzes white power with 'white guilt'.
So, for those Libs who thought homomania could send Negrosteria(negro hysteria) to the back of the bus indefinitely, forget it. Blacks are now demanding control of the steering wheel.
So, blacks are making fuss and noise to emerge once again as The Face of the Democratic Party. Blacks are especially frustrated because they feel that the Obama Era(the one with the black guy in Oval Office) was wasted mostly on serving Wall Street and homos. Blacks kept a relatively low profile because a black guy was president, but it dawned on them a few yrs back that Obama did more for others -- homos, Wall Street, globalists, and immigrants -- than for blacks.
With 'gay marriage' now a moot issue after the Supreme Court decree, the homo agenda lost its urgency and fire. Homomania is still around, but the hysteria has petered out.
But because blacks are always angry and demanding(and always causing problems that they blame on others), it is natural that blacks would once again hog the limelight of Lib Politics. Politics focuses on serious problems, and blacks have always been problem #1 in America because they are naturally stronger, more aggressive, and dumber. Blacks act like children who are stronger than white adults. Black problem will NEVER go away. Worse, blacks will never be blamed since they've sacralized with the slavery & Jim Crow narrative by the Jewish-controlled media that paralyzes white power with 'white guilt'.
So, for those Libs who thought homomania could send Negrosteria(negro hysteria) to the back of the bus indefinitely, forget it. Blacks are now demanding control of the steering wheel.
The Mental Sickness of Antisemitism and Philo-Semitism.
The problem of anti-Semites is they see Jews 'everywhere', involved even in events that had little or nothing to do with Jews.
The problem of Philo-Semites is they see Jews 'nowhere',
un-involved even in actions marked all over with Jewish fingerprints.
In the game of Jew-Done-It, anti-Semites link every evil in the world to Jews, whereas philo-Semites disconnect Jews from even the evils perpetrated by Jewish radicals, supremacists, swindlers, and Zionists.
Also, anti-Semites tar even the good/great things Jews have done, whereas philo-Semites whitewash even the evil things Jews have done.
There has to be something between the Scylla and Charybdis of Antisemitism and Philosemitism.
The problem of Philo-Semites is they see Jews 'nowhere',
un-involved even in actions marked all over with Jewish fingerprints.
In the game of Jew-Done-It, anti-Semites link every evil in the world to Jews, whereas philo-Semites disconnect Jews from even the evils perpetrated by Jewish radicals, supremacists, swindlers, and Zionists.
Also, anti-Semites tar even the good/great things Jews have done, whereas philo-Semites whitewash even the evil things Jews have done.
There has to be something between the Scylla and Charybdis of Antisemitism and Philosemitism.
Washington Consensus is built on Illiberals and Unconservatives
Washington Consensus is built on Liberals being Illiberals and Conservatives being Unconservatives. Both are, however, totally united in their pro-Zio-Globalism.
US politics isn’t about Liberals vs Conservatives.
It is about Illibs versus Uncons.
Illiberals use PC to undermine true liberalism(freedom of thought & expression and rule of law), and Unconservatives undermine true conservatism(respect for tradition, continuity, and rule of law).
So, even when ‘Liberals’ win, we have Illiberalism. Even when ‘Conservatives’ win, we have Unconservatism.
So, we need to talk about Illibs and Uncons.
US politics isn’t about Liberals vs Conservatives.
It is about Illibs versus Uncons.
Illiberals use PC to undermine true liberalism(freedom of thought & expression and rule of law), and Unconservatives undermine true conservatism(respect for tradition, continuity, and rule of law).
So, even when ‘Liberals’ win, we have Illiberalism. Even when ‘Conservatives’ win, we have Unconservatism.
So, we need to talk about Illibs and Uncons.
Blacks and the Impact of Immigration
Blacks are bad workers.
In a way, the demise of the GOP may not be a bad thing for whites, at least many whites who are not of the working class. If Democrats totally win and push massive immigration, it will mean more yellow/brown buffer between whites and blacks.
Blacks are the biggest headache in the US.
If we have more immigration, it will drown out blacks. Already, Hispanics are the #1 minority and will grow even bigger. And with people from India and China, there will be a bigger Asian presence. So, blacks will be flooded with non-black immigrants.
To the extent that whites can use browns and Asians as buffers between themselves and blacks, more diversity is good for whites. But it’s bad for whites of lower IQ or values who are left behind.
In a way, we also see non-blacks appropriating black symbolism. Civil Rights Movement was mostly about black struggle for equality. But MLK has become sort-of-generic, and now every group ‘appropriates’ the symbolism to push their own cause.
It’s like the homo/tranny movement invokes MLK and Civil Rights Movement to justify ‘gay pride parades’ and men-in-dress using women’s washrooms. This has made a parody of the Civil Rights Movement because we are supposed to believe that a bunch of sexual deviants having mock-orgies on the street is of equal moral importance as blacks braving bricks and bottles to march equality under the law.
So, while non-whites defer to black symbolism and the holiness of MLK, that symbolism is often used to push interests that may hurt blacks.
For instance, more illegal immigration from Latin America means less power for blacks. But these illegals often march by invoking the Civil Rights Movement.
Civil Rights Movement asked for something special for blacks. MLK’s “I have a dream” speech was specifically about what white America owes to black America. But before this ‘dream’ was delivered, US got flooded by so many immigrants, and the children of these immigrants call for more immigration rights by invoking the Civil Rights Movement. But immigrant rights and more diversity means less for blacks.
On the other hand, if there is to be reparations for blacks, much of the burden will have to be paid by immigrants whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery. Also,immigrants often work hard and provide the taxes to pay for blacks in government and/or welfare.
Surreal how things work in Diverica.
PS. As for voter suppression and corruption, Democrats are the masters. But they were silent because it was used against Conservatives. But now that Sanders voters are discovering how Hillary’s gang has used it against them, they are angry as hell.
The fact that Trump overcame the opposition more easily than Sanders did with Clinton goes to show that there is more honesty on the GOP side, even if not much. Neocons did everything to derail Trump but it didn’t work.
But it was much easier for Hillary’s gang to derail Sanders with all sorts of dirty tricks.
In a way, the demise of the GOP may not be a bad thing for whites, at least many whites who are not of the working class. If Democrats totally win and push massive immigration, it will mean more yellow/brown buffer between whites and blacks.
Blacks are the biggest headache in the US.
If we have more immigration, it will drown out blacks. Already, Hispanics are the #1 minority and will grow even bigger. And with people from India and China, there will be a bigger Asian presence. So, blacks will be flooded with non-black immigrants.
To the extent that whites can use browns and Asians as buffers between themselves and blacks, more diversity is good for whites. But it’s bad for whites of lower IQ or values who are left behind.
In a way, we also see non-blacks appropriating black symbolism. Civil Rights Movement was mostly about black struggle for equality. But MLK has become sort-of-generic, and now every group ‘appropriates’ the symbolism to push their own cause.
It’s like the homo/tranny movement invokes MLK and Civil Rights Movement to justify ‘gay pride parades’ and men-in-dress using women’s washrooms. This has made a parody of the Civil Rights Movement because we are supposed to believe that a bunch of sexual deviants having mock-orgies on the street is of equal moral importance as blacks braving bricks and bottles to march equality under the law.
So, while non-whites defer to black symbolism and the holiness of MLK, that symbolism is often used to push interests that may hurt blacks.
For instance, more illegal immigration from Latin America means less power for blacks. But these illegals often march by invoking the Civil Rights Movement.
Civil Rights Movement asked for something special for blacks. MLK’s “I have a dream” speech was specifically about what white America owes to black America. But before this ‘dream’ was delivered, US got flooded by so many immigrants, and the children of these immigrants call for more immigration rights by invoking the Civil Rights Movement. But immigrant rights and more diversity means less for blacks.
On the other hand, if there is to be reparations for blacks, much of the burden will have to be paid by immigrants whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery. Also,immigrants often work hard and provide the taxes to pay for blacks in government and/or welfare.
Surreal how things work in Diverica.
PS. As for voter suppression and corruption, Democrats are the masters. But they were silent because it was used against Conservatives. But now that Sanders voters are discovering how Hillary’s gang has used it against them, they are angry as hell.
The fact that Trump overcame the opposition more easily than Sanders did with Clinton goes to show that there is more honesty on the GOP side, even if not much. Neocons did everything to derail Trump but it didn’t work.
But it was much easier for Hillary’s gang to derail Sanders with all sorts of dirty tricks.
Obama is many times the murderer than OJ Simpson
OJ and Obama have something in common. Both got away with murder. OJ killed Nicole and some Jewish guy, and Obama’s wars killed countless people in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Both crooks got off free of their crimes.
This vermin Obama who destroyed entire nations will rake in $100 million from speeches within the first 5 yrs after he leaves Office.
This is a sick country.
Damn the Glob(globalists) that made Obama prez.
Both crooks got off free of their crimes.
This vermin Obama who destroyed entire nations will rake in $100 million from speeches within the first 5 yrs after he leaves Office.
This is a sick country.
Damn the Glob(globalists) that made Obama prez.
Even 'leftist' American regimes prefer 'right-wing' foreign regimes
It’s funny.
Even when the US government is ‘left-wing’, it prefers to deal with ‘right-wing’ regimes in other nations because ‘right-wing’ often means pro-American.
US is chummy with right-wing Saudis. With right-wing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. With right-wing regimes of Japan and South Korea. With ‘conservative’ Merkel government. Sarkozy the ‘right-wing’ Frenchman is pro-American. And US, even under ‘left-wing’ Obama, is closer to right-wing opponents of ‘left-wing’ regimes in Brazil and Venezuela. And Hillary the ‘leftist’ worked to overthrow the ‘left-wing’ regime of Ecuador.
Why would ‘left-wing’ Obama and Hillary favor ‘right-wing’ regimes against ‘left-wing’ ones?
Because ‘right-wing’ regimes, as legacy of Cold War, happen to be knee-jerk pro-American?
When leftist communism/Russia and their proxies were the big enemy of the American Empire, the US,even under Liberal regimes, supported just about any right-wing regime around the world. Thus, it's not too much of a stretch to say that right-wing regime = American puppet.
Even when the US government is ‘left-wing’, it prefers to deal with ‘right-wing’ regimes in other nations because ‘right-wing’ often means pro-American.
US is chummy with right-wing Saudis. With right-wing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. With right-wing regimes of Japan and South Korea. With ‘conservative’ Merkel government. Sarkozy the ‘right-wing’ Frenchman is pro-American. And US, even under ‘left-wing’ Obama, is closer to right-wing opponents of ‘left-wing’ regimes in Brazil and Venezuela. And Hillary the ‘leftist’ worked to overthrow the ‘left-wing’ regime of Ecuador.
Why would ‘left-wing’ Obama and Hillary favor ‘right-wing’ regimes against ‘left-wing’ ones?
Because ‘right-wing’ regimes, as legacy of Cold War, happen to be knee-jerk pro-American?
When leftist communism/Russia and their proxies were the big enemy of the American Empire, the US,even under Liberal regimes, supported just about any right-wing regime around the world. Thus, it's not too much of a stretch to say that right-wing regime = American puppet.
Christianism(worldview stemming from Christian Morality) is now the soft underbelly of the White Race
Christian Morality is about Spiritual Virtue-Signaling of either Holier-than-thou or Redemptive-for-my-sins.
What is the biggest ‘sin’ in the West according to the PC Narrative? ‘Racism’.
Christians are affected by the current moralist culture, and so their main priority is to demonstrate they are oh-so-good and moral by fervently celebrating ‘diversity’.
Given the moral dynamics of Christianity, it was bound to end up this way.
Christianity must be rejected if the white race must survive.
Paradoxically, Christianity claims moral supremacism via moral self-debasement.
Christians profess to be redemptive of their myriad sins, but such display of sanctimony is grounds for their moral superiority over others. "I humbly admit my worthlessness in the eyes of God; therefore, I am better than you and fit to judge mankind." Such mentality is the core of PC.
What is the biggest ‘sin’ in the West according to the PC Narrative? ‘Racism’.
Christians are affected by the current moralist culture, and so their main priority is to demonstrate they are oh-so-good and moral by fervently celebrating ‘diversity’.
Given the moral dynamics of Christianity, it was bound to end up this way.
Christianity must be rejected if the white race must survive.
Paradoxically, Christianity claims moral supremacism via moral self-debasement.
Christians profess to be redemptive of their myriad sins, but such display of sanctimony is grounds for their moral superiority over others. "I humbly admit my worthlessness in the eyes of God; therefore, I am better than you and fit to judge mankind." Such mentality is the core of PC.
Alt Right must be duo-alt.
Alt Right must be duo-alt.
Not only Alt to Conservative Inc but Alt to 14/88 that became the face of the ‘radical right’, not least due to Jewish Media using the KKK and Neo-Nazis as the most prominent face of white nationalism.
‘No enemy to the right’ is a stupid idea. It means we should be allied with both 14/88 and neocons since they are on the ‘right’.
No, the true right must be protected from filth and lies.
If you love your daughter, would you let her date a tattooed body-pierced 14/88 skinhead moron in the name of ‘no enemy to the right’? No, you will protect her from such filth, just you would protect her from a Jew who would use her as a slave.
In the end, mainstream conservatism failed because it became un-mainstream. In a two party system, both sides need a big tent to pull together a wide coalition.
American conservatism should have offered something that appeals to various groups on the American Right, but the neocon takeover and cuckservative servility meant that the only interests served were those of AIPAC and WALL STREET. Everyone else was purged or sidelined or silenced.
The big tent turned into closed tent where Jews and cuckservatives made all the decisions while everyone was left outside in the rain waiting for orders to accept policies that will only make them get wetter. Left out in the cold.
Not only Alt to Conservative Inc but Alt to 14/88 that became the face of the ‘radical right’, not least due to Jewish Media using the KKK and Neo-Nazis as the most prominent face of white nationalism.
‘No enemy to the right’ is a stupid idea. It means we should be allied with both 14/88 and neocons since they are on the ‘right’.
No, the true right must be protected from filth and lies.
If you love your daughter, would you let her date a tattooed body-pierced 14/88 skinhead moron in the name of ‘no enemy to the right’? No, you will protect her from such filth, just you would protect her from a Jew who would use her as a slave.
In the end, mainstream conservatism failed because it became un-mainstream. In a two party system, both sides need a big tent to pull together a wide coalition.
American conservatism should have offered something that appeals to various groups on the American Right, but the neocon takeover and cuckservative servility meant that the only interests served were those of AIPAC and WALL STREET. Everyone else was purged or sidelined or silenced.
The big tent turned into closed tent where Jews and cuckservatives made all the decisions while everyone was left outside in the rain waiting for orders to accept policies that will only make them get wetter. Left out in the cold.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Cops and Palestinians are pariahs to most powerful people
No one cares about Palestinians.
It’s like no one cares about cops.
If any Republican president said things that led to the killing of innocents, he would have been lambasted by the media and the Democratic Party.
Obama and Soros stoked the BLM rage, and it led to killing of cops.
Media and GOP didn’t hold Obama accountable and instead just led him get away and pompously pontificate about ‘history’ to weasel himself out of responsibility.
Even the Conservative Establishment won’t blame and denounce Obama on the killing of cops when his rhetoric and politicking on the matter clearly led to the deaths.
Even Trump dared not make the connection between Obama and black murder of cops.
Cops(if killed by black rage fueled by Obama the historic president) don’t matter just like Palestinians don’t matter as they look forward yet more decades of Occupation and humiliation(and even mass killing).
Obama is a cop-killer. He didn’t pull the trigger but he encouraged the lunacy of BLM. It is all the more sick since it was the Prog push for gentrification that led to more tensions & clashes between cops and blacks.
It’s like no one cares about cops.
If any Republican president said things that led to the killing of innocents, he would have been lambasted by the media and the Democratic Party.
Obama and Soros stoked the BLM rage, and it led to killing of cops.
Media and GOP didn’t hold Obama accountable and instead just led him get away and pompously pontificate about ‘history’ to weasel himself out of responsibility.
Even the Conservative Establishment won’t blame and denounce Obama on the killing of cops when his rhetoric and politicking on the matter clearly led to the deaths.
Even Trump dared not make the connection between Obama and black murder of cops.
Cops(if killed by black rage fueled by Obama the historic president) don’t matter just like Palestinians don’t matter as they look forward yet more decades of Occupation and humiliation(and even mass killing).
Obama is a cop-killer. He didn’t pull the trigger but he encouraged the lunacy of BLM. It is all the more sick since it was the Prog push for gentrification that led to more tensions & clashes between cops and blacks.
John McCain the dog in a Jewish-dominated World.
Trump has been relatively fearless in this campaign. Is it shtick? Did he learn that the only way to survive in NY real estate business is to be a tough talker? Giuliani and Ed Koch also have the NY style. It is different from Midwest political style.
They say John McCain has one of the worst temperaments in politics, but it’s with his underlings. He’s a total dog when dealing with his globo-masters. He’s on his knees with his mouth wide open.
Of course, white gentiles fear Jewish Power. But they don’t want to admit this fear lest they come across as chicken. So, even as they serve Jews out of fear, they make believe that they going out on a limb to defend pitiable Jews, the Holocaust Folks, from their formidable enemies, the 'New Nazis' that seem to sprout like mushrooms all over the world. (Funny how the helpless Jewish power smashes all these 'New Nazis' like Nazi Germany destroyed Poland. But the likes of McCain and Romney pretend to see helpless Jews in Israel and all-powerful Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.)
In a way, the new McCain hasn’t changed from the POW McCain. As a POW, McCain was helpless at the hands of his captors who had total power over him. He was afraid and hurt(understandably and humanly so). But he didn’t want to admit it. So, he played ‘Hanoi John’ and made a radio speech as if he was the champion of the noble Vietnamese. He was acting out of fear but pretended to act out of sympathy and principle.
Today, McCain(as a virtual hostage-prisoner of the Neocons) is reading from the same kind of script. He is totally under their power and doing as they tell him to do. But to maintain a modicum of pride and dignity, he makes believe that he’s passionate about supporting Neocons because it’s all about human rights and defending helpless Jews from 'New Nazis' all over the world. It’s the only way a whore-dog can live with itself. By growling rabidly, it tries to fool itself that it is enraged of its own accord than following the master’s command to bark and bite.
Jewish Globalists have the power; they can destroy white gentile lives and careers.
So, whites serve Jews. But they don’t want to admit they are acting out of fear and cowardice. They repress the reality of their condition by acting tough and moralistic… like Hillary and that 4 star general at the Dem Convention. Though hapless dogs serving their masters, they act like masters defending helpless victims.
To be sure, what whites fear most isn’t Jews per se but one another because most of them have come under the Jewish Spell. After all, if all whites were to think and feel alike as proud white warriors, they could easily come together to topple Jewish power.
But because so many whites have been brainwashed with ‘white guilt’ and PC, they know that fellow whites will turn informer and denounce of their own accord.
It’s true that Jewish control of media and academia has brainwashed whites to attack other whites. But even without any Jews around, whites will routinely attack and denounce whites out of programming. It's like once dogs have been trained in a certain way, they act accordingly even without the master's presence.
Once a people are turned onto an ideology or world-view, people fear one another more than the elites, with whom most people never come in contact anyway. Once most Russians were turned onto communism, a Russian was most afraid of another Russian who might accuse him of being ‘bourgeois’. In East Germany, most people feared most their next door neighbor(as possible informer) who feared him in return.
Because so many whites have been turned onto ‘anti-racism’, whites fear fellow whites most of all.
Because Jews are only 2% of the US population, they know that their power depends on controlling white minds. If white hearts-and-minds were to become independent of Jewish manipulation, whites could rise in racial consciousness and then unite & move against Jewish Power, and then, Jews would be finished. Minority power is always very vulnerable no matter how rich and privileged and connected it is.
In a way, what happened in the GOP in 2016 is a testament to this fact. When so many GOP voters turned against Neocon elites and went with ‘god-emperor’ Trump, there was little that the Jewish elites could do. Neocons had the money and top positions in the GOP. They had the connections. But, Neocons don’t have the demography, the brute power of numbers.
Jews need to control the minds of the gentile majority to maintain supremacy of power. Once Neocons lost control of the hearts/minds of white Conservatives in the GOP, it didn’t matter how much elite power they had. White Conservative masses were NOT going along with their agenda. If the cowboy loses control of the cattle, there is nothing he can do about the stampede.
So, Jews are now heavily invested in Democratic Whites(who are more brainwashed with ‘white guilt’ and showered with ‘white privilege’ if they collaborate as the shills of globalists) to push against the GOP white masses who support Trump. If Democratic whites were also to become like Trump supporters, the twilight of Jewish power would be at hand. No matter how much Jewish elites control media, academia, banks, and etc., they will be vulnerable without mass support. It’s like Brits had all the elite power in India, but once the Indians rose up en masse, there was nothing the Brits could do.
So, Jewish power needs to control the minds of whites. But there is no guarantee that whites will be manipulated forever. In 2016, Jews saw the ebbing away of their control of narrative/agenda in the GOP. Even if Trump loses, what happened in the GOP primaries is a troubling harbinger for Jews. So, it is no wonder that Jews are working very hard to push for 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion'. That way, if whites are reduced to a minority, even the unity of white masses won’t be enough to topple Jewish power since Jews will have non-white new majority on their side. Of course, non-whites have no love for Jews(and may even hate Jews more than any white person does), but to the extent that Jews have opened the gates to the West, non-whites figure alliance with Jews is their ticket to Western affluence and goodies. It’s like Mexicans hate gringos or gabachos, but they are more than willing to grovel to any gringo who will hire him to pick lettuce to send some dinero back to Mexico.
2016 saw white rebellion in the GOP. Though Bernie Sanders voters are PC, even their rise frightened Jews on the Democratic side. Such turmoil threatens to break up the Jewish elite and Democratic mass coalition. There is the talk of 1% vs 99%. Also, their BDS agenda pits people-of-color and White Progs against Zionist globalists. Sanders supporters’ style of ‘progressivism’ is a threat to Jewish Power because it is more consistent than Hillary’s kind. Many Sanders supporters believed ‘anti-racism’ should apply to Zionism and Jewish privilege too. They are like the Mainline Protestant Churches that are now voting to boycott Israel and support BDS. Hillary’s style of Proggism denounces ‘white racism’ but praises Zionism regardless of how long the Occupation continues. Her style of Proggism yammers about the helping the less fortunate but also panders to Goldman Sachs. It is hypocritical progressivism.
It is no wonder that Jews promote homomania. With homos as their proxy, Jews can exert their power through ‘rainbow’ colors when the Zionist flag becomes a bit too ubiquitous and queasy.
They say John McCain has one of the worst temperaments in politics, but it’s with his underlings. He’s a total dog when dealing with his globo-masters. He’s on his knees with his mouth wide open.
Of course, white gentiles fear Jewish Power. But they don’t want to admit this fear lest they come across as chicken. So, even as they serve Jews out of fear, they make believe that they going out on a limb to defend pitiable Jews, the Holocaust Folks, from their formidable enemies, the 'New Nazis' that seem to sprout like mushrooms all over the world. (Funny how the helpless Jewish power smashes all these 'New Nazis' like Nazi Germany destroyed Poland. But the likes of McCain and Romney pretend to see helpless Jews in Israel and all-powerful Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.)
In a way, the new McCain hasn’t changed from the POW McCain. As a POW, McCain was helpless at the hands of his captors who had total power over him. He was afraid and hurt(understandably and humanly so). But he didn’t want to admit it. So, he played ‘Hanoi John’ and made a radio speech as if he was the champion of the noble Vietnamese. He was acting out of fear but pretended to act out of sympathy and principle.
Today, McCain(as a virtual hostage-prisoner of the Neocons) is reading from the same kind of script. He is totally under their power and doing as they tell him to do. But to maintain a modicum of pride and dignity, he makes believe that he’s passionate about supporting Neocons because it’s all about human rights and defending helpless Jews from 'New Nazis' all over the world. It’s the only way a whore-dog can live with itself. By growling rabidly, it tries to fool itself that it is enraged of its own accord than following the master’s command to bark and bite.
Jewish Globalists have the power; they can destroy white gentile lives and careers.
So, whites serve Jews. But they don’t want to admit they are acting out of fear and cowardice. They repress the reality of their condition by acting tough and moralistic… like Hillary and that 4 star general at the Dem Convention. Though hapless dogs serving their masters, they act like masters defending helpless victims.
To be sure, what whites fear most isn’t Jews per se but one another because most of them have come under the Jewish Spell. After all, if all whites were to think and feel alike as proud white warriors, they could easily come together to topple Jewish power.
But because so many whites have been brainwashed with ‘white guilt’ and PC, they know that fellow whites will turn informer and denounce of their own accord.
It’s true that Jewish control of media and academia has brainwashed whites to attack other whites. But even without any Jews around, whites will routinely attack and denounce whites out of programming. It's like once dogs have been trained in a certain way, they act accordingly even without the master's presence.
Once a people are turned onto an ideology or world-view, people fear one another more than the elites, with whom most people never come in contact anyway. Once most Russians were turned onto communism, a Russian was most afraid of another Russian who might accuse him of being ‘bourgeois’. In East Germany, most people feared most their next door neighbor(as possible informer) who feared him in return.
Because so many whites have been turned onto ‘anti-racism’, whites fear fellow whites most of all.
Because Jews are only 2% of the US population, they know that their power depends on controlling white minds. If white hearts-and-minds were to become independent of Jewish manipulation, whites could rise in racial consciousness and then unite & move against Jewish Power, and then, Jews would be finished. Minority power is always very vulnerable no matter how rich and privileged and connected it is.
In a way, what happened in the GOP in 2016 is a testament to this fact. When so many GOP voters turned against Neocon elites and went with ‘god-emperor’ Trump, there was little that the Jewish elites could do. Neocons had the money and top positions in the GOP. They had the connections. But, Neocons don’t have the demography, the brute power of numbers.
Jews need to control the minds of the gentile majority to maintain supremacy of power. Once Neocons lost control of the hearts/minds of white Conservatives in the GOP, it didn’t matter how much elite power they had. White Conservative masses were NOT going along with their agenda. If the cowboy loses control of the cattle, there is nothing he can do about the stampede.
So, Jews are now heavily invested in Democratic Whites(who are more brainwashed with ‘white guilt’ and showered with ‘white privilege’ if they collaborate as the shills of globalists) to push against the GOP white masses who support Trump. If Democratic whites were also to become like Trump supporters, the twilight of Jewish power would be at hand. No matter how much Jewish elites control media, academia, banks, and etc., they will be vulnerable without mass support. It’s like Brits had all the elite power in India, but once the Indians rose up en masse, there was nothing the Brits could do.
So, Jewish power needs to control the minds of whites. But there is no guarantee that whites will be manipulated forever. In 2016, Jews saw the ebbing away of their control of narrative/agenda in the GOP. Even if Trump loses, what happened in the GOP primaries is a troubling harbinger for Jews. So, it is no wonder that Jews are working very hard to push for 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion'. That way, if whites are reduced to a minority, even the unity of white masses won’t be enough to topple Jewish power since Jews will have non-white new majority on their side. Of course, non-whites have no love for Jews(and may even hate Jews more than any white person does), but to the extent that Jews have opened the gates to the West, non-whites figure alliance with Jews is their ticket to Western affluence and goodies. It’s like Mexicans hate gringos or gabachos, but they are more than willing to grovel to any gringo who will hire him to pick lettuce to send some dinero back to Mexico.
2016 saw white rebellion in the GOP. Though Bernie Sanders voters are PC, even their rise frightened Jews on the Democratic side. Such turmoil threatens to break up the Jewish elite and Democratic mass coalition. There is the talk of 1% vs 99%. Also, their BDS agenda pits people-of-color and White Progs against Zionist globalists. Sanders supporters’ style of ‘progressivism’ is a threat to Jewish Power because it is more consistent than Hillary’s kind. Many Sanders supporters believed ‘anti-racism’ should apply to Zionism and Jewish privilege too. They are like the Mainline Protestant Churches that are now voting to boycott Israel and support BDS. Hillary’s style of Proggism denounces ‘white racism’ but praises Zionism regardless of how long the Occupation continues. Her style of Proggism yammers about the helping the less fortunate but also panders to Goldman Sachs. It is hypocritical progressivism.
It is no wonder that Jews promote homomania. With homos as their proxy, Jews can exert their power through ‘rainbow’ colors when the Zionist flag becomes a bit too ubiquitous and queasy.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
What is the American ideal?
What is the American Ideal?
It was radically altered since America became a Jewish-centric “Nation of Immigrants”.
Remaking the US into a ‘nation of immigrants’ sent American Indians and Blacks to the back of the bus, especially as Homomania is the new globo-religion of America.
Before the US was a ‘nation of immigrants’, it was a nation of native red savages, white conquerors and settlers, and black slaves. Though whites ruled, white narrative was inseparable from the Native American or Indian narrative and the black narrative.
After all, whites conquered Indian lands, and whites brought over black slaves.
So, the conqueror-settler narrative was closely linked with the Indian and Black narratives.
But as America went into ‘nation of immigrant’ narrative — especially involving immigrants who arrived after America was conquered and Civil War was distant memory — , the American Narrative became less and less linked with the Indians and even blacks.
Black Narrative is still strong but has been twisted to favor Diversity than Black Interest. MLK is elevated increasingly as champion of diversity and ‘inclusion’ than of justice for Negroes. When MLK was marching around in 60s, he was all about justice for Negroes who’d been denied full rights.
But MLK is now supposed to be the champion of ALL minorities, and that means tons of immigrants, even millions of illegals. MLK and Emma Lazarus might as well be the same people.
MLK-ism and American Indian narrative are morally compelling because whites did take the land from Indians and because whites did bring over black slaves and exploited them.
In contrast, as nice as Emma Lazarus poem may read, it has no moral justification whatsoever. If white Americans did wrong to Indians and blacks, what do they owe to the rest of the world? If there is huddled wretchedness around the world, it’s not America’s fault or the white man's burden. White Americans owe something only to those whom they wronged. White Americans didn’t create the conditions in Russian Jewish ghettos or poor villages in China and India. America never owed anything to Jewish Europeans or Chinese or Indians or Arabs or Africans(who were not brought over as slaves).
MLK-ism used to mean ‘something for blacks’. Now, with MLK as a hero to ALL minorities, he stands as a brotha to Emma Lazarus.
What blacks fail to understand is that the demise of the white conqueror/settler narrative also means the demise of the black narrative. The Immigrant Narrative isn’t linked with the Black Narrative. Late-coming Immigrants didn’t enslave blacks and owe nothing to them. So, as America becomes more Diverse, blacks matter less.
Also, the Nation of Immigrants concept totally trashed the American Indian Narrative.
The Conqueror/Settler Narrative puts Indians at the moral center. It says, “yes, white man did great things in America, but it came at tragic expense of Indians who lost their ancestral lands.” The Conqueror narratives means America was conquered and taken from a certain people. Who were they? Indians.
But since Immigrants came after America was already settled, they feel no special historical bond to the Indians.
The Nation of Immigrants Narrative pisses on nativism. It says all nations(except Israel for some reason) should be open to massive immigration, and any nativist who opposes this is evil.
But that also implies that American Indians were wrong to resist the White Conquest of America. After all, the Red Man was a nativist who fought to keep the land of his forefathers. He wasn't being 'inclusive' of white settlers.
The globalist concept of ‘nation of immigrants’ pisses on nativism all over the world, and this is the new imperialism. After all, the great anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th century were all nativist. Native indigenous peoples were telling white European colonizers to go back home. The Vietnam War was also nativist as it was against the US occupation of South Vietnam and the resulting diversity of US soldiers using women as whores.
The Nation of Immigrants Narrative not only does violence to White Americans but to American Indians and Negroes. Whereas the white conqueror/settler narrative does pay special tribute to Indians and Negroes, the Nation of Immigrants Narrative does not.
“America is a nation of conquerors/settlers” narrative is linked with “America is a nation of the conquered Indian tribes” narrative and “America is a nation of enslaved blacks” narrative. This narrative says Americans owe something to Indians and blacks.
But "America as Nation of Immigrants" morally prioritizes foreigners(as potential immigrants) whom Americans never did any wrong. Also, if indeed America is a Nation of Immigrants, it must keep taking in more and more immigrants in order to be ‘American’. Using that logic, America is no longer American if it stops taking in immigrants.
It's as if America’s main moral obligation is to the world than its history.
65 killed 64. The 1965 Immigration Act undid the promises of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It turned White America away from the needs of Indians and blacks(whom white Americans had done wrong to) to the needs of a world of foreigners(whom white Americans hadn’t done wrong to). But since Jews gained power as relative late-immigrant arrivals, it was in their interest to put Immigrants above Indian natives, white settlers, and black slaves.
Indeed, now MLK has been transformed from a black leader to leader of Diversity is amusing indeed. But King’s message was not, “white folks should favor the interests of masses of foreign immigrants pouring into America over that of Negroes.” People like MLK who supported the Immigration Act probably thought non-whites would side with blacks against whites. But as it turned out, non-stop immigration turned blacks from the biggest minority(by far) to the second minority behind Hispanics. And if we take Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims together, blacks are becoming less and less significant. But then, white/Jewish/homo Liberals really love this since there is nothing they fear more than strong, aggressive, and hostile black thugs who nearly destroyed cities like NY and Chicago in the 70s.
But if Liberal elites honestly admitted why they love immigration(as buffer between themselves and blacks), there will be much anger. So, even as they push for more immigration, they say all the nice palliative things that keep Negroes believing that they is #1 in the hearts of Liberal America. So, even as NY increases Diversity to drown out blacks, the pages of NYT pay special tribute to a moron like Tahenisi Coates the ‘genius’.
It was radically altered since America became a Jewish-centric “Nation of Immigrants”.
Remaking the US into a ‘nation of immigrants’ sent American Indians and Blacks to the back of the bus, especially as Homomania is the new globo-religion of America.
Before the US was a ‘nation of immigrants’, it was a nation of native red savages, white conquerors and settlers, and black slaves. Though whites ruled, white narrative was inseparable from the Native American or Indian narrative and the black narrative.
After all, whites conquered Indian lands, and whites brought over black slaves.
So, the conqueror-settler narrative was closely linked with the Indian and Black narratives.
But as America went into ‘nation of immigrant’ narrative — especially involving immigrants who arrived after America was conquered and Civil War was distant memory — , the American Narrative became less and less linked with the Indians and even blacks.
Black Narrative is still strong but has been twisted to favor Diversity than Black Interest. MLK is elevated increasingly as champion of diversity and ‘inclusion’ than of justice for Negroes. When MLK was marching around in 60s, he was all about justice for Negroes who’d been denied full rights.
But MLK is now supposed to be the champion of ALL minorities, and that means tons of immigrants, even millions of illegals. MLK and Emma Lazarus might as well be the same people.
MLK-ism and American Indian narrative are morally compelling because whites did take the land from Indians and because whites did bring over black slaves and exploited them.
In contrast, as nice as Emma Lazarus poem may read, it has no moral justification whatsoever. If white Americans did wrong to Indians and blacks, what do they owe to the rest of the world? If there is huddled wretchedness around the world, it’s not America’s fault or the white man's burden. White Americans owe something only to those whom they wronged. White Americans didn’t create the conditions in Russian Jewish ghettos or poor villages in China and India. America never owed anything to Jewish Europeans or Chinese or Indians or Arabs or Africans(who were not brought over as slaves).
MLK-ism used to mean ‘something for blacks’. Now, with MLK as a hero to ALL minorities, he stands as a brotha to Emma Lazarus.
What blacks fail to understand is that the demise of the white conqueror/settler narrative also means the demise of the black narrative. The Immigrant Narrative isn’t linked with the Black Narrative. Late-coming Immigrants didn’t enslave blacks and owe nothing to them. So, as America becomes more Diverse, blacks matter less.
Also, the Nation of Immigrants concept totally trashed the American Indian Narrative.
The Conqueror/Settler Narrative puts Indians at the moral center. It says, “yes, white man did great things in America, but it came at tragic expense of Indians who lost their ancestral lands.” The Conqueror narratives means America was conquered and taken from a certain people. Who were they? Indians.
But since Immigrants came after America was already settled, they feel no special historical bond to the Indians.
The Nation of Immigrants Narrative pisses on nativism. It says all nations(except Israel for some reason) should be open to massive immigration, and any nativist who opposes this is evil.
But that also implies that American Indians were wrong to resist the White Conquest of America. After all, the Red Man was a nativist who fought to keep the land of his forefathers. He wasn't being 'inclusive' of white settlers.
The globalist concept of ‘nation of immigrants’ pisses on nativism all over the world, and this is the new imperialism. After all, the great anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th century were all nativist. Native indigenous peoples were telling white European colonizers to go back home. The Vietnam War was also nativist as it was against the US occupation of South Vietnam and the resulting diversity of US soldiers using women as whores.
The Nation of Immigrants Narrative not only does violence to White Americans but to American Indians and Negroes. Whereas the white conqueror/settler narrative does pay special tribute to Indians and Negroes, the Nation of Immigrants Narrative does not.
“America is a nation of conquerors/settlers” narrative is linked with “America is a nation of the conquered Indian tribes” narrative and “America is a nation of enslaved blacks” narrative. This narrative says Americans owe something to Indians and blacks.
But "America as Nation of Immigrants" morally prioritizes foreigners(as potential immigrants) whom Americans never did any wrong. Also, if indeed America is a Nation of Immigrants, it must keep taking in more and more immigrants in order to be ‘American’. Using that logic, America is no longer American if it stops taking in immigrants.
It's as if America’s main moral obligation is to the world than its history.
65 killed 64. The 1965 Immigration Act undid the promises of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It turned White America away from the needs of Indians and blacks(whom white Americans had done wrong to) to the needs of a world of foreigners(whom white Americans hadn’t done wrong to). But since Jews gained power as relative late-immigrant arrivals, it was in their interest to put Immigrants above Indian natives, white settlers, and black slaves.
Indeed, now MLK has been transformed from a black leader to leader of Diversity is amusing indeed. But King’s message was not, “white folks should favor the interests of masses of foreign immigrants pouring into America over that of Negroes.” People like MLK who supported the Immigration Act probably thought non-whites would side with blacks against whites. But as it turned out, non-stop immigration turned blacks from the biggest minority(by far) to the second minority behind Hispanics. And if we take Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims together, blacks are becoming less and less significant. But then, white/Jewish/homo Liberals really love this since there is nothing they fear more than strong, aggressive, and hostile black thugs who nearly destroyed cities like NY and Chicago in the 70s.
But if Liberal elites honestly admitted why they love immigration(as buffer between themselves and blacks), there will be much anger. So, even as they push for more immigration, they say all the nice palliative things that keep Negroes believing that they is #1 in the hearts of Liberal America. So, even as NY increases Diversity to drown out blacks, the pages of NYT pay special tribute to a moron like Tahenisi Coates the ‘genius’.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
The Tribalism of Socio-Political Compassion. Dogs and Dog Food. Which one are you?
Compassion may sound anti-tribal, but one's compassion for a selective group means a blind eye and cold-heart(even hatred) toward its perceived enemies, rivals, or victims.
It is our compassion for dogs that make us blind to the animals killed and fed to dogs. To own and love a dog means you must take care of it & feed it, and that means other animals must be killed to be used as food. Our concern for dogs disregards the millions of animals that are destroyed to make dog food.
White gentiles feel compassion for Zionists, and this has blinded them to the struggles of Palestinians, the enemies and victims of the Jews. We see Jews as wonderful dogs and see Palestinians as dog food(for the Zionist dogs), a people who must be sacrificed to make the Jews happy.
So, if you think compassion will facilitate rising above tribalism, think again. It may help you rise above your own tribalism, but in making you root for a 'special' group over other groups, it morphs into a deferred tribalism.
In the West, the elite 'compassion for Jews, homos, and blacks means that other groups are disregarded. Jews, homos, and blacks are the darling dogs, and the rest of us are seen as dog food. We exist only to serve and feed those who've been made the special objects of 'universal' compassion by the power of Political Correctness.
Try not to be dog food to other races. You and your people deserve better. Don't be Palestinianized.
It is our compassion for dogs that make us blind to the animals killed and fed to dogs. To own and love a dog means you must take care of it & feed it, and that means other animals must be killed to be used as food. Our concern for dogs disregards the millions of animals that are destroyed to make dog food.
White gentiles feel compassion for Zionists, and this has blinded them to the struggles of Palestinians, the enemies and victims of the Jews. We see Jews as wonderful dogs and see Palestinians as dog food(for the Zionist dogs), a people who must be sacrificed to make the Jews happy.
So, if you think compassion will facilitate rising above tribalism, think again. It may help you rise above your own tribalism, but in making you root for a 'special' group over other groups, it morphs into a deferred tribalism.
In the West, the elite 'compassion for Jews, homos, and blacks means that other groups are disregarded. Jews, homos, and blacks are the darling dogs, and the rest of us are seen as dog food. We exist only to serve and feed those who've been made the special objects of 'universal' compassion by the power of Political Correctness.
Try not to be dog food to other races. You and your people deserve better. Don't be Palestinianized.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Inclusion leads to Exclusion
'Inclusiveness' has replaced 'Diversity' as the buzzword of the Progs.
In truth, Inclusion is exclusion.
For example...
If you allow blacks into your community, your school team will exclude white players in favor of faster & tougher black players. It leads to exclusion of white athletes.
Also, inclusion of blacks into white communities leads to exclusion of white seeds in white wombs that, instead, welcome black seeds as superior. Such is the way of interracist Jungle Fever. Even some white males welcome this because they have cuckishly idealized their beta-status as atonement for 'racism'. Also, as sports-and-rap addicts, white boys grow up idolizing black males as 'heroes'.
The inclusion of blacks into Europe has led to exclusion of white athletes from many events.
The inclusion of men in women's sports would lead to exclusion of women who simply cannot compete with men.
The inclusion of heavy-weight boxers in welter-weight division will exclude welter-weights from any victory since heavy-weights will totally dominate over the smaller boxers.
Inclusion of Asians into the US has led to Asian female exclusion of inferior Asian males because Asian wombs will only accept white or black seeds.
Inclusion of Jews and Asians into the US has led to exclusion of many white gentiles from elite colleges.
So, Inclusion always leads to some form of Exclusion.
Inclusion of Neocons into the GOP led to the exclusion/expulsion of Paleo-cons and Eurocentrist-cons.
Inclusion of your enemies, rivals, and hostile competitors leads to the purging & exclusion of your own kind.
When Roman Empire 'included' the Christians, it led to the purging and exclusion of the paganists.
Inclusion of rats and pigs into Galapagos island led to exclusion of various species in the game of evolutionary survival.
Beware of what you INCLUDE. It could lead to the EXCLUSION, even extinction, of your own kind.
In truth, Inclusion is exclusion.
For example...
If you allow blacks into your community, your school team will exclude white players in favor of faster & tougher black players. It leads to exclusion of white athletes.
Also, inclusion of blacks into white communities leads to exclusion of white seeds in white wombs that, instead, welcome black seeds as superior. Such is the way of interracist Jungle Fever. Even some white males welcome this because they have cuckishly idealized their beta-status as atonement for 'racism'. Also, as sports-and-rap addicts, white boys grow up idolizing black males as 'heroes'.
The inclusion of blacks into Europe has led to exclusion of white athletes from many events.
The inclusion of men in women's sports would lead to exclusion of women who simply cannot compete with men.
The inclusion of heavy-weight boxers in welter-weight division will exclude welter-weights from any victory since heavy-weights will totally dominate over the smaller boxers.
Inclusion of Asians into the US has led to Asian female exclusion of inferior Asian males because Asian wombs will only accept white or black seeds.
Inclusion of Jews and Asians into the US has led to exclusion of many white gentiles from elite colleges.
So, Inclusion always leads to some form of Exclusion.
Inclusion of Neocons into the GOP led to the exclusion/expulsion of Paleo-cons and Eurocentrist-cons.
Inclusion of your enemies, rivals, and hostile competitors leads to the purging & exclusion of your own kind.
When Roman Empire 'included' the Christians, it led to the purging and exclusion of the paganists.
Inclusion of rats and pigs into Galapagos island led to exclusion of various species in the game of evolutionary survival.
Beware of what you INCLUDE. It could lead to the EXCLUSION, even extinction, of your own kind.
What the NFL culture is really about.
What is the NFL culture all about?
It is about the white father cheering on the black guy to beat up his white son and impregnate his white daughter.
THAT is the NFL-addicted dad's idea of what the USA and the red, white, & blue are all about.
It is about the white father cheering on the black guy to beat up his white son and impregnate his white daughter.
THAT is the NFL-addicted dad's idea of what the USA and the red, white, & blue are all about.
Spread of Black Seed and the Demise of White Libertarian Lone Wolf
How the West may die:
Black males are most likely to father children but least likely to play the role of father. They spread the seed but do not feed their kids.
With every new generation, there will be more mulatto kids born. Black men will not only hump black women but white women. Their seed will spread and spread... while more demoralized white men will die of drug overdose or suicide.
Look how black football and basketball players get tons of white women pregnant. Not just wives but groupies and girlfriends.
By nature, women want to take seed of winner-men.
As two obsessions of America are sports and rap music(and porn), white girls are jungle-feverish.
Alt Right is most necessary, but it doesn't excite and attract women because Alt Right has nothing to offer in sports and music. Alt Right seems a bundle of insecurities.
But this is a good thing in the long run because real strength and power must be built from honest assessment of insecurities, inadequacies, and weakness.
For example, a lone wolf is no match for a moose, cougar, boar, or bear.
So, each wolf must understand this disadvantage and insecurity. It would get killed if it were inflated with false confidence and tackled a bear or moose.
Since it can't win individually on a one-to-one basis, it must work as a team or pack. A lone wolf cannot kill powerful animals, but a pack of wolves can even bring down a brown bear, moose, boar, or bison.
This is why libertarianism is so destructive to whites. It tells whites to be lone wolves. But wolves never win alone. They win as a team. And a team should be built on racial solidarity.
Howard Roark the lone wolf of Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD may be a romantic figure, but we mustn't confuse fantasy with reality.
One on one, Jews beat whites intellectually.
One on one, blacks beat whites physically.
But when whites team up, they can win over Jews and blacks.
This is why Jews are so allergic to any notion of white consciousness and unity.
Black males are most likely to father children but least likely to play the role of father. They spread the seed but do not feed their kids.
With every new generation, there will be more mulatto kids born. Black men will not only hump black women but white women. Their seed will spread and spread... while more demoralized white men will die of drug overdose or suicide.
Look how black football and basketball players get tons of white women pregnant. Not just wives but groupies and girlfriends.
By nature, women want to take seed of winner-men.
As two obsessions of America are sports and rap music(and porn), white girls are jungle-feverish.
Alt Right is most necessary, but it doesn't excite and attract women because Alt Right has nothing to offer in sports and music. Alt Right seems a bundle of insecurities.
But this is a good thing in the long run because real strength and power must be built from honest assessment of insecurities, inadequacies, and weakness.
For example, a lone wolf is no match for a moose, cougar, boar, or bear.
So, each wolf must understand this disadvantage and insecurity. It would get killed if it were inflated with false confidence and tackled a bear or moose.
Since it can't win individually on a one-to-one basis, it must work as a team or pack. A lone wolf cannot kill powerful animals, but a pack of wolves can even bring down a brown bear, moose, boar, or bison.
This is why libertarianism is so destructive to whites. It tells whites to be lone wolves. But wolves never win alone. They win as a team. And a team should be built on racial solidarity.
Howard Roark the lone wolf of Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD may be a romantic figure, but we mustn't confuse fantasy with reality.
One on one, Jews beat whites intellectually.
One on one, blacks beat whites physically.
But when whites team up, they can win over Jews and blacks.
This is why Jews are so allergic to any notion of white consciousness and unity.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
All Immigration is race-ist
Immigration is racist.
Look at the immigration patterns.
Jews bitch about ‘white racism’, but Jewish immigration patterns have always favored white nations.
After all, Latin America and Anglo-America were both open for immigration, but Jews chose the whiter America over mixed-race Latin America.
And Jews almost never decided to move to black Africa. If anything, the favorite African destination for Jewish immigration was white-ruled South Africa where Jews made lots of money in diamonds. Jews chose South Africa because whites ruled it and maintained the law-and-order necessary for Jews to do business.
Look at Asians. Most Asian-Americans are progs who bitch and whine all the time about n
white racism'(as yellows are toadies who follow prevailing officialdom, which now happens to be PC), but their immigration preference has been for white-majority nations. Almost all Asians would rather move to America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada(or Europe) than to highly diverse Latin America. And they certainly don’t want to emigrate permanently to Africa or Middle East. Some go there to work(like Chinese laborers), but they don’t want to settle in those parts. Also, even Asian women who bitch about white evil racially prefer white husbands.
So, immigration is racist. Mexicans want to move El Norte to where the Anglos are. They don’t want to move El South to where people are even less white than Mexicans are.
And look at Muslim and Black African immigration into Europe. Their decisions are 'white supremacist' in the sense that they think white nations are superior destinations over non-white ones. We don’t see Muslims move to black African nations. We don’t see black Africans wanting to move to Mexico or India.
And even when it comes to western nations, non-white emigrants/migrants/refugees prefer northern pale-white nations to southern-swarthy-white nations. They’d rather move to Germany or Sweden than be stuck in Greece or Italy.
Anglos are just about the only people who were willing to move to lands with nothing and build something on it. They turned wilderness into civilization.
All other peoples have no such will and vision. They want to go to where civilization has already been built and feed off it. They want to feed off whites even as they bitch about ‘racism’ even though their immigration preference itself is racist in seeking white nations over non-white ones.
Look at the immigration patterns.
Jews bitch about ‘white racism’, but Jewish immigration patterns have always favored white nations.
After all, Latin America and Anglo-America were both open for immigration, but Jews chose the whiter America over mixed-race Latin America.
And Jews almost never decided to move to black Africa. If anything, the favorite African destination for Jewish immigration was white-ruled South Africa where Jews made lots of money in diamonds. Jews chose South Africa because whites ruled it and maintained the law-and-order necessary for Jews to do business.
Look at Asians. Most Asian-Americans are progs who bitch and whine all the time about n
white racism'(as yellows are toadies who follow prevailing officialdom, which now happens to be PC), but their immigration preference has been for white-majority nations. Almost all Asians would rather move to America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada(or Europe) than to highly diverse Latin America. And they certainly don’t want to emigrate permanently to Africa or Middle East. Some go there to work(like Chinese laborers), but they don’t want to settle in those parts. Also, even Asian women who bitch about white evil racially prefer white husbands.
So, immigration is racist. Mexicans want to move El Norte to where the Anglos are. They don’t want to move El South to where people are even less white than Mexicans are.
And look at Muslim and Black African immigration into Europe. Their decisions are 'white supremacist' in the sense that they think white nations are superior destinations over non-white ones. We don’t see Muslims move to black African nations. We don’t see black Africans wanting to move to Mexico or India.
And even when it comes to western nations, non-white emigrants/migrants/refugees prefer northern pale-white nations to southern-swarthy-white nations. They’d rather move to Germany or Sweden than be stuck in Greece or Italy.
Anglos are just about the only people who were willing to move to lands with nothing and build something on it. They turned wilderness into civilization.
All other peoples have no such will and vision. They want to go to where civilization has already been built and feed off it. They want to feed off whites even as they bitch about ‘racism’ even though their immigration preference itself is racist in seeking white nations over non-white ones.
The Real Animating Force behind BLM or Black Lies Matter
Let’s get one thing straight.
BLM isn’t really about white cops killing innocent blacks.
Indeed, instances of white cops killing blacks is no worse now than in the past.
It’s just that blacks got frustrated over the years as they were crowded out by homos, massive immigration, gentrification, mass incarceration, increased racial profiling(in NY esp), and New Liberalism that favors the 1% over everyone else.
With Obama winning presidency, many blacks thought ‘we got it made’. But Obama’s presidency, while tossing some crumbs to blacks, has been mostly about Wars for Israel(against Russia, Libya, Syria, etc), homomania, white/Jewish/Asian yuppie gentrification, mass immigration(mostly of Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims), bailouts for Wall Street, and etc.
Blacks are especially pissed because all of this happened when US has come under the dominance of Democrats. When the very people who say the most flowery things about blacks actually push policies that do little for blacks(or even hurt blacks), blacks are awful angry.
But black rage has been muffled because most blacks are Democrats and because the Democratic Party(that dominates all big cities) is supposed to be watching their backs.
Blacks needed some convenient excuse to vent their spleen, and it was the Narrative of white cops killing innocent blacks.
But when we see the trajectory of BLM, there is something more happening. If blacks are indeed angry about white police violence, why don’t they target the specific police departments where it happened? Why do they march in every city, especially those dominated by white/Jewish/homo Liberals?
White cops are just useful scapegoats by both BLM and white/Jewish/homo Liberal Establishment. This is really a struggle between blacks and white/Jewish/homo urban Liberals(who supported increased policing to make cities livable again). Blacks are really angry at urban Liberals but can’t say so because they are both Democrats. Urban Liberals are really afraid of blacks but can’t say so because both groups are Democrats. So, blacks pretend they are marching against police brutality, and urban Liberals play along since the alternative — black rage at Urban Liberal elites — would be more frightening.
It reminds me of the scene in Akira Kurosawa’s RAN when the Third Castle is being attacked. Though the armies of the two treacherous sons are ostensibly united and working together against the fallen Old Lord, the real power struggle is between the two sons. Theirs is a sham unity held together in the attack against their father. It’s an alliance based on deception. The two sides are really eyeing each other for dominance but pretending to direct their fury at the powerless lord.
There is no Conservative power in the big cities and college campuses where most of BLM fury is directed. They are all bastions of Liberal Democratic Power. But officially, blacks and white/Jewish/homo elites ares supposed to be allies. So, they make ‘common cause’ and chant the same slogans and make-believe that they are united against ‘evil racist white cops’; but the real rage of BLM is about blacks fuming over how the Liberal Victory Pie went mostly to white yuppies, Jewish elites, homo neo-aristocrats, Asian immigrants, and etc.
So, this stuff about ‘white racist cops’ is just a ruse to light the fuse. Blacks have been looking for some compelling excuse to take to the streets and demand their slice of the pie. If big cities were dominated by ‘racist’ Republicans, blacks would have had a handy excuse. But blacks had trouble coming up with an excuse since big cities and college towns have been totally taken over by Jews, white Liberals, fancy mulattoes, homos, and diversity-immigrants who are supposed to be Democratic allies of blacks. Besides, US has a black Democratic president. So, blacks just fumed silently while losing out to other groups within the Liberal coalition.
But with BLM, blacks finally latched onto some ‘compelling’ issue to retake center stage of the Liberal Narrative. They bitch about cops, but it’s about something much more. The real message is “WE BLACKS ARE ANGRY AS HELL FOR BEING SENT TO THE BACK OF THE LIBERAL BUS, AND WE WANT SOMETHING NOW OR WE WILL USE ‘RACIST COP’ ISSUE AS EXCUSE TO BURN DOWN CITIES WHERE YOU JEWS, WHITE LIBS, HOMOS, AND IMMIGRANTS HAVE IT SO GOOD.”
It’s like Spike Lee’s screed about how Urban Liberals are ‘bogarting’ the neighborhood he grew up in.
In a way, the Liberal Establishment miscalculated. It figured that it could control and contain black rage by flattering some black activists, thus buying them off.
Some argue that Obama made things worse by inflaming black rage, but this is only a half-truth. Obama’s variation of “I feel your pain” to the black community was really to contain the rage. By pretending to do something about black rage, Obama may have encouraged black violence but he also appropriated black rage into institutional hands. Eric Holder was criticized for poring over every detail in Ferguson, but it had a way of calming things down a bit. It created the impression that the government was fully invested in the issue. And Baltimore calmed down when the cops were charged with the murder of Freddie Grey. Negroes, Trust the officials and don’t burn down cities.
Such gambits are effective but unstable. They may calm down the black community by sending the message that something is being done. But it also sends the message that LOUDER BLACKS ACT, MORE ATTENTION THEY GET.
And so, we ended up with BLM that is spreading to other nations as well, like Canada and UK and Germany, and etc.
BLM isn’t really about white cops killing innocent blacks.
Indeed, instances of white cops killing blacks is no worse now than in the past.
It’s just that blacks got frustrated over the years as they were crowded out by homos, massive immigration, gentrification, mass incarceration, increased racial profiling(in NY esp), and New Liberalism that favors the 1% over everyone else.
With Obama winning presidency, many blacks thought ‘we got it made’. But Obama’s presidency, while tossing some crumbs to blacks, has been mostly about Wars for Israel(against Russia, Libya, Syria, etc), homomania, white/Jewish/Asian yuppie gentrification, mass immigration(mostly of Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims), bailouts for Wall Street, and etc.
Blacks are especially pissed because all of this happened when US has come under the dominance of Democrats. When the very people who say the most flowery things about blacks actually push policies that do little for blacks(or even hurt blacks), blacks are awful angry.
But black rage has been muffled because most blacks are Democrats and because the Democratic Party(that dominates all big cities) is supposed to be watching their backs.
Blacks needed some convenient excuse to vent their spleen, and it was the Narrative of white cops killing innocent blacks.
But when we see the trajectory of BLM, there is something more happening. If blacks are indeed angry about white police violence, why don’t they target the specific police departments where it happened? Why do they march in every city, especially those dominated by white/Jewish/homo Liberals?
White cops are just useful scapegoats by both BLM and white/Jewish/homo Liberal Establishment. This is really a struggle between blacks and white/Jewish/homo urban Liberals(who supported increased policing to make cities livable again). Blacks are really angry at urban Liberals but can’t say so because they are both Democrats. Urban Liberals are really afraid of blacks but can’t say so because both groups are Democrats. So, blacks pretend they are marching against police brutality, and urban Liberals play along since the alternative — black rage at Urban Liberal elites — would be more frightening.
It reminds me of the scene in Akira Kurosawa’s RAN when the Third Castle is being attacked. Though the armies of the two treacherous sons are ostensibly united and working together against the fallen Old Lord, the real power struggle is between the two sons. Theirs is a sham unity held together in the attack against their father. It’s an alliance based on deception. The two sides are really eyeing each other for dominance but pretending to direct their fury at the powerless lord.
There is no Conservative power in the big cities and college campuses where most of BLM fury is directed. They are all bastions of Liberal Democratic Power. But officially, blacks and white/Jewish/homo elites ares supposed to be allies. So, they make ‘common cause’ and chant the same slogans and make-believe that they are united against ‘evil racist white cops’; but the real rage of BLM is about blacks fuming over how the Liberal Victory Pie went mostly to white yuppies, Jewish elites, homo neo-aristocrats, Asian immigrants, and etc.
So, this stuff about ‘white racist cops’ is just a ruse to light the fuse. Blacks have been looking for some compelling excuse to take to the streets and demand their slice of the pie. If big cities were dominated by ‘racist’ Republicans, blacks would have had a handy excuse. But blacks had trouble coming up with an excuse since big cities and college towns have been totally taken over by Jews, white Liberals, fancy mulattoes, homos, and diversity-immigrants who are supposed to be Democratic allies of blacks. Besides, US has a black Democratic president. So, blacks just fumed silently while losing out to other groups within the Liberal coalition.
But with BLM, blacks finally latched onto some ‘compelling’ issue to retake center stage of the Liberal Narrative. They bitch about cops, but it’s about something much more. The real message is “WE BLACKS ARE ANGRY AS HELL FOR BEING SENT TO THE BACK OF THE LIBERAL BUS, AND WE WANT SOMETHING NOW OR WE WILL USE ‘RACIST COP’ ISSUE AS EXCUSE TO BURN DOWN CITIES WHERE YOU JEWS, WHITE LIBS, HOMOS, AND IMMIGRANTS HAVE IT SO GOOD.”
It’s like Spike Lee’s screed about how Urban Liberals are ‘bogarting’ the neighborhood he grew up in.
In a way, the Liberal Establishment miscalculated. It figured that it could control and contain black rage by flattering some black activists, thus buying them off.
Some argue that Obama made things worse by inflaming black rage, but this is only a half-truth. Obama’s variation of “I feel your pain” to the black community was really to contain the rage. By pretending to do something about black rage, Obama may have encouraged black violence but he also appropriated black rage into institutional hands. Eric Holder was criticized for poring over every detail in Ferguson, but it had a way of calming things down a bit. It created the impression that the government was fully invested in the issue. And Baltimore calmed down when the cops were charged with the murder of Freddie Grey. Negroes, Trust the officials and don’t burn down cities.
Such gambits are effective but unstable. They may calm down the black community by sending the message that something is being done. But it also sends the message that LOUDER BLACKS ACT, MORE ATTENTION THEY GET.
And so, we ended up with BLM that is spreading to other nations as well, like Canada and UK and Germany, and etc.
Everyone is Racist. Difference is between C-racists and D-racists.
All this talk of ‘racism’ misses the point.
In fact, we are all ‘racists’. It is impossible not to be because we have eyes, ears, and flesh. We were designed to notice things, and humans notice differences. It was part of evolution, to notice differences.
The real difference isn’t between ‘racists’ and ‘non-racists’(or ‘anti-racists’).
It is between c-racists and d-racists.
C-racist is a candid racist who is open and honest about his awareness of the existence of races and racial differences.
D-racist is a dishonest(or disingenuous)racist who comes up with all sorts of rationalizations, evasions, and deceptions to mask or obfuscate what he really sees, feels, and thinks while pretending to be ‘progressive’, ironically often by championing the blatant racism of other peoples. So, while PC says it's wrong to be ‘virulently white’, it’s okay to be virulently Jewish in NY, virulently Cuban in Miami, virulently brown in LA, and virulently black in Detroit or Baltimore.
D-racism can be conscious or subconscious(because so many people have been raised to reject the notion of race altogether and to see whites and only whites as the source of all evil — they think dealing with ‘white problem’ will be a cure-all since whites are characterized as the sole evil while other races are naturally good. It’s like a communist thinking the economy will prosper only if the capitalists are gotten rid of because Marxism blames all evil on the bourgeoisie. Of course, the economy gets even worse without the presence of evil capitalists, so communists end up calling each other ‘capitalist roaders’ to explain the worsening economy.) Incidentally, d-racists are too stupid to realize that PC is racist against whites. Radical Justice has blinded them to reality. Their morality is high on the nihilism of preening righteousness.
Racism can be based on truth or falsehood. There are correct racial theories and false racial theories. The theory that whites are faster than blacks is false. The theory that blacks are faster than whites is true. Jesse Owens destroyed the false 'Aryan-ist' theory and established the true 'black-ist' theory that blacks can run faster. His feat didn’t prove racial equality but black superiority in sprinting.
But d-racists only focus on the discrediting of the Aryan-ist theory, as if that proves all races are equal. If a beagle claims it can run faster than a greyhound and loses, does it mean all dogs are equal? No, it means greyhounds are superior in speed. False racism(beagles are fastest) would be replaced by true racism(greyhounds are fastest).
A theory that Eskimos are smarter than Jews is false. A theory that Jews are smarter than Eskimos is true. Perhaps, to c-racists and d-racists, we can add another category: the f-racists or false racists who peddle false racial theories. D-racists(who pretend to be anti-racists) claim to disprove racism by discrediting the false racists. But they never disproved the c-racists who notice REAL existing racial differences.
F-racist says beagles are faster than greyhounds.
D-racist says all dogs are equal because the greyhound beat the beagle and discredited the beagle theory of superiority.
C-racist says greyhounds are faster and superior in speed to beagles.
C-racism is the only truth.
When we look at how people respond to sports, music, crime, residence, academics, justice, sex, policing, etc, everyone seems to notice racial differences on some level.
C-racists admit as much. D-racists deny that they do even though they do.
Look at yuppie Liberal Gentropolis. It is because Jews and Asians are smarter than there are more of them than blacks in those areas.
Look at the NBA, and blacks dominate because blacks are bigger, faster, and stronger.
Much of interracist sex is black male and white female because white women find Negroes to be superior studs.
Look at gentrification carried out out by affluent urban ‘progressives’. It is essentially about pushing blacks out to make safe spaces for bobo yuppies and hipsters who went to good colleges and/or have generous trusts from grandparents.
Jews are smarter/richer and influence US policy to favor Israelis over Palestinians. Jewish ‘progressives’ or progs seem to have no problem with this Foreign Policy that racially prioritizes Jews over Palestinians.
And on an on.
‘Racism’ is something far more complicated than saying the n-word. Ism means belief or consciousness, and it is impossible not to notice racial differences and be affected by it.
Even when you prefer another race more than your own, you are being ‘racist’.
When a white woman prefers a Negro man and when a white boy wants to be like a black rapper, they are acting on premise that black race is superior to the white race in sex and fighting(and acting unruly).
So, it’s really about c-racists and d-racists.
I notice racial differences that are the product of 100,000 yrs of human evolution, and I see how they affect society.
After all, the main reason for black aggression isn’t history but biology. Blacks are more muscular and have more aggressive temperaments. I grew up in an integrated community, and black boys tended to see white boys as flabby and slow weakling wussies easy to pick and beat up. (That was the main reason for white flight in which Jewish liberals took part. Prog Jews are d-racists, always denouncing white gentiles as ‘racist’ while doing everything to seek safe space from the tougher and more aggressive blacks. After all, NY made a comeback by getting very tough on black crime. But it never got tagged as ‘city of hate’ or ‘city of greed’ because NY owns the national media that serves as its publicity machine.)
Needless to say, I’m a c-racist or race-ist.
Ism means belief or consciousness, and I believe in the existence of race and racial differences.
In fact, we are all ‘racists’. It is impossible not to be because we have eyes, ears, and flesh. We were designed to notice things, and humans notice differences. It was part of evolution, to notice differences.
The real difference isn’t between ‘racists’ and ‘non-racists’(or ‘anti-racists’).
It is between c-racists and d-racists.
C-racist is a candid racist who is open and honest about his awareness of the existence of races and racial differences.
D-racist is a dishonest(or disingenuous)racist who comes up with all sorts of rationalizations, evasions, and deceptions to mask or obfuscate what he really sees, feels, and thinks while pretending to be ‘progressive’, ironically often by championing the blatant racism of other peoples. So, while PC says it's wrong to be ‘virulently white’, it’s okay to be virulently Jewish in NY, virulently Cuban in Miami, virulently brown in LA, and virulently black in Detroit or Baltimore.
D-racism can be conscious or subconscious(because so many people have been raised to reject the notion of race altogether and to see whites and only whites as the source of all evil — they think dealing with ‘white problem’ will be a cure-all since whites are characterized as the sole evil while other races are naturally good. It’s like a communist thinking the economy will prosper only if the capitalists are gotten rid of because Marxism blames all evil on the bourgeoisie. Of course, the economy gets even worse without the presence of evil capitalists, so communists end up calling each other ‘capitalist roaders’ to explain the worsening economy.) Incidentally, d-racists are too stupid to realize that PC is racist against whites. Radical Justice has blinded them to reality. Their morality is high on the nihilism of preening righteousness.
Racism can be based on truth or falsehood. There are correct racial theories and false racial theories. The theory that whites are faster than blacks is false. The theory that blacks are faster than whites is true. Jesse Owens destroyed the false 'Aryan-ist' theory and established the true 'black-ist' theory that blacks can run faster. His feat didn’t prove racial equality but black superiority in sprinting.
But d-racists only focus on the discrediting of the Aryan-ist theory, as if that proves all races are equal. If a beagle claims it can run faster than a greyhound and loses, does it mean all dogs are equal? No, it means greyhounds are superior in speed. False racism(beagles are fastest) would be replaced by true racism(greyhounds are fastest).
A theory that Eskimos are smarter than Jews is false. A theory that Jews are smarter than Eskimos is true. Perhaps, to c-racists and d-racists, we can add another category: the f-racists or false racists who peddle false racial theories. D-racists(who pretend to be anti-racists) claim to disprove racism by discrediting the false racists. But they never disproved the c-racists who notice REAL existing racial differences.
F-racist says beagles are faster than greyhounds.
D-racist says all dogs are equal because the greyhound beat the beagle and discredited the beagle theory of superiority.
C-racist says greyhounds are faster and superior in speed to beagles.
C-racism is the only truth.
When we look at how people respond to sports, music, crime, residence, academics, justice, sex, policing, etc, everyone seems to notice racial differences on some level.
C-racists admit as much. D-racists deny that they do even though they do.
Look at yuppie Liberal Gentropolis. It is because Jews and Asians are smarter than there are more of them than blacks in those areas.
Look at the NBA, and blacks dominate because blacks are bigger, faster, and stronger.
Much of interracist sex is black male and white female because white women find Negroes to be superior studs.
Look at gentrification carried out out by affluent urban ‘progressives’. It is essentially about pushing blacks out to make safe spaces for bobo yuppies and hipsters who went to good colleges and/or have generous trusts from grandparents.
Jews are smarter/richer and influence US policy to favor Israelis over Palestinians. Jewish ‘progressives’ or progs seem to have no problem with this Foreign Policy that racially prioritizes Jews over Palestinians.
And on an on.
‘Racism’ is something far more complicated than saying the n-word. Ism means belief or consciousness, and it is impossible not to notice racial differences and be affected by it.
Even when you prefer another race more than your own, you are being ‘racist’.
When a white woman prefers a Negro man and when a white boy wants to be like a black rapper, they are acting on premise that black race is superior to the white race in sex and fighting(and acting unruly).
So, it’s really about c-racists and d-racists.
I notice racial differences that are the product of 100,000 yrs of human evolution, and I see how they affect society.
After all, the main reason for black aggression isn’t history but biology. Blacks are more muscular and have more aggressive temperaments. I grew up in an integrated community, and black boys tended to see white boys as flabby and slow weakling wussies easy to pick and beat up. (That was the main reason for white flight in which Jewish liberals took part. Prog Jews are d-racists, always denouncing white gentiles as ‘racist’ while doing everything to seek safe space from the tougher and more aggressive blacks. After all, NY made a comeback by getting very tough on black crime. But it never got tagged as ‘city of hate’ or ‘city of greed’ because NY owns the national media that serves as its publicity machine.)
Needless to say, I’m a c-racist or race-ist.
Ism means belief or consciousness, and I believe in the existence of race and racial differences.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Biology, not history, explains the Black Problem
History, history, history.
It doesn’t matter.
If all those blacks had been brought to America as free men, we’d have the same problem.
It’s biology, not history.
Blacks mess things up here, blacks mess things up in Jamaica and Haiti, blacks mess things up in Africa, blacks mess things up in Europe.
Sure, some higher IQ Nigerian immigrants do better in the West, but that’s cream of the crop. Most Nigerians in Nigeria turned that nation into a hellhole.
And look where South Africa is going. And before anyone blames Apartheid, look at black African nations that had no apartheid. They ended up worse.
Blacks are stronger, more aggressive, more volatile, more pathological, less introspective, less self-critical, and etc.
Evolution made them that way because they lived in hunter-warrior societies where aggressive hunter-warrior traits were most favored.
If Americans had brought Vietnamese as slaves, things would have turned out very differently.
Yes, Vietnamese-American descendants of slaves would have a bitter narrative and harbor rsentment, but they would pose no threat since Vietnamese are scrawny geeks. They wouldn't threaten or scare anyone. There never would have been a Vietnamese Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali or OJ Simpson. There wouldn’t be Jungle Fever for Vietnamese men. And even if there had been a Vietnamese Civil Rights Leader, he wouldn’t be an object of cult worship since Vietnamese don’t have boom box voices(of someone like MLK) that have a magical voodoo effect on white folks… indeed as if they are hearing the voice of god hisself.
Vietnamese were fearsome only in Vietnam where they outnumbered the French and Americans by a huge margin. But on a one-on-one basis, a short skinny Vietnamese is no threat to a white man. As a minority, Vietnamese-Americans would pose no threat to white folks despite their bitter slave narrative. Also, as East Asians, Vietnamese have servile genes(like Mexican indigenous mongoid folks and American Indians in reservations) and would have just gotten along with White Power.
So, the real shame of America wasn’t so much slavery. It was WHOM the whites enslaved.
They made a terrible choice in enslaving a people bigger, tougher, and more aggressive than themselves.
White people should have enslaved scrawny Vietnamese, not powerful blacks.
It doesn’t matter.
If all those blacks had been brought to America as free men, we’d have the same problem.
It’s biology, not history.
Blacks mess things up here, blacks mess things up in Jamaica and Haiti, blacks mess things up in Africa, blacks mess things up in Europe.
Sure, some higher IQ Nigerian immigrants do better in the West, but that’s cream of the crop. Most Nigerians in Nigeria turned that nation into a hellhole.
And look where South Africa is going. And before anyone blames Apartheid, look at black African nations that had no apartheid. They ended up worse.
Blacks are stronger, more aggressive, more volatile, more pathological, less introspective, less self-critical, and etc.
Evolution made them that way because they lived in hunter-warrior societies where aggressive hunter-warrior traits were most favored.
If Americans had brought Vietnamese as slaves, things would have turned out very differently.
Yes, Vietnamese-American descendants of slaves would have a bitter narrative and harbor rsentment, but they would pose no threat since Vietnamese are scrawny geeks. They wouldn't threaten or scare anyone. There never would have been a Vietnamese Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali or OJ Simpson. There wouldn’t be Jungle Fever for Vietnamese men. And even if there had been a Vietnamese Civil Rights Leader, he wouldn’t be an object of cult worship since Vietnamese don’t have boom box voices(of someone like MLK) that have a magical voodoo effect on white folks… indeed as if they are hearing the voice of god hisself.
Vietnamese were fearsome only in Vietnam where they outnumbered the French and Americans by a huge margin. But on a one-on-one basis, a short skinny Vietnamese is no threat to a white man. As a minority, Vietnamese-Americans would pose no threat to white folks despite their bitter slave narrative. Also, as East Asians, Vietnamese have servile genes(like Mexican indigenous mongoid folks and American Indians in reservations) and would have just gotten along with White Power.
So, the real shame of America wasn’t so much slavery. It was WHOM the whites enslaved.
They made a terrible choice in enslaving a people bigger, tougher, and more aggressive than themselves.
White people should have enslaved scrawny Vietnamese, not powerful blacks.
Diversity is a Disaster. Diversity-Disaster-Denial must end. Justice-Diversion is a sham.
Diversity, as promoted & practiced by globalism, is a Disaster.
We need to combat DDD, or Diversity Disaster Denial.
For a long time, the 'progressive globalists' or PROGLOB have been saying that 'diversity is our strength' and that white people have much to gain from it.
It was sold as a boon for whites. But now that whites are losing out(with the huge problem of White Death and wage decline and all sorts of social problems), the PROGLOB like Fareed Zakaria are gloating that whites are dying, losing, and going to end up in dustbin of history.
Or consider the Newsweek cover that features Obama as victorious general with the heading that blares: "GOP, YOU'RE OLD, YOU'RE WHITE, YOU'RE HISTORY".
So, it turns out Diversity is not strength but disaster for whites after all. Whites had been tricked by globalist Jews.
Now that white folks appear to be doomed, the globalists are coming out of the woodworks and cackling with hideous glee. They love to see the fall of the white race.
Or at least the white masses.
After all, white elites(like the Clintons and Bidens who collaborate with Jews) are well-taken care of and will end up gaining even more under Diversity. Finally, some whites are waking up to Diversity Disaster. But it may be too late.
Elites have the Power, and white goy elites have much to gain from diversity. If ALL whites were harmed equally by diversity, the white elites will grow angry and lead the white masses. But the way the system is set up, white elites are lavishly rewarded by globalism for betraying the white masses. The economic angle of globalism is about white elites sacrificing white masses for their own gluttony. But because white elite privilege has been associated with 'progressive' values like homomania and 'anti-racism', the piggish white elites(like the Clintons) rake in ever more for themselves while acting morally righteous and putting the white masses on the moral defensive for being 'xenophobic' and etc.
After all, Diversity means using immigrants used as buffer between dangerous blacks and affluent white elites in big cities. It means cheap docile labor and not having to deal with the hassles and demands of white American workers and labor unions. If you're an affluent white person, Diversity can be a great social and economic boon since you will remain above most of Diversity. After all, the browns are not going to compete with the upper whites. Yellows may offer some competition in schools, but eventually, a huge number of yellow women are going to offer their wombs to white men and yellow boys will never rise above middle management, and many will die childless playing videogames. Asian-Indians may offer more challenge since India still has a huge birth boom and Asian-Indians are very energetic in personality. They got babu-ism.
So, Hillary vs Trump is like white elites vs white masses.
Hillary Victory means white elites can go full-globalism and expand their privilege at expense of white masses.
Trump Victory(if Trump is honest, which I doubt) means white masses get to make demands on American elites to support and defend American workers and citizens.
The America that resulted from New Deal era was one where the elites couldn't just fatten themselves. Because of emphasis on national capitalism and the needs of the working class via unions and greater cohesion between elites and masses(since both were white mostly), the elites couldn't pig out for themselves at the expense of American workers, especially because of the memory of the Great Depression and working class sacrifices in World War II. They had to be mindful of the masses. So, elite privilege and maximization of profits for the super-rich were curtailed because the masses mattered too.
That bond has been broken by both parties. GOP started it, but Democrats grabbed it and ran with it, especially since the Clinton Era, toward the globalist end-zone. It was bound to appeal to Democrats in the long run since they hold the big cities, the cosmo centers of globalism. Once cities became de-industrialized and became hubbub of the information economy, urban Democrats wanted less to do with native workers and more to do with global opportunities.
But some blame must go to US workers and labor unions too. The unions became bloated and corrupt, like in that Danny Devito movie about Jimmy Hoffa and that Paul Schrader movie BLUE COLLAR. Also, American workers got used to taking things for granted. They became like the hare in the story where it races with the tortoise. While other nations were catching up, US auto workers just wanted more benefits and business as usual. Also, the children of the working class got into drug and hedonistic culture in the 60s, and their work attitudes became lousy. Just look at the kids in DAZED AND CONFUSED. So, we need to fix up the culture as well. White 'trash' culture isn't all that better than wild Negro culture.
Another problem is the moral sleight of hand pulled off by the PROGLOB. It might be called Justice Diversion Tactic or Diversionary Justice Tactic.
What is justice? Justice is about redressing a wrong.
So, if I did something wrong to you, I owe something to YOU. Not to others.
Suppose I stole your water, like what happens in the movie JEAN DE FLORETTE.
If there is to be justice, I should re-irrigate a canal whereby I would return some water back to your land. The water should go from my land to your land to redress the wrong. That is justice.
But suppose a third party diverts the water that goes from my land to your land, thus channeling it to his land. Suppose his 'moral logic' argues as follows: because I'd done YOU wrong, the water-of-redress should flow to HIS land. He poses as the middleman of justice and takes it for himself when it should go from me to YOU.
Does this make sense? That's not justice. But that is the foundation of the (Emma)Lazarus Logic of Justice:
Because white folks took the land from the Red Savages and used blacks as slaves... that means... uh.... white folks owe something to the huddled wretched masses all over the world. What kind of justice is that?
If whites had done wrong to Indians and Negroes, then whites owe something to the redskins and blacks, not to anyone else.
Consider Israel. Zionists took land from Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed and still live under Occupation in West Bank. So, for the sake of Justice, we can argue that Jews owe something to the Palestinians. That makes good sense. But would it make sense to say, "Because Jews did wrong to Palestinians, they must redress the problem by offering right of immigration to Chinese, Black Africans, Hindus, Iranians, Mexicans, and etc"? That'd be ridiculous. It would be a case of Justice Diversion. The water of justice that should flow from Jews to Palestinians would be diverted to serving peoples whom Jews hadn't done harm to.
Diversity Mania is a form of Justice Diversion. It says White America owes something to the entire world(by way of open borders immigration) because it committed wrongs against Indians and blacks.
It also says Europe owes something to the entire world because of its horrors in WWII. But if Europeans had wronged Jews in WWII, they owe something to Jews. What do they owe to Muslims and Africans who just wanna come to EU for free stuff and white women?
Also, why ALL of Europe? Only a handful of European nations were involved in imperialism. Most weren't. How many overseas empire did Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Serbians, Croatians, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians, and etc have?
Furthermore, imperialism wasn't only about taking. Western imperialists also spread a lot of positive influences all over the world. So, there was take but also give. It evens out in most cases. (And of course, non-white civilizations had empires of their own. Oftentimes, it was a war of empires than a war of white imperialists vs gentle non-whites living in harmony with nature. Aztecs were an imperialist people. When whites came upon China, it was under Manchu rule. And when Brits came to India, it was under Moghul rule. And when French came to Cambodia, it was being carved by Vietnamese and Thai empires.)
Anyway, Justice Diversion is messing up the world. It is making a mockery of the meaning of justice. It is burdening innocent nations with the problems caused by other peoples. If any people need to pay for the disaster in the Middle East and North Africa, it is globalist Jewish supremacists in NY and DC who've steered Western foreign policy toward destroying Arab nations. But Justice Diversion says Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, and etc. must take in the 'refugees'.
Justice Diversion not only diverts the redressing of wrongs to undeserved parties but directs punishment at those innocent of the wrong or crime.
In the US, the rewards for historical wrongs of America have been diverted from blacks and Indians to immigrants. Look how well the Asian-Indians are doing in the US. But white man 'stole' American from American Indians(aka Injuns), not from Asian-Indians. So, who are the likes of Fareed Zakaria to act as though they DESERVE to come to America and take over economies?
In the EU, the punishment for the horrors visited upon Arabs and Muslims have been diverted at European nations. So, even though Jewish-dominated foreign policy led to the destruction of much of the Arab/Muslim World, the burden of ameliorating this disaster has been dumped on Europeans. Because of European crimes in WWII, Europe must be burdened with the 'refugee' crisis because... uh.... the 'refugees' are sort of like Jews during WWII... or the twisted logic goes.
This is like saying Japan must suffer the burden of taking care of Africans uprooted by war and poverty because of what it did in China in WWII. But that is not justice. If Japan did China wrong, then Japan owes something to China, not to the world.
Imagine if I stole $1,000 from Jill, but Bob comes along with his Justice Diversion theory and says I should hand that money to him because I'd done Jill wrong.
Ludicrous. That is Justice Usurpation.
We need to combat DDD, or Diversity Disaster Denial.
For a long time, the 'progressive globalists' or PROGLOB have been saying that 'diversity is our strength' and that white people have much to gain from it.
It was sold as a boon for whites. But now that whites are losing out(with the huge problem of White Death and wage decline and all sorts of social problems), the PROGLOB like Fareed Zakaria are gloating that whites are dying, losing, and going to end up in dustbin of history.
Or consider the Newsweek cover that features Obama as victorious general with the heading that blares: "GOP, YOU'RE OLD, YOU'RE WHITE, YOU'RE HISTORY".
So, it turns out Diversity is not strength but disaster for whites after all. Whites had been tricked by globalist Jews.
Now that white folks appear to be doomed, the globalists are coming out of the woodworks and cackling with hideous glee. They love to see the fall of the white race.
Or at least the white masses.
After all, white elites(like the Clintons and Bidens who collaborate with Jews) are well-taken care of and will end up gaining even more under Diversity. Finally, some whites are waking up to Diversity Disaster. But it may be too late.
Elites have the Power, and white goy elites have much to gain from diversity. If ALL whites were harmed equally by diversity, the white elites will grow angry and lead the white masses. But the way the system is set up, white elites are lavishly rewarded by globalism for betraying the white masses. The economic angle of globalism is about white elites sacrificing white masses for their own gluttony. But because white elite privilege has been associated with 'progressive' values like homomania and 'anti-racism', the piggish white elites(like the Clintons) rake in ever more for themselves while acting morally righteous and putting the white masses on the moral defensive for being 'xenophobic' and etc.
After all, Diversity means using immigrants used as buffer between dangerous blacks and affluent white elites in big cities. It means cheap docile labor and not having to deal with the hassles and demands of white American workers and labor unions. If you're an affluent white person, Diversity can be a great social and economic boon since you will remain above most of Diversity. After all, the browns are not going to compete with the upper whites. Yellows may offer some competition in schools, but eventually, a huge number of yellow women are going to offer their wombs to white men and yellow boys will never rise above middle management, and many will die childless playing videogames. Asian-Indians may offer more challenge since India still has a huge birth boom and Asian-Indians are very energetic in personality. They got babu-ism.
So, Hillary vs Trump is like white elites vs white masses.
Hillary Victory means white elites can go full-globalism and expand their privilege at expense of white masses.
Trump Victory(if Trump is honest, which I doubt) means white masses get to make demands on American elites to support and defend American workers and citizens.
The America that resulted from New Deal era was one where the elites couldn't just fatten themselves. Because of emphasis on national capitalism and the needs of the working class via unions and greater cohesion between elites and masses(since both were white mostly), the elites couldn't pig out for themselves at the expense of American workers, especially because of the memory of the Great Depression and working class sacrifices in World War II. They had to be mindful of the masses. So, elite privilege and maximization of profits for the super-rich were curtailed because the masses mattered too.
That bond has been broken by both parties. GOP started it, but Democrats grabbed it and ran with it, especially since the Clinton Era, toward the globalist end-zone. It was bound to appeal to Democrats in the long run since they hold the big cities, the cosmo centers of globalism. Once cities became de-industrialized and became hubbub of the information economy, urban Democrats wanted less to do with native workers and more to do with global opportunities.
But some blame must go to US workers and labor unions too. The unions became bloated and corrupt, like in that Danny Devito movie about Jimmy Hoffa and that Paul Schrader movie BLUE COLLAR. Also, American workers got used to taking things for granted. They became like the hare in the story where it races with the tortoise. While other nations were catching up, US auto workers just wanted more benefits and business as usual. Also, the children of the working class got into drug and hedonistic culture in the 60s, and their work attitudes became lousy. Just look at the kids in DAZED AND CONFUSED. So, we need to fix up the culture as well. White 'trash' culture isn't all that better than wild Negro culture.
Another problem is the moral sleight of hand pulled off by the PROGLOB. It might be called Justice Diversion Tactic or Diversionary Justice Tactic.
What is justice? Justice is about redressing a wrong.
So, if I did something wrong to you, I owe something to YOU. Not to others.
Suppose I stole your water, like what happens in the movie JEAN DE FLORETTE.
If there is to be justice, I should re-irrigate a canal whereby I would return some water back to your land. The water should go from my land to your land to redress the wrong. That is justice.
But suppose a third party diverts the water that goes from my land to your land, thus channeling it to his land. Suppose his 'moral logic' argues as follows: because I'd done YOU wrong, the water-of-redress should flow to HIS land. He poses as the middleman of justice and takes it for himself when it should go from me to YOU.
Does this make sense? That's not justice. But that is the foundation of the (Emma)Lazarus Logic of Justice:
Because white folks took the land from the Red Savages and used blacks as slaves... that means... uh.... white folks owe something to the huddled wretched masses all over the world. What kind of justice is that?
If whites had done wrong to Indians and Negroes, then whites owe something to the redskins and blacks, not to anyone else.
Consider Israel. Zionists took land from Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed and still live under Occupation in West Bank. So, for the sake of Justice, we can argue that Jews owe something to the Palestinians. That makes good sense. But would it make sense to say, "Because Jews did wrong to Palestinians, they must redress the problem by offering right of immigration to Chinese, Black Africans, Hindus, Iranians, Mexicans, and etc"? That'd be ridiculous. It would be a case of Justice Diversion. The water of justice that should flow from Jews to Palestinians would be diverted to serving peoples whom Jews hadn't done harm to.
Diversity Mania is a form of Justice Diversion. It says White America owes something to the entire world(by way of open borders immigration) because it committed wrongs against Indians and blacks.
It also says Europe owes something to the entire world because of its horrors in WWII. But if Europeans had wronged Jews in WWII, they owe something to Jews. What do they owe to Muslims and Africans who just wanna come to EU for free stuff and white women?
Also, why ALL of Europe? Only a handful of European nations were involved in imperialism. Most weren't. How many overseas empire did Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Serbians, Croatians, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians, and etc have?
Furthermore, imperialism wasn't only about taking. Western imperialists also spread a lot of positive influences all over the world. So, there was take but also give. It evens out in most cases. (And of course, non-white civilizations had empires of their own. Oftentimes, it was a war of empires than a war of white imperialists vs gentle non-whites living in harmony with nature. Aztecs were an imperialist people. When whites came upon China, it was under Manchu rule. And when Brits came to India, it was under Moghul rule. And when French came to Cambodia, it was being carved by Vietnamese and Thai empires.)
Anyway, Justice Diversion is messing up the world. It is making a mockery of the meaning of justice. It is burdening innocent nations with the problems caused by other peoples. If any people need to pay for the disaster in the Middle East and North Africa, it is globalist Jewish supremacists in NY and DC who've steered Western foreign policy toward destroying Arab nations. But Justice Diversion says Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, and etc. must take in the 'refugees'.
Justice Diversion not only diverts the redressing of wrongs to undeserved parties but directs punishment at those innocent of the wrong or crime.
In the US, the rewards for historical wrongs of America have been diverted from blacks and Indians to immigrants. Look how well the Asian-Indians are doing in the US. But white man 'stole' American from American Indians(aka Injuns), not from Asian-Indians. So, who are the likes of Fareed Zakaria to act as though they DESERVE to come to America and take over economies?
In the EU, the punishment for the horrors visited upon Arabs and Muslims have been diverted at European nations. So, even though Jewish-dominated foreign policy led to the destruction of much of the Arab/Muslim World, the burden of ameliorating this disaster has been dumped on Europeans. Because of European crimes in WWII, Europe must be burdened with the 'refugee' crisis because... uh.... the 'refugees' are sort of like Jews during WWII... or the twisted logic goes.
This is like saying Japan must suffer the burden of taking care of Africans uprooted by war and poverty because of what it did in China in WWII. But that is not justice. If Japan did China wrong, then Japan owes something to China, not to the world.
Imagine if I stole $1,000 from Jill, but Bob comes along with his Justice Diversion theory and says I should hand that money to him because I'd done Jill wrong.
Ludicrous. That is Justice Usurpation.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Nothing is more Important than the War for the Wombs
It all comes down to Womb Wars, or World War Womb. WWW.
In the end, it's not ideas, memes, or conferences that created you.
You exist ONLY BECAUSE your white mother used her white womb as garden for your father's seed.
If your mother had decided to go black, YOU would have been 'killed' because her womb-nest would have been cucked out for a Negro baby.
Modernity believes in woman's reproductive rights. Good idea.
But what if more and more white women 'go black' and freely choose Negro men as superior mates while closing their white wombs to white seeds?
It is the death of the white race and totally demoralizing to white male pride.
It's happening all over America and will accelerate with Section 8 policies that send black males to every high school in every suburb and small town. Black males will win in sports and hump so many white girls weaned on jungle fever promoted by PC and pop culture.
Jews want this to happen. They want to see white males pussified and beaten by black studs. It's because Jews fear the reawakening of white male pride and unity.
Survival is about the war of wombs. Blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race because of Jungle Fever.
In the end, it's not ideas, memes, or conferences that created you.
You exist ONLY BECAUSE your white mother used her white womb as garden for your father's seed.
If your mother had decided to go black, YOU would have been 'killed' because her womb-nest would have been cucked out for a Negro baby.
Modernity believes in woman's reproductive rights. Good idea.
But what if more and more white women 'go black' and freely choose Negro men as superior mates while closing their white wombs to white seeds?
It is the death of the white race and totally demoralizing to white male pride.
It's happening all over America and will accelerate with Section 8 policies that send black males to every high school in every suburb and small town. Black males will win in sports and hump so many white girls weaned on jungle fever promoted by PC and pop culture.
Jews want this to happen. They want to see white males pussified and beaten by black studs. It's because Jews fear the reawakening of white male pride and unity.
Survival is about the war of wombs. Blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race because of Jungle Fever.
Jewish Understanding of Power vs Justified Power
Jews are very smart when it comes to politics and morality.
Politics is important, but even more so is the possession of the moral high ground, especially in the modern West.
Politics is about power, but raw power isn't enough. Power has to be justified.
Since the beginning of history, those with raw power(military class) made an alliance with the clerical class. Thus, the power of might became associated with moral/spiritual righteousness.
Without such 'blessing', power would only be about brutish might, about fear and intimidation.
Such power could last only as long as one had the arms and loyal soldiers. Such power would not be based on real respect, admiration, and etc.
This is why the dynastic power of the First Emperor of China was short-lived. His order was all about fearsome power. He killed the Confucian scholars. His domain ruled by might, fright, and intimidation. Same can be said for Assyrians. They ruled by terror and violence. They were ruthless buggers, just like the later Huns. Huns rampaged and struck fear into the hearts of everyone. But there was no respect among those they conquered.
In contrast, moral power goes beyond the might of arms and terror. Just the power of the word and symbols does the trick. And the power of word is especially effective in the Modern World where one is protected by Rule of Law and especially if one controls the Academia and Media(news and entertainment). The Rule of Law means that the military cannot suddenly move against you even if you insult it with moral condemnation. And control of media means that your righteous Narrative comes to prevail over all.
So, without firing a shot, Jews took over America. In the Russian Revolution, Jews had to take power through power of arms since there wasn't much in the way of Rule of Law in autocratic or weak-parliamentary Russia, especially during Wartime. In the US, as Jews were protected by Anglo-American Rule of Law, they could make aggressive moral claims against Wasps and still be protected by law(that had been established by Anglos). And the military couldn't move against them. Also, as Jews took over media and academia, their vision of history and morality and justice gain dominance.
If white southern conservatives joined the military, Jews joined the academia, media, courts, and etc. And with their power of finance and economics, they were poised to take over the elite institutions. In the US, due to Rule of Law, the military must take orders from those with control over the word. Word orders the Sword.
Jews mastered the Word while white southerners mastered the sword.
In a barbarian world or Leviathan world, the Sword has rule over the Word.
Under Rule of Law, Word has rule over the Sword.
But even Rule of Law wasn't enough for Jewish dominance. After all, Law is supposed to be 'blind'. It is not supposed to play favorites. It is supposed to be equal to all individuals. So, even as Rule of Law protected Jewish freedom and rights, it didn't necessarily favor the Jews. After all, Rule of Law even protects the rights of KKK and Nation of Islam.
For Jews to gain favoritism in the American system, they had to become sacralized while their rivals were demonized.
Jews had to be promoted as a holy people while white gentiles were to be demoted as a wicked people... not least because they had done wrong to the holy Jews. So, the ONLY way whites could gain redemption was by being servile to the holy Jews and making amends for... ever and ever and ever and ever.
So, Jewish success and power depend not only money and might. Such are great assets but don't justify the power. For the power to be justified and blessed, it has to be morally and spiritually sanctified while the power of the rivals must be demonized and accursed.
Consider. The reason why Americans can freely badmouth Saudi power, Chinese power, Iranian power, and Russian power is because they are not sacralized in the Western Narrative. If a rich and powerful man were only seen as rich and powerful, he might be an object of admiration and/or envy, but he wouldn't necessarily be seen as good and righteous.
Because Jews are the most powerful and richest people, they are the natural targets of envy, resentment, suspicion, hostility, distrust, and righteous anger(as the rich and powerful have more means to harm the world). 1% vs the 99%.
So, to protect themselves from criticism and competition, Jews have employed the art of sacralization and vilification. While Rule of Law protects Jewish freedom, rights, and property, it doesn't protect Jews from criticism, rivalry, accusation, and moral condemnation. After all, Rule of Law guarantees freedom of speech for all, even for 'anti-semites' like David Duke.
In order for Jews to silence critics and rivals, they must pervert the 'blind' impartiality of the Rule of Law(as in the EU & Canada) and effectively censor or criminalize anti-Jewish speech(while allowing Jews to criticize, berate, and condemn native whites and other gentiles).
As freedom of speech is still protected by law in the US, Jews rely on the sacralization of their own identity & narrative and on the demonization of their perceived rivals and enemies to maximize their own power.
With such taboos, it has been nearly impossible for anyone in mainstream channels to criticize or challenge Jewish power. In America, Jewishness = holiness. Badmouthing Jewishness is like sacrilege against God. Our support of Jews must be UNCONDITIONAL no matter what Jews so. If a Jew spits in your face and you hate him for it, you are an 'anti-Semite'.
Such being the case, it has been easy for Jews to destroy anyone just by pointing the finger and shrieking 'anti-Semite' and 'racist'. Of course, Jews have morally paralyzed whites not only by sacralizing the Holocaust but also black slavery. Also, the Narrative says ALL WHITES must carry the burden of 'white guilt' for both Holocaust and Slavery. So, even Swedes and Greeks are thought to be responsible for the Holocaust and even recent Polish immigrants in the US are guilty of black slavery.
But then, this setup works greatly for Jewish power. If Jews only targeted Germans with the Holocaust and only targeted southern whites for slavery, it was be less effective as tool against all white gentiles. It is no wonder that Jews erect Holocaust Memorials even in nations that bear NO HISTORICAL GUILT for it whatsoever.
The Power of Word is most effective when one side is sacralized while the other side(s) is demonized. After all, if Jews and White Christians are equally sacralized, both would feel equally righteous and morally proud. For Jews to have the advantage, they must own sacralization while the other side is smeared with demonization. (Jews now say that the ONLY WAY Christians can be half-way redeemed is by turning over their churches to homomania that is pushed by Jews. So, Christians must adopt cultural decadence to gain an ounce of holiness. It is like telling Alcoholics Anonymous that it must serve whiskey to be good.)
Because Jews are sacralized as the holy people historically victimized by white Christians and the Holocaust, they are to be revered, respected, and worshiped. Because white gentiles have been tagged with 'antisemitism', 'racism', imperialism(never mind Jewish money funded much of Western imperialism), slave trade(never mind Jews played a role in this too and never mind that black Africans had slavery for 10,000 yrs), and etc. they are to be reviled, condemned, and dragged through the mud.
Jews invoke historical justice to promote their Narrative, but it's really about political control over their rivals. After all, Jews are always far more sensitive to the injustice of their enemies and rivals than their allies. We don't see Jews get too tough on Saudi Arabia since it is a defacto ally of Israel. It really comes down to Moral Machiaveillianism.
One of the things Jews FEAR MOST is the loss of moral righteousness. It is that Moral Card that allows Jews to get away with so much foulness without facing criticism. As long as Jews are the holy people and white gentiles are the cursed people, the latter must serve the Jews just like sinful flock is supposed to serve God.
The MAIN REASON for Jewish hysteria about McCarthyism wasn't because things were so bad. Sure, some people got blacklisted but same happened to many during WWII when a whole bunch of suspected Nazi sympathizers were blacklisted or worse. Furthermore, there was the mass-'internment' of the Japanese, something Jewish Liberals didn't protest.
The reason why Jews were so alarmed about McCarthyism and anti-communism is that they knew very well that, despite McCarthyite excesses, there were lots of evidence that a whole bunch of radical and fellow-traveling Jews had aided and abetted Stalin's Empire. Some of these agents went so far as to give Stalin, the killer of millions and occupier of Eastern Europe, the secrets to the atomic bomb. That meant Jews = involvement in Communism... and that opened up a whole new cans of worms about Jewish communist role in the mass killings and destruction in the USSR. In other words, before Nazis did horrible things, European Jews had aided Stalin in doing horrible things that were comparable to Nazi crimes.
Jews would have us believe that McCarthyism was terrifying because... uh... some folk singers and Hollywood writers were blacklisted for a few yrs. (These same Jews were silent about people actually being tortured and shot in Stalin's empire.)
In truth, Jews were terrified of McCarthyism because anti-communism had the power(if used intelligently) to take away Moral Sanctimony from the then-developing Jewish Narrative of Jewish Holiness. Anti-communism could connect Jews with the crimes of communism. As WWII was over and The Cold War pitted US vs USSR, this was bad position for Jews to be in. So, Jews really shat when anti-communism became a huge issue. (If McCarthy had been smarter, he wouldn't have gone after the US military, thereby making Eisenhower turn on him. Going after the military was like Hitler going into Russia. McCarthy got over-ambitious and met his Waterloo.)
Because the anti-communist narrative put Jews on the moral defensive(as participants and agents of murderous tyrannical communism), Jews got extremely hysterical in using all their academic, media, and institutional firepower to reverse the dynamics and put the anti-communists on the moral defensive as 'hysterics', 'paranoids', 'fanatics', 'rabid and virulent', 'anti-civil liberties', and etc.
This is rather amusing since Jewish communists had no use for civil liberties. After all, they were aiding Stalin. And they would eventually cook up PC to silence people with all sorts of accusations. And American Jews fully support EU Laws that silence 'hate speech' that is decided by powers-that-be which is the GLOB.
Ironically, the Jewish Liberal Narrative made anti-communists out to be 'anti-American' while making the Jewish communists and fellow-travelers as American-as-apple-pie for having stood firm in the name of US constitution protecting free speech and right of association. So, the commies were made the 'patriots' while anti-communists were made the 'traitors'. (Using this logic, KKK members who invoke the Constitution to protect their own free speech should be hailed as the greatest patriots.)
Negative association of Jewish Power with Communist Tyranny could have neutralized or at least balanced out the positive association of Jewish Power with the Holocaust. The former would have demonized Jews as the latter would have sacralized Jews. So, Jews would be objects of sympathy but also objects of suspicion and blame. Sure, Jews suffered horribly in WWII, but when they had the power in the USSR they did horrible things too.
That way, Americans could have sympathized with Jews where it was deserving but also could have been judgmental where Jews had done wrong. But because there was only sacralization of Jews while demonization was totally suppressed(by making 'anti-communists' out to be the bad guys while making Jewish radicals and fellow-agents out to be 'patriotic' Americans), there never developed any effective challenge or counterweight to Jewish power that grew and grew.
If there had been the balance of demonization and vilification, we might today look upon Jews the way we look upon Chinese or Russians. We know Chinese suffered horribly under Japanese invasion, and we can sympathize with that. But sacralization of Chinese victimhood during WWII doesn't negate our vilification of them during the Mao era when Chinese acted totally nuts.
Likewise, we can sympathize with Russian suffering and sacrifices during WWII. By some estimates, 25 million Russians(or Soviets) died. But such sacralization doesn't preclude our demonization of Russian craziness under Stalinism. So, we can see the noble side and the wicked side of Russians.
But because Jews have only pushed sacralization of Jews while suppressing any demonization of Jews, we can never accuse or challenge Jewish power.
When we see a Russian oligarch or Chinese oligarch, we can say 'Look at that rich Russian a**hole' or 'Look at that rich Chinese a**hole'. But when we see a Jewish oligarch, we aren't allowed to think 'Look at that rich Jewish a**hole.' We must defer to him as a holy Holocaust person. So, all the Jewish money, influence, and connections(and all their bad corrupt deeds) become sanctified and protected. It has a shield around it like the transparent force shield in PHANTOM MENACE.
Anyway, the Lesson of Power is that the Power of Money and Sword isn't enough. Power of money is just greed and cleverness, of wit and cleverness. It may be impressive but doesn't win reverence.
Power of Sword is thug power or barbarian power. It can be impressive or awesome, but it isn't different from the power of a cage fighter, a bull, a lion, a bear, or Big Boss Man. It is power of brawn.
Combine wit and brawn, and you get gangsterism. Gangsters may have some glamour, but their power isn't righteous. It isn't holy. The Corleones are fun to watch, but they have no moral justification.
In contrast, Moral Power means the power to accuse, condemn, and judge others. It means the king-of-the-hill to preach your sermon on the mount. It is the power of MLK myth, the Mandela cult, the Elie Wiesel show.
Granted, the power of word without money and sword doesn't go very far. Dalai Lama is respected as a Man of Word, but China has the guns and money.
But when a people have control of Money, Sword, and the Word(and the idolatry of Hollywood), that is real power.
So, given the nature of Jewish power, the main objective for counter-semites must be to demonize Jewish history the way Jews have demonized white gentile history. Dig up all the dirt things of Jewish evils. Of course, Jews have rigged the system so that when a Jew digs up bad stuff about white history, that is just research and scholarship, but when a white gentile digs up bad stuff about Jewish history, that is 'antisemitism'.
But white gentiles must push at this until the demonization of Jews balances out the sacralization of Jews.
Now, neither demonization nor sacralization should be eternalist or permanentist. In order words, if Jews did some bad things in some time in history, it mustn't reflect on all Jews at all times. But by the same token, if Jews suffered tragically in some time in history, it shouldn't reflect on all Jews at all times. So, Jews shouldn't be condemned for communism forever wherever there are Jews. But neither should Jews invoke Holocaust to protect themselves as holy victims from criticism forever. But this must apply to white gentiles too.
All peoples have their demon-histories and holy-histories. Sometimes, both are tied together. Much of what Japan did in WWII made it a demon nation. But the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a 'sacral' effect at least on the innocents who died there.
Politics is important, but even more so is the possession of the moral high ground, especially in the modern West.
Politics is about power, but raw power isn't enough. Power has to be justified.
Since the beginning of history, those with raw power(military class) made an alliance with the clerical class. Thus, the power of might became associated with moral/spiritual righteousness.
Without such 'blessing', power would only be about brutish might, about fear and intimidation.
Such power could last only as long as one had the arms and loyal soldiers. Such power would not be based on real respect, admiration, and etc.
This is why the dynastic power of the First Emperor of China was short-lived. His order was all about fearsome power. He killed the Confucian scholars. His domain ruled by might, fright, and intimidation. Same can be said for Assyrians. They ruled by terror and violence. They were ruthless buggers, just like the later Huns. Huns rampaged and struck fear into the hearts of everyone. But there was no respect among those they conquered.
In contrast, moral power goes beyond the might of arms and terror. Just the power of the word and symbols does the trick. And the power of word is especially effective in the Modern World where one is protected by Rule of Law and especially if one controls the Academia and Media(news and entertainment). The Rule of Law means that the military cannot suddenly move against you even if you insult it with moral condemnation. And control of media means that your righteous Narrative comes to prevail over all.
So, without firing a shot, Jews took over America. In the Russian Revolution, Jews had to take power through power of arms since there wasn't much in the way of Rule of Law in autocratic or weak-parliamentary Russia, especially during Wartime. In the US, as Jews were protected by Anglo-American Rule of Law, they could make aggressive moral claims against Wasps and still be protected by law(that had been established by Anglos). And the military couldn't move against them. Also, as Jews took over media and academia, their vision of history and morality and justice gain dominance.
If white southern conservatives joined the military, Jews joined the academia, media, courts, and etc. And with their power of finance and economics, they were poised to take over the elite institutions. In the US, due to Rule of Law, the military must take orders from those with control over the word. Word orders the Sword.
Jews mastered the Word while white southerners mastered the sword.
In a barbarian world or Leviathan world, the Sword has rule over the Word.
Under Rule of Law, Word has rule over the Sword.
But even Rule of Law wasn't enough for Jewish dominance. After all, Law is supposed to be 'blind'. It is not supposed to play favorites. It is supposed to be equal to all individuals. So, even as Rule of Law protected Jewish freedom and rights, it didn't necessarily favor the Jews. After all, Rule of Law even protects the rights of KKK and Nation of Islam.
For Jews to gain favoritism in the American system, they had to become sacralized while their rivals were demonized.
Jews had to be promoted as a holy people while white gentiles were to be demoted as a wicked people... not least because they had done wrong to the holy Jews. So, the ONLY way whites could gain redemption was by being servile to the holy Jews and making amends for... ever and ever and ever and ever.
So, Jewish success and power depend not only money and might. Such are great assets but don't justify the power. For the power to be justified and blessed, it has to be morally and spiritually sanctified while the power of the rivals must be demonized and accursed.
Consider. The reason why Americans can freely badmouth Saudi power, Chinese power, Iranian power, and Russian power is because they are not sacralized in the Western Narrative. If a rich and powerful man were only seen as rich and powerful, he might be an object of admiration and/or envy, but he wouldn't necessarily be seen as good and righteous.
Because Jews are the most powerful and richest people, they are the natural targets of envy, resentment, suspicion, hostility, distrust, and righteous anger(as the rich and powerful have more means to harm the world). 1% vs the 99%.
So, to protect themselves from criticism and competition, Jews have employed the art of sacralization and vilification. While Rule of Law protects Jewish freedom, rights, and property, it doesn't protect Jews from criticism, rivalry, accusation, and moral condemnation. After all, Rule of Law guarantees freedom of speech for all, even for 'anti-semites' like David Duke.
In order for Jews to silence critics and rivals, they must pervert the 'blind' impartiality of the Rule of Law(as in the EU & Canada) and effectively censor or criminalize anti-Jewish speech(while allowing Jews to criticize, berate, and condemn native whites and other gentiles).
As freedom of speech is still protected by law in the US, Jews rely on the sacralization of their own identity & narrative and on the demonization of their perceived rivals and enemies to maximize their own power.
With such taboos, it has been nearly impossible for anyone in mainstream channels to criticize or challenge Jewish power. In America, Jewishness = holiness. Badmouthing Jewishness is like sacrilege against God. Our support of Jews must be UNCONDITIONAL no matter what Jews so. If a Jew spits in your face and you hate him for it, you are an 'anti-Semite'.
Such being the case, it has been easy for Jews to destroy anyone just by pointing the finger and shrieking 'anti-Semite' and 'racist'. Of course, Jews have morally paralyzed whites not only by sacralizing the Holocaust but also black slavery. Also, the Narrative says ALL WHITES must carry the burden of 'white guilt' for both Holocaust and Slavery. So, even Swedes and Greeks are thought to be responsible for the Holocaust and even recent Polish immigrants in the US are guilty of black slavery.
But then, this setup works greatly for Jewish power. If Jews only targeted Germans with the Holocaust and only targeted southern whites for slavery, it was be less effective as tool against all white gentiles. It is no wonder that Jews erect Holocaust Memorials even in nations that bear NO HISTORICAL GUILT for it whatsoever.
The Power of Word is most effective when one side is sacralized while the other side(s) is demonized. After all, if Jews and White Christians are equally sacralized, both would feel equally righteous and morally proud. For Jews to have the advantage, they must own sacralization while the other side is smeared with demonization. (Jews now say that the ONLY WAY Christians can be half-way redeemed is by turning over their churches to homomania that is pushed by Jews. So, Christians must adopt cultural decadence to gain an ounce of holiness. It is like telling Alcoholics Anonymous that it must serve whiskey to be good.)
Because Jews are sacralized as the holy people historically victimized by white Christians and the Holocaust, they are to be revered, respected, and worshiped. Because white gentiles have been tagged with 'antisemitism', 'racism', imperialism(never mind Jewish money funded much of Western imperialism), slave trade(never mind Jews played a role in this too and never mind that black Africans had slavery for 10,000 yrs), and etc. they are to be reviled, condemned, and dragged through the mud.
Jews invoke historical justice to promote their Narrative, but it's really about political control over their rivals. After all, Jews are always far more sensitive to the injustice of their enemies and rivals than their allies. We don't see Jews get too tough on Saudi Arabia since it is a defacto ally of Israel. It really comes down to Moral Machiaveillianism.
One of the things Jews FEAR MOST is the loss of moral righteousness. It is that Moral Card that allows Jews to get away with so much foulness without facing criticism. As long as Jews are the holy people and white gentiles are the cursed people, the latter must serve the Jews just like sinful flock is supposed to serve God.
The MAIN REASON for Jewish hysteria about McCarthyism wasn't because things were so bad. Sure, some people got blacklisted but same happened to many during WWII when a whole bunch of suspected Nazi sympathizers were blacklisted or worse. Furthermore, there was the mass-'internment' of the Japanese, something Jewish Liberals didn't protest.
The reason why Jews were so alarmed about McCarthyism and anti-communism is that they knew very well that, despite McCarthyite excesses, there were lots of evidence that a whole bunch of radical and fellow-traveling Jews had aided and abetted Stalin's Empire. Some of these agents went so far as to give Stalin, the killer of millions and occupier of Eastern Europe, the secrets to the atomic bomb. That meant Jews = involvement in Communism... and that opened up a whole new cans of worms about Jewish communist role in the mass killings and destruction in the USSR. In other words, before Nazis did horrible things, European Jews had aided Stalin in doing horrible things that were comparable to Nazi crimes.
Jews would have us believe that McCarthyism was terrifying because... uh... some folk singers and Hollywood writers were blacklisted for a few yrs. (These same Jews were silent about people actually being tortured and shot in Stalin's empire.)
In truth, Jews were terrified of McCarthyism because anti-communism had the power(if used intelligently) to take away Moral Sanctimony from the then-developing Jewish Narrative of Jewish Holiness. Anti-communism could connect Jews with the crimes of communism. As WWII was over and The Cold War pitted US vs USSR, this was bad position for Jews to be in. So, Jews really shat when anti-communism became a huge issue. (If McCarthy had been smarter, he wouldn't have gone after the US military, thereby making Eisenhower turn on him. Going after the military was like Hitler going into Russia. McCarthy got over-ambitious and met his Waterloo.)
Because the anti-communist narrative put Jews on the moral defensive(as participants and agents of murderous tyrannical communism), Jews got extremely hysterical in using all their academic, media, and institutional firepower to reverse the dynamics and put the anti-communists on the moral defensive as 'hysterics', 'paranoids', 'fanatics', 'rabid and virulent', 'anti-civil liberties', and etc.
This is rather amusing since Jewish communists had no use for civil liberties. After all, they were aiding Stalin. And they would eventually cook up PC to silence people with all sorts of accusations. And American Jews fully support EU Laws that silence 'hate speech' that is decided by powers-that-be which is the GLOB.
Ironically, the Jewish Liberal Narrative made anti-communists out to be 'anti-American' while making the Jewish communists and fellow-travelers as American-as-apple-pie for having stood firm in the name of US constitution protecting free speech and right of association. So, the commies were made the 'patriots' while anti-communists were made the 'traitors'. (Using this logic, KKK members who invoke the Constitution to protect their own free speech should be hailed as the greatest patriots.)
Negative association of Jewish Power with Communist Tyranny could have neutralized or at least balanced out the positive association of Jewish Power with the Holocaust. The former would have demonized Jews as the latter would have sacralized Jews. So, Jews would be objects of sympathy but also objects of suspicion and blame. Sure, Jews suffered horribly in WWII, but when they had the power in the USSR they did horrible things too.
That way, Americans could have sympathized with Jews where it was deserving but also could have been judgmental where Jews had done wrong. But because there was only sacralization of Jews while demonization was totally suppressed(by making 'anti-communists' out to be the bad guys while making Jewish radicals and fellow-agents out to be 'patriotic' Americans), there never developed any effective challenge or counterweight to Jewish power that grew and grew.
If there had been the balance of demonization and vilification, we might today look upon Jews the way we look upon Chinese or Russians. We know Chinese suffered horribly under Japanese invasion, and we can sympathize with that. But sacralization of Chinese victimhood during WWII doesn't negate our vilification of them during the Mao era when Chinese acted totally nuts.
Likewise, we can sympathize with Russian suffering and sacrifices during WWII. By some estimates, 25 million Russians(or Soviets) died. But such sacralization doesn't preclude our demonization of Russian craziness under Stalinism. So, we can see the noble side and the wicked side of Russians.
But because Jews have only pushed sacralization of Jews while suppressing any demonization of Jews, we can never accuse or challenge Jewish power.
When we see a Russian oligarch or Chinese oligarch, we can say 'Look at that rich Russian a**hole' or 'Look at that rich Chinese a**hole'. But when we see a Jewish oligarch, we aren't allowed to think 'Look at that rich Jewish a**hole.' We must defer to him as a holy Holocaust person. So, all the Jewish money, influence, and connections(and all their bad corrupt deeds) become sanctified and protected. It has a shield around it like the transparent force shield in PHANTOM MENACE.
Anyway, the Lesson of Power is that the Power of Money and Sword isn't enough. Power of money is just greed and cleverness, of wit and cleverness. It may be impressive but doesn't win reverence.
Power of Sword is thug power or barbarian power. It can be impressive or awesome, but it isn't different from the power of a cage fighter, a bull, a lion, a bear, or Big Boss Man. It is power of brawn.
Combine wit and brawn, and you get gangsterism. Gangsters may have some glamour, but their power isn't righteous. It isn't holy. The Corleones are fun to watch, but they have no moral justification.
In contrast, Moral Power means the power to accuse, condemn, and judge others. It means the king-of-the-hill to preach your sermon on the mount. It is the power of MLK myth, the Mandela cult, the Elie Wiesel show.
Granted, the power of word without money and sword doesn't go very far. Dalai Lama is respected as a Man of Word, but China has the guns and money.
But when a people have control of Money, Sword, and the Word(and the idolatry of Hollywood), that is real power.
So, given the nature of Jewish power, the main objective for counter-semites must be to demonize Jewish history the way Jews have demonized white gentile history. Dig up all the dirt things of Jewish evils. Of course, Jews have rigged the system so that when a Jew digs up bad stuff about white history, that is just research and scholarship, but when a white gentile digs up bad stuff about Jewish history, that is 'antisemitism'.
But white gentiles must push at this until the demonization of Jews balances out the sacralization of Jews.
Now, neither demonization nor sacralization should be eternalist or permanentist. In order words, if Jews did some bad things in some time in history, it mustn't reflect on all Jews at all times. But by the same token, if Jews suffered tragically in some time in history, it shouldn't reflect on all Jews at all times. So, Jews shouldn't be condemned for communism forever wherever there are Jews. But neither should Jews invoke Holocaust to protect themselves as holy victims from criticism forever. But this must apply to white gentiles too.
All peoples have their demon-histories and holy-histories. Sometimes, both are tied together. Much of what Japan did in WWII made it a demon nation. But the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a 'sacral' effect at least on the innocents who died there.
The Power that owns the Left is truly awesome power.
The Power that owns the Left is truly awesome power.
It is because most of opposition politics have come from the Left.
People of leftist disposition are naturally inclined to be restless, agitated, abrasive, and confrontational. They like to bitch, thrown tantrums, and be defiant. Even in a perfect world, the leftist mindset would find something to complain about. The problem is more internal than external. The leftist mindset loves to fuss about how something is wrong and how others must be blamed.
Consider Betty Friedan. She had a nice middle class life, but she compared it to the Holocaust. Leftists blame the world, but the real agitation is within their hearts. It's like what Mao said in Stone's movie: "The real war is in us. History is a symptom of our disease."
Rightists can be violent and disruptive, but it's not in their nature. When things seem normal and stable, most rightists just stay home and tend the garden. They don't enjoy marching in streets, tossing molotov cocktails, holding up signs, and dreaming of utopia. They may dream of personal kingdom of God, but they accept the world as it is UNLESS things get really bad. Then, even the rightists take to the streets, as happened in interwar Europe and as is happening in current Europe(due to massive migration) and the US(where support for Trump shows there is growing anxiety among conservatives). The left is ahead in making and/or anticipating trouble; the right is late in recognizing and/or reacting to trouble.
Because rightists tend to be calmer and allergic to agitation and trouble-making, the power need not fear them much. A rightist is like Norman Fell's character of the landlord in THE GRADUATE who tells Benjamin Braddock that he won't have any agitation; he wants order and peace.
The Power fears the Left because it is often agitated, hysterical, excited, angry, bitter, violent, aggressive, demanding, righteous, utopian, deranged. (The Power also fears blacks because they are crazy and riot and loot for the hell of it.) The Power, when it was Waspy, used to fear restless and relentless Jews. But now the Power is held by Jews.
When Wasps held the Power, the leftist Jewish opposition was feverish and driven.
Today, when Jews hold the Power, it is the Power that is most feverish and driven.
The Power doesn't have to worry too much about the Right. Right tends to be either timid, reserved, restrained, orderly, stoic, and too normal for much trouble-making.
Even when Rightists are pissed, they usually stay home, hunker down, and gripe alone.
But the Left is much more likely to hit the streets. Also, the left is much more likely to be engaged with arts, media, and academia and shape public opinion and inspire young to make trouble. The Right tends to be philistine and anti-intellectual.
So, the Power has much to fear from the Left.
It is a great boon to the Power to win over the Left and have it on its side. If the Left feels that its side is in power, it is less likely to go nuts and make trouble. And the Power had less to worry about since the Left would support the Power.
Of course, this causes a problem. The Power is never about equality. The PTB--powers that be--are always going to be richer, more privileged, and more powerful than the rest. Leftism is anti-hierarchy, so it isn't easy to square the Left with the Power, especially capitalist power that leads to the creation of oligarchy and super-wealth(and imperialist expansion).
The classic left bitches about the 1% vs the 99%.
The Power tries to make the 1% even richer and more powerful.
The 1% has much to fear from the Left.
After WWII, the 1% had less to fear about the Left. Anti-communism made Americans suspicious of radicalism and Soviet Union and Red China.
Also, the post-war boom led to rise of vast middle class. It wasn't a time of 1% vs 99% but a time when the vast middle had it pretty good. There was more wealth distribution throughout the economy. US labor was strong. US was the leader in manufacturing, and even highschool graduates could have decent jobs and raise a family in a world where family values still mattered.
But US entered into the globalist era. With massive outsourcing of working class jobs and massive insourcing of immigrants in service and high-tech jobs, many Americans are feeling the squeeze in the middle and below.
The 1% is richer than ever. It is also more Jewish than ever. Jews are 2% of the US population but 43% of the top 1%.
Jewish leftists loved to attack the Wasp Power. But Jewish progs today don't want to be overly harsh on the Power since it is held by their tribal brethren who, btw, shower them with money and favors.
But, given the increasing rift between the rich and everyone else, there should be more reason than ever for the Left to speak truth to the Power.
But the 'left' is now more supportive of the Power than ever before. Why?
Now. there was some leftist fury during the Bush era, especially with the Iraq War that turned into quagmire.
But during the Clinton and Obama era, there was mostly silence.
Clinton forged a new alliance between 1% free trade globalism and the Left. Via Clintonism, those who were on the Left could find promising careers funded by the rich, especially in NGO's. Also, it was the boomer Libs who became the richest people in the 80s and 90s.
Also, in a nation that worships Diversity and Holocaust, the fact that there are so many rich Jews made it rather uncouth to be overly critical of the rich. After all, it might be 'antisemitic'. Also, celebrity culture features so many rich black rappers, homo fashion designers, liberal Hollywood stars, the likes of Oprah, and etc. Their fans love the fact that their 'heroes' and idols are so rich. So, super-wealth was made 'cool'. Much of 'leftism' today is swooning over the fact that Jay-Z and Taylor Swift are worth gazillions. Who complains if their sports hero signs a $100 million contract? Who bitched about Tiger Woods raking in millions with all those endorsements? And who said anything about Clinton making $100 million from speeches?
Also, the Proglobalists increasingly changed leftism from economic to cultural, demographic, and lifestyle issues. 'Radical politics' had less and less to do with class and economics. It had more to do with celebrating homomania. The celebration of privileged and well-connected homos doesn't hurt the super-rich at all, especially when so many homos cater to the vain rich. It is celebration of the fact that Tim Cook wants a dick up his bunghole.
It had more to do with style. So, celebrating black athletes and rappers became part of 'leftism'. Slut culture and porny behavior(promoted by consumer-capitalism) became 'leftist'.
With so many young people immersed in hedonism and self-indulgence as their main political agenda, they were never going to pose a threat to the Power. No wonder Hillary invited Lena Dunham to give a speech at DNC. What rich person of The Power would fear such a creature whose idea of 'progress' is getting tattoos, hooking up, and acting like a materialistic pig?
And of course massive immigration. Immigrants can be a tax burden on the rich. But they also provide cheap labor. And they serve as buffer between the urban gentry and criminal blacks. Also, as many immigrants happen to be Mexican or Asian, they tend to have docile with Asiatic genes. Mexicans are mostly happy to pick lettuce and say 'Si, senor' and yellow folks are mostly dogs and drones who serve their new masters. Even as most yellows are now proggy, they merely follow the 'leftism' as devised and dictated by the Power. If the Power says 'leftism' is about homo-rainbows, that is what yelloids go with. They have zero originality and zero intellectual agency, at least outside Asia.
So, with the Power in control of the 'left'(as lifestyle and vanity), there is no challenge to their status and privilege. Hillary, the darling of Wall Street and War Machine, is seen as the 'leftist' candidate. (Merkel is supposed to be 'conservative' but shmoozes with Hillary and her ilk. Go figure.)
There was some challenge from Bernie Sanders voters, but Sanders gave up real socialism long ago. He is a phony who appeals to upper-middle-class kids who want free college tuition. His supporters are trust-fund kids, not working class folks and their kids.
As for the challenge from Trump supporters, maybe it will lead to something in the long run. But the Right isn't good at the culture of dissent, opposition, trouble-making, and etc. The Right is, by nature, used to favoring order, harmony, conformity, and unity. They don't thrive in the role of opposition and rebellion.
But things may get so bad that the Right may become the new kind of left.
Indeed, the trick of fascism was it was a rightist movement that took the style and energy from the leftist model.
It is because most of opposition politics have come from the Left.
People of leftist disposition are naturally inclined to be restless, agitated, abrasive, and confrontational. They like to bitch, thrown tantrums, and be defiant. Even in a perfect world, the leftist mindset would find something to complain about. The problem is more internal than external. The leftist mindset loves to fuss about how something is wrong and how others must be blamed.
Consider Betty Friedan. She had a nice middle class life, but she compared it to the Holocaust. Leftists blame the world, but the real agitation is within their hearts. It's like what Mao said in Stone's movie: "The real war is in us. History is a symptom of our disease."
Rightists can be violent and disruptive, but it's not in their nature. When things seem normal and stable, most rightists just stay home and tend the garden. They don't enjoy marching in streets, tossing molotov cocktails, holding up signs, and dreaming of utopia. They may dream of personal kingdom of God, but they accept the world as it is UNLESS things get really bad. Then, even the rightists take to the streets, as happened in interwar Europe and as is happening in current Europe(due to massive migration) and the US(where support for Trump shows there is growing anxiety among conservatives). The left is ahead in making and/or anticipating trouble; the right is late in recognizing and/or reacting to trouble.
Because rightists tend to be calmer and allergic to agitation and trouble-making, the power need not fear them much. A rightist is like Norman Fell's character of the landlord in THE GRADUATE who tells Benjamin Braddock that he won't have any agitation; he wants order and peace.
The Power fears the Left because it is often agitated, hysterical, excited, angry, bitter, violent, aggressive, demanding, righteous, utopian, deranged. (The Power also fears blacks because they are crazy and riot and loot for the hell of it.) The Power, when it was Waspy, used to fear restless and relentless Jews. But now the Power is held by Jews.
When Wasps held the Power, the leftist Jewish opposition was feverish and driven.
Today, when Jews hold the Power, it is the Power that is most feverish and driven.
The Power doesn't have to worry too much about the Right. Right tends to be either timid, reserved, restrained, orderly, stoic, and too normal for much trouble-making.
Even when Rightists are pissed, they usually stay home, hunker down, and gripe alone.
But the Left is much more likely to hit the streets. Also, the left is much more likely to be engaged with arts, media, and academia and shape public opinion and inspire young to make trouble. The Right tends to be philistine and anti-intellectual.
So, the Power has much to fear from the Left.
It is a great boon to the Power to win over the Left and have it on its side. If the Left feels that its side is in power, it is less likely to go nuts and make trouble. And the Power had less to worry about since the Left would support the Power.
Of course, this causes a problem. The Power is never about equality. The PTB--powers that be--are always going to be richer, more privileged, and more powerful than the rest. Leftism is anti-hierarchy, so it isn't easy to square the Left with the Power, especially capitalist power that leads to the creation of oligarchy and super-wealth(and imperialist expansion).
The classic left bitches about the 1% vs the 99%.
The Power tries to make the 1% even richer and more powerful.
The 1% has much to fear from the Left.
After WWII, the 1% had less to fear about the Left. Anti-communism made Americans suspicious of radicalism and Soviet Union and Red China.
Also, the post-war boom led to rise of vast middle class. It wasn't a time of 1% vs 99% but a time when the vast middle had it pretty good. There was more wealth distribution throughout the economy. US labor was strong. US was the leader in manufacturing, and even highschool graduates could have decent jobs and raise a family in a world where family values still mattered.
But US entered into the globalist era. With massive outsourcing of working class jobs and massive insourcing of immigrants in service and high-tech jobs, many Americans are feeling the squeeze in the middle and below.
The 1% is richer than ever. It is also more Jewish than ever. Jews are 2% of the US population but 43% of the top 1%.
Jewish leftists loved to attack the Wasp Power. But Jewish progs today don't want to be overly harsh on the Power since it is held by their tribal brethren who, btw, shower them with money and favors.
But, given the increasing rift between the rich and everyone else, there should be more reason than ever for the Left to speak truth to the Power.
But the 'left' is now more supportive of the Power than ever before. Why?
Now. there was some leftist fury during the Bush era, especially with the Iraq War that turned into quagmire.
But during the Clinton and Obama era, there was mostly silence.
Clinton forged a new alliance between 1% free trade globalism and the Left. Via Clintonism, those who were on the Left could find promising careers funded by the rich, especially in NGO's. Also, it was the boomer Libs who became the richest people in the 80s and 90s.
Also, in a nation that worships Diversity and Holocaust, the fact that there are so many rich Jews made it rather uncouth to be overly critical of the rich. After all, it might be 'antisemitic'. Also, celebrity culture features so many rich black rappers, homo fashion designers, liberal Hollywood stars, the likes of Oprah, and etc. Their fans love the fact that their 'heroes' and idols are so rich. So, super-wealth was made 'cool'. Much of 'leftism' today is swooning over the fact that Jay-Z and Taylor Swift are worth gazillions. Who complains if their sports hero signs a $100 million contract? Who bitched about Tiger Woods raking in millions with all those endorsements? And who said anything about Clinton making $100 million from speeches?
Also, the Proglobalists increasingly changed leftism from economic to cultural, demographic, and lifestyle issues. 'Radical politics' had less and less to do with class and economics. It had more to do with celebrating homomania. The celebration of privileged and well-connected homos doesn't hurt the super-rich at all, especially when so many homos cater to the vain rich. It is celebration of the fact that Tim Cook wants a dick up his bunghole.
It had more to do with style. So, celebrating black athletes and rappers became part of 'leftism'. Slut culture and porny behavior(promoted by consumer-capitalism) became 'leftist'.
With so many young people immersed in hedonism and self-indulgence as their main political agenda, they were never going to pose a threat to the Power. No wonder Hillary invited Lena Dunham to give a speech at DNC. What rich person of The Power would fear such a creature whose idea of 'progress' is getting tattoos, hooking up, and acting like a materialistic pig?
And of course massive immigration. Immigrants can be a tax burden on the rich. But they also provide cheap labor. And they serve as buffer between the urban gentry and criminal blacks. Also, as many immigrants happen to be Mexican or Asian, they tend to have docile with Asiatic genes. Mexicans are mostly happy to pick lettuce and say 'Si, senor' and yellow folks are mostly dogs and drones who serve their new masters. Even as most yellows are now proggy, they merely follow the 'leftism' as devised and dictated by the Power. If the Power says 'leftism' is about homo-rainbows, that is what yelloids go with. They have zero originality and zero intellectual agency, at least outside Asia.
So, with the Power in control of the 'left'(as lifestyle and vanity), there is no challenge to their status and privilege. Hillary, the darling of Wall Street and War Machine, is seen as the 'leftist' candidate. (Merkel is supposed to be 'conservative' but shmoozes with Hillary and her ilk. Go figure.)
There was some challenge from Bernie Sanders voters, but Sanders gave up real socialism long ago. He is a phony who appeals to upper-middle-class kids who want free college tuition. His supporters are trust-fund kids, not working class folks and their kids.
As for the challenge from Trump supporters, maybe it will lead to something in the long run. But the Right isn't good at the culture of dissent, opposition, trouble-making, and etc. The Right is, by nature, used to favoring order, harmony, conformity, and unity. They don't thrive in the role of opposition and rebellion.
But things may get so bad that the Right may become the new kind of left.
Indeed, the trick of fascism was it was a rightist movement that took the style and energy from the leftist model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)