Some say Confederate and other White Monuments are being removed or desecrated across America because of demographic changes: As the US becomes less white, white monuments are targeted by non-whites. To an extent, maybe.
But consider the following examples that call into question the correlation between demographic change and iconoclasm.
Mao’s revolutionary army united China and kicked out all foreigners in the name of regaining national autonomy. So, under Mao, China was once again China for Chinese. And yet, these very Chinese went about destroying so much of their own national art, texts, architecture, monuments, and treasures. The Cultural Revolution was maybe the biggest orgy of cultural destruction in the 20th century. It was about Chinese culture destroyed by the Chinese.
Also, consider the Anglo-American remembrance of Indian Cultures. American Indians were killed off by disease or guns and pushed westward, finally into dreary Reservations. And yet, Anglo-Americans went about building monuments to these vanquished peoples when the dust settled. These were memorials to Indians erected by white folks who replaced them. So, even as demography favored white settlers over Indian savages, white folks honored the memory of Indians by erecting monuments, naming towns after Indians, and etc.
So, it’s not just about demographics but a state of mind that determines whether cultural markers are erected, preserved, or desecrated.
Anglo-Americans could be ruthless warriors, but they also had a culture of magnanimity, recognition and respect for worthy foes. David Yeagley expounded on this aspect of the White Man. It is possibly rooted in the honor code of the warrior and the Christian virtues of grace and forgiveness(or repentance).
But such mindset seems to be missing among most non-white groups. Too many Jews feel contempt for gentile cultures and want them utterly defiled and desecrated. Blacks only respect ugabuga gangsta thuggery of ‘muh power’ and have no regard for values and culture beyond ‘muh dic*’, ‘muh booty’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh badassness’. Muslims can be simple-minded iconoclasts(even though, to their credit, they didn’t destroy all the pagan and infidel heritage in arts and achievements… that is, until the US let loose the hounds of ISIS on secular Arab regimes). And Asians are yellow dog teachers pets who can easily be led into Red Guard mode.
As for whites... they are now deracinated cucks. The lack of fiery resistance on the part of whites(even in the Deep South) to the toppling of Southern Monuments is downright shocking. Such craven cowardice or, worse, total apathy and indifference to the eradication of their own heritage and remembrance of past heroism and tragedy is pathetic indeed.
But then, the globalized ‘muh burger and fries’ culture of the new US has severed the historical and ancestral roots of most Americans. Non-white mass invaders attack whiteness, but they too are severed from their own identities, roots, and heritages. Both whites and non-whites are merging into vapid deracination where most people mainly identify with pop culture. Their only culture is videogames and Negro-dominated sports and rap music.
Granted, most non-whites don't come to America with hatred for whites. That hatred is implanted by Jewish media and academia that saturate entertainment and education with images of Evil Whitey as scapegoat for all problems though, to be sure, non-whites can be villains too as long as they are not Jews, blacks, or homos.
The main anti-white animus is the product of Jewish control of media. In that sense, the main reason for the recent spate of anti-white desecrations are neither primarily demographic or ideological. After all, most blacks in the South didn’t much care about Confederate flags or monuments until recently. The symbols and monuments became an issue with increasing Jewish and ‘neo-carpet-beggar’ takeover of the South. It has accompanied the rise of ‘new conservatives’ such as Nikki Haley who take their cues from Jews. Also, the new Southern White elites are either financial stooges of Jews or were educated in Jewish-dominated elite schools. As such, they lack the soul and spine to call out on the Culture War against the South that is being Afro-ized and ‘Immigrantized’.
A place can change demographically but still let the monuments be. Or if a radical ideology takes hold, it seeks to wipe out everything that is deemed falsely idolatrous. The current Culture War we are seeing in the US isn’t primarily due to demographic or ideological factors. Most Mass Invaders(aka non-white immigrants) who come to the US don’t come with anti-white hatred, nor do they have any wish to knock down statues. Rather, their kids are taught to hate whites and white symbols in schools. They are taught by teachers whose worldview has been shaped by trickle-down anti-white hatred of Jewish elites.
Also, we know the core animating factor isn’t ideological because the targets are usually limited to whatever Jews don’t like. After all, if the New Values are about ‘anti-racism’, why are Emma Lazarus and Immigration celebrated when More Immigration meant more 'racist' ‘genocide’ against American Indians? Also, why don’t Jews fess up to the fact that their immigration patterns have always been White Preferist or White Favorist? In other words, even as Jews bitch about ‘genocide’ and ‘slavery’, they always trailed and followed whites who led the way in creating new civilizations and opportunities, at times even through genocide and slavery. But notice that Jews get ‘passover’ treatment from the ideological fervor despite the fact that Jews played a prominent role in financing Western expansion, slave trade, and imperialism.
True ideology doesn’t work that way as it calls for consistency. Under Bolshevik communism, both Christianity and Judaism were suppressed. And in ideological Red China, even Chinese ‘reactionaries’ came under attack. No one was spared because he was a fellow Chinese.
In contrast, the Culture War in the US always exempts Jews-as-targets. So, even though 'racist' Apartheid South Africa was targeted for sanctions, Israel was allowed to do as it pleases despite its greater violence against Arabs and development of nuclear weapons(which it even shared with Apartheid South Africa). Even though Joe McCarthy was reviled by Jews for violation of Constitutional Rights, Jews play loose with the law to shut down and effectively censor anyone they don’t like, e.g. Alt Right at Charlottesville and on the internet.
And even as so many Confederate monuments have been removed or destroyed, the ones of Benjamin Judah remain untouched because they are of a Jewish man. So, even though demographic changes and ideological fervor play a part in the desecration of white history, they are not the main impetus behind the violence.
It is Jewish tribal manipulation of hatred in order to administer lashings on white identity and consciousness so that white pride and prestige will be broken to the point where whites feel they have choice but to just surrender to the supremacist will of Jews. To be sure, the most effective way of breaking white will and unity(most crucially of white men and white women) is Jungle Fever and ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), but it also helps to smash Southern symbols of White Resistance against the Biological Slavery under Blacks. After all, even though whites did force blacks into social slavery and used racial discrimination, the Confederacy and Jim Crow were also acts of white resistance against the Thug-Advantage of stronger, tougher, and more aggressive blacks. In other words, black-and-white relations were never simply black-and-white but held many grey areas.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Monday, April 23, 2018
Just Say It is RACE-IST AND TRUE. Associate Race-ism with Truth.
Even after so much ink has been spilled over how Political Correctness robs us of reason, liberty, integrity, and courage, we still can’t have honest discussions of world problems because the vast majority of people adhere to the PC definition and deployment of the term ‘racist’. The word has such power over us because nearly everyone, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, agree on its dubious meaning. So, even as there are increasing numbers of people who deny that they are ‘racist’ or hurl back the accusation at the other side, almost no one dares to deconstruct the term and examine why it is so powerful.
People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.
Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.
Anyway, because a neutral-seeming term like ‘racism’(race + ism) has been defined as an extremist ideology, it’s difficult to have an honest and truthful discussion of race. After all, the formulation of the term ‘racism’ keeps reminding us that ANY ism(belief) about race must be extreme and pathological. Some have tried to solve this problem by using terms such as ‘racialism’ or ‘race realism’, but that only complicates matters. Such tactics are defensive when, if anything, true race-ists must go on the offensive and stop backing down. The term ‘racism’ must be rehabilitated, just like innocent victims of tyranny. The only alteration I would recommend is to spell and pronounce it as ‘race-ism’ to reiterate that the word should mean race + ism = belief in reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness. For more on this matter, go to this link: http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-only-true-race-ist-how-misuse-of.html.
Anyway, for the time being, what steps can we take to slowly steer the ship to redefine ‘racism’ or race-ism properly? I propose the ‘Race-ist-and-True’ Rule. If you make a true statement about racial reality and racial differences OR exhibit natural tendency of racial consciousness & solidarity, don’t ever back down when you are accused of ‘racism’. If you try to explain that you’re not ‘racist’, you’ve lost the argument there and then. You’ve put yourself in a defensive and pleading corner, as if the other side has the right to judge you while you feel a need to defend and justify yourself. This is because what should be a neutral term has been rigged by Jewish radical agenda and political correctness to mean something extreme and evil. For that reason, ANY belief in race or expression of racial identity(at least if you’re white and gentile) is automatically smeared as something extreme.
Now, what is so extreme about believing that evolution created different racial groupings of human beings? It is so obvious to any honest pair of eyes. What is so extreme about noticing racial differences? We can see it all around in sports, crime, and all sorts of behavior. And what is so evil about a people having a sense of racial identity, unity, and solidarity? It seems rather natural given that humans are genetically programmed to judge things based on sight and other visible signals. But because the mere terminology of race + ism has been defined as the most heinous form of extremism, even people making the most obvious observations or statements about race and racial differences must be on guard against charges of ‘racism’. With nearly all the institutions and powers operating in such PC manner, is anything possible to stem the tide of this rabid and virulent Judeo-Nazi agenda?
Yes, even if it’s an upward struggle. Also, the first tentative steps are the most important in any movement. It means you are serious and willing to move forward with the truth. And once we reach the top of the hill(like the Train that Could), it will be easy coasting from there on, with historical gravity being on our side.
So, what exactly is it that should be said when our perfectly reasonable views are accused of ‘racism’? First, I’m talking of rational and sane statements about racial reality, racial differences, and racial identity. I’m not talking of clown antics of people like Andrew Anglin who will say ANYTHING to trigger people and gain notoriety. Their views really are extreme, demented, or unserious(and mainly for attention). There can't be any moral defense for such stupidity and dementedness though we must defend speech rights to say offensive things.
As for those of us who dare to speak the truth about race & racial differences and have facts, truth, courage, and integrity on our side, the proper way to respond to accusations of ‘racism’ is to say that our views are ‘race-ist and true’. That is the right way. Don’t try to deny that you’re ‘racist’. Don’t play by their word game that was long ago rigged to favor them... just like a socialist can’t win any argument IF even the most moderate socialism is made synonymous with Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer Rouge.
Likewise, a capitalist will be in a hopeless position IF the base terminology of ‘capitalism’ is defined to mean Scrooge-like greed and pathological selfishness. Indeed, communist nations defined capitalism in just such manner, and that made it nearly impossible to lay out a rational case for free markets. According to communist terminological rules, the term ‘capitalism’ could never mean a neutral theory of economics based on market dynamics. It couldn’t be approached rationally and judiciously because it had an albatross of ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ around its neck.
Now, capitalism CAN be exploitative and ugly, but just because a system is capitalist doesn’t mean it is ultra-libertarian where the ONLY thing that matters is greed & profits and nothing else.
But in a communist nation, there were few things worse than being called a ‘capitalist-roader’ or ‘bourgeois’. Communist terminology fixed it so that ‘capitalism’ could only mean utterly greedy exploitation and ‘bourgeoisie’ could only mean the reactionary exploitative class. A rational, balanced, and empirical discussion of capitalism or the bourgeoisie’s role in history was nearly impossible because those very terms were loaded with moral contempt and loathing.
And in the Current West, ‘racism’ has the same kind of effect. Thus, even if someone like Charles Murray wants to calmly discuss the subject of race, it is denounced immediately as ‘racist’, and then any views about racial differences between whites and blacks is associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. This hysteria would have us believe that because racial differences had been invoked the past to justify certain institutions, any idea of racial differences must be to restore slavery.
This is like someone in a communist system insisting that any argument in favor of capitalism and market economics must be evil because, at least in his mind, anything associated with markets and profits must be about the greedy rich hogging all the wealth, sadistic henchmen tyrannizing workers, giant smokestacks belching out black soot to choke the proletariat, and innocents beaten down with truncheons. The radical stigmatization of the term ‘capitalism’ made it difficult for reformers to call for more efficient market economics because their reputations and careers(and even lives) could be ruined by accusations of being ‘bourgeois reactionary’ or ‘capitalist roader’. Even basic market reforms and limited privatization that might boost the economy became taboo in many quarters because, according to the communist terminology, there could never be a moderate and balanced form of capitalism. No, all forms of capitalism were extreme, exploitative, & evil, and that was that, and there was nothing more to be said.
People in the West face the same trouble with the term ‘racist’. As Charles Murray and many others found out, there are too many people brainwashed by PC into believing that rational ideas about race and racial differences are simply not possible. There can only be one view of race, and it is ‘nazi’.
Now, there are idiotic Nazi types who do espouse extreme and radical views on race. Calling them ‘racist’ would be correct to the extent that they do hold views on racial reality and racial differences. But the difference is their views are indeed radical and extreme, and more importantly, there is no way that sane and rational people who believe in racial reality and racial differences have views that resemble the lunacies of Neo-Nazism. So, my advice is not for radical racists who are prone to saying idiotic things. As so much of what they say is numbnuts and retarded, I have no wish to represent them or defend them. Fools who dig themselves into holes can’t be helped.
But, what if you’re a sane, rational, and honest person? What if your views on racial reality and racial differences are fully in accordance with known facts & data and are indeed in alignment with what any honest pair of eyes can see from racial reality in any society. If you’re that person and if what you’ve said makes good sense, then the worst thing you can do is deny that you are ‘racist’ when that charge is thrown at you. If your race-ism is valid & true and if you’re accused of ‘racism’, the proper response is to say that your views are ‘race-ist and true’.
This puts the accuser in a bind. After all, truth has the advantage of prestige. How can falsehood be better than the truth? Those who argue for the Noble Lie will lose soon enough because no one wants to believe that he or she must stick to demonstrable falsehoods for the ‘higher good’. People want to believe that their righteousness is based on rightness about reality. The rabid dogs of PC want to believe that science, reasons, and facts are on their side. To be sure, there are some PC hacks who argue that truth about race must be suppressed for the ‘higher good’. But such argument simply cannot stand for long. It’s like the Geocentrism of the Catholic Church couldn’t withstand the truth of real astronomy that placed the Sun at the center. If PC admits that it favors lies over truth in the name of the ‘higher good’, it will be admitting that PC 'goodness' has no legs of truth to stand on. It must be propped up by crutches of deception, the logic of which is not unlike withholding the truth about Santa Claus to little children.
So, truth beats all in the end. Those with truth on their side merely need to speak honestly because truth backs them up. In contrast, those opposed to the truth must resort to lies, propaganda, hysteria, or banal homilies. Indeed, the reason why so many Jews(in media and academia), Antifa Janissary types, and cuck-collaborators are so triggered by rational race-ists is due to their abject fear that they may indeed be wrong on facts and truth, thus on the wrong side of history. Not only are racial differences so obvious to the naked eye but new genetic studies are showing that group differences among various races are all too real. PC hacks are now so desperate that they go beyond calling people ‘racist’ and call them ‘nazi’ as well. (This is rich coming from Jewish globalists especially because, if we were to judge people by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, Jewish Power is the most nazi-like force in the world as it indulges in Jewish supremacism, warmongering & imperialism, politics of paranoia & scapegoating, cult of megalomania, and even genocidal tendencies.) PC hacks hope to shut down debate by screaming ‘racist’, and that is supposed to decide there-and-then that your race-ist views are false and invalid.
But if you do have truth and facts on your side, you should respond to the charge of ‘racism’ by clarifying that your views are, yes, ‘race-ist’ and also true. This way, the term ‘race-ism’ is gradually, step by step, associated with the courageous will to speak the truth and counter the platitudes of PC. Prog idiots use ‘racist’ as shortcut to invalidate those who won’t get on with the program, and they gained much power by convincing so many people that, yes indeed, any view about racial differences had to be about irrational ‘hatred’ and ‘supremacism’.
And PC got the upperhand because even people with rational and sane views on race, upon being accused of ‘racism’, denied the charge and tried to explain themselves on ground of science and facts. But the fact is they never had a useful term for their rational position on race. Because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been defined to mean something extreme(and possibly the most evil thing in the universe), people with rational views on race simply didn't know how to characterize their positions. Perhaps, they could have used the term ‘genetist’(as opposed to geneticist who is a researcher of genetics). A genetist could mean someone who believes in the genetic or biological roots of human existence. But ‘genetist’ is too broad and would apply to all life forms. As we are mostly involved with human affairs, it made sense to winnow down to categories and concepts with the greatest relevance to us. And race is of great importance because evolution has been at work to create different human groups that really do vary generally in appearance, body size, intelligence, strength, speed, temperament, and other factors. Therefore, we must stick to the term that addresses the reality of race, and that term must be race + ism or race-ism. If race is real(and it is), then it means there are real differences among races. That is the truth, and we prefer the truth over falsehood. So, it means we are race-ist and truthful. Then, if some PC dog barks at us and accuses us of ‘racism’, we must simply say that, yes, our positions are race-ist-and-true. PC dolts assume that the mere accusation of ‘racism’ has a magically discrediting and disinfecting effect on people who espouse 'hateful' views.
But they are unprepared to deal with people who dare to point out that race-ism = truth. If we stand our ground and insist that our views are race-ist-and-true, then the other side will find itself in a bind. They are so used to ‘winning arguments’ with that magic word ‘racist’ that they've grown mentally lazy. Our enemies are accustomed to people cowering or backing down because PC has long held that ‘racism’ = extreme views on race = falsehood.
But we can easily demonstrate that race-ism is valid and true. Facts are really on our side. Races do exist, and the differences are not just skin-deep. So, our race-ism is rational and sane. Furthermore, because we have the facts on our side, our views are race-ist-and-true. Because we stand our ground and associate race-ism with truth, it is now up to the PC side to prove that our race-ist views are untrue. But this is difficult because the evidence of racial differences is so everywhere and so obvious. Furthermore, the advancement of genetic science is beginning to prove that differences among racial groups go the roots of our DNA.
So, there you go, the idea of Race-ist-and-True will be difficult to beat. Then, the next time you are accused of ‘racism’ by PC dogs and dolts, don’t cower and sweat as you try to persuade them that you’re not ‘racist’. Instead, tell them that your views are Race-ist-and-True. Insist that truth is on your side precisely because you are a race-ist who has the will and courage to look at the world with honest eyes. See what happens.
People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.
Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.
Anyway, because a neutral-seeming term like ‘racism’(race + ism) has been defined as an extremist ideology, it’s difficult to have an honest and truthful discussion of race. After all, the formulation of the term ‘racism’ keeps reminding us that ANY ism(belief) about race must be extreme and pathological. Some have tried to solve this problem by using terms such as ‘racialism’ or ‘race realism’, but that only complicates matters. Such tactics are defensive when, if anything, true race-ists must go on the offensive and stop backing down. The term ‘racism’ must be rehabilitated, just like innocent victims of tyranny. The only alteration I would recommend is to spell and pronounce it as ‘race-ism’ to reiterate that the word should mean race + ism = belief in reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness. For more on this matter, go to this link: http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-only-true-race-ist-how-misuse-of.html.
Anyway, for the time being, what steps can we take to slowly steer the ship to redefine ‘racism’ or race-ism properly? I propose the ‘Race-ist-and-True’ Rule. If you make a true statement about racial reality and racial differences OR exhibit natural tendency of racial consciousness & solidarity, don’t ever back down when you are accused of ‘racism’. If you try to explain that you’re not ‘racist’, you’ve lost the argument there and then. You’ve put yourself in a defensive and pleading corner, as if the other side has the right to judge you while you feel a need to defend and justify yourself. This is because what should be a neutral term has been rigged by Jewish radical agenda and political correctness to mean something extreme and evil. For that reason, ANY belief in race or expression of racial identity(at least if you’re white and gentile) is automatically smeared as something extreme.
Now, what is so extreme about believing that evolution created different racial groupings of human beings? It is so obvious to any honest pair of eyes. What is so extreme about noticing racial differences? We can see it all around in sports, crime, and all sorts of behavior. And what is so evil about a people having a sense of racial identity, unity, and solidarity? It seems rather natural given that humans are genetically programmed to judge things based on sight and other visible signals. But because the mere terminology of race + ism has been defined as the most heinous form of extremism, even people making the most obvious observations or statements about race and racial differences must be on guard against charges of ‘racism’. With nearly all the institutions and powers operating in such PC manner, is anything possible to stem the tide of this rabid and virulent Judeo-Nazi agenda?
Yes, even if it’s an upward struggle. Also, the first tentative steps are the most important in any movement. It means you are serious and willing to move forward with the truth. And once we reach the top of the hill(like the Train that Could), it will be easy coasting from there on, with historical gravity being on our side.
So, what exactly is it that should be said when our perfectly reasonable views are accused of ‘racism’? First, I’m talking of rational and sane statements about racial reality, racial differences, and racial identity. I’m not talking of clown antics of people like Andrew Anglin who will say ANYTHING to trigger people and gain notoriety. Their views really are extreme, demented, or unserious(and mainly for attention). There can't be any moral defense for such stupidity and dementedness though we must defend speech rights to say offensive things.
As for those of us who dare to speak the truth about race & racial differences and have facts, truth, courage, and integrity on our side, the proper way to respond to accusations of ‘racism’ is to say that our views are ‘race-ist and true’. That is the right way. Don’t try to deny that you’re ‘racist’. Don’t play by their word game that was long ago rigged to favor them... just like a socialist can’t win any argument IF even the most moderate socialism is made synonymous with Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer Rouge.
Likewise, a capitalist will be in a hopeless position IF the base terminology of ‘capitalism’ is defined to mean Scrooge-like greed and pathological selfishness. Indeed, communist nations defined capitalism in just such manner, and that made it nearly impossible to lay out a rational case for free markets. According to communist terminological rules, the term ‘capitalism’ could never mean a neutral theory of economics based on market dynamics. It couldn’t be approached rationally and judiciously because it had an albatross of ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ around its neck.
Now, capitalism CAN be exploitative and ugly, but just because a system is capitalist doesn’t mean it is ultra-libertarian where the ONLY thing that matters is greed & profits and nothing else.
But in a communist nation, there were few things worse than being called a ‘capitalist-roader’ or ‘bourgeois’. Communist terminology fixed it so that ‘capitalism’ could only mean utterly greedy exploitation and ‘bourgeoisie’ could only mean the reactionary exploitative class. A rational, balanced, and empirical discussion of capitalism or the bourgeoisie’s role in history was nearly impossible because those very terms were loaded with moral contempt and loathing.
And in the Current West, ‘racism’ has the same kind of effect. Thus, even if someone like Charles Murray wants to calmly discuss the subject of race, it is denounced immediately as ‘racist’, and then any views about racial differences between whites and blacks is associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. This hysteria would have us believe that because racial differences had been invoked the past to justify certain institutions, any idea of racial differences must be to restore slavery.
This is like someone in a communist system insisting that any argument in favor of capitalism and market economics must be evil because, at least in his mind, anything associated with markets and profits must be about the greedy rich hogging all the wealth, sadistic henchmen tyrannizing workers, giant smokestacks belching out black soot to choke the proletariat, and innocents beaten down with truncheons. The radical stigmatization of the term ‘capitalism’ made it difficult for reformers to call for more efficient market economics because their reputations and careers(and even lives) could be ruined by accusations of being ‘bourgeois reactionary’ or ‘capitalist roader’. Even basic market reforms and limited privatization that might boost the economy became taboo in many quarters because, according to the communist terminology, there could never be a moderate and balanced form of capitalism. No, all forms of capitalism were extreme, exploitative, & evil, and that was that, and there was nothing more to be said.
People in the West face the same trouble with the term ‘racist’. As Charles Murray and many others found out, there are too many people brainwashed by PC into believing that rational ideas about race and racial differences are simply not possible. There can only be one view of race, and it is ‘nazi’.
Now, there are idiotic Nazi types who do espouse extreme and radical views on race. Calling them ‘racist’ would be correct to the extent that they do hold views on racial reality and racial differences. But the difference is their views are indeed radical and extreme, and more importantly, there is no way that sane and rational people who believe in racial reality and racial differences have views that resemble the lunacies of Neo-Nazism. So, my advice is not for radical racists who are prone to saying idiotic things. As so much of what they say is numbnuts and retarded, I have no wish to represent them or defend them. Fools who dig themselves into holes can’t be helped.
But, what if you’re a sane, rational, and honest person? What if your views on racial reality and racial differences are fully in accordance with known facts & data and are indeed in alignment with what any honest pair of eyes can see from racial reality in any society. If you’re that person and if what you’ve said makes good sense, then the worst thing you can do is deny that you are ‘racist’ when that charge is thrown at you. If your race-ism is valid & true and if you’re accused of ‘racism’, the proper response is to say that your views are ‘race-ist and true’.
This puts the accuser in a bind. After all, truth has the advantage of prestige. How can falsehood be better than the truth? Those who argue for the Noble Lie will lose soon enough because no one wants to believe that he or she must stick to demonstrable falsehoods for the ‘higher good’. People want to believe that their righteousness is based on rightness about reality. The rabid dogs of PC want to believe that science, reasons, and facts are on their side. To be sure, there are some PC hacks who argue that truth about race must be suppressed for the ‘higher good’. But such argument simply cannot stand for long. It’s like the Geocentrism of the Catholic Church couldn’t withstand the truth of real astronomy that placed the Sun at the center. If PC admits that it favors lies over truth in the name of the ‘higher good’, it will be admitting that PC 'goodness' has no legs of truth to stand on. It must be propped up by crutches of deception, the logic of which is not unlike withholding the truth about Santa Claus to little children.
So, truth beats all in the end. Those with truth on their side merely need to speak honestly because truth backs them up. In contrast, those opposed to the truth must resort to lies, propaganda, hysteria, or banal homilies. Indeed, the reason why so many Jews(in media and academia), Antifa Janissary types, and cuck-collaborators are so triggered by rational race-ists is due to their abject fear that they may indeed be wrong on facts and truth, thus on the wrong side of history. Not only are racial differences so obvious to the naked eye but new genetic studies are showing that group differences among various races are all too real. PC hacks are now so desperate that they go beyond calling people ‘racist’ and call them ‘nazi’ as well. (This is rich coming from Jewish globalists especially because, if we were to judge people by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, Jewish Power is the most nazi-like force in the world as it indulges in Jewish supremacism, warmongering & imperialism, politics of paranoia & scapegoating, cult of megalomania, and even genocidal tendencies.) PC hacks hope to shut down debate by screaming ‘racist’, and that is supposed to decide there-and-then that your race-ist views are false and invalid.
But if you do have truth and facts on your side, you should respond to the charge of ‘racism’ by clarifying that your views are, yes, ‘race-ist’ and also true. This way, the term ‘race-ism’ is gradually, step by step, associated with the courageous will to speak the truth and counter the platitudes of PC. Prog idiots use ‘racist’ as shortcut to invalidate those who won’t get on with the program, and they gained much power by convincing so many people that, yes indeed, any view about racial differences had to be about irrational ‘hatred’ and ‘supremacism’.
And PC got the upperhand because even people with rational and sane views on race, upon being accused of ‘racism’, denied the charge and tried to explain themselves on ground of science and facts. But the fact is they never had a useful term for their rational position on race. Because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been defined to mean something extreme(and possibly the most evil thing in the universe), people with rational views on race simply didn't know how to characterize their positions. Perhaps, they could have used the term ‘genetist’(as opposed to geneticist who is a researcher of genetics). A genetist could mean someone who believes in the genetic or biological roots of human existence. But ‘genetist’ is too broad and would apply to all life forms. As we are mostly involved with human affairs, it made sense to winnow down to categories and concepts with the greatest relevance to us. And race is of great importance because evolution has been at work to create different human groups that really do vary generally in appearance, body size, intelligence, strength, speed, temperament, and other factors. Therefore, we must stick to the term that addresses the reality of race, and that term must be race + ism or race-ism. If race is real(and it is), then it means there are real differences among races. That is the truth, and we prefer the truth over falsehood. So, it means we are race-ist and truthful. Then, if some PC dog barks at us and accuses us of ‘racism’, we must simply say that, yes, our positions are race-ist-and-true. PC dolts assume that the mere accusation of ‘racism’ has a magically discrediting and disinfecting effect on people who espouse 'hateful' views.
But they are unprepared to deal with people who dare to point out that race-ism = truth. If we stand our ground and insist that our views are race-ist-and-true, then the other side will find itself in a bind. They are so used to ‘winning arguments’ with that magic word ‘racist’ that they've grown mentally lazy. Our enemies are accustomed to people cowering or backing down because PC has long held that ‘racism’ = extreme views on race = falsehood.
But we can easily demonstrate that race-ism is valid and true. Facts are really on our side. Races do exist, and the differences are not just skin-deep. So, our race-ism is rational and sane. Furthermore, because we have the facts on our side, our views are race-ist-and-true. Because we stand our ground and associate race-ism with truth, it is now up to the PC side to prove that our race-ist views are untrue. But this is difficult because the evidence of racial differences is so everywhere and so obvious. Furthermore, the advancement of genetic science is beginning to prove that differences among racial groups go the roots of our DNA.
So, there you go, the idea of Race-ist-and-True will be difficult to beat. Then, the next time you are accused of ‘racism’ by PC dogs and dolts, don’t cower and sweat as you try to persuade them that you’re not ‘racist’. Instead, tell them that your views are Race-ist-and-True. Insist that truth is on your side precisely because you are a race-ist who has the will and courage to look at the world with honest eyes. See what happens.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Are Progs acting in Good Faith when they say Corporate Monopolies have the Right to Dismiss and Blacklist White National Liberationists who say NO to White Submissivism demanded by Jewish Supremacists?
So many people associated with ‘white nationalism’ or ‘white supremacism’ have been demoted, fired, or blacklisted. Even physically attacked. And the internet deplatforms entire sites devoted to White Identity and White Interests.
We are told that this is constitutional since Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to private companies. In other words, private companies can hire and fire whomever they want based on whatever.
But I just don’t buy this line of argument.
Just consider the following scenario. Suppose a company has a president who reads about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Suppose he is appalled by Zionist behavior. Suppose he comes to see Zionism as a form of imperialism and supremacism. On that basis, suppose he purges any worker who is associated with Zionism or support for Zionism.
Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and American Jews(who control most media) just accept this as OKAY since private companies can hire or fire whomever they want?
Now, the hypothetical company didn’t fire anyone simply because he or she is Jewish. The company fired people, Jews or gentiles, who are known to have explicitly supported the project of Zionism. (After all, there are anti-Zionist Jews.) So, would the Establishment, Jews, and globalists be fine with this since it targeted not race but the creed/credo of workers?
Or suppose a company decides that BLM is a Hate Movement based on lies that promotes intimidation, violence, and thuggery. Suppose it decides to fire anyone, white or black or whatever color, who is associated with support of BLM and its agenda.
Or suppose capitalist corporations adopt a policy of firing anyone associated with Marxism on the basis that communist ideology is anti-freedom, anti-property, anti-individuality, and anti-liberty, all in the name of state tyranny based on delusional theory of justice that the world must be made into a proletarian prison-state to ensure equality for all?
Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and NAACP — and NYT and MSM — just accept it as the Right of private companies to hire or fire whomever as they please based on their own criteria of what is ‘acceptable’?
Or suppose Paypal is bought out by Arab-Americans who are appalled by Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians. Suppose their new policy is to deny Paypal service to any proponent of Zionism. Would the Jewish community and Mass Media accept it as the right of private company to do as it pleases?
I don’t think so. I’m sure all the ‘experts’ will find LEGAL reasons to oppose such company decisions. If anything, the powers-that-be will summon any means possible to make sure that such a company will be destroyed for practicing its supposed constitutional rights.
If Youtube were owned by Hindus, Chinese, or Arabs and went about deplatforming Zionist vloggers as ‘hateful’ or homo vloggers as spreading ‘degeneracy’, I highly doubt if Jews, globalists, and progs would defend the rights of private enterprise to do as it pleases. After all, if progs care so much about Free Enterprise and Business Rights, why do they call for socialization of medicine?
Or can you imagine Youtube hiring BDS to root out Zionist vloggers as murderous, genocidal, imperialist, and/or exclusionary? If anything, American Jews are using money and influence to pass laws that will criminalize speech and actions that are in favor of BDS.
The Right must push for laws that make it illegal to fire anyone for political or ideological views away from work. That is discrimination based on creed. If it’s wrong to fire someone for being pro-Zionist, it is wrong to fire him for being pro-Europeanist. All workers must follow professional codes AT WORK, but his private and personal beliefs or activities shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal from work.
And that is the very argument that the Progressives once made. They decried the firing and blacklisting of so many communists and leftist sympathizers(many of whom were Jewish) during the ‘McCarthy Era’. But they’ve now shown their own face. It was never about principles but about protecting their own. If McCarthy had been a leftist who went after far-right people, I’m sure the Lib Narrative would remember him as a hero.
We are told that this is constitutional since Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to private companies. In other words, private companies can hire and fire whomever they want based on whatever.
But I just don’t buy this line of argument.
Just consider the following scenario. Suppose a company has a president who reads about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Suppose he is appalled by Zionist behavior. Suppose he comes to see Zionism as a form of imperialism and supremacism. On that basis, suppose he purges any worker who is associated with Zionism or support for Zionism.
Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and American Jews(who control most media) just accept this as OKAY since private companies can hire or fire whomever they want?
Now, the hypothetical company didn’t fire anyone simply because he or she is Jewish. The company fired people, Jews or gentiles, who are known to have explicitly supported the project of Zionism. (After all, there are anti-Zionist Jews.) So, would the Establishment, Jews, and globalists be fine with this since it targeted not race but the creed/credo of workers?
Or suppose a company decides that BLM is a Hate Movement based on lies that promotes intimidation, violence, and thuggery. Suppose it decides to fire anyone, white or black or whatever color, who is associated with support of BLM and its agenda.
Or suppose capitalist corporations adopt a policy of firing anyone associated with Marxism on the basis that communist ideology is anti-freedom, anti-property, anti-individuality, and anti-liberty, all in the name of state tyranny based on delusional theory of justice that the world must be made into a proletarian prison-state to ensure equality for all?
Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and NAACP — and NYT and MSM — just accept it as the Right of private companies to hire or fire whomever as they please based on their own criteria of what is ‘acceptable’?
Or suppose Paypal is bought out by Arab-Americans who are appalled by Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians. Suppose their new policy is to deny Paypal service to any proponent of Zionism. Would the Jewish community and Mass Media accept it as the right of private company to do as it pleases?
I don’t think so. I’m sure all the ‘experts’ will find LEGAL reasons to oppose such company decisions. If anything, the powers-that-be will summon any means possible to make sure that such a company will be destroyed for practicing its supposed constitutional rights.
If Youtube were owned by Hindus, Chinese, or Arabs and went about deplatforming Zionist vloggers as ‘hateful’ or homo vloggers as spreading ‘degeneracy’, I highly doubt if Jews, globalists, and progs would defend the rights of private enterprise to do as it pleases. After all, if progs care so much about Free Enterprise and Business Rights, why do they call for socialization of medicine?
Or can you imagine Youtube hiring BDS to root out Zionist vloggers as murderous, genocidal, imperialist, and/or exclusionary? If anything, American Jews are using money and influence to pass laws that will criminalize speech and actions that are in favor of BDS.
The Right must push for laws that make it illegal to fire anyone for political or ideological views away from work. That is discrimination based on creed. If it’s wrong to fire someone for being pro-Zionist, it is wrong to fire him for being pro-Europeanist. All workers must follow professional codes AT WORK, but his private and personal beliefs or activities shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal from work.
And that is the very argument that the Progressives once made. They decried the firing and blacklisting of so many communists and leftist sympathizers(many of whom were Jewish) during the ‘McCarthy Era’. But they’ve now shown their own face. It was never about principles but about protecting their own. If McCarthy had been a leftist who went after far-right people, I’m sure the Lib Narrative would remember him as a hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)