Why George Zimmerman Is the Best Argument for Gun Ownership.

One of the biggest news stories of 2012 was the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, and the facts surrounding that incident--and how it was treated by the powers that be--should serve as a reminder to every white American as to why they need guns. The Martin-Zimmerman affair has gone down the memory hole ever since the truth emerged that Zimmerman had justifiably used his gun for self-defense against a black thug--just like the Duke Lacrosse 'rape' case was suddenly dropped by the media once it became known that the black 'victim' had concocted the whole story. Everything that happened in the Martin-Zimmerman case--from the altercation and its social contexts to the media spin and government reaction--demonstrates why white people can only rely on themselves and guns.
Indeed, the main reason why Jews--who really control America--wanna take away our guns is not to protect us but to render us helpless against the power of government controlled by Jews. Jews want to Palestinian-ize us. Why are Palestinians utterly helpless to stop armed Jews from encroaching on their lands, building walls and fences to keep them out, robbing them of their rights and freedom, and evicting from their own lands and homes? Because Jews have guns--and tons of other military material provided by American tax payers--while Palestinians do not. So, Palestinians are at the mercy of Jews.
Jews in America wanna put white people in the same condition, but of course, Jews are loathe to admit the true nature of their agenda. And so, they use their media monopoly to fool us that liberals are only trying to save us from bad people with guns. Jewish-controlled media vilify the NRA and blame it for all the gun violence. In fact, gun control is a fact in America. Even in the reddest states, not just anyone can buy a gun at any time. And where the Sandy Hook massacre took place, stringent gun laws were on the books and enforced. NRA cannot be blamed for what Adam Lanza did since Connecticut had some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. If someone is crazy enough, he will do crazy things, and nothing can really be done about it. If laws could stop all violence, there wouldn't have been something like the Los Angeles riots either. If blacks wanna take tanks of gasoline, pour it all over the city, and light it on fire, how can they be stopped? If I'm crazy and were to take a SUV and run over a whole bunch of school kids playing in the yard, how can I be stopped? Who are you gonna blame? AAA motor club? So, all this media hysteria is just a disingenuous attempt to play on our emotions to take our guns away. Using the logic of the anti-gun argument, all guns should have been taken away from the government after the Waco massacre where men, women, and children were either murdered or driven to suicide by a powerfully armed government. If the government didn't have so many guns, it wouldn't use its power so arbitrarily in America and especially around the world. But you didn't hear any such demand from the media.

Anyway, why is the Martin-Zimmerman case so crucial in helping us to understand the issue of guns and gun control? First, there is the racial factor. It should be obvious to all honest people that there are indeed racial differences. This doesn't mean that every member of one race is better at something than all members of another race. But there are general differences among the races, just like there's general differences between the sexes. Though not all men are stronger than all women, men are generally stronger than women, which is why most sexual violence is male on female--generally poor male on poor female. Same dynamic occurs among the races. The stronger race beats on weaker races. So, most racial violence in America is black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on gay, black on Arab-American, black on Hindu-American, and etc. To be sure, it's mostly poor black on poor non-blacks. Most affluent white liberals can afford to be blind to the true nature of interracial violence since they live in their affluent communities with very low crime, and the kind of blacks they dilly-dally with are educated, safe, and 'clean-cut'. So, if you're a Harvard liberal hanging with the likes of Obama, it's different from a white trash being stalked by a black thug like Radio Raheem or Mike Tyson.
White liberals enjoy ridiculing poor whites for the latter's fear of blacks, but affluent white liberals don't face the same social problems that poor whites do. And though affluent white liberals push 'affirmative action' and government enforced racial integration--via Section 8 programs--, the main victims of such policies are poor, working class, and lower-middle class whites.  Rarely are Section 8 housing built near the richest communities in America. And 'affirmative action' favors rich and well-connected whites--especially Jews--over poor, rural, and/or conservative whites. So, rich white liberals take all the moral credit for supporting such policies but the price is paid mostly by poor and working class whites. The Kennedy Clan, Clinton Clan, and other such ilk never have to worry about black crime or 'affirmative action'. Their families and kids are well-protected, well-favored, and well-covered.

Anyway, there should no longer be any argument about racial differences when it comes to physical power and toughness. Blacks usually kick the asses of non-blacks. Generally speaking, non-blacks are no match for blacks, and I can vouch for this as I spent my childhood in an integrated city where most racial violence was black on non-black. I witnessed so much of it with my own eyes, and what I heard from other people from other places tell the same story. And this racial dynamic hasn't changed an iota over the years. Biological fact is biological fact. Similarly, despite all the new laws for sexual equality, most sexual violence is still male on female because men are stronger than women. While most men are not rapists or woman-abusers, bad men are more likely attack women than bad women are likely to attack men. Bad men can beat up women whereas bad women cannot beat up men. Also, men are naturally more aggressive than women.

Similarly, though all races can be aggressive, some are more aggressive than others. Also, if some races can be aggressive as a group--like Germans and Japanese in WWII--, blacks tend to be far more aggressive on the individual level, which is why there's so much violence within the black community itself.
It is for this reason that non-blacks have a need to own guns. When faced with black thuggery, their only chance for self-defense is to use the gun--if you rely on the police, you and your family could be be dead by the time they arrive. If a black thug invades your home, the only effective way to protect yourself and your family is with the gun. Otherwise, it's gonna be like Jack Johnson destroying white boys. It's like be like a big black lineman sacking the white quarterback. Indeed, why are most defensive linemen in football black while white guys tend to be on the offensive line? Because the defensive linemen play the more aggressive role of trying to break through the offensive line to sack the quarterback and stop the running back. Blacks have more fast twitch muscles that give them more explosive power. This is also why blacks make better sprinters, better jumpers in basketball, faster/harder punches in MMA, and better running backs and receivers in football. Though there are more Hispanics than blacks in America, there are almost new mestizo athletes in the NBA and NFL. Why is that? Your average mestizo is no match for blacks.

And we saw this play out in the Martin-Zimmerman incident.

1. Blacks are more likely to be criminals. Zimmerman was on guard duty since there had been a rash of home burglaries carried out by black criminals. So, he was just looking out for possible criminals on that fateful night. Can we fault him for that?

2. Martin was acting suspicious, and it turns out the guy has a record of burglary. He had stolen items in his school locker. That Martin was planning a robbery that night is something we'll never know. But he was on drugs and acting strange, and Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious. And so, Zimmerman followed and watched him. Can we fault him for that?

3. Zimmerman was following Martin, but Martin turned the table on Zimmerman. By the time Zimmerman returned to his car to drive back, Martin was all over him. Zimmerman didn't pull out the gun and just shoot Martin--as the liberal media had people believe. Instead, Martin jumped on Zimmerman and a fight ensued. Zimmerman the 'white Hispanic' was no match for the faster and tougher Martin. The black thug knocked Zimmerman to the ground and was pounding Zimmerman's face. Zimmerman saved himself by pulling out his gun and shooting Martin. If ever a use of gun was justified, this was it. Can we fault him for that?

What happened on that night was the best case example of why Americans need guns. They are physically no match for black thugs, and indeed, if we look at what white liberals do--as opposed to what they say--, they too seem to agree with this as most white liberals try to live apart from most blacks. Blue states are even more segregated than red states.

Given the fact of how his gun may have saved Zimmerman's life, you'd expect the powers-that-be to side with Zimmerman. But that didn't happen.  What did happen?

1. Mass media spun the story as cold blooded 'white guy' killing an angelic black teen 'armed with only skittles'. If Mike Tyson had a bag of cookies, would you say he was 'armed only with cookies'?  Just ask his opponents in the ring about what Tyson did with his two fists. People have died in the boxing ring from being hit with PADDED gloves. Imagine what bare black fists can do.
The media are supposed to speak the truth, indeed speak truth to the powers-that-be. One of the most crucial powers-that-be in American society is the black fist. So much of American social reality has been determined by the power of the black fist. Entire areas of cities have been destroyed by the black fist. Since the economically more productive and more intelligent non-blacks have been driven out of entire areas as a result of their fear of the black fist, the power of the black fist has ruined many cities. Blacks bitch about why no one's investing in their communities, but no one has the guts to say why this has been so. Even liberal whites fear the black fist. Sure, from a safe distance, liberal whites can romanticize the black fist as a liberating force against 'racism'--as in Ken Burns' UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS--, but the dire fact of American social reality is that the power of the black fist has created a climate a fear all across America. Indeed, the main reason for white flight has been the fear of the black fist. Real estate prices are super high in San Fran and Portland but dirt cheap in Detroit or black areas of St. Louis. But why do white liberals go to SF or Portland--where rent or mortgage eats up so much of their earnings--and not to Detroit or in the black areas of St. Louis where they can live cheaply? Because they don't wanna be robbed, raped, beaten up, or murdered by tougher blacks with harder fists.

Given the power of the black fist and how Zimmerman barely survived its assault, you'd think the media would be on the side of Zimmerman. But not only was the media unsympathetic to Zimmerman, the media tried to dehumanize him. The media ran photos of a cherubic 12 yr old Martin(who was 17 at the time of his attack on Zimmerman) alongside the worst possible photo of Zimmerman(from yrs ago when he was fat slob). So, the impression sent out over the airwaves was that of a fat disgusting slob shooting a helpless little black child for no other reason that the kid was 'armed with skittles'.

Also, Zimmerman is only half-white. His mother was a mestizo Hispanic. But, the media initially made him out to be only 'white'. Given the vilification of 'whiteness' by 'anti-racists', it made the incident even more racially charged--and it led to black mobs across the nation attacking and beating up on whites, a fact covered up by the mass media.
So, all across America, many people were fed the idea that some evil white guy killed a helpless little black kid. This is how the supposedly truth-seeking media ran the story.
The media are supposed to be the fourth estate and speak truth for the rights and freedom of the people, but what the big media did with Zimmerman was hardly different from the lies and manipulations of communist or Nazi propaganda. Indeed, even Zimmerman's phone conversation on the 911 call was altered to make it sound as if he was looking for some black guy to kill that night.

Given the nature of the media--controlled by Jews and monopolized by politically correct liberals--, the American people should know they cannot rely on the news for truth, freedom, and liberty. Instead, the news media are just a propaganda wing of the Jewish oligarchy and its control over the institutions of America. Just look at how the media created Obama. Just look at how the Zionists in the media led us into the Iraq War. Just look at how the media covered up the fact that Mossad knew of the looming 9/11 attack but refused  to share information with us. Just look at how the Jewish-run media have no problem with Israel having 300 illegal nukes but wants Iran destroyed even though it has no nukes. Just consider how the media spread the lies about the Iranian government wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Just consider how the media have no sympathy for the plight of Palestinians who are being oppressed far worse than blacks in South Africa ever were. Just look how the media were complicit in railroading the Duke Lacrosse players even before they were proven guilty.

There is no free press in the US. Journalism schools are Jewish-controlled indoctrination centers, and 95% of the media are controlled by Jews who decide who is promoted and what is news. And if you bring up the issue of Jewish power in the media--as Rick Sanchez did--, you're blacklisted and gone forever.

2. Well, if you can't trust the media, the last defense of liberty is the American government, right? Of the people, by the people, for the people?  Think again. Big money and big media control government. And big academia guides government policies. And all those are controlled by Jewish oligarchs. As Jews said of Obama, "We made him."  And George W. Bush was just a shill of Jewish neocons.

Given how Zimmerman had been wronged by the media, you'd expect the government to come to his aid and protect his rights. Wrong again. Instead, even though it was clear that Zimmerman had acted in self-defense, he was charged with second degree murder by a black prosecutor in government. Even Obama chimed in on the case, making Martin out to be a helpless victim of a white murderer. Obama said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin." Obama's words inspired random attacks on white by black thugs across America.

What did Zimmerman do on that night? He was guarding his community from criminals who were breaking into homes. He saw a suspicious black guy and followed him for a few blocks. As he was about to return home, he was jumped by the black thug who beat his face into hamburger meat. Zimmerman did what any sane person would do. He pulled out his gun and shot the man who was assaulting him. It was self-defense, but he was vilified by the media and persecuted by the government.

So, can white Americans trust the media? Can they trust the government? Though Zimmerman is only half-white and looks very 'Hispanic', he was white enough for the powers-that-be. They set out to destroy him and even now, the powers-that-be are out to get him.

When the Sandy Hook massacre happened, all white conservatives condemned it. But they also realized that it was the act of a lunatic that no law can stop. Sure, if all guns could be confiscated from all Americas, what happened in Connecticut wouldn't have happened. And in a perfect world, a world without guns would be a wonderful place. But there is the Second Amendment that protects out rights to own guns. And more importantly, there is the fact that US is not a democracy but a Jewish-controlled oligarchy where the media and government are NOT of the people, by the people, for the people but of the Jewish elites, by the Jewish elites, and for the Jewish elites. In Israel, Jews want guns in the hands of Jews but not in the hands of Palestinians. Media and government conspire to take your freedoms and rights away.

In the US, Jews want guns only in the hands of the government that they control but they don't want guns in the hands of Americans, especially white Americans who might finally awaken to the fact of what the Jewish elites had done to them.

Do you wanna be Zimmermanized? Do you wanna be Palestinianized?
Though the bloody incidents of Columbine and Sandy Hook are horrible, the real danger in America comes not from oddball loonies(who will always be among us) but from the fact that so much of real power--legal, political, financial, intellectual, academic, media, etc--are controlled by Jews. As it's been said, the pen is mightier than the sword. TV controls the minds, indeed 100s of millions of them. It was the power of TV that made 80% of Americans to support the invasion of Iraq. It's the power of TV that made so many Americans hate George Zimmerman though all he did was protect himself.
What really should be disarmed is the Jewish control of American institutions. But most liberals are so brainwashed by political correctness fed by the Jewish media machine that they only know how to bark like mad dogs at the behest of their Zionist-globalist masters.

The video below demonstrates why Americans need guns. You cannot rely on the media nor on the government. They are out to get you. Even if you save your own life from a black thug, YOU are made out to be subhuman bad guy.

The Idiotic Toxicology of Decalibs(or Decadent Liberals)

This is in response to a piece "Poison Ivy—The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action" by Blaine Greteman in the New Republic magazine.

Greteman writes:

Affluent black students found that well-intentioned faculty members assumed that they were poor, and more obnoxiously, the fact of racial preference in admissions led some white students to question the intelligence of minority students. Black students also reported judging by this same poisonous standard. As Christopher, an affluent black student recounted, he sometimes held his black friends in contempt when they failed to meet his academic expectations: “How did you get in here? It must have been because you’re black.”   

Greteman here employs the trick of adjectology to force his viewpoint on the reader. Notice the choice of words, "obnoxiously" and "poisonous". Now, liberals pride themselves for their reliance on reason and facts to make their (superior)case, but if you've noticed lately, liberals often take the short-cut of adjectology to end discussion via the toxicological method. (I will henceforth refer to this kind of liberals as decalibs as liberalism, as generally practiced today, is about as decadent and desperate as any ideology can get. And don't be fooled by the victory of Obama in 2012. It had nothing to do with the ideological or intellectual triumph of liberalism and everything to do with the demographic rise of anti-intellectual blacks & Hispanics who voted simply for more freebies and with the cultural dementia of a young generation bred on junk culture and politically correct indoctrination. I will not refer to today's so-called 'progressives' as 'leftists' for, even as I oppose the Left, leftism used to be a struggle for important issues such as workers' rights and greater justice for all under the law. What goes by the name of leftism today mainly serves the interests of globalist Jews, snotty pampered 'feminists', and privileged gays.) 

Notice Greteman doesn't explain why the views of white students are 'obnoxious' or why the views of rich black students are 'poisonous'. He offers no argument, no facts. He just condemns certain views as toxic. He doesn't want a debate or discussion. He fumes like a bitch and just wants us to shut up. What kind of liberalism is this? Just how are the ideals of reason and fact-based reality served by some self-righteous prick fumigating the readership with the notion that certain ideas--indeed certain attitudes and emotions--simply must not be allowed. And why not? Well, because Greteman finds certain views 'obnoxious' and 'poisonous', end of discussion. 

Now, I don't know if Greteman is doing this consciously or subconsciously, but he is part of the decalib movement to stamp out certain feelings, attitudes, and views by condemning them as diseased, infectious, pathological, or toxic. Indeed, 'toxic' is now one of the most oft-used words by decalibs--along with 'noxious' and 'odious'. So, you'll read an article by a decalib where something or the other will be denounced as being 'toxic', 'poisonous', 'noxious', 'obnoxious', or 'odious'.  The favorite words of liberals used to be 'rabid' and 'virulent', but maybe they're a bit worn. Maybe 'noxious' and 'odious' have a certain SWPL ring to it. 

You will notice that decalibs offer no explanation, no reason, and no facts as to why certain views, attitudes, or feelings are 'toxic', 'poisonous', 'noxious', 'obnoxious', or 'odious'. By the mere use of those adjectives, they feel they've won the argument, and nothing more need be said. 
Now, I ask you, since when does reasoned debate and assessment of reality work this way? And what is so open-minded about such use of adjectology if indeed liberals take great pride in their open-mindedness? 
And if indeed liberals care so much about facts, why are they so obsessed with adjectives, most of which describe emotional states than objective facts. I can say, 'gays are obnoxious and toxic', but what does that prove? It only means I feel that way. If I say, 'Jewish finance capitalism is dirty, filthy, craven, venal, odious, noxious, obnoxious, poisonous, toxic, and/or venomous', all I've proven is that how I FEEL about Jews. Unless I offer facts and reasoned argument to make my case, all my adjectives are just that: adjectives describing my emotional states. 
So, if liberals are rational and fact-based, why do they rely so much on adjectology? Why do they take a toxicological approach to ideas, speech, debate, discussion, and etc. as if certain views shouldn't even be argued with but simply gassed to death?  It's almost as if decalibs regard certain views and ideas as disease-carrying like sewer rats and must be exterminated by adjectological fumigation. Ideocide? 
But what does adjectology really prove? A Jew can say 'radical Islam is toxic' and a Muslim can say 'Zionist racism is toxic', so who won the argument? As the saying goes, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has them. But even opinions are better-formed and argued than the mere use of adjectives, which is what Greteman goes for.  
A Muslim and a Jew insulting one another with adjectives only proves that the Jew hates certain Muslims and that the Muslim hates certain Jews but without explaining the why and for what. 

I believe some decalibs know full well what they are doing when they employ adjectology. With the rise of the science of psychology, advertising, marketing, and the like, many experts in the academia and media now understand what works in swaying public opinion and manipulating mass sentiments. The controllers of the media and academia are less interested in using facts and reason to win us over to the truth than in pushing the right 'irrational' buttons in our psyche to make us conform to their agenda. Advertisers know all about subliminally toying with the circuitry of the mind. Hollywood has perfected the formula of blockbusters by offering the right combination of sound, images, symbols, and effects. Music industry approaches music less as an art than a science of what kind of rhythms and beats will produce the biggest hits. Indeed, the 'science' of celebrity-making has been perfected to such extent that a nobody can become a somebody simply by the way the media packages and hypes him or her. Indeed, even a president can be elected this way by the new scientific method of celebrity-oriented cult of personality. People can be made to believe that style is the substance if certain buttons in their psyche are pushed.  We are all guinea pigs in the new order. 

Even so, one would like to believe that in an intellectual magazine like the New Republic, a writer would offer sound reasons backed up with facts to prove his case that certain views, attitudes, and feelings are 'obnoxious' or 'poisonous'.  

I wonder, did Greteman use adjectology consciously because he knows of its effectiveness, or is he one of the guinea pigs indoctrinated by political correctness who 'thinks' without really thinking? Is he one of the lab scientists or just one of the guinea pigs? 
The dirty secret of the modern liberal understanding of human psychology is that most people, regardless of ideology/race/creed, are followers than free-thinkers. And this isn't simply a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of personality and human nature. The kind of personality that 'pathologically' insists on forming its own thoughts regardless of what others think is relatively rare. Due to human nature, most people wanna be liked and want to belong. They don't want to be shunned or left out of the community. Evolution made us this way, and so, even intelligent people who ought to know better will go along with the prevailing falsehood if it's to their social advantage and psychological well-being(and being liked by others is central to that feeling of well-being). 

Now, let us consider the facts. 'Affirmative action' does indeed favor less qualified and less intelligent blacks and Hispanics over whites and Asians. This cannot be refuted. All evidence points to this, and indeed, it is a defacto official policy. If Greteman denies this, he should offer evidence to the contrary, but of course, he cannot. 
Now, if universities admit a sizable number of blacks with considerably lower grades than whites and Asians, why would it be wrong, let alone 'obnoxious', for white and Asian students to feel that some of the black students on campus didn't make it on merit and don't belong there? Why would such a feeling be 'obnoxious' if it's based on facts and reasoned observation? It seems to me that the truly obnoxious one is Greteman who thinks he's so morally superior that he can condemn others as 'obnoxious' for the simple fact of noticing reality for what it is.

To use a counter-example, we all know that blacks, being naturally stronger and faster, dominate football and basketball. Suppose in the name of 'diversity', 'inclusiveness', and 'equality', a bunch of less qualified Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, and Arabs are allowed on college teams. Suppose black athletes believe that many, if not most, of the the non-black athletes have been favored for reasons other than athletic merit. Would it be 'obnoxious' for black athletes to feel that way? If we follow Greteman's logic, yes, it would be. But of course, Greteman--probably a Jew by the look of him--is probably the kind of decalib who plays the game of 'who, whom' when it comes to passing judgement on the world. Since blacks are part of the 'victim group', we must never ever have any negative feelings toward them, but it's okay for blacks to feel all the rage, hatred, paranoia, and hostility toward other races. 

Indeed, 'who, whom' applies to the entire world, and surely Greteman knows this as he writes for the New Republic, one of the biggest hypocritical Zionist mags in the world. As you know, Iran has no nuclear weapons--not a single one--and has complied with every international inspection. Israel, in contrast, has violated every law and has anywhere from 200 to 500 illegal nukes. Israel also oppressesd Palestinians just like Nazis oppressed Poles and Jews. But US, which is controlled by Jewish power, uses its muscle to economically destroy Iran while the criminal state of Israel receives billions in aid from American taxpayers every year. And the New Republic is fully behind this state of affairs. Now, THAT is obnoxious, poisonous, toxic, odious, noxious, and everything else under the sun. But do you think Greteman will ever approach the editors of the New Republic and ask for permission to write an article about how Zionist-Americans have perverted US foreign policy?  Of course not... as he's too busy pointing out that people who notice the truth on college campouses are 'obnoxious'. So, if white and Asian students rightly feel that a lot of blacks in colleges were admitted by racial preference, they are 'obnoxious'. And if smarter blacks in college who really made it on merit feel that blacks who made it on 'affirmative action' undermine the black intellectual brand, they are under some kind of 'poisonous' delusion. 

I don't know if Greteman is a Jew or not, but he sure looks and sounds like one. For starters, he's a total hypocrite as the real outrage in American higher education is that Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, hog an OBNOXIOUSLY disproportionate share of elite positions in academia, media, law, finance, entertainment, government, courts, publishing, and etc.  It's Jew, Jew, Jew everywhere. 
If Greteman really cares about fairness, he should call for Jews to be categorized as a separate group so that white gentiles can finally have more positions open up to them at the expense of overly privileged and powerful Jews. And if any Jew were to complain that a less intelligent white goy was favored over the smarter Jew, I mean let's not be 'obnoxious' and 'poisonous' about it. 

A New Meme for the Right: "Who Will Take the First Bullet?"

An article by Ron Unz in THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE got me thinking.

Unz writes:

"A more fundamental change might be to directly adopt the implicit logic of America’s 'academic diversity' movement—whose leadership has been overwhelmingly Jewish—and require our elite universities to bring their student bodies into rough conformity with the overall college-age population, ethnicity by ethnicity, in which case the Jewish presence at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League would drop to between 1.5 and 2 percent."

Unz is talking about fighting fire with fire against liberal Jews. Since liberal Jews promote 'diversity' and 'parity' in higher education--especially at the expense of Asian-Americans and non-Jewish white-Americans--, why not hold their feet to the fire? Why not make them taste their own medicine.
The gist of Unz's article details how 'liberal' Jews reduce admissions for white gentiles and Asian-Americans while favoring themselves and their key allies: blacks and Hispanics--and though gays are not mentioned in the article, they are surely favored in elite college admissions.

Though Unz doesn't spell out the WHY, the answer should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about Jewish political psychology. Jews operate under a supremacist ideology and attitude that go back thousands of years. Jews also maintain moral defenses against all those who'd even dare to challenge Jewish power. It's a fusion of hidden tribalism and overt moralism. Paradoxically, Jews serve their supremacist tribalism by invoking moral universalism. Key to understanding the Jewish notion of moral universalism is--paradoxically yet again--their moral particularism. In a nutshell, Jews think they understand universal human suffering more than all other groups combined because no people have suffered as much as they have done. Thus, Jews have tribalized suffering--Jewish suffering is said to be 'unique'--as the basis for their serving as the spokesmen of all of human suffering.
But then, of course, not all sufferings--even among the goyim--are alike according to the lawyer-like logic of the devious Jewish political mind. After all, Jews have favored black suffering, white female suffering, and gay suffering over all other sufferings. Black suffering is useful for instigating 'white guilt', thereby paralyzing the kind of racial, cultural, and historical pride necessary to create white unity and power. White female suffering is useful for making white women see white men as their primary oppressors--though no men in the world have done more to advance the rights and opportunities for their womenfolk. And gay suffering is useful since gays, like Jews, are a permanent tiny minority group in the West who've amassed great power and privilege.
So, even though no suffering is as tragic or noble as Jewish suffering, Jews look favorably upon certain kinds of non-Jewish suffering if they are useful to the Jewish agenda of securing ever greater supremacist power for themselves. Since Jews see white gentiles as their main rival for power in the West, any narrative of 'suffering' that undermines white power, pride, and unity is good for the Jews.

Through such dirty tricks, Jews may have caused mortal harm not only to white power but to white survival as a race and culture. Nothing makes a Jew happier than the sight of community after community becoming less white in America or of increasing numbers of white women having kids with black men. The virulently murderous hatred spewed by Jewish pundits in the aftermath of the 2012 election should awaken all whites as to how Jews really feel about them.

By playing on non-white resentment against whites, Jews have pushed policies like 'affirmative action' that favor less qualified blacks and Hispanics over whites. 'Affirmative action' also favors rich liberal whites, Jews, rich blacks, and rich white Hispanics over most middle class, working class, and poor non-Hispanic whites. Asian-Americans, on the other hand, have not been favored in this game of 'equality' and 'diversity', and if anything--at least according to Unz's article--Jews(though they count as white and are the most powerful and privileged people in America) have been favored over Asian-Americans in admission to elite colleges. Let us leave aside the issue of Asian-Americans for they will never amount to an effective force in American politics and culture--they lack the chutzpah of the Jews and the aggressiveness of blacks--and since they overwhelmingly voted for Obama, in which case why the hell should we care about them?
The only relevant thing we need to know about Asians is that Jews don't want Asian-Americans to gain too much cred as a 'victim' group. Jews want Asian-Americans to feel 'victimized' by White Gentile America--and be good little running dogs for the Jewish elites--, but Jews don't want Asian-Americans to feel a sense of victim-hood that might challenge that of the Jews and blacks. If Asian-Americans were to gain greater power in the future, they could also use the 'victim' card(as Jews and blacks have done) to deflect any criticism. Moral muscle is a great form of power in America, a nation founded on the notion of liberty and equality. If Asians were to gain permanent victim-status as Jews and blacks(and gays) have done, Asian-Americans would be better able to be horde their growing power against criticism.  Jews don't want this as a possible challenge to Jewish hegemony.
White gentiles dare not challenge Jewish power because they're said to be stained with the guilt of 'racism' and 'antisemitism', but Asian-Americans might challenge Jewish power if Asian-Americans were to see themselves as the moral equals of Jews--as equal victims of history. Though the idea of Asian-Americans rising to challenge Jewish power is highly unlikely, Jews are a clever and cautious bunch and always looking for all the angles. As long as Asian-Americans are not seen as a 'noble victim group', they will be open to criticism and challenge from white Americans, and that will serve as a check on Asian-American power. While Jews encourage Asian-Americans to resent white Americans, they also fan the flames of white rage at Asians in general.  Indeed, rage at Asians--and at Muslims--may be valued by Jews as a kind of 'healthy' outlet for white Americans who've been whipped into silence on the matter of Jews, blacks, and gays. Just think. No people have done more to undermine white power than Jews have, but white people have been pussy-whipped to worshiping Jews 24/7. Though no people commit as much violence against whites as blacks routinely do--and even though 95% of blacks voted for Obama--, most white conservatives worship MLK and blame themselves for having failed to 'reach out to the African-American community'. But deep down at the subconscious level, many whites are fuming over Jewish venality and black savagery. What to do about all such pent-up fury? Why not direct it at Asians and especially Muslims, especially since Israel happens to be at loggerheads with so many Arab or Muslim nations.

Therefore, despite the tragic history of modern Asia--some of it due to Western imperialism--and all the horrors visited on the Middle East by Western powers, the Jewish media and academia have ensured that Asians and Muslims will not gain the kind of victim status to rival that of Jews and blacks(or even gays). Jews want Asians and Muslims to feel a limited or selective kind of victim-hood vis-a-vis whites and/or Christians. However, Asians and Muslims are not to claim the kind of victim-hood that would have the entire world feel sorry for them for all time. Furthermore, it's permissible for whites to express hostility and resentment toward Asians and Muslims--and indeed Hollywood sometimes fans the flames with movies like RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and TRUE LIES.

In contrast, Jewish and black sufferings are of a different magnitude. Not only the descendants of the historical 'oppressors' but the entire world must feel sorry for the Jews and blacks--and if the world doesn't, it is just as guilty as the people who did bad bad things to Jews and blacks. Given the terminology associated with the Holocaust, one gets the impression that the whole world was guilty--if not for having carried it out, then for not having done anything to stop it(though I don't know what Bolivian peasants or Hindus could have done to stop it, especially when they knew next to nothing about it and had more pressing problems of their own).  Jewish moral superiority and noble victim-hood are seen as absolute and therefore cannot be challenged.
To illustrate this, let us compare Jews and the Chinese. All of us would agree that Jews were victimized by the Nazis and the Chinese were victimized by the Japanese imperialists. But just because the Chinese suffered terribly from Japanese aggression doesn't mean that the entire world should weep for the Chinese and see Chinese as some special noble-victim people. Also, when Chinese themselves committed horrors against other peoples(or themselves), we call it out and blame the Chinese. So, we see the Chinese as the oppressed or oppressors depending on the historical situation; we say they were right or wrong depending on the events. Whatever sympathy we may feel for Chinese who suffered greatly under the Japanese, we don't use that tragedy as the focal point of our understanding everything Chinese. So, we don't make excuses for Chinese barbarity in Tibet. We call it out and condemn it. And if the Chinese tried to silence our criticism of their dirty trade practices by invoking all the horrors they'd suffered during WWII, we would just tell them to shut the hell up(and rightfully so). Thus, Chinese victimhood--in WWII and in building the railroads in 19th century--are seen as specific to those times and places. Also, people deemed to be guilty of past abuses are limited to the past.

But this isn't the case with Jews. Holocaust has been turned into some kind of a universal and eternal religion. So, everyone around the world has to 'believe' in it--even if they know little about it--and regard Jews as a holy people who understand suffering more than all others. (History books will often say the entire world should be ashamed for having allowed  the Holocaust to happen. Do you hear similar sentiments about the Killing Fields, the Belgian plunder of Congo, Great Leap Forward, and etc.?) Also, Jews can never be wrong, and gentiles can never be right if they dare question or challenge Jewish power. So, it doesn't matter that Palestinians are angry with Jews because Zionists ethnically cleansed them from their homeland. Though Palestinians have been the victims resisting Zionist oppression, they are seen as the 'oppressors' and 'bullies' whereas Jews are seen as the 'victims' because Jewish victim-hood is said to be eternal/universal by the simple virtue of the Holocaust being the 'greatest evil ever committed by man'. This is absurd on the face of what actually happened between Jews and Palestinians, but such twisted moral logic prevails in the West--and in other parts of the world--because everything Jews do is seen in relation to the Holocaust, a historical event that's been transcended beyond its historical context to sanctify Jews as the holy people forever and ever.

A similar dynamic operates with blacks. While no one can deny the history of slavery and the discrimination against blacks in American history, surely that was then and this is now. If a lot of whites--and other kinds of non-blacks--fear, loathe, and dislike blacks today, it has everything to do with black aggression, crime, violence, and savagery. Even without denying black suffering in the past, it doesn't require genius to notice all the horrors committed by blacks who act they way they do because they know they are physically stronger and can kick everyone's butt.  But because black victim-hood, like Jewish victim-hood, has been elevated as a kind of universal and timeless suffering that people all around the world must weep and feel sorry for, blacks can now get away anything; they are 'right even when they are wrong'. So, even though there are hugely muscled Negroes raping white butts in American prisons, we are treated to movies like GREEN MILE where a mountain-sized Negro wuvs a wittle white mouse and wouldn't even harm a fly. Or how about the whole Trayvon Martin nonsense where a 17 yr old thug who beat the 'white Hispanic' Zimmerman half to death was said to have been 'armed with only Skittles'. (I suppose when Muhammad Ali beat the shit out of Jerry Quarry, he was just armed with a pair of boxer shorts.) Even when black violence and thuggery are undeniable, we are supposed to see them as manifestations of trauma suffered by blacks from a history of oppression.
And this kind of sophism is dragged out not only to apologize for black-on-white violence but for black violence against any group. Just as the West makes excuses for Jewish violence against Palestinians, it makes excuses for black violence against Hispanics and other non-black/non-white groups. Since Jews and blacks have been ennobled eternally, they are right even when they are wrong. If a Jew abuses a Palestinian and if the Palestinian fights back, the Jew is in the right. If a black guy beats up a Hispanic-American and if the Hispanic-American shoots the black thug in self-defense, the black guy is the poor angelic victim. Jews and blacks, having been thus sanctified, MUST have some good reason for acting the way they do. They are either innocent or, if they happen to be guilty, their guilt must be a reaction to historical trauma, and so we must try to understand them better. No other people get this kind of treatment from the government and media.

Given the politics of victim-hood, we don't allow Chinese to use their past suffering to silence our criticism and judgement of their present abuses and foulness. While we may sympathize with Chinese who suffered at certain points in history, we don't believe past Chinese suffering ennobles Chinese today, let alone forever. And this is a healthy attitude. But it's utterly different with Jews and blacks. Israel, the most powerful nation by far in the Middle East, can do whatever it pleases to the Palestinians, but the view of most Westerners is "nobly suffering Jews are only trying to survive against terrorist Palestinians". Israel can have 100 to 500 illegal nukes and threaten its neighbors while Iran has none, but we say Israel is only trying to prevent another Holocaust being hatched by the Iranian regime committed to 'wiping Israel off the map' though no Iranian leader ever said such a thing. Even the most sensible criticism of Jewish power and abuses backed up by facts and logic is dismissed or suppressed as wrong, irrational, and wicked while even the most heinous abuses committed by Jews in Israel, EU, and US are either excused or even praised as cases of Jews nobly seeking their rightful place in the sun in a world that is still soooooo diseased with 'antisemitism'.

For this reason, Jews occupy a special place in the West, especially in America. Given that America was one of nations that played a crucial role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, you'd think that Jews would be more appreciative of white Americans and that white Americans wouldn't be filled with so much 'guilt'.  But, what is 'reality' to most people? It all depends on what they learn in school and absorb from the media. Who controls the levers of education and information in this country? And given the role of money in politics, which group has all the politicians in its pocket?
According to Unz, the top 1% of Americans may own more wealth than the bottom 95%, and you can bet that a good number of that 1% are made up of Jews. One estimate has nearly 40% of all billionaires being Jewish. And keep in mind that even superrich non-Jews can be destroyed by Jewish media and Jewish-controlled Wall Street(which can shut the spigot on necessary funds). Also, rich goyim have attended elite schools, the professors of which are heavily liberal and Jewish. Thus, even most powerful non-Jews have been indoctrinated in the grand narrative and ideology pushed by liberal Jews.

What is to be done about this? In order to counter and break Jewish power, we need to change the perception and narrative of the Jewish role in history and society. In order to do this, we need to understand ourselves before we understand the Jews. By 'ourselves', I mean most white American gentiles. America was emotionally founded on a dualism, much of which was drawn from the history of Christianity. One part of this dualism posited that the oppressed are the blessed of this Earth.
So, the story of the Pilgrims escaping from religious persecution has been central to American mythology. And even though the white man soon gained the upperhand against the American Indians, white American narrative was of white folks defending themselves from bloodthirsty savages. When  colonial elites decided to break from England, they spun the narrative of the colonials being crushed by the evil king of the all-powerful British Empire. The mythology of America's founding was along the 'slave rebellion' narrative. Though some of the colonial elites were slave-owners themselves, they simplified the struggle against Britain as one between an oppressive empire and a people crying out for equality and freedom. This part of the American mythology morally favored the oppressed loser over the oppressive winner. But, as it turned out, the colonials, largely with the help of the French, won the difficult war against the most powerful empire in the world.
And then, the ascent of American power was dramatic and fast, and within a century, America was one of the most powerful nations in the world, and by the end of WWI, certainly the most powerful nation on Earth. The story of American victory and domination created the cult of glorious victory.
So, one part of American mythology is all about the nobility of victim-hood and the other part is about the glory of victory. How did Americans fuse the contrasting themes of the 'beautiful loser' and 'glorious winner' into a seamless duality? Americans fixated on a moral formula that said spiritual and/or historical forces eventually favored the good over the bad. Thus, if the oppressed were to unite and struggle against oppression, history would eventually favor them to be the new victors. But their power would be justified because it had been won 'fairly' and in the name of freedom/justice. Thus, if Old World power was one of kings, noblemen, privilege, and repression, New World power--especially in the United States--was one of freedom, liberty, and the common man. Thus, no matter how powerful and privileged--and even violent and bullying--Americans became around the world, they maintained the aura of righteous power. So, Americans like to tell themselves that the 'American Empire' was different from empires of the past. If the Romans, British, Russians, French, and others conquered other people for their own selfish interests, Americans used force around the world to help the oppressed because their own nation was founded by the oppressed who waged and won a great war against their oppressors. So, Americans played a key role in scaling back the French and British Empire after WWII. And Americans framed their role in the Vietnam War as one of helping a decent defenseless people from communist aggression emanating from Moscow and  Peking. Of course, the Soviet and Red Chinese backed communist and other anti-Western insurgencies and movements around the world by employing a similar logic: communist power, unlike capitalist power, was to spread equality and brotherhood of man, whereas capitalism was just another form of imperialism wherein the powerful exploited the powerless.

At any rate, Americans came to love both victim-hood and victor-hood. American mythology reminded its citizens that their republic grew out of a slave rebellion. Immigrants were fed the mythology of America as a nation founded by 'slave rebels' that welcomed slaves fleeing from the Old World. Of course, most Old World immigrants to America were not slaves in any literal sense, but the notion of departing from the Old World of privilege and finding freedom and equality in America that had no use for kings, princes, and noblemen was intoxicating. Thus, the idea of America as a sanctuary of the oppressed peoples of the world became part of the mythology.

As it happened, Anglo-Americans were a very talented and ambitious people, and they worked very hard to tame and develop the new territories and then invoked the will of history to grab the rest of the Western territories from American Indians and Mexicans. Thus, if one part of American psyche drew moral pride from its founding as a republic created by slave rebels who'd defeated the contemporary equivalent of the Roman Empire, another part of the psyche drew material pride from its rapid rise as a great power. For awhile, Anglo-Americans had the best of both worlds--noble victimhood and mighty victorhood--, and two mindsets went hand in hand, i.e. Americans never tired of invoking their victim-hood to justify and maximize their victor-hood. So, even though Americans were the real aggressors in the Mexican-American War, for most Americans it became a matter of 'Remember the Alamo', or noble Americans standing up to brutal Mexicans who'd massacred decent American folks. And Americans found victim-ish excuses to enter WWI. And Americans morally lucked out in WWII when Japan attacked Americans, thereby giving Americans the moral upperhand in waging war against the Axis Powers. Americans were so used to seeing themselves as a good people who use violence only against those who victimize Americans first that most Americans didn't think Americans should get involved in foreign wars; they didn't seem morally justified.
All throughout American history, Americans spun the Western narrative of 'savage red Indians' attacking helpless and decent white folks, thereby necessitating white folks to fight back--though American Indians were reacting to white encroachment on their territory. Of course, Jews do the same thing in the Middle East. They drive Palestinians crazy by taking more land in the Occupied Territories, but when Palestinians fight back, they(the Pallies)are said to be the aggressors, thereby justifying more Israeli violence and aggression. Americans entered the Spanish-American War the same way, especially thanks to the machinations of 'yellow journalism' that spread mostly false rumors of Spanish authorities mistreating American citizens in foreign territories. And consider how the Iraq War was hyped. Though Hussein's miserable regime was barely scraping by, the Bush administration, with the aid of the Jewish media(that wanted Hussein gone to for interests of Israel), had Americans believing that Hussein had stockpiles of WMD that might be used against Americans. And there is even more hysteria with the Iranians. Never mind Iran doesn't have a single nuke and has complied with all manner of nuclear inspections. According to neocons and their gentiles stooges in the GOP--but there are plenty of hysterical anti-Iranian voices in the Democratic Party as well--, you'd think Iran is hatching a whole bunch of nuclear bombs to drop on Israel and US. American elites are tempted to use their muscle around the world, but they want their actions to be justified by a 'victim' narrative. They wanna make us believe that we are acting IN RESPONSE to bullies and oppressors who hate us.

Anyway, Jews studied and came to understood how this moral/political psychology works among Americans, and they've been manipulating it to the hilt to maximize their own power. One part of the American psyche loves Jesus and the Pilgrims. We love Thanksgiving and movies like IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and FORREST GUMP(though I hate that movie). But, we also love Patton(and PATTON the movie) and football. As Patton(in the movie) said:
"Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, and will never lose a war... because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans." 

Americans love winners but want winners to be morally justified. And white-Americans, especially Anglo-Americans, had spun this narrative pretty effectively, justifying their violence and victory as a struggle against an oppressive king, red savages, fiendish Mexicans, nasty Spanish, neanderthal Huns, venomous 'Japs', and Godless communists.
In a way, the first real defeat of this narrative came with the fall of Joseph McCarthy. With the Cold War heating up, McCarthy sought to morally justify American power as the defender of freedom and liberty against the expanding communist empire. But due to his own excesses and the coordinated efforts of liberals, Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Jews, not only was he brought down but the entire fabric of white American victim-hood/victor-hood duality was in tatters. Though anti-communism would remain a potent force in American politics, the main lesson most Americans take from the 1950s is that the anti-communists were the oppressive bullies whereas the communist subversives, agitators, and radicals were the decent and helpless victims, the REAL victims-who-deserved-to-be-vindicated-as-righteous-victors.
Since many of the radicals were Jews, the idea was that conservative Anglo-America was evil, paranoid, and oppressive whereas Jewish power, even if radical and subversive, was noble, decent, and courageous. That McCarthy and anti-communism suffered a great blow whereas all the accused have been since hailed and sanctified as saints and martyrs signaled the passing of the torch of victim/victor duality from Anglo-Americans to Jewish-Americans. This is why Jews fixate on that period so much. It's not about ideology but tribal ownership of morality.

Jews, with their control of the media, also made an ever bigger issue of the Holocaust. Jews didn't merely memorialize the Holocaust as a terrible event of WWII but the culmination of the white gentiles' evil, sick, and irrational feelings towards Jews. Thus, even though Americans played a decisive role in the defeat of Axis powers, Americans too were tagged with the very sin that supposedly culminated in the Holocaust. So, if some Wasp country club didn't open its doors to Jews, that wasn't just social and ethnic snobbery but the sort of the thing that led to the creation of the gas chambers. So, even the most faintly anti-Jewish sentiment was part of the long tradition/history of white gentile evil that logically and inevitably led to the Holocaust.

Also, Jews jumped on the Civil Rights Movement and, blatantly and subliminally, tied the mass killing of Jews with the history of discrimination against blacks. This culminated in the PBS documentary LIBERATORS that essentially said that one bunch of holocaust survivors(of black slavery and racial discrimination at the hands of evil whites) saved another bunch of Holocaust  survivors(of genocide and mass murder at the hands of evil whites).  Not surprisingly, the documentary was a hoax, but those involved were never punished since they are Jews, and we all know that Jews are pretty much untouchable in American society. If someone like Rick Sanchez speaks the truth about Jewish power, his career is destroyed and he's blacklisted forever, but if a bunch of Jews make a fake documentary than slanders an entire people, they are allowed to keep working in the media to continue to brainwash us more in the future. The documentary even had the compulsive liar Elie Wiesel pontificating about something he couldn't have seen since the actual chronology of the said events couldn't have happened in the manner claimed in the documentary.

Thus, Jews and blacks lifted the victim narrative from white Americans. No longer was the main American mythology about noble white victims casting off the yoke of an oppressive king and the like. In the 60s, the revisionist Westerns also dispelled the notion of white victim-hood at the hands of red savages. Movies like SOLDIER BLUE and LITTLE BIG MAN cast Indians as noble and honorable victims and the white men as brutal murderers. LITTLE BIG MAN also alluded to the Vietnam War, thereby casting doubt to America's moral claim in the Cold War against communism. Directed by the Jewish Arthur Penn, it retold the story of the West as one of proto-Nazis wiping out a noble race of Cheyennes.

Thus, Jews and blacks(with the help of Jews) stole the moral victim trophy from white Americans.
But American duality doesn't merely go for the victim. After all, one can find 'victims' among Pueblo Indians, Hawaiians, Eskimos, and Chinese-Americans in American history, but no one cares about them. Why? They were simply losers and not much else. Americans like the narrative of the oppressor loser righteously taking on the oppressive winner and becoming the new winner with moral justification. The David-and-Goliath story. And in the loser's victory over the winner, it must be demonstrated that the loser had been WRONGFULLY oppressed, i.e. the loser was on the bottom because the winner cheated and didn't play fair. In the Old World--and to a lesser degree in America--, Jews had traditionally been discriminated against, and, so they had to struggle extra hard to make the climb. So, when Jews finally won with their higher intelligence and work ethic, they felt justified in having gained the upperhand over white power. So, Jews naturally summed up their triumph as a classic tale of idealistic meritocracy winning over stale privilege. Thus, if white power over Jews had been maintained unfairly and oppressively, Jewish rise and power over whites was supposedly gained justly, fairly, and deservedly. Thus, Jewish victory was both material and moral. And, this is one reason why so many Americans have become such pathetic ass-kissers of Jews. Americans worship the loser-as-new-winner.
Jews, a people who'd been oppressed even more than the American colonials--and were indeed even threatened with extinction in WWII--rose to such heights and amassed such wealth and power. It was like the ultimate case of victim/victor duality.

And there was a similar dynamic with blacks. At one time, blacks had been the lowest of the low in America. They'd been brought over to be slaves, and even after the end of slavery, they had to huck and shuck and act like Steppin Fetchit. They had to keep their heads low and be mindful not to be uppity. But, as it turned out, black-influenced music conquered the hearts, butts, and loins of white folks. From the Jazz Age to the Rap Age, white folks have been shaking their butts like they're African savages or something because 'black music' conquered their souls. Black music 'fuc*ed' white women before black men got to doing it in huge numbers.
Also, as Patton said, Americans love sports--the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, etc. The appeal of sports is the synthesis of primitivism and civilization, especially in football, a most iconic American sport. Athletes smash into one another like brutal beasts of the jungle, but the game is regulated by rules of fair play. So, there is the ideal of 'may the best man win'.  The white man could maintain his superiority over blacks with better technology, but there wasn't much individual manhood pride in that. After all, even an old lady armed with a shotgun can kill Mike Tyson. For a man to prove his true worth as a man-man, there was no better place than in the arena of bare-fisted competition. And in this field, the white man was no match for the black man with harder muscle, tougher bones, better coordination, and greater agility/flexibility/etc. White man vs a black man was like a warthog vs a leopard. Warthog can be tough, but its not a versatile fighter. In the video below, the leopard handles the warthog like Anderson Silva and Jon Jones, both UFC fighters, handle white fighters.


Try as he might, the white man couldn't stand up to the black man, and it was only a matter of time before the white man was pussified at the feet of the Negro. This is why blacks carry weight in America. In many ways, American Indians suffered the greatest tragedy in America, but most American Indians aren't much good at anything in modern society. They have a proud heritage, and there is much that is beautiful in their culture, but they are neither interesting intellectually, athletically, or creatively in the modern world. And though the media pay attention to rising Mexican numbers in America, there isn't much interest in them beyond their impact on future elections.
If blacks had experienced the history of slavery and discrimination but sucked at sports, music, and oratory, I highly doubt if they'd have a special place in American cultural-moral psyche. But just like the Jews, black bested the whites in certain key areas of victor-hood. Thus, the black narrative in America, like the Jewish one, is one of victims-prevailing-over-the-victors. Though the socio-economic condition of black America still remains deeply problematic, blacks have dominated and won in areas that Americans care most about: sports, music, style--and also sex, as American culture has become increasingly pornified. Consider some of the black icons of the 60s. There was MLK playing on 'white guilt' as he led a bunch of 'peacful' black marchers who were supposedly standing up for their rights in a racially oppressive America. But there was also Muhammad Ali and other black athletes whupping the white man's butt and proving to the world that the black man is the panther and the lump white man was just a punkass warthog. Also, the oratorical power of MLK emotionally blew away most Americans. Though he preached peace, he sounded like a vocal warrior/conqueror whose words could stampede all across America and frighten white 'racists' half to death.

And of course, gays too have scored big in the victim-victor duality game as they can also trot out the narrative of their closeted repression but also flaunt their creative talents in areas such as fashion, style, and the arts.
Americans don't really like losers or winners. They like the great-loser-risen-as-great-winner. It's like Christians love the idea of Jesus, the Man most badly and wrongfully beaten and defeated by the world but then risen to new heights as the Son of God. And this is why Obama, keenly understanding American psychology, concocted DREAMS FROM MY FATHER. Obama grew up privileged and well-pampered. He was showered with goodies all along the way by rich and powerful people. That isn't very compelling, and so he spun a narrative where he's made out to be some guy channeling the history of black victim-hood in both America and Africa. This is why Jews see eye to eye with Obama. They both understand the power of psychology--especially white sucker psychology or suckerology--, and they know how to push the buttons to make whitey do stupid things like kiss the Jew's ass and vote for Obama.

So, now we understand the nature of our psychology, and knowing this, we can work to deprogram the ways in which our minds have been toyed with by Jews. We need to understand that Jews didn't create this dual-psychology of victim-victor-ism. It had existed from the very beginning when colonials decided to challenge the authority of the English King. And it had been used cleverly and artfully by Anglo-Americans to expand their territory, wealth, and power all across the continent and then around the world and then justify it on the basis of Americans-being-for-the-underdog. (This is why Europeans came to hate America after WWII. They believed that Americans greedily stole their empire but instead of being honest about it--as European imperialists had been--, Americans justified Pax Americana as Americans fighting the good fight to ensure that the noble loser won over the wicked oppressor.)

Jews tweaked with American psychology so that Jewish-and-black-victim/victor-hood would trump Anglo-American victim-victor-hood. For much of American history, immigrants heard stories of noble white victims of the Old World starting a new life in the New World. They heard stories and watched movies of noble white folks fighting to defend their home from savage Indians. And since Southern history had long been dominated by Southern historians, the sense of victim-hood was less about black slavery and racial discrimination--if at all--and more about how decent Southerners had been victimized by the no good Yankees. As James Baldwin said of the American South, white folks there have long been under the spell of a duality. On the one hand, they are proud to be members of the most powerful and richest nation in the world, but on the other, they feel like a defeated and occupied people having to take orders from the dreaded race-traitor Yankees.
As long as Southern whites controlled their own history and dominated the historiography of the South, the issue of racial injustice tended to be muted, and even liberals in Hollywood were careful not to offend Southern sensibilities. But, things changed with movies like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. Furthermore, a new generation of dominant historians of the South turned out to be liberals, Jews, Marxists, and blacks, and they intensely focused on Southern white evils.

Since it's difficult to remold the structural nature of American moral psychology overnight, we need to attack the sources of Jewish power the same way it has attacked us. Just as Jews played a revisionist game with white American history, we need to revisit and revise everything in Jewish history and drag all the skeletons out of the closet. We must discuss Jewish violence, aggression, exploitation, subversion, slavery, collaboration with enemies(especially with Moors and Ottomans in the conquest of the West), communism, financial capitalism, and etc.  Just as Jews pulled the rug from underneath the feet of white American victim-victor-ism, we must demonstrate that Jews, far from being a helpless noble people, had always been a people filled with hatred, contempt, arrogance, and greed. Whenever Jews bring up something 'bad' that we did, we must bring up something bad they did. The time had come for us to stop apologizing or, at best, being defensive. No, we must counter every accusation with a counter-accusation, and the thousands of years of Jewish history is filled with all sorts of Jewish foulness. And we also demonstrate to the allies of Jews--such as blacks--that Jews played a significant role in the Brazilian slave trade, the biggest slave trade of all across the Atlantic Ocean.

And we must also argue that Jews didn't win fairly since Jews (1) have a natural advantage and (2) they've always used tribal networking to favor their kind.
If Jews are indeed naturally smarter than goyim, Jews can't be said to won fairly. If an adult beat up a child, did he win fairly? If a man beat up a woman, did he win fairly? Even if there were no special rules to favor the child or woman, the fact that the adult or man is naturally stronger made the match a total mismatch. So, if Jews are indeed smarter, then it means they had a natural ADVANTAGE over whites. It's be like a greyhound competing with a bulldog. If fairness is what counts, we must have 'affirmative action' for whites to make things fair for them against Jews.

Also, we all know that Jews, while always bitching about how others sought to exclude the Jews, have always used tribal networking to favor their own kind over others. Jews have practiced and perfected their own version of exclusion-ism that goes back longer than any other kind of exclusion-ism. Whites are novices when it comes to the game of working for one's own team.  Indeed, in most cases, white gentiles excluded Jews because Jews refused to become part of the larger community and assimilate. Jews demanded equal rights to be applied to them by the larger society, but they insisted on gaming their own system to favor their own kind over all others. Just look at Wall Street, Hollywood, and much else. Yes, many Jews did rise up the ladder due to real talent, but we also know that many got in because they were Jewish friends and pals of other Jews. If Wasps did that, it be front-page news in the New York Times, but when Jews do it, no one better say anything because you'll end up like Rick Sanchez. So, Jews get away with just about everything.
We need to talk about Jewish networking, Jewish tribalism, Jewish in-group dynamics. We should point to how much power Jews have gained as a result, and we should use that as the basis for white unity, white networking, and white in-groups coordination to maximize white power. If Jews with so much wealth and power continue to as they do, then we have every right to do likewise. When white Americans had been the dominant group in America, it made sense for them to set a good example for the rest of the country, and Jews insisted on white Americans living up to their principles. Whites did, and so Jews gained over whites... but what do Jews do now that they are the dominant group in America? Well, well, they practice nothing but tribal networking for their own power and supremacism. Then, we must do likewise henceforth and for all time, and our people must be mindful NEVER AGAIN to fall for the Jewish BS about principles. When Jews talk mention principles, it means 'principles for you and POWER for us'.

So, we need someone to blow the whistle, to make the first attack on Jewish power. And by 'someone', I don't just mean anyone. After all, there are plenty of fringe figures on the internet talking about Jewish power, but what they say have no traction since they don't have much power or name-recognition. No, for it to really stick, someone famous and prominent must do it. Of course, it will prove fatal to his career. But unless someone takes the first bullet, nothing can be done. (If there are few prominent people today willing to take the first bullet, then we need a whole bunch of people to subversively make the climb by playing along with PC. Once they reach a prominent position in their professions, they should come out of the closet and speak truth to Jewish power and take the first bullet.)

Imagine a scenario: A room with a bunch of people without guns faced with a man with a gun. The people are afraid to move towards the guy with the gun for obvious reasons. Suppose the guy with the gun says he'll shoot if anyone who comes closer. If all the guys rushed the gun guy, they could overpower him. But for sure, someone--even several people--will get shot and/or killed in the process. They know they can overpower him, but no one wants to die. Most are willing to rush the gun guy, but no one wants to be the first guy who will take the bullet. But if a guy with courage rushes the gun guy and takes the first bullet, others may follow behind him and overpower the gun guy and beat him to death. (It's like in the movie UNITED 93. The passengers are willing to make the move against the terrorists, but no one wants to make the FIRST move.) The difficult question remains... who will be the first guy to take the bullet? The first hurdle is the most difficult.
Indeed, this has been the case all throughout history.Why have so many tyrants ruled for so long even though the great majority of the people hated them? Because everyone fears to be the first one to take the bullet.
Also and perhaps even more important, even if some guy is willing to take the bullet in the above-mentioned scenario, he may not be sure that others will follow through on his sacrificial action. Suppose he rushes the gun-guy and is shot but then others remain immobile and afraid? His courage and sacrifice would have been in vain.

If a prominent person challenged/countered Jewish power, it would be like taking the first bullet. Jews will surely destroy him and drag him through the mud. But suppose right behind him, another prominent person comes at Jews, followed by another and then another and then another. Suppose the whole dam breaks and a whole bunch of people rush the Jews. And suppose there are soon massive marches against Jewish power and its abuses. For that to happen, we need to prepare white people with a new mindset. Before the courageous can act, we need to spread a new revolutionary consciousness among all white people. We must use all venues and means. We must use the internet, church organizations, pamphlets, college campus agitation, and etc. And we must keep up the momentum. And we must shame the conservatives who keep sucking up to Jews. Many conservatives fear to do this because neocon Jews will withdraw their support of the GOP, but the freaking GOP is finished. It's dead already. We need to say goodbye to party politics and hello to racial politics. Principles are dead, and the only game left is the game of power.

We must create the conditions whereby a prominent person who takes the bullet doesn't do so in vain. Instead, he or she'll have unleashed a tidal wave of fury that rushes at Jewish power like a tsunami. We need to focus on Jewish power because it is the controlling mind mechanism behind all 'progressive' and anti-white forces in America. If all Polish-American leftists were to vanish, it wouldn't make much difference. If all Asian-American leftists were to vanish, it wouldn't make much difference. If all Swedish-American leftists were to vanish, it wouldn't make much difference. But if all Jewish-American leftists were to vanish, there would be huge hole in the brainpower and purse-power of anti-white-ism.
It is Jews who control the media and have embedded tropes and memes like 'angry white male', 'hate speech', and 'antisemitism' into the national discourse. Why are white guys 'angry' only on the right? Surely, there are angry white guys who vote Democratic. Why is 'hate' only a rightist sentiment when leftists are filled with their own brand of hate? Are Jews filled with love for Palestinians and white conservative Christians? And why should there be a special word for anti-Jewish feelings. (And if Jews say 'antisemitism' has been a special kind of hatred, why should it be surprising for a people who claim to be so special? If Jews are indeed so special, then surely both love and hatred of them must be very special too.)
White patriots must pool their resources to create at least one serious mainstream media venue. We just need ONE mainstream outlet for as long as there is one, any number of people can watch it and learn the truth. We need a total change in the moral paradigm. And instead of being defensive and/or begging the enemy--the Jews--to be nice to us, we should fight fire with fire. If Jews refer to white conservatives as 'angry white guy', we need to call Jews 'greedy globalist Jews'. If Jews speak of white 'hate', we must fire back about Jewish hatred as white slavers, communists, Zionists, subversives, pornographers, and financial capitalists. And we need to come up with a term like 'antisemitism' so that any criticism or attack of white people will be denounced by invoking that magic word.

And then, white people's morale will improve, and they'll be willing to take the first bullet since it won't be in vain. Today, if someone says something about Jews, Jews gang up on him and flay him alive while even the person's closest allies run and hide or even side with the Jews in hounding and destroying him. This form of professional lynching isn't done only by liberal Jews but by neocon Jews. When neocon Jews piled on Joseph Sobran, almost no conservative came to his defense. And when neocons piled on Pat Buchanan, George Will joined along.  Under normal circumstances, criticism can be constructive and useful, but we need to understand that Jews don't criticize to open up debate but to utterly destroy and purge certain voices.

In some ways, neocons have been more effective at this than liberal Jews in destroying American conservatism. If there were no neocons on the American Right, conservatives might have been more willing to stick together against liberal Jewish assault. But once neocons came to the GOP and promised all sorts of rewards and prizes for the Right if only it would purge all the 'racists', isolationists, 'homophobes', anti-Semites, border patriots, social conservatives, and etc., many prominent conservatives took the bait. Buckley likely would have stood by Sobran and Buchanan had there been no neocons schmoozing him. But Buckley thought, "If I get rid of guys like Sobran, I'll win over the smart, rich, and talented Jews, and that will secure American conservatism for the future."  So, how did that work out?

One thing that goyim must know that Jews cannot be happy with American conservatism. Why? Because arrogant and power-hungry Jews don't wanna deal with courageous and intelligent gentile conservatives with integrity. Such people might challenge Jewish, Zionist, or Neocon agendas. So, Jews prefer pushovers like Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. But moronic puppets mess things up, and the GOP, filled with neocon toyboys, really messed things up. Also, even though Jews want easy puppets to toy with, a party of dumb puppets is pretty pathetic, and this turns off Jews who don't wanna be associated with dummies. So, American conservatism played dumb to suck up to Jews, but the sheer dumbness came to turn off even the Jews who insisted on such dumb sheepishness. Are there still men like James Baker in the GOP? I doubt it.

Is There a Hollywood Blacklist Against Conservatives in Hollywood? Yes and No. (John Milius and Red Dawn).

John Milius, the famed and even beloved screenwriter of films such as APOCALYPSE NOW and GERONIMO and the director of movies such as DILLINGER and CONAN THE BARBARIAN(starring Arnold Schwarzenegger), says in the interview above that conservatives are blacklisted in Hollywood. He also says the he didn't get to direct many more movies because of his anti-communist film RED DAWN. The documentary, made by some dorky liberal, predictably dredges up the so-called 'McCarthy Era' and dishes out the standard narrative of what an evil period it had been. And then it features a phony sell-out 'conservative'--working as a casting consultant--who refers to anti-communism of the 1950s as 'disgusting' and says there is no blacklisting of conservatives happening in Hollywood.  So, who is right? Milius or the so-called 'conservative' casting consultant?

I'm no expert of Hollywood but I've known a couple of individuals--liberal leaning Zionists--from college who've worked as screenwriters, and they've confirmed the overwhelmingly liberal and 'progressive' climate of the movie community, both Hollywood and independent filmmaking. So, a disgruntled conservative will be tempted to jump to conclusions and blame the state of affairs on liberal 'blacklisting' of conservatives. But, reality is rarely that simple.

For starters, there is no McCarthyite style of blacklisting in Hollywood, i.e. there is no official or overt political pressure on Hollywood to be root out or purge individuals for their political or ideological leanings. Indeed, that was precisely the problem of anti-communist pressures on Hollywood. It came from the government. The issue of blacklisting would have been much less controversial had Hollywood made its own decision to fire writers and directors known for their pro-communist sympathies. Leftists and progressives still would have fumed over the policy, but it would have seemed less ominous than a policy dictated by political pressure. Just as most Americans uphold the notion of separation of Church and State, they don't like the idea of the state prying into the cultural affairs of private industries. It's one thing for an artist or movie company to decide what to do or not, but the state should have no say in the matter. The problem with the 1950s blacklisting was that the pressure originated from politicians. (A variance of the McCarthyite pressure in the 50s was the 'family values' crusade in the 90s where conservatives attacked Hollywood for corrupting American values with degrading movies, music, and TV shows, but conservatives in the 90s had nothing like the power the'd once wielded in the 1950s, not least because the moral values of the nation had changed so drasticaly since then. In the 50s, conservatives could rely on knee-jerk reaction against 'cultural pollution' from many Americans--even Democrats and liberals--, but following the social revolution of the 60s, even conservatives didn't want to come across as 'square' and 'lame', which is why Murphy Brown beat Dan Quayle in the national debate.)

But the historical issue of blacklisting cannot be understood simply as a matter of politics vs private industry . After all, if liberals and 'progressives' really believe in freedom of speech and protection of civil liberties from government intrusion, why are they so eager to push for government-mandated-and-enforced 'hate speech' laws that will give the government the power to determine what we can and can't say?  And if liberals really believe in the complete separation of Church and State, why do argue for banning the death penalty, welfare, amnesty for illegal aliens, and even 'gay marriage' on the basis of "What would Jesus do?"--according to silly liberals, if Jesus were alive today, He would be for 'socialized medicine', 'illegal immigration', and 'gay marriage'!  And why have liberals elevated mortals like MLK and Obama to god-like status? And why do liberals call for the public shaming and even firing of anyone who dares to criticize the MLK, the man and the legacy?

Now, consider the following scenario. Suppose Nazi Germany had defeated the USSR and the ensuing Cold War had been between US and Nazi Germany. Furthermore, suppose Hollywood moguls had been mostly right-wing German Americans. Suppose during WWII, the American president was a hardline right-winger who'd allied America with the Nazis against the Soviets. Suppose many pro-Nazi German-American agents had infiltrated the American government. Suppose most of the men who worked on the American atomic weapon project were right-wing German-Americans. Suppose a network of German-Americans slipped atomic secrets to Hitler.
Suppose following the end of WWII, the alliance between US and Nazi Germany falls apart. They now see each other as enemies. Suppose Democrats call for investigation of Nazi espionage in the US. Suppose it just so happens that much of American culture is controlled by German-Americans with a degree of sympathy for Nazi Germany. Suppose HUAC is a liberal or leftist committee whose agenda is to root out anti-American pro-Nazi activities in the corridors of American power. Suppose pro-Nazi forces in China comes to power in 1949, and there is a grand fascist alliance from Europe across Russia to China. Suppose Hollywood has many Nazi-sympathizing writers who devote their talents to spreading racialist and 'antisemitic' ideas, images, and views.
Suppose a Democratic liberal Senator comes along and declares that American government and life to be infiltrated with pro-German and pro-fascist elements. Suppose he uses his weight to spread 'hysteria' and pressures Hollywood, universities, and other institutions to purge the pro-Nazi, 'racist', and fascist elements. As a result, suppose many people with Nazi sympathies--or associated with people who harbor them--are blacklisted from many positions in arts, culture, government, media, and etc.
Would liberals and progressives have been outraged or disgusted by this hypothetical liberal McCarthy as a 'paranoid demagogue' or would they have hailed him as a hero and savior of freedom, liberty, democracy, and the American way?
Now, liberals may argue that Nazism was worse than communism--and given Hitler's insane invasion of Russia, I would have to agree--and therefore a blacklist against Nazi sympathizers and fascists would have been far more justifiable had the Cold War been between US and Nazi Germany, but that is matter of opinion. Based on the mountain of corpses it piled up, communism was, at the very least, the other great evil of the 20th century.

Though there is no way of determining how liberals--especially liberal Jews--would have reacted had the Cold War been between US and Nazi Germany and had McCarthy been a liberal anti-Nazi Democrat(as opposed to a conservative anti-communist Republican that he was), but given the preponderance of liberal hypocrisy in just about everything over the years, I'm almost certain that most liberals(and especially liberal Jews) would today hail the hypothetical liberal anti-Nazi McCarthy as a great man who led a noble crusade against Nazi sympathizers and fascists who, had they not been stopped in their tracks, would almost certainly have turned America into a tyranny.
Not long ago, Philip Roth wrote a novel called PLOT AGAINST AMERICA, a sort of what-if history where the Nazi-sympathizing Charles Lindbergh becomes president and persecutes the Jewish-American community in the 1930s/1940s. As far as Roth is concerned, freedom survived in America because a man like FDR held power during those tough times. Had it not been for FDR and Democrats, who knows what would have happened to civil liberties in America? Yet, Roth's view is Judeo-centric for he seems to be utterly blind to the fact that it was FDR who racially targeted over 100,000 Japanese-Americans, stripped them of their property, and herded them into 'internment camps'. Wasn't that a massive violation of civil liberties? Wasn't that a form of 'fascism'--as long as we are using 'fascist' to mean 'arbitrary use of power to oppress people, especially minorities'?
Yes, but it happened to the 'Japs' in the war against 'evil fascism', and so, that seemed to have been okay as far as the likes of Roth is concerned. Roth is more alarmed by a 'what if' that might have happened to Jews had Lindbergh won the presidency than by 'what was' that actually did happen under a liberal Democratic president who had great support from the Jewish community.
FDR is simply to be praised as a great hero and forgiven whatever his trespasses because he fought the biggest foe of the Jews: the Nazis. So, Roth's view--like those of most other Jews--has almost nothing to do with principles. It's really about tribal interests.
This is what most people don't understand about the Jewish hysteria about the 'dark days' of anti-communism in the 1950s. The real reason for the gripe among Jews is not that there was a blacklist but their own kind got blacklisted. Never mind that leftist Jews were blacklisted for their leftism and never for the fact of their Jewishness--unlike Japanese-Americans whose entire community was collectively condemned and punished regardless of the ideological leanings of individual Japanese-Americans. The only thing that matters to Jews is that "People who happen to be Jewish were hounded by McCarthy." Never mind that many of these Jews were aiding and abetting--through espionage, media, Hollywood movies, and etc--the agenda of Stalin the mass-killer of millions of people, mostly Slavic Christians. The only thing Jews obsess about is 'The anti-communists came after us Jews'.
Never mind that HUAC and McCarthy, though deeply suspicious of the Jewish community, were always careful to target only pro-communist Jews and spare patriotic Jews. If anything, they were eager to recruit patriotic Jews to the side of anti-communism. But, a people as tribal and ethnocentric as the Jews simply could only see it in simple terms of 'us versus them'.  Jews, an immensely egotistical and arrogant people, could never admit their side did anything to provoke suspicion and distrust in the goy community.
While it's true that many American conservatives in the 40s and 50s did suspect the Jewish community of being anti-American and pro-communist, this was the result of widespread radicalism and the politics of subversion in the Jewish community. American conservatives didn't just wake up one day and decide to go after Jews for the hell of it. Whatever prejudices they may have harbored toward Jews, most American conservatives wanted Jews to be good Americans and on their side. It was the Jewish community itself that doggedly clung to radical views and to the agenda of subverting American politics and culture.
American conservatives didn't initiate the cultural and political war on the overwhelmingly left-leaning Jewish community but only responded to the subversion of the Jews. But, most Jews are too arrogant to admit that they could ever have done anything wrong; they are too ethnocentric and egocentric to come to grips with the fact that Jews have often done hostile things and provoked the ire of the gentile community. As far as most Jews are concerned, Jews are always right, even when they do wrong, and so, it's always the fault of those who dare to 'target' Jews--even if they are only responding to the nasty targeting against them by Jews. So, if a Jew spits in your face and kicks you in the leg and if you spit and kick him back, YOU are entirely at fault. As Jews control the narrative, all we are likely to hear is "innocent Jew was spat on and kicked by an evil 'anti-Semite'." There will be no mention of the fact that the 'anti-Semite' was spat on and kicked first by the Jews.

All of Jewish history is remembered and told this way by Jews. We are to believe that Jews were always innocent and never did any wrong but gentiles of all cultures--going back to the Egyptians--just decided to be irrationally nasty and oppressive toward angelic Jews. (It is indeed an odd phenomenon where a totally innocent, angelic, and faultless people go from one gentile community to another and become the object of hostility over and over for thousands of years. The oft-repeated pattern would suggest that Jews must be doing something wrong to keep drawing the ire of so many different kinds of peoples over thousands of years and across thousands of miles, but that would be 'irrational antisemitic' thinking. According to Jewish moral logic, if a Jewish a**hole went from nation to nation and spat on people and got beat up over and over by angry gentiles, the problem was never with the Jew's hostile attitude toward gentiles but the gentiles' angry response to the Jew. Perhaps, Jewish moral narcissism served as a kind of over-compensation for their lack of physical narcissism. Unable to show off or feel pride in their looks, Jewish pride came to rest on out-witting and out-moralizing everyone else. It never occurred to Jews that outwitting people--often by cheating them in business--would naturally make gentiles hate Jews. And even in cases where Jews did not blatantly cheat the gentiles, the Jewish ability to outwit the gentiles in business and power was bound to lead to resentment, and this should come as no surprise to Jews since poor Jewish immigrants had been filled with resentment against the richer American wasps--even in the nation that American wasps founded--and since Jewish elites today fan the flames of black and Hispanic hatred against whites simply on the basis that whites have more, even if whites have more due to higher qualifications and better work ethic. If black and brown resentment toward whites is justified--liberal Jews certainly seem to think so--, then gentile resentment toward richer Jews over the centuries--even if Jewish wealth was earned legally and fairly--should also be understandable. But of course, sneaky Jews say feeling envious about rich/successful Jews is just nasty resentment, but feeling envious about white gentile wealth--on the part of blacks and browns--is only about 'social justice'. So, if blacks and browns said, 'whitey has too much, and we want a slice of the pie', Jews encourage them. But if blacks and browns were to say, 'Jews have too much, and we want a slice of the pie', that is unpardonable 'antisemitism'. Though Jews are richer than whites, Jews forbid any discussion of Jewish power & wealth and instead direct the resentment of blacks and browns at 'whites who have too much'. When blacks and browns think of 'whites', they image that pops into their head is some white conservative Republican, not a liberal Jew who is richer than white conservative Republicans. Thus, rich liberal Jews, by posing as champions of equality, keep their own power and wealth while directing the resentment of blacks and browns at white gentiles. All white gentiles, conservative and liberal, should wake up to the dirty trick being played by the Jew, but white conservatives are too pro-Zionist to realize the true nature of Jewish power and white liberals are too brainwashed with culturally divisive trivial moral issues like 'gay marriage'--pushed by the Jewish-controlled media--to wake up to the fact that Jews are messing with their minds to maximize Jewish power and undermine white power. Anyway, when we survey the history of Jewish-gentile relations, on the occasion that violence erupted against Jews,  Jews were generally too wrapped up with moral narcissism--stemming from the Torah that declared them to be God's 'Chosen People'--to realize that their immoral actions may have instigated the goy hatred against them. Since Jews felt morally superior by the virtue of being the 'Chosen', they had this attitude that they were 'more equal than others'. If Jews had been purely tribalist and believed that their God favored them while other gods favored other peoples, they might not have been so morally neurotic and hypocritical. As it happened, Jews adopted two attitudes that were morally incompatible; Jews believed that their God was the only God and the God of all peoples--and therefore all peoples, Jews and gentiles, were the children of God--, but they also believed that there was a special Covenant between God and the Jews, and this made Jews better than other peoples. Thus, Jews developed a dual personality when it came to dealing with gentiles, an attitude that rested on both equal/universal values and supremacist/tribal arrogance. So, Jews would travel all over the world and deal with all sorts of people--as all were the children of God--, but they would seek to gain power over gentiles through all sorts of devious means. Though most peoples/cultures, just like the Jews, sought greater power and wealth for themselves at the expense of other groups all throughout history, they tended to be more nakedly honest in their aggression and ambition. They made little or no pretense as to what they sought and were doing. It was a simple affair of might-is-right and our side versus your side. In contrast, Jews made great moral claims about themselves, telling other peoples that there was only one God and that all people were the children of God, and so Jews simply wanted to live in peace with the rest of humanity. But the notion of Jews as the Chosen People served as a license to lie, cheat, and steal. Therefore, what especially angered gentiles over thousands of years was not so much Jewish greed or aggression but Jewish deception and hypocrisy, and the worst kind of hypocrisy is moral hypocrisy. Even today, if Jews were at least nakedly honest about their greed and power-lust, they would be hated less by people who know the truth of Jewish power. What really pisses us off is how Jews use disingenuous moral arguments to justify every single one of their foul and cretinous deeds. In a way, the story of Jesus can be seen as an attempt to resolve this conflict in Judaism. Jesus was born a Jew and had a very Jewishy personality and outlook. He was a supremely arrogant individual. Indeed He went one better by claiming that He was not only of the Chosen People but the very Chosen One--the Messiah--Himself. He was The Chosen Person among the Chosen People--and you can't get any more Chosen than that. At any rate, one thing that Jesus noticed was the discrepancy between Jewish conceits/attitudes/assumptions and Jewish behavior/actions/deeds. Jews claimed to be the Chosen People of the true God, a people more blessed than any other, yet so many Jews were craven money changers in the Temple, liars and cheats, and/or two-faced snakes. Jesus would have noticed that Jews bitched and whined about their tragedy as the holy and innocent perfect people always set upon by nasty goyim but, in fact, many Jews were vile and greedy and, more often than not, provoked anti-Jewish hostility among the goyim. Goyim were hardly innocent but neither were the Jews. Though Christians like to believe that Jesus's exemplary life and message were for all mankind, His actual goal may have been to set an example for Jews. After all, it was the Jews who claimed there was only one God and that they were the Chosen People. It was the Jews who claimed that whenever they got into conflict with another people, the gentiles were usually to blame while Jews themselves were innocent. But Jesus looked all around and would have noticed that many Jews are simply no good and, in some cases, even worse than the goyim. Jews make a huge moral/spiritual claim for themselves but too often act like pigs. So, it could have been that Jesus decided to live the kind of life that could indeed be called 'perfect' to show how a real Jew should live. He would abstain from worldly power, greed, lust, trickery, and deviousness. He would always be the good Man and die as a good Man. Indeed, the one time He got really angry was against Jews who were changing money in the Temple. Though Jesus saw plenty of non-Jews acting terribly, He understood that non-Jews didn't make the claim of being members of the Chosen People of the one and only God. Jews made that claim, and so it was their responsibility to live up to the claim, but the fact was that Jews rarely did. And this is what angered Jesus and drove Him to such rage against money-changing Jews inside the Temple. Since most Jews failed to live up the standards of the Chosen People, Jesus decided to take it upon Himself to be the perfect Jew and serve as an example for other Jews to follow, and indeed the original Disciples mostly tried to 'convert' fellow Jews to the Jesusian Way. Proto-Christianity was initially meant to inspire the Chosen People to live up to their moral and spiritual claims of being the Chosen People. The message was for Jews to be better Jews than for non-Jews to accept Jesus as the Son of God. Though Jesus did feel love for all of mankind, He believed the Jews to be a special people, indeed the Chosen People. And as His moral and spiritual message was highly demanding, He almost certainly thought only a great people could take it to heart, and that great people would have been the Jews since Jews were the Chosen People. It would have been unlikely for Jesus to have believed that goyim could rise to great spiritual heights as the goyim were not Chosen, and so, Jesus mostly preached to fellow Jews and hung His hopes on them. He saw the Jews as the Elect, but the problem was too many Jews were abusing their Chosenness for personal greed and self-gain than to serve as moral exemplars for the rest of humanity. It's like some liberals have this idea that Ivy League universities, as elite institutions, must train superior people who will then use their talents and skills for the good of all humanity. Genuinely idealistic liberals are upset by the fact that so many graduates of top universities talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Idealistic liberals don't preach to the masses since they see the masses as too dumb to understand much of anything. And so, they preach to the most intelligent members of society, the special Elect, who are admitted to elite universities. The hope is for the best and the brightest to go out into the world and lead the flock of dummies to greener pastures. Similarly, though Jesus did care for all humanity, He thought only the special people, the Chosen Jews, could properly lead mankind toward spiritual salvation, but it just so happened that too many Jews were using their cunning and skills to enrich themselves. It was only by the accident of history that Jesus's message that had originally been meant for the Jews came to serve as the basis for a Faith for all mankind. Jesus's intention had been to redeem humanity indirectly, i.e. He would redeem the Chosen People, and then the new-and-improved Chosen People would redeem humanity. Just as Karl Marx didn't want to deal directly with the Proletariat but train a new class of intellectuals who would eventually lead the working class, Jesus didn't want to spent too much time with goyim. He wanted to train the Jews to be better Jews so that Jews would serve as better leaders of humanity. What really upset Jesus was that Jews had so much talent and spirituality but used them more for greed and power-lust than for good and justice. There is a kind of replay of this dynamic in the modern world in the figure of Norman Finkelstein.  I suspect that the historical Jesus may have had a personality like that of Finkelstein, a Jew highly critical of the Jewish community. Since the end of WWII, Jews have fashioned a new kind of 'chosen-ness' for themselves. Holocaust is the new religion of the Jews, and it says that History has chosen the Jews to be the holy and perfect victim-people. While all peoples have their history of victim-hood, Jews were especially 'chosen' to suffer and know the depths of suffering. Thus, Jews are especially wise, deep, and moral. I suspect when Sotomayor called herself a 'wise Latina', she was channeling Jewish sensibility as she spent a lot of time with them at Yale. According to traditional Judaism, all peoples are the children of God, but Jews are the special Chosen people of God. According to the new Jewishism of the Holo-Cult, all peoples have been victimized by history but Jews have been especially 'chosen' and singled out for suffering, and so, Jews are filled with infinite understanding of human suffering. Nobody knows the trouble they seen, nobody knows like Jews. So, Jews are very very wise, indeed nearly perfect, and it's very very wrong for anyone, especially white gentiles, to ever question the power or agenda of the very wise, noble, and perfect Jews. Then Finkelstein came along, and just as Jesus noticed the huge discrepancy between Jewish claims and Jewish deeds, Finkelstein noticed the huge divide between modern Jewish claims and Jewish actions. Just as ancient Jews used God as cover for all their foul deeds, modern Jews invoke the holy Holocaust at every turn to make themselves blameless, noble, wise, and perfect at every turn. So, venal Jews like Abe Foxman use the Holocaust to enrich himself and his friends. Jews invoke the Holocaust to use American foreign policy to drop bombs on the Middle East. Jews make themselves out to be so noble but using all sorts of nefarious means to get richer and richer while the rest of don't do so well. And Jews exploit the Holocaust to carry out ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. Most Jews are blind--or willfully blind--to their hypocrisy as they're filled to their gills with arrogance and high self-regard, but Finkelstein won't have any of it. It's not that Finkelstein is a humble and gentle man who wants Jews to be like everyone else. If anything, he's one of the morally arrogant man that ever lived. The difference is that while most Jews are blissfully oblivious to their own moral hypocrisy and two-faced deviousness, Finkelstein tries to force the Jewish community to live up to all of its claims. And it is in this regard that Finkelstein is like Jesus. Jesus too was a supremely morally and spiritually arrogant man, but He felt a need to validate the lofty moral image of Himself by committing Himself to a truly moral life. Thus, even though both Jesus and Finkelstein have angered the Jewish community, they are not self-loathing Jews but Jews who abhor the hypocrisy of the Jewish community. In a way, one could say Finkelstein is more proudly Jewish than most Jews for he takes his Jewishness seriously. For him, Jewish morality--especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust--is not just something to exploit to gain more money and power but something for all Jews to live by. Ironically, just as Jesus who'd sought to redeem the Jews became the instrument of those who hated Jews, Finkelstein has been adopted by some anti-Jewish elements. Paradoxically, Finkelstein is harder on the Jewish community precisely because he believes in the superiority of the Jews. It's like a teacher is harder on the smart kid in class than on the dumb kid. The teacher will be content with a dumb kid getting a C but will be angry with a very smart student who got a B when he should have gotten an A. It's like the episode in FACTS OF LIFE where a teacher is a lot tougher on Jo than on Blair precisely because he sees so much potential in the former.)


Jews remember the history of communism the way they remember the rest of human history: they were entirely innocent of all its crime and were its main victims.  Though many Jews played a key role in the establishment of totalitarian communism in the USSR and in the mass-killing of countless gentiles, the only thing Jews care to remember about communism was how 'evil antisemitic goy Stalin especially purged Jews'--though, in fact, Jews were among the least victimized groups by Stalin and among those who worked most closely with Stalin to victimize other groups. Jews only see and remember their own victim-hood while being callously blind to the suffering they caused to others. In this, they are rather like the ghosts in SIXTH SENSE: they see only what they want to see. Also, even though only a moral pervert would make excuses for Hitler and the Holocaust, antisemitism of the post-WWI period wasn't always 'irrational' and 'paranoid'. Many European Jews were indeed involved in murderous radical movements on the Left, moral & cultural subversion and decadence(especially as a weapon to soften and weaken gentile defenses against Jewish transgression and power), and/or involved with parasitic financial capitalism(which wasn't much different from what Jews today with Wall Street and the global economy for their own tribal interests). When it comes to the history of Israel-Palestine relations, most Jews only see themselves as victims, and even some liberal Jews who (mildly)criticize the ongoing occupation of West Bank believe the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians back in 1948 was totally justified. Though European Jews used brutality and violence--with the full backing of two superpowers--to drive Palestinians from their ancestral land, Jews only see Palestinian hatred for Jews but conveniently ignore Jewish contempt for Palestinians that made Palestinians hate Jews in the first place. Jewish-controlled media focus on Palestinian violence against Jews but ignore the fact that Palestinian violence is a reaction to Jewish oppression. According to the Jewish-controlled US media, Palestinian violence is terrorism pure and simple, but Zionist violence is always a 'justified' as a defensive/preventive measure against Palestinian violence. So, Jewish violence is always politically, historically, and morally contextualized but Palestinian violence is just seen as having come out of the blue, animated by nothing more than the evil of 'antisemitism' that supposedly went from the soul of Europe to the soul of the Muslims--like the Devil in THE EXORCIST goes from one part of the world to another. (And though Big Israel is crushing small Palestinian territory, the Jewish-controlled media have created this false bogeyman called the 'Muslim World', and so, we are to assume that Palestinians are merely the vanguard of the vast Muslim World's war against Israel when, in fact, most Muslim/Arab nations don't care about Palestinians and have done nothing to help them. So, even though the Big Jew beats upon the little palestinian, Americans have been given this mental image of the Big Muslim World--with Palestinians as its shock troops--waging a non-stop war on tiny wittle Israel.)
 So, why should Jewish remembrance of the post-WWII period be any different. Jews simply ignore their role in communism, radicalism, subversion, and espionage, and instead, ONLY focus on the 'paranoid' and 'hysterical' way American conservatives reacted to Jewish actions. We are all constantly told that all those communist and communist-sympathizing Jews were 'innocent' in the 40s and 50s but innocent of what? Many since have been exposed as having had genuine communist ties and sympathies. But, according to the Jewish narrative, they were 'innocent' for the simple fact that they refused to comply with HUAC.  If the main Jewish narrative had been "McCarthyism falsely accused innocent people and destroyed their lives"--for the longest time, many Jews even denied Rosenberg's role in atomic espionage--, this narrative became less and less tenable as the facts began to come out in the 90s with the opening of the Soviet archives. It turned out that communist espionage in the US in the 40s, especially under FDR, had been far more extensive than anyone had imagined before. And it turned out that so many Jews who insisted that they'd been railroaded were in fact members and/or agents of radical organizations. So, was there finally a mea culpa from the Jewish community? Fat chance. Anyone who knows anything about Jews know that they are incapable of ever admitting wrong, especially to goyim that they hold in contempt. No, the new narrative was simply that, "yes, many Jews in the 40s and 50s did have communist sympathies and even served as Soviet agents, BUT they were really well-meaning individuals and just happened to be misguided in their naive enthusiasm of saving the world."  So, there you have it. Even the most unrepentant communist Jew was only trying to do a great favor for all of mankind, albeit in a 'misguided' way. You see, they were so full of love of mankind that they got a bit carried away... like making apologies of a man who only killed around 20 million people.
Though Martin Peretz is never to be trusted, he's been one of the Jews to come clean about the liberal mendacity about communism. (He isn't to be trusted because his hatred of communism probably has less to do with all its victims than the fact that communist nations eventually became hostile to Jews.) And when it no longer became possible to defend the communist record of totalitarianism, mass killing, system of gulag, and aggression, many liberals and 'progressives' sought to redeem the legacy of communism by associating communists with noble causes in the West. For example, communists have been praised for supporting the Civil Rights Movement--of course, it escapes the minds of silly liberals that communists supported all such movements to destabilize America and pave the way for communist revolution than out of any genuine love for the Negroes--, but this is really virtue-by-association. Everything that blacks demanded for themselves in a free America would not have been granted to them in a communist society where blacks would have had about as much freedom as Tibetans under Mao or Ukrainians under Stalin. For American communists, the Civil Rights movement was just a ramrod to attack American capitalism with. If we use the logic of virtue-by-association, the world should be hailing Jesse Helms as a freedom lover since he was one of the biggest champions of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and refuseniks in the USSR. Using the logic of virtue-by-association, Helms' Segregationism must be have noble because of his political record of having stood for greater liberty in the USSR. And since Americans love Israel so dearly, they should all have hailed South Africa under apartheid since South Africa, indeed even more than the US, was the closest and best ally Israel ever had. (Conservatives who think they are going to win favor from powerful Jews just by supporting Israel and Zionism should take a close look at the fate of whites in South Africa. They went all the way in praising and supporting Israel, but Jewish America--the center of Jewish power in the world--still targeted South Africa under white rule for destruction. If whites in South Africa treat blacks like Jews treat Palestinians, they are evil and to be condemned. But if Jews in the Middle East treat Palestinians like white South Africans once treated blacks, they are to be rewarded with billions in aid every year, visits by American presidents who promise yet more support, and be permitted to build and store 300 illegal nuclear weapons. Again, it's the same pattern. Jews can never do wrong, and even when they do wrong, they are right. Whatever happens between Jews and non-Jews, Jews are right and non-Jews are wrong. Jews today have the God complex. They are a perfect people, and no matter what happens, they are never to be blamed. Even when they do wrong to us, they are innocent, and if we get angry at them, WE are guilty of harboring 'antisemitic' feelings. Kneel before all-perfect Jew-hovah. For a good illustration of this, consider Jews and Sarah Palin. Most Jews have expressed their rabid and virulent hostility, contempt, and hatred for Palin, and yet, Palin is one of the biggest ass-kissers of the Jews and is willing to bomb the Arab world back to the stone age for the security of Israel despite the fact that Israel is by far The superpower in the region and the biggest bully in the Middle East.) Saying that communists were good people because they backed the Civil Rights movement is like saying American neo-Nazis are a bunch of wonderful pacifists because they opposed the Iraq Invasion. What usually passes under the rubric of virtue-by-association is nothing but pure political calculation. When it suited their purposes, communists often sided with 'reactionaries' and 'fascists'.  Stalin cut a deal with Hitler. When the Soviet Union and Red China split apart, the Soviets even favored right-wing Asian nations against communist China, and Mao even met with arch-communist Nixon to forge an alliance against communist Russia. American communists didn't want blacks to be more free. They wanted blacks to shake the foundations of the American capitalist-democratic system so that America will one day be amenable to communist takeover, whereupon everyone would have to like prisoners in a vast prison system. Indeed, what is the most equal place in the world? Inside a prison where everyone, whether rich or poor, must wear the same clothes, do the same kind of work, and eat the same food. While equality of basic freedom is essential to democracy, equality of means and outcome is the radical tyranny of mediocrity. Naturally, everyone wants to be the best at what he does--whether it's sports, scholarship, criticism, science, art, and etc--, and competition creates divisions between the best, the middling, and the worst. Muhammad Ali wanted to be 'the greatest', not the mediocrest. It's all the more bemusing when so many liberals who claim to be for equality tend to be the competitive in the world, most committed to bettering and outdoing everyone else. Who are the most competitive people in the world? Jews. Even a pop critic like Gene Siskel was said to be competing with everyone else to make more money, get more scoops, have the last word, and etc. Jews would loathe the idea of being like 'everyone else'. Would Woody Allen or Alan Dershowitz be content to be nice mediocre 'dim-witted' middle Americans? Of course not. So, why do so many Jews officially uphold the ideal of equality while they themselves grow richer and more powerful?  I suspect it is a means to 'hide' their power and wealth. Jews practice Ayn Randism but preach Marxism. If Jews admitted their power lust, we would focus on their power and be critical of it. But if Jews make such fuss about equality, many people will equate Jewishness with equality for all. In a way, Jews are the best students of Christianity, through the history of which the rich and powerful grew richer and more powerful while preaching the ideals of love and equality for all. It was a nice cover for one's power and wealth. This is also obvious in today's China where the Communist Party elite rakes in great fortune and maintain unequal power over the populace but justifies and 'hides' their power by claiming to be working for the greater good of the Chinese people. By cynically invoking Marxist theory, Communist Party elites maintain the fiction that China today is merely going through the capitalist phase in order to create the proper conditions for real communism in the future. Yeah, nice try. "We at the top are getting richer and richer because we are working so hard to bring about the equality of mankind... sometime in the future."

As it stands today, there is no government-mandated-or-sponsored blacklisting in Hollywood. But then, there is government-enforced blacklisting and censoring of certain peoples, groups, and voices through means direct or indirect. And this happens on both the national and local level, both inside and outside government--though a person with far-leftist or anti-white affiliation cannot be denied jobs in government, a person with white 'racist' views can be fired and blacklisted from government. So, even an ideological Maoist can hold jobs in government and government-funded institutions, but a neo-Nazi wouldn't be allowed to get anywhere near a government job or receive government funding. (As the Martin Peretz wrote in the above-linked article: "Do Catholic universities still employ professors who believe that Galileo was in error? I doubt it. Navasky is the George T. Delacorte Professor of Journalism at the Columbia University School of Journalism. Isn't it time for him to start worrying about when dogma becomes lie? The innocence of the Rosenbergs is now exposed as false. Will the Delacorte Professor still say it isn't so?" 
The leftist Jew Navasky has been a lifelong apologist for communist tyranny all over the world, but he is allowed to hold a prestigious position in one of the top universities in the nation. Imagine a professor  who spent his entire life apologizing for Hitler being allowed to teach even at the Community College level. Liberals believe in blacklisting the 'far right'--and even the moderate right--, but it acts hysterical if anyone even mentions that fact that the elite institutions of this country are dominated by radical Jews. One may argue that Columbia University is a private institution, but the same policy of blacklisting exist in private universities as in public ones. (Bolshocaust denier can speak freely and teach, but imagine a Holocaust denier being in a college setting.)


And, it's a growing problem even in the sphere of private enterprise.
A good illustration of this is the Chick-Fil-A controversy that erupted in 2012 when the Jew mayor of Chicago declared that no business--at least no business owned and operated by white Christian conservatives--would be allowed to open stores in the city if opposed 'gay marriage'. Whether one agrees or disagrees with 'gay marriage', the Chicago decree was definitely a form of blacklisting of  businesses and groups on the basis of CREED.
And in all sorts of organizations, government or private, people are often hired or fired on the basis of their political beliefs, ideological convictions, and cultural preferences REGARDLESS of their competence and professionalism on the job. Then, why is there so little outrage? Because most of the blacklisting is done against 'racists', white conservatives, Christian groups, and 'anti-Semites'; and because the media and government are controlled by liberals and 'progressives'. The liberal community was up in arms in the 50s and 60s because their own had come under social and political pressures. They invoked Constitutional rights and protections to shield their own kind. After all, if leftists really love freedom and liberty, why would they have been so chummy with communists whose end goal is totalitarianism? The Left was always more about power and control than about freedom and individual liberty. Since then, liberals and 'progressives'--especially the Jewish kind--have taken control of just about every elite institution. So, why would the liberal-controlled media give a hoot about 'racists', 'reactionaries', white conservatives, and Christian rightists being fired and blacklisted from jobs and positions?
Over the years, American Renaissance, a white nationalist organization, couldn't even make a reservation to hold a conference. 'Progressives' may argue that it was practice of freedom of speech to alert and pressure Hotel chains--private business--not to rent space to certain 'hateful' groups, but imagine if right-wing or Muslim-American groups in America had pressured hotels not to rent out space to 'hateful' Zionists who are hellbent on oppressing Palestinians. Suppose white nationalist groups pressured a conventional hall to ban AIPAC from holding a conference on the basis that International Jews hate white people and are only trying to exploit Americans into supporting the 'genocidal' state of Israel. There would have been a storm of outrage led by the Jewish-controlled media, and a million lawyers would have come out of the woodwork to denounce the white nationalist group, and thousands of articles would have been published invoking the 'bad old days of McCarthyism' and the need for free speech in America.
To be sure, the Right isn't innocent on the issue of free speech. Jared Taylor, the head of the American Renaissance, had remarked repeatedly that in his ideal society, individual freedom would be curbed for the sake of white interests and white power. And conservatives have a long history of invoking 'community values' and 'patriotism' to, in effect, force businesses and local governments to uphold certain 'ideals' while suppressing certain expressions. More often than not, both the Right and the Left have tended to cry foul on free speech ONLY WHEN the rights of their own side were violated.
For much of the 20th century, Catholic organizations used its muscle to enforce certain standards on Hollywood. It even pressured local governments to ban certain books, movies, and music on the basis of the danger they posed to communal morality. Catholics and their allies may have had their reasons for fearing morally corrupting influences, but they often resorted to extra-legal means to silence voices they didn't like--and this was part of the reason why the Left, deviants, eccentrics, and others got so creative and clever at the science of subversion; since they couldn't say or show a lot of things outright, they had to find all sorts of sneaky ways to get them across.
Conservatives themselves don't have a very good record on freedom of speech. And even American libertarianism often served as a ruse for white-power-by-any-means. Libertarians invoking the Constitution pointed to the rights of states to do as they chose, a convenient loophole for defending racial segregation and denial of equal rights to blacks in the 50s and 60s. Ron Paul has remade himself as the defender of individual liberty, but his political origins go back to the segregationist positions of the Old South. As racial discrimination couldn't be defended morally, so-called 'libertarians' stuck to the letter of the Constitution that said the federal government has no right to dictate policies to the states. It was only when the segregationist battle was lost for good that libertarianism molded itself along the lines of gun rights, casino rights, and pot-smoking rights.
So, it would be naive to say conservatives--even libertarians--are naturally more freedom-loving and principled than liberals or leftists. It's really a matter of power and of which side is cleverer, more ruthless, more cunning, and more intelligent. In the struggle for power, the liberal side has decisively won over the conservative side, and much of this had to do with the fact that most Jews--the most intelligent people in America--have been liberal. If 80% of Jews were conservative and sided with white conservatives, US would today be a very different nation. Some conservatives might argue that the GOP should have done more to woo over the Jews in the past, but Jews would likely have stuck with the  Democratic party just the same. Jews have their own history, own perspectives, and own interests, and most Jews didn't want to be junior partners to white conservatives in the GOP. They were gunning for total control, and they had a better chance of attaining it by undermining white power in America--the main threat to Jewish power--and increasing 'diversity' and decadence(which would sap the white race of its survivalist and nationalist instincts). Jews would rather be the commanders leading the army of 'diversity' against Evil Whites than be the mini-me of White America, and Jews, to this day, associate the GOP with Wasp privilege and power. (This is rather ironic since the former Wasp elite--concentrated in the Northeast--have mostly become liberal and Democratic. What goes by the name of 'wasp power' today has very little to do with wasp power of the yesterday. Wasp elite used to consist mostly of Yankees whereas today's GOP ist dominated by Southern and Southwestern whites who, though substantially white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, have historically resented the power of the Yankee elite, which is why most Southern whites used to be Democratic in their opposition to Wasp Yankee rule. As years went by, the Yankee Wasp elite left the GOP and joined the liberal Democrats while Southern whites inherited the Party of Lincoln and wrapped it with the Neo-Confederate Flag. Thus, the Democratic Party has the best minds of the both the Jews and liberal Wasps while the GOP has increasingly become the party of Bubba manipulated by Zionists. GOP is the party of neocons messing with the minds of neoconfederates.)

Today, liberals control most of everything in most states that matter. The red states are mostly in the Deep South that are culturally, intellectually, and economically less developed AND in the sparsely populated states of the desert-and-mountain west, like Utah and Montana. The states that really matter--New York, California, Illinois, Washington(largely due to Seattle), Florida, and etc are controlled by liberal Democrats. And even if the economic elites of Texas may remain Anglo-conservative for many years to come, the rapidly rising Mexican-American population will likely tip it to the Democratic column. Since 2000, some 'red states' have gone 'blue' but hardly vice versa. If non-whites are turned off by the GOP as the 'white party', many educated whites are turned off by the GOP as the dumb party of Neo-Confederate Creationists. Texas is still the main prize for the GOP, but look at the caliber of politicians that has come out of that state? The Bushes and Rick Perry. Most Democratic politicians are nothing special, but GOP seems to go out on a limb to find idiots like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum.  GOP has failed as both a party of principles and party of power. The GOP caved into globalism, 'affirmative action', 'disparate impact', and foreign interventionism at the behest of Zionists, and so, it doesn't even have respect among genuine conservatives. If the GOP had at least gained power by selling out its principles, there might have been some kind of consolation--like when Clinton stabbed Big Labor in the back to win the support of globalist Big Business. But the GOP has lost support of the both the superrich and the white working class--formerly know as 'Reagan Democrats'--while having failed to attract minorities, even Asians.

Given the power of liberals, blacklisting today targets the White Right and certain Christian groups. In contrast, one can be far leftist, radical, subversive, decadent, and/or hostile--especially if one happens to be Jewish, gay, black, feminist, cultural Marxist, and etc.--and gain access to the highest positions in government and business. So, someone like David Irving would never be given a position in the Western academia, but even a diehard Stalinist or Maoist could get tenure at the most prestigious university. If you're on the 'Left'--in quotes because today's leftism is utterly different from what used to go by that name--, you can have any kind of association, ideology, or whatever and be welcomed into polite-and-powerful society. So, it didn't matter that Obama was associated with deranged Wright for 20 yrs and was chummy with arch-Marxist and anti-American Bill Ayers. He was still promoted as the second coming of the messiah, Kennedy, MLK, and etc. He was made president and handed the keys to the American military, which thanks to Obama, is now a free zone for brazen homosexuals. Someone like Elena Kagan who publicly declared that she's for censorship and doesn't believe in the First Amendment can be nominated to be a Supreme Court justice--and even a good number of Republican senators voted for her out of their deference to Jewish power. Sotomayor can declare herself ' wise' because she's a Latina and openly call for increased discrimination against whites to serve her tribal interests. Even people with close ties to communist organizations have no problem getting positions in colleges, government, military, CIA, and FBI.

But, if you're a conservative who opposes 'gay marriage', you may be targeted for dismissal in government, schools, and even private employment. Even the so-called freedom loving ACLU will not come to the defense of people who lost their jobs for their political incorrectness. Jewish organizations like ADL and SPLC, along with Jewish-controlled media, pile on anyone associated with this thing called 'hate' and undermine their opportunity to make a decent living. So yes, there is a blacklist at work, but it goes unnoticed because liberals and 'progressives' control government and the media. Most people get their news from the mass media, and so, if the mass media refuse to cover stories of conservatives and rightists blacklisted and fired form their jobs for having the 'incorrect' creeds, then most people won't know what's happening. Just like most Russians in big cities weren't aware of the mass deaths of Ukrainians in the 1930s because the Communists controlled all the networks of information in the USSR--and most Germans knew little about the Holocaust because the Nazi-media enforced a blackout on what was really happening to the Jews--, the current climate of blacklisting doesn't register because of the media blackout on people who've been fired or blacklisted for their 'hateful' creed.
If anything, the liberal media seem to endorse the idea that people should lose their jobs for having wrong personal or political views. So, most Americans have come to think that it's perfectly acceptable to deny people jobs or have them fired for having 'extreme rightist' views but it would not be okay for if someone were to lose to his or her job for having 'far leftist' views; that would be 'McCarthyism'. Imagine if Bill Ayers was fired for his hateful anti-American views. Imagine if a journalist was fired for his radical pro-gay views. Imagine if a teacher was fired for being a member of the local communist party. The media would condemn it as the return of 'McCarthyite fascism', but if a teacher is fired for his 'racist' views, the Jewish-controlled liberal media will only join in the tarring-and-feathering of the man's character. According to liberals, Linda Tripp, the woman who violated Monica Lewsinsky's friendship and spilled the beans to the world, acted like an evil McCarthyite witch. But the woman who violated Mark Fuhrman's trust and spilled the beans on what he said about blacks is a true hero. Liberals have long condemned Elia Kazan for having been a rat, but liberals and Jews just love and praise people who rat on 'racists' and 'haters'. It's all a matter of 'who, whom'. If you blacklist or rat on leftists or Jews, you are a terrible person. But if you blacklist or rat on rightists or white conservatives, you are a heroic truth-teller.
So, it's terrible to violate someone's trust if it aids conservatives, but it's great to do so if it smokes out a 'racist'. It's all about power, not principles. Liberals who've attacked J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy for the sordidly personal way they went after their enemies praise Anita Hill and the feminists for their personal attacks on Clarence Thomas. So, it was terrible of Hoover to dig out the secrets of King's sex life and it was low-down for McCarthy to mix personal attacks with political ones, but Anita Hill was a great heroine for telling the world all the sordid details about Thomas's jokes about 'long dong silver', porn videos, and pubic hair on Coke can. And the very feminists who've been hysterically condemning everything as 'sexual harassment' and ruining peoples' careers with all sorts of exaggerated accusations--at one time, they even called for prohibiting consensual relationship between men and women in the work place--came to the defense of Clinton and accused Republicans of 'sexual McCarthyism'. Though feminists have created the very climate where a man's reputation could be destroyed for having 'used his patriarchal power over female employees', they tried to tag all the blame on the conservatives. Indeed if any group played the politics of 'sexual McCarthyism' in American life, it was the feminists with their shrill man-hatred and paranoia of every white college male student being a 'date rapist' and every male executive being a potential 'sexual harasser'. But when it turned out that their guy Clinton, the 'most powerful man in the world', was using his power and reputation to get sexual favors from a White House intern, the feminists accused conservatives of 'sexual hysteria'. Some things never change. It was the Democrats, leftists, and liberals who created the climate of hysteria during WWII by having Americans believe that the slanty-eyed buck-toothed 'Japs' were coming to bomb every small town in America and that thick-skulled-and-necked Teutonic Nazis had the entire US coastline surrounded with submarines and infiltrated every American city and town with spies and saboteurs. But when WWII ended and the new enemy were the communists and their agents in US government and institutions, liberals began to bitch about the 'paranoid' style of the American Right. Indeed, this narrative has become enshrined in American historiography ever since. So, just about every educated person thinks: FDR and liberals = freedom-loving victors over fascist tyranny; McCarthy and conservatives = paranoid demagogues of the anti-communist 'witch hunt'. In fact, there were many more communist and far-leftist agents in American life, government, and culture than there were Nazi sympathizers and agents of Imperial Japan(!), and the whole climate of political paranoia and wholesale purging of those suspected of 'treason' began under the FDR regime with the full support of Jewish liberals and leftists.
But your average liberal thinks FDR's suppression of the America First movement and violation of the rights of Japanese-Americans were either justifiable or, at worst, regrettable--like it was an accidental spilling of milk.  We have such a lopsided and ridiculous remembrance of history because Jewish liberals control the media and academia. As Charles Foster Kane said, "(people will) think what I tell them to think!" Today, the people with such power are the Jews and their liberal gentile puppets in the academia and media. And if you don't go along with such a narrative, it will be difficult for you to rise up the ranks of power.

So, yes, there is a lot of blacklisting happening in America, but Jews and liberals get to decide who is or isn't blacklisted. And since Jews and liberals control most of the media and law firms, they can do as they please and give their own spin of the events.
Also, what with the national religion being Holocaustianity and MLK worship, conservatives are loathe to defend free speech and right of equal opportunity for the 'extremists' who might offend Jews or blacks. If a person were fired for his or her communist, Marxist, radical feminist, or radical gay ideology, even moderate liberals will cry foul and scream 'Neo-McCarthyism'. The ACLU will spring to action and sue the institution for having fired an 'innocent' person. But if someone associated with 'racism' or 'gay bashing' is outed and fired, most conservatives will not come to his rescue. When American Renaissance was hounded from place to place and not even allowed to reserve a conference hall at a hotel, not a single mainstream conservative or conservative group came forward to champion its right of free assembly and free speech. When John Derbyshire wrote a column about black racial reality, National Review's Rich Lowry, a pissant coward, was among the first to condemn Derbyshire as an intolerable bigot. The way the political game is played, when conservatives attack a far leftist, moderate liberals will defend the leftist and attack conservatives for 'McCarthyism'. But when liberals attack a far rightist, conservatives will side with liberals and pile on the 'hater'. Conservatives are in a morally defensive position since America's two great national religions are now premised on the sacredness of Jews and holiness of blacks. The Nazi mass-killing of millions of Jews is remembered as the 'greatest evil of all time', but who cares about the tens of millions killed by communism? We are constantly reminded of the KKK's lynching of blacks, but what about the non-stop barrage of black violence against whites?  If you mention that fact, you are a 'fear-mongering racist hater'. So, Jewish Hollywood makes movies like MACHETE and Tim Wise laughs at old white people in their deathbeds, but the Willie Horton ad was the most 'racist' and 'evil' thing in American politics.

To prove that blacklisting goes on all over America, we need only consider the following scenarios. Suppose a Hollywood writer happens to be outed as a member of the KKK. Suppose a high school chemistry teacher is outed of belonging to a Neo-Nazi organization or even just a 'white nationalist' organization. Suppose someone serving in local government is found to be a Holocaust denier. Suppose an aspiring actor in Hollywood is a loud opponent of Zionism and condemns Israel's occupation of West Bank as 'genocide'. Suppose a school principal made a comment on facebook about 'gay sex' being unnatural and dirty. Suppose a police chief in a city was overheard saying that he thinks MLK was a fraud and a thug. Suppose a TV sports journalist said such-and-such team is more likely to win because it has more blacks, i.e. blacks can naturally jump higher and run faster. Suppose a leading financial analyst on TV was recorded as saying that Jews control American society because they are more intelligent and use tribal networking. Suppose a movie director said we should end foreign wars because most recent wars tend to be instigated by Zionist Jews while most of the dying is done by gentiles. And so on and on.
Now, what is likely to happen to all these people? Will they go on working or will they be fired--or at the very least censured, suspended, demoted, and/or denied further promotion?
One may agree that such people should be denied jobs and publicly humiliated for harboring 'false' or 'evil' creeds, but who can deny that such people would indeed have been blacklisted.
One may think that the KKK is so evil that no KKK member, no matter how talented or skilled, should be allowed to work in Hollywood. Even so, there is no denying that having the creed of the KKK means you will be blacklisted from Hollywood. One might argue that Hollywood stands for certain lofty values--though one would be hard-pressed to find them given most Hollywood movies--, but there is no denying that holding certain views, values, and/or creeds will get one banned from Hollywood.
Hollywood also blacklists and censors the kind of movies that gets made. If a famous and popular screenwriter submitted a script about how Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestinians or how Soviet Jews worked closely with Stalin to kill millions of Ukrianian Jews, what is the chance of it being made into a movie? Or imagine if someone submitted a script about white slavery in Israel. Most likely, not only will the screenplay be rejected but word will spread throughout the Hollywood community to never hire that writer again. Since the ban on the writer won't have been declared officially, it won't be a technical blacklist but still a virtual one. Indeed, blacklisting doesn't have to be official, public, or overtly political. As long as there are the Jew-Boys-Network, Gay-Boys-Network, and liberal-boys-network in Hollywood--and there are--, the virtual policy of blacklisting can take place behind closed doors or under the radar. It's like sororities don't have an official policy that says 'NO UGLY AND FAT GIRLS', but there are ways to favor the lookers over the uglers.
Every organization, depending on the leadership and composition of its members, would like favor certain people while excluding others. In America, we ideally like to believe a person should be hired or fired on the basis of skills and merit than for his race, color, or CREED.
The difference is that when conservative-dominated organizations fire or blacklist radicals, decadents, and subversives of the 'left', the liberal community will invoke 'freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of creed' to champion the 'bullied' victim and even use its muscle to sue the organization and bring it down. As far as liberals are concerned, the Catholic Church should be pressured to include more homosexuals and feminists into its ranks. If it fails to do so, it's an oppressive 'blacklisting' organization. But if liberal-dominated organizations fire, ban, censure, censor, and blacklist people they don't like--'the rightwing haters'--, that is wonderful, that is progress. As far as liberals are concerned, they rationally ban and blacklist only 'haters' and 'bigots' whereas conservatives suppress wonderful 'progressives' who are trying to spread more freedom, equality, and diversity. Since liberals are correct and justified in all that they do and believe, their hate is not hate but love; their blacklisting isn't blacklisting but 'fight against hate', and etc.

Now, I'm not going to defend neo-Nazis and the KKK. But, there is no denying that such people are indeed blacklisted in many places in America simply for their views, beliefs, convictions, or creeds. And if it's justifiable to blacklist such people for their personal ideologies, one could argue that it had been justifiable for Hollywood to have blacklisted communists and the like; after communists hate free enterprise, and what would Hollywood have been without capitalism?
It certainly would have been preferable had conservatives in government employed subtler means to pressure Hollywood to root out possible Soviet-sympathizers. Because the anti-communist right overplayed its hand, the impression people got was that of government telling private industry what it could and couldn't do. Even so, if liberals believe that certain people should be removed, shamed, shunned, and/or blacklisted for having certain foul and rotten views, then one can make a case for the blacklisting of communists and their sympathizers, especially in government. And since public education is funded by the government, why shouldn't the government root out all communist or communist-sympathizing teachers IF INDEED powerful institutions should ensure that evil people don't gain a foothold in society? One can defend communists as 'champions for social justice', but one can also defend 'racists' as 'courageous speakers of truth on the issue of race'.

We can play all kinds of semantic games, but blacklisting is blacklisting. It's disingenuous to say something is not blacklisting because the purged elements happen to be agents of 'hate' or 'intolerance'. That's like saying it's murder when a communist is killed in cold blood but not when a fascist is. (But then, NY Times follows such a logic as when the black thug Omar Thorton murdered white employees at work. The liberal Jewish narrative was not 'black thug murdered whites', but 'Did Thorton kill a bunch of white racists who had it coming?' Similarly, it's a 'hate crime' if a white person says something that mildly offends a black person, but it's not a 'hate crime' if a gang of blacks run around targeting and beating up white people.
But then, this sort of logic informs much of political history. After all, Jewish-controlled media and academia have made us far more sensitive to the murdered victims of Nazism than of communism. So, we are constantly reminded of all those MURDERED Jews but we are to assume that millions of Ukrainians were only KILLED by Stalin--and we are not supposed to mention that many Jews lent their hands to the mass-murder, I mean 'killing', of Ukrainians. Jews can be murdered but they can never murder; when Jews commit murder, it's just 'killing', and our job is to rationalize why Jews needed to kill to either defend themselves against 'antisemitic' murderers or to make the world a better place. So, Hitler committed murder, but Trotsky only killed(and only for the good of mankind).
According to liberal/leftist logic, it is far worse for the Right to kill a few thousand leftists than for the Left to kill millions of rightists--or even innocent people of no particular ideological affiliation. Most victims of Stalin and Mao were not members of the bourgeoisie but poor peasants, but Jews and liberals never cared much about them. And most of the victims of the Khmer Rouge were also peasants who starved to death on collective farms. But, there is almost no discussion of those evils whereas 'progressives' still fume about a couple of thousand leftists killed by Pinochet. Of course, had Allende been a fascist general and Pinochet a leftist military commander--like Hugo Chavez--and had leftist Pinochet overthrew the rightist Allende--and killed thousands of supporters of the hypothetically fascist Allende--, most 'progressives' would have sided with Pinochet. (The very progressives who'd long condemned America's role in the overthrow of Allende had no problem with Obama and European leaders' engineering of the overthrow and lynching of Gaddafi. As long as you carry the 'progressive' card, you can do just about anything and get away with it. What happened to Gaddafi was not 'murder' or 'lynching' because he wasn't a darling of the international 'progressive' community and because he was taken out be the Zionist Sarkozy and 'progressive' Jewish puppet Obama. But we are told Allende was murdered though he committed suicide. If you are a leftist, you are a victim of a 'murder' even if you take your own life as Hitler did.)  Suppose leftists in the German military in the 1930s had pulled off a coup against Hitler and toppled the regime and killed 20,000 Nazis. Do you think any 'progressive' would have bewailed the overthrow of a government that came to power through the democratic process, which the Nazis did? Boris Yeltsin used tanks against the democratically elected Duma in the 90s, but most of the Jewish-controlled American media not only refused to condemn the action but made excuses for it for the simple reason that Yeltsin was happy to be the tool of globalist Jews who were then forming a network that would link NY with Moscow that was soon to come under the influence of Jewish oligarchs. So, Jews don't mind violence, murder, mayhem, and blacklisting as long it's beneficial for their side. It has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with power. Indeed, consider all the fulsome praise liberals and leftists in the West have piled on the Castro regime that denies freedom to Cubans to this day. Since many liberal and leftist Jews sympathized with Castro--indeed NY TIMES played a crucial role in helping Castro to power--, Castro has been spared the kind of vitriol that's been visited on Pinochet. As you can see, Jews, leftists, and liberals really prefer control over freedom. They want freedom for their side but no freedom for the other side. Freedom is good as long as it means more power to their side; freedom is bad if it provides the other side with chance at power.

The liberal media have always used terminology cleverly. We've all heard of 'right-wing death squads', but have you ever heard of 'left-wing death squards'? We've all heard of Muslims referred to as 'terrorists', but have the Jewish-controlled media ever referred to men like Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, and Ariel Sharon as terrorists even though they had been involved in terrorist acts in their youth--and even later as much of the violence against Palestinians and Lebanese can only be called acts of terrorism?
Or consider how the liberal media will use 'conservative' and 'right-wing' as synonymous with evil. So, if a bunch of skinhead thugs in Germany commit acts of violence, they are members of the 'radical right'. But then, hardline communists in post-Soviet Russia were referred to as 'conservative'.  Liberal media argued that hardline communists were trying to restore the Soviet system and as such were 'conservatives'. But using this logic, shouldn't neo-Nazi skinheads in Germany be called 'leftists' since they are trying to undermine the established system?  When it comes to skinheads, the liberal media use the ideological definition of the 'right', but when it comes to communists in Russia, the liberal media use the contextual definition of 'conservative'. Yes, this is how clever Jews--and their goy running dogs--play the game of politics and power.

Even if a liberal or 'progressive' is in agreement with Hollywood's policy of banning of 'racists', neo-Nazis, white nationalists, KKK elements, 'anti-Semites', anti-Zionists, and such people, he should at the very least admit that it is a form of blacklisting. Just because people you don't like are blacklisted doesn't mean that blacklisting doesn't take place. Similarly, just because US tortured its enemies in the War on Terror doesn't mean that it wasn't torture. Waterboarding is torture. (If you say it isn't, would you argue American POWs wouldn't be victims of torture if enemy captors used waterboarding on them?) One  may defend waterboarding or not,  but no honest person should deny the fact that it's torture. Just because torture is used against terrorist scum doesn't make it 'not torture'. Torture was used extensively against German POWs by Americans and the British in WWII and the immediate aftermath. One may justify the practice as having been necessary against an especially evil foe, but torture is torture, and only a liar would use semantics to argue otherwise. But, so many people are blind because semantics rules the day. 'Affirmative action' is essentially discrimination against middle class, working class, and poor whites(and Asians) in favor of blacks, Hispanics, and rich Jews/whites. Though Jews and rich whites are not specifically favored by 'affirmative action', the fact  that the main burden falls on less privileged whites has a defacto effect of favoring certain whites/Jews--especially the affluent urban 'creative' class--over other whites. So-called 'tax credits' are just another form of welfare, but many people don't know this because of the terminology. In today's America, if MSM calls blue 'brown', it becomes the new brown. Words have such power over us, and liberals understand this, which is why they've taken over English Departments and turned classes into mind control laboratories. Should it then be surprising that so many educated people are incapable of understanding the world except through the mental prism/prison of 'racism', 'homophobia', 'antisemitism', 'xenophobia', 'misogyny', 'sexism', and whatever else the academia cooks up next?

Just as killing a Jew or leftist is murder but killing a rightist is not, the sheer fanaticism of the 'progressives' and their allies can never be said to be 'hysterical' or 'extreme', but even the slightest deviation from moderation for those on the Right is routinely and hysterically denounced as 'hysterical', 'paranoid', and 'extreme' according to the Jewish-controlled academia and media. (Feminists can act hysterical, but
if you point out their hysteria, you are attacked as a 'sexist' for stereotyping women as 'hysterical'. Blacks can be loud and crazy, but if you point out their boorish behavior, you are attacked as a 'racist' for stereotyping blacks as 'loud and crazy'. Jews can act pushy, subversive, and nasty, but if point out their character, you are attacked as an 'antisemitic' for stereotyping Jews as 'pushy, subversive, and nasty.)
So, the Pussy Riot is not crazy and hysterical. So, it's perfectly okay for Jews to rabidly holler 'Nazi' and 'antisemitic' at the drop of a hat. It's okay for blacks to scream 'racism' and even to pull one hate hoax after another--for which they are not punished but only offered 'counseling' as if they hadn't acted out of malice but were driven to desperate behavior--like the black guy in SHOCK CORRIDOR--by an all-too-'racist' society. It's perfectly okay for the Democrats to say that the GOP is waging a 'war on women' simply because conservatives think affluent women should be able to afford their own birth control pills.

Perhaps, it would be wrong to say liberals are inherently worse than conservatives when it comes to hypocrisy. If conservatives like Pat Buchanan had the kind of control over the academia and media that liberal Jews do, things could very well be no better... or even worse. But there is no denying that too many liberals and 'progressives'--especially the clever and dominant Jews among them--play fast and loose with the rules, and surely some Jews and liberals are well aware of this hypocrisy. (It could be that many liberal Jews want government to ban 'hate speech' so that they themselves can wash their hands clean of the charge of censorship and blacklisting.  As long as there is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, liberals and Jews can be charged of hypocrisy for firing, banning, and/or blacklisting certain individuals and groups--and out of their own volition, as the government didn't legally require them to do it. They would be responsible for acts of censorship since they themselves chose to silence certain voices without pressure from the government. But if there are 'hate speech' laws, liberals and Jews can simply say that they are complying with the laws passed by the government and don't really have any choice in the matter. Indeed, notice how Google plays the game. It pretends to be for 'free speech' but it also supports Obama and Democrats who are working to end free speech with 'hate speech' legislation. Since Google wants to promote itself as a beacon of free speech, it would be foolish to overtly call for banning certain kinds of speech. However, if the Democrats gain control over all branches of government and institute 'hate speech' laws, Google can just shrug its shoulders and say, "We may not agree with the law, but it's the law, and so we have to obey it." Thus, Jews pretend to champion free speech while, at the same time, supporting politicians--who are mostly puppets of Jewish power and money--who are working to restrict free speech, especially speech that is critical of Jewish power. This is why no rational person should ever trust Jews.)

Anyway, returning to what Milius said about the Hollywood blacklisting of conservatives, is it true? I think yes and no. Yes, in the sense that organizations dominated by one particular group tends to favor its own kind while controlling the numbers of other groups. Thus, a kind of tokenism operates in Hollywood where a certain number of conservatives are admitted but never enough to tip the balance and undermine the dominance of liberals. But the liberal bias may not always be conscious or intended. If arts and entertainment generally attract those who happen to be Jewish, liberal, and/or gay, and if liberals, Jews, and gays favor their own kind--even without an overt goal of excluding conservatives--, then there will be many more liberals, Jews, and gays than other kinds of people by the simple logic of social dynamics. But, the same can be said for Nashville or Evangelical organizations. Even if they don't have a specific policy banning liberals or 'progressives', they will tend to attract and favor people who share their values and outlooks.
Also, what does it mean to be a 'conservative'? While Hollywood certainly blacklists white 'racists' and overt 'anti-Semites', there is no blatant policy for excluding conservatives. But then, Hollywood's definition of an 'acceptable' conservative may be spineless and bloodless moderate, decadent, and/or hedonistic Republicans like Kelsey Grammer, Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Tim Allen, Gary Sinise, and others of that ilk. Suppose Hollywood were run by Rightists and the only kind of 'acceptable liberals'  allowed in were the likes of Ron Howard and Robert Zemeckis. It would be a pretty bloodless bunch. Not that Hollywood is a hotbed of far-leftist filmmaking, but the fact is one can be affiliated with far-leftist ideology, anti-white groups, anti-American organizations, or radical Zionist groups and still be allowed to work in Hollywood. But if you're outed as a 'racist'--even if you keep your views to yourself on the job--, you will be fired and blacklisted forever.

While Hollywood certainly favors liberals, gays, and Jews over others, the paucity of conservatives--even mild conservatives--cannot be blamed on liberals alone. Think back to high school, and what kind of people were most likely to enter into creative fields?  In high school, I worked with the backstage crew in Theater for a couple of semesters, and just about every kid was a Jew, a liberal, or gay. Most young people who gravitate toward the arts tend to be liberal-leaning or wanna see themselves as 'rebels' and 'mavericks',. and they are more likely to feel at home among liberals than among conservatives. (While there is a substantial
number of conservatives with an interest in culture, they tend to be receptive than participatory. As conservatives generally tend to mind their own business than possess exhibitionist tendencies, people with the conservative personality--even those interested in the arts--tend not to join in the process of creation.  To be creative, one has to be somewhat reckless; one has to be willing to risk making an ass out of oneself to achieve that rare moment of glory. As the conservative personality tends to be more sensitive to criticism and ridicule--more conformist--, it is less likely to drive one toward creativity. Terry Teachout is your typically intelligent conservative observer of arts and culture. He partakes of what is created but doesn't participate in the creation.)
Liberals, even with their political correctness, tend to be more cutting-edge than conservatives who tend to meat-and-potatoesy. Most liberals may actually think alike, but they go through the grand motions of being 'different' and 'liberated'--and creativity is often more about putting on a show than telling the truth. So, liberals got more freaks, weirdos, degenerates, and mental cases on their side, the kind of people who are obsessive enough to risk everything to make it in arts, culture, or entertainment; and even though most such people have no talent, they are still engaged in 'making a difference' in the cultural scene, and some of them do create something of worth. Even if only 5% of what liberals do turns out to be any good, it's still a hell of a lot more than what conservatives achieve if most conservatives refuse to venture out of their comfort zone at all. Suppose 10,000 liberals go into the arts, and only 5% of them do anything notable. That's still 500 people. But suppose only 100 conservatives go into the arts, and 5% of them are good. That's only 5 people. 500 vs 5. Just think back on your high schools days and try to remember the kind of kids who were into ideas, arts, culture, and etc. Rarely do conservative kids show interest in that stuff, and even if they do, they tend to be receptive--like Teachout--than pro-active. While your average conservative kid may be emotionally, socially, and morally more stable than your average liberal kid, moderation generally doesn't do much for creativity.
Actually, it's not the liberals who are the most creative either as most liberals tend to be rather bland just like conservatives. This explains why so many notable artists of the 20th century have been leftists or loonies. Leftists may have crazy ideas, but they have passion, and its passion that drives people to take chances. In a way, the obsessive 'antisemitism' of men like Wagner and Celine shouldn't be really surprising, any more than the radical leftism of men like Eisenstein and Brecht. If the essence of creativity and originality is to push the envelope beyond all known boundaries, then personalities prone to extremes will tend to achieve most in art. Thus, Wagner was not only obsessive about his music but in his view of humanity. This goes for politics too. If Hitler had been a bland and modest person, he wouldn't have embarked on the 'mad artist' dream of seizing power in Germany. The same could be said of men like Napoleon, Lenin, and Mao. As extreme personalities, they were not only crazy about politics but lots of other things. Power wasn't enough for Hitler. He had to pursue his mad vision of racial purity as the basis for creating an 'Aryan' utopia.  Power wasn't enough for Napoleon. He had to spread the French Revolution to all of Europe and be emperor. Power wasn't enough for Mao. He had to keep pushing the boundaries of the Revolution in economics and culture.  Just like Orson Welles's appetite for food and women couldn't be separated from his obsession with creativity, the extreme passions/prejudices of great artists couldn't be separated from their extreme passion for creativity/originality. A person with an extreme personality is likely to get carried away with whatever he puts his mind to. Since your average liberal is rather bland and clean-cut, it's generally not liberals who succeed in the arts. It's those with extreme personalities, and such types tend to be more prevalent among Jews, gays, and blacks(especially in musical expression). So, why do extreme personalities gravitate toward liberalism when mainstream liberalism is, in many ways, just as bland and dweeby as mainstream conservatism? Because liberals are more likely to show interest in and dole out cash for the works of extreme creative personalities whereas most conservatives have no use for that stuff. So, extreme creative personalities, even if they aren't intrinsically or initially liberal, will gravitate more toward liberalism since they find more acceptance, support, and success among liberals than among conservatives. Even a conservative artist with an extreme personality will discover that he or she has a better chance of success among liberals than among conservatives who don't give a crap about culture outside the mainstream.
Furthermore, what liberals seem to understand that conservatives don't is that even much of mainstream culture is created by extreme personalities. Take George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. They are hardly 'radical artists', but they both grew up with obsessive hobbies and developed passionate love for movies. They drew inspiration from films from all over the world, and even as they made movies like JAWS and STAR WARS that appealed to the mainstream masses, they were obsessively committed to going the extra mile and being ahead of the curve. Even when they worked on cliched genre movies, they were obsessed with pushing the envelope and shocking the public--even if in a fun happy way--with new thrills no one had previously thought possible. There had been monster movies before but nothing quite like JAWS. There had been space movies before, but STAR WARS blew people away in the summer of 1977. THE GRADUATE and THE GODFATHER were also mainstream movies but created by men of extreme personalities. The novel of THE GRADUATE was written by a real eccentric, and its director Mike Nichols was something of an oddball Jew with background in edgy satire and avant-garde theater. And the music was scored by Simon and Garfunkel of the counterculture folk rock community. Mario Puzo was something of an obsessive 'loser' who'd doggedly committed himself to writing despite the lack of success that only finally came with THE GODFATHER, a novel written in the spirit of vendetta against the literary world and the public that had neglected his previous output. He was no average Italian-American. And Francis Ford Coppola was raised in an artistic family and spent much of his sickly childhood in obsessive love with movies, and he was a big fan of foreign cinema. Though Beatles and the Stones were mainstream rock groups, John Lennon and Mick Jagger were serious weirdos. If anything, Paul McCartney was the anomaly as a rather stable and moderate figure with tremendous gift for music, but then, this explains why he's been loathed by so many who see him as just a talented fake, i.e. he was good but not authentic; he was a professional stylist but not a personal artist. And heaven knows Brian Wilson was a serious neurotic though he wrote beach music for every boy and girl. So, even much of the best of mainstream culture has been created by mavericks, freaks, weirdos, and etc. Paradoxically, many weirdos and freaks prefer to make it in mainstream culture because they want the validation, adulation, and approval that were denied them in their youth. If you were a nobody in highschool, you might wanna finally be acknowledged as a somebody by creating something that everyone loves. Thus, many of the most famous filmmakers were actually loser-dorks in highschool. All the kids who'd ignored Lucas and Spielberg in high school were later watching their movies and being blown away.

Regarding the specific charge by Milius that he fell out of favor with Hollywood because of his anti-communist movie RED DAWN, I somehow doubt it. After all, RED DAWN was hardly the only anti-communist movie of the 80s. Stallone's star rose higher and higher with RAMBO and ROCKY IV, both maniacally anti-communist movies. And there were made-for-TV movies like WORLD WAR III with Rock Hudson, which I think had Russians invading the US.

And in 1987, there was a TV movie called AMERIKA, the plot of which is summed up as "America has been bloodlessly taken over by the Soviet Union, leading to slave-labor camps for some, collaboration for others and rebellion for yet others" in IMDB.
And there was WHITE NIGHTS with Mikhail Baryshnikov and Gregory Hines.


And there was Clint Eastwood's FIREFOX, described by Wiki as: "A joint Anglo-American plot is devised to steal a highly advanced Soviet fighter aircraft (MiG-31, NATO code name 'Firefox') which is capable of Mach 6, is invisible to radar, and carries weapons controlled by thought. Former United States Air Force Major Mitchell Gant, a Vietnam veteran-and former POW-infiltrates the Soviet Union, aided by his ability to speak Russian (due to his having had a Russian mother) and a network of Jewish dissidents and sympathizers, three of whom are key scientists working on the fighter itself. His goal is to steal the Firefox and fly it back to friendly territory for analysis."

While there were a good number of anti-conservative/Reagan movies like THE DAY AFTER(and all those Save-the-Farm movies), Hollywood of the 80s found anti-communism very marketable, and many liberal Jews played along as they'd grown very angry about Soviet 'antisemitism'. And most American Jews by the late 70s figured it was better to direct white American patriotic anger at the evil Russkies--another white gentile people--because otherwise, Americans might direct their anger at Jews. Also, Jews were very much aware of the fact that the Soviet Union was the main backer of many Arab nations hostile to Israel.

The real reason for Milius's eventual failure as a director was his movies made little money. He had one big hit with CONAN THE BARBARIAN, but most of his directorial efforts had been bombs, indeed very big bombs. DILLINGER, THE WIND AND THE LION, BIG WEDNESDAY, and FAREWELL TO THE KING--Milius's directorial effort following RED DAWN--were all major failures. RED DAWN was a considerable hit but only because it was low-budget. Milius was far more successful as a writer--and some of the movies he wrote or contributed to in the 70s were among the decade's biggest hits--, but even his works as a writer failed to make a dent at the box office beginning in the late 80s. EXTREME PREJUDICE was a box office failure and GERONIMO even a bigger one. This isn't to say they were bad movies--indeed they were better than most--, but Hollywood is a business, and Milius simply wasn't cranking out the hits as a writer or director. He was less the victim of 'anti-conservative blacklisting' than free market dynamics, and he wasn't the only one. Many iconic film auteurs of the 60s and 70s had a difficult time getting financing in the 80s and 90s. Just ask William Friedkin, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdanovich, Monte Hellman, and many others--and they were all liberals. With the rise of the blockbusters and the Wall-Street-ization of  Hollywood, the industry was looking for formulas. Formulas for box office hits and formulas for safe/respectable 'art films' for the autumn season. Even so-called 'art films' over the years have grown increasingly more staid and predictable. Does anyone really remember or care who directed NEVER LET ME GO, REVOLUTIONARY TOAD, CAPOTE, etc?
There was a revival of independent filmmaking in the 90s, and its biggest star was Mr. Outrageous Quentin Tarantino. The problem that most young moviegoers have with Milius is not so much his political conservatism as his old fashioned sensibilities. Even most young liberals don't want to see liberal movies from the past. They are too 'slow' and 'square'. Milius has been one of the least technologically-oriented directors in Hollywood. He likes the idea of ruggedness, of hardy individuals against the elements. He likes the theme of struggle. Problem is most young moviegoers prefer their heroes to be augmented or boosted with special powers that allow them to fly all over and blast away at bad guys with major weaponry or fight really fast. This is the age of the comicbook superhero movies. Kids wanna see stuff like AVATAR, IRON MAN, MATRIX, and other such movies where characters are imbued with nearly techno-fascist-mythological powers. Darth Vader won. Milius's brand of 'zen fascism' is not spectacular enough for today's moviegoers. Why watch a man struggle against nature or villains with muscle and gun/knife when you can watch superheroes with godlike powers flying over mountains in a nanosecond and blowing up entire cities with the press of a button or flicker of the wrist? Why go hiking and mountain-climbing and sweat when you can go to an amusement park and get on the roller-coaster and feel the speed and breeze?  Milius offers the fascism of toil and struggle; new Hollywood offers the fascism of easy power and easy glamour. It's no wonder that 007 is still a successful franchise. Everything comes to easily to Bond. Everything--technology, luck, women, etc--is always on his side, and this also explains the mega-success of FORREST GUMP, a kind of dummy 007 movie. Notice Gump always lands on his feet, and everything goes right for him.
Milius has hardly been a realist, but within his particular brand of fantasism, nothing comes easy for the hero who just strain and struggle against 'real' obstacles; he must labor. Even in CONAN THE BARBARIAN, the great mythical muscled hero must sweat and toil to finally overcome  his enemies; no pain, no gain. And RED DAWN is nothing like RAMBO, AVATAR, or most recent action movies. Though the premise of Milius's film is in many respects even more fantastical than Stallone's idiot movie, its violence is closer to reality, closer to the kind of 'old-fashioned' violence in John Ford movies. It's not real-real but realist-enough in the sense that heroism is a real pain in the freezing ass. In contrast, bullets seem to bounce off Rambo's chest. RED DAWN grossed 40 million(respectable return on a movie that cost only 4.2 million), but Rambo grossed 150 million in America and 300 million worldwide. Though the filmmaking of RAMBO has none of the brilliance and flair of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, both were big hits because the action was loud, fun, and easy--as in 007 movies.

In the days of Old Hollywood, details of violence were more muted but the action was more realistic at least in this sense:  few heroes had anything like superhuman powers, and the action was purposeful than grandiose and show-offy. John Wayne was a big action star, but when he got hit in the jaw, he fell down--even when the hitter was a gay boy like Montgomery Clift. Though much has been made of the war-mongering aspect of SANDS OF IWO JIMA, Wayne plays just another soldier doing his best for the good of the team. We don't see him baring his chest and leaping across oceans to crush the 'Japs'. And Wayne in THE SEARCHERS was extremely angry precisely because his powers were so limited. There's less reason for superhuman heroes to be angry since their power can destroy enemies with ease. This is why 300, for all its bared teeth and growls, isn't really an angry movie. Its Spartan warriors are so powerful that it's like lions gorging on rabbits. A lion gets angry in a fight against other lions, not against rabbits. If Wayne had such powers in THE SEARCHERS, he would have been having fun smashing 1000s of Indians than simmering with pent-up rage. So, the more powerful the hero becomes, less personal anger he is likely to feel.
This was one of the problems of LORD OF THE RINGS movies. The good guys had such an easy time smashing so many of the bad guys that it was difficult to feel any kind of emotion. In contrast, EXCALIBUR and THE 13TH WARRIOR are far more tension-filled because nothing comes easily for the heroes. Similarly, if a martial arts expert takes on 20 old ladies, there's hardly gonna be any kind of real conflict or tension. Old Hollywood generally gave us good guy or few good guys vs bad guy or few bad guys. So, there was an element of parity. Take a film like HIGH NOON. It's one against four, not one against 400, and its hero has no superhuman powers. (Though the Dollars Trilogy are great fun, they lack emotional tension since we know that the Man with No Name can easily out-shoot anyone. He has superhuman powers.)  Since the conflict unfolds on a more realistic plane in HIGH NOON, we become more involved in the nature of the characters and their hatred for one another. Since the action/violence is so tight, the focus is more on what drives these men to violence, and since they all lack superhuman powers, their wits count as much as their skills. While some people find this kind of storytelling more engrossing and involving, other people--it seems most young people today--find it a drag. When the focus of the story is the personal animosity between a handful of characters--as in Anthony Mann's WINCHESTER 73 or Nicholas Ray's JOHNNY GUITAR--, then the violence will be limited to the core characters. And if the core characters have no superhuman powers, they will have to bide their time to vanquish the foe. For generations weaned on video games, rock music and music videos, and Hollywood blockbusters, the style of story-telling in Old Hollywood action cinema isn't very appealing. Moviegoers today want more action, more bombast, more fireworks. So, not surprisingly, the heroes must be given superhuman powers and face off against swarms of bad guys in spectacular fashion. (In a way, the helicopter raid scene on a Vietcong village in APOCALYPSE NOW was a foreshadowing of things to come in future cinema. Kilgore decides to go all out on the village because he knows that Americans have far superior firepower against the Vietnamese. It's like gods vs ants. It's like war as amusement park. Though Kilgore is a tough guy, he's not a true hero-warrior since he has the power of American technology and might behind him, and what he looks for in war is not meaning but fun. Though an able leader of man, mentally he's a boy-soldier. The helicopter scene is the most exciting in the movie--and indeed one of the greatest battle scenes if cinema--, but it's more fun and thrills than tension-filled or suspenseful since we know Americans are gonna crush the primitively-armed Vietcongs; even so, it's an awesomely mounted artistic statement of an auteur--perhaps topped only by Spielberg's Normandy scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN--, one that was unfortunately later studied and turned into formula for mass entertainment by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay; if Coppla was making a statement that Americans saw Vietnam War like an amusement park, Bruckheimer and Bay had no use for irony when they disgraced a great American tragedy--the attack on Pearl Habor--into popcorn movie fun and thrills. The rest of APOCALYPSE NOW is less exciting and even boring, but the change of pace and scale is meaningful as the theme is about man's coming face-to-face with the true nature of war with nothing but his body and soul. As Milius said in interviews and expressed powerfully in FAREWELL TO THE KING, his lifelong fantasy has been to depart from civilization, contact a primitive tribe and defeat its top warriors on their own terms, and become the new lord of the jungle. For a white man to truly prove his worth, he mustn't rely on technology for even an old lady with a machine gun can mow down hundreds of tough tribal warriors. For the white man to know and show his true worth as a warrior, he must go native and triumph without the gun. Milius probably loved Westerns because gunmen have to face against other gunmen without special advantages. And even though the white man had a decisive edge against American Indians, there was still an element of parity between the cowboy and the Indian, whereas the rise of modern technology in the 20th century, especially with the rise of superpowers, destroyed any possibility of individual heroism.)
So, we get endless series of bad guys being destroyed in LOTR movies. AVATAR initially seems like a movie where the good guys are outclassed by the bad guys with better weaponry, but it's not long before Pandora turns into a kind of green-technological-power in its own right and blows away untold number of evil earthlings in spectacular fashion. Just like kids want volume at rock concerts, they want volume in movies. Not just in the size of image and loudness of the sound but in the size of blasts and number of people blown away. Why was LOTR and AVATAR among the biggest money-makers of all time while THE 13TH WARRIOR is one of the biggest money-losers? Because the scale of conflict in THE 13TH WARRIOR is smaller and tighter, as in SEVEN SAMURAI. One must become involved with the characters, engrossed in the story, and immersed in its world, which is not happyland where everything exists for the sake of funnery. In LOTR movies, in contrast, even moments of mega-violence/mayhem are amusement-park-like. It's non-stop fireworks, and the feeling one gets is not unlike the 'thrill' of a video gamers in shooting/blasting away endless minions of bad guys. Most moviegoers prefer blowout movies to close-contest movies. They like the movie equivalent of a superbowl game where one side defeats the other side by 50 points. Generally, a  game is between two well-matched teams tends to be low-scoring and less 'exciting'. In wrestling and judo, an evenly-matched competition tends to be less 'spectacular' as both men are experts at defense as well as offense. Therefore, in order to enjoy such sports, one mustn't expect fireworks or spectacular movements but know the psychology at work, whereupon the apparently 'less exciting' game could paradoxically become more exciting, i.e. 'not much is happening' on the outside precisely because so much is happening on the inside. Since the bodies and skills are evenly matched, the real competition is happening in their minds.
Similarly, chess games among grand masters are rarely spectacular. But for most people, it's more fun to watch superhuman Bruce Lee beat up a whole bunch of bad guys who are about as effective as old ladies. It's more mindlessly fun to watch Rambo re-fight the Vietnam War and destroy half of the Evil Empire in a single afternoon. To be sure, the superhuman good guy must eventually face off against the superhuman bad guy--and in that, there is finally some kind of parity--, but as the manner of combat is likely to be outlandish and ludicrous, more like professional wrestling than real sports. We don't really care about the moral issue or wits-behind-the-muscle but the sheer bombast of mega-forces clashing. It's like a monster movie, like KING KONG vs GODZILLA. ROCKY III and IV have limited number of characters, but the violence is all volume. If the first ROCKY movie at least gave us a 'real' character in the ring against a realistic boxer and, as such, made us care about the personal anxieties and psychology of Rocky, the sequels--especially III and IV--are really about boxers as comic book superheroes and villains bashing one another with superhuman powers. For anyone who knows anything about boxing, the fight in the first movie is hardly convincing but it still works on the emotional level because we've seen Rocky, a nobody and 'loser', grow into somebody as he trains and pushes his body to the limit for the big night. But in III and IV, we can just rest assured that the gods are smiling down on Rocky and will imbue him with the power necessary to eventually destroy the Monstrous Negro and the Awesome Russkie. It's like in KING KONG vs GODZILLA where an apparently defeated King Kong jolts back to life and kicks Godzilla's butt.


Anyway, Milius was hardly the only 'victim' of new Hollywood. After all, American cinema was more counter-cultural in the 70s than in the 80s, yet it was in the 70s that Milius really made his name. Of course, one could argue that American liberalism has paradoxically, over the years, become less leftist and more correct. Almost no 'progressive' today takes stuff like Marxism or radical feminism seriously. Almost no  'progressive' believes Maoism or Che-Guevara-ism had or has anything to offer.  Che Guevara cult still exists but mostly as a capitalist brand or an ass tattoo. Most 'progressives' are deeply into capitalist success, global free enterprise, being 'creative' to make the climb in the neo-haute elite societies in NY and San Francisco. And today's 'progressives' aren't into dropping out and touching American Indians but about 'Europeanizaing' American cities into 'whitopias' and hiring Asian-Indians. So, if the radical left and the real left is extinct as a cultural force or power, why is the 'new left' so invested political correctness? Since they are no longer committed to 'world revolution', shouldn't they be mellower and less coercive? But the very fact of their betrayal of leftism could be one of the main reasons for their insistence on political correctness. Since they are, in real/factual terms, just a bunch of hypocritical and overly privileged bunch of people obsessed with money, power, and status, they would prefer that people not notice and discuss the true nature of elite power and privilege in today's world. A similar dynamic took hold in the USSR during the Brezhnev years and in China since the 90s. As Stalinism thawed into a 'communism with a human face', one might have expected the Soviet authorities to be  more liberal, but the era of political reform in the late 50s and 60s proved to be short-lived and soon after the fall of Khrushchev, the Soviet Union reinforced the politics of orthodoxy. Though the Soviet Union became less Stalinist in practice, it became more hardline communist in its ideology. Similarly, China has become increasingly less communist and more capitalist since the 90s, but the official ideology of the Communist Party became more 'Maoist'--at least in reviving the cult of Mao as a 'great leader'. More economic freedom/growth was accompanied not by more political freedom but more official correctness. Paradoxically, increased correctness serves as a cover for increased betrayal of the revolution by the Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party came to power and justified its rule on the basis of its commitment to creating a classless society, but once it adopted free market reforms, the Communist Party elite has become increasingly 'greedy' and 'selfish'. They've enriched themselves as 'hypocritical traitors of the Revolution'.  All the more reason then for the powers-that-be to tighten the screws on official ideology and orthodoxy in order to maintain the fiction that the Communist Party still has the right to rule because of its commitment to Revolutionary Ideals.

It could be that at least part of the reason for the rising tide of political correctness in American society just when 'progressives' have embraced success, wealth, power, and privilege has something to do with a similar paradox that characterized the Soviet Union in the 70s and China since the 90s. Liberal elite's use of political correctness isn't merely to suppress the 'evil reactionary right' but to hoodwink the less successful liberals, leftists, 'progressives', and 'people of color' without power and privilege. The liberal elites, by making a big stink about 'racism', 'sexism', and other 'evils' and by shrilling calling for more political correctness to clamp down on the 'evil right', can slyly fool the masses of loser liberals, leftists, 'progressives', and 'people of color' that they, the liberal elites, are ever so serious about working to bring about greater 'social justice' in the world. Loser liberals may be resentful of winner liberals, but as long as winner liberals use their institutional power to push for more political correctness in the struggle against the 'evil right', a lot of loser liberals will just go along and overlook the fact that winner liberals are getting richer while they, the loser liberals, are getting poorer--NY has a great divide between winner liberals and loser liberals who wait tables of the winner liberals.
Loser liberals are also unaware of the fact that the winner liberals have slyly reoriented 'progressivism' so that it will favor the powerful, privileged, and the rich over the unwashed mob. Liberal elites have pulled this off in three ways. One was to favor Identity Politics over class politics. If class politics were the main premise of ideological leftism today, then the liberal elite would be on shaky legs. After all, the liberal elites have been getting richer and richer for the past 30-40 yrs. If class were central to leftism, poor whites of both political parties and different religious affiliations would come together and attack the elites, many of whom are liberal, Jewish, SWPL, feminist, and gay. It wouldn't matter if the angry mob were culturally conservative, liberal, or whatever. They might unite as a class--and even join up with blacks and browns--against the elites, most of whom are liberal or 'progressive'. But with the rise of Identity Politics, the masses are less likely to unite as a class and more likely to break apart along racial, cultural, and ethnic lines. So, blacks prefer black identity and browns prefer brown identity. While conservatives might see Identity Politics as poor blacks and browns ganging up on better-off whites, it could also be seen as poor blacks siding with rich blacks and poor browns siding with rich browns. Thus, masses of blacks and browns are less likely to think in terms of class. A poor black would rather side with a rich black--like Obama--than side with a poor white.
Then, there is the ideology of feminism. As most 'feminists' happen to be privileged--many of them happen to be high IQ Jews and Wasps from good families--, modern feminism is less about women's war against 'patriarchy' and more about privileged women in academia, government, and upper professions demanding more privileges for themselves. Even so, a lot of unsuccessful women have been won over to feminist ideology, which further undermines the power of class consciousness. If feminism didn't exist, unsuccessful women would join up with unsuccessful men--sexually and politically--and form a united front against successful rich people. But too many unsuccessful women see the world in terms of women vs men, when, in fact, their 'oppressors' aren't so much unsuccessful men but elite 'feminist' women who increasingly hog a bigger share of the pie.
Thirdly, gays may be even more privileged than elite 'feminist' women. Thus, as long as 'progressivism' has turned into a game of fighting the 'war against women' and 'homophobia',  it basically serves the privileged class over the mass class. So, loser liberal whites, instead of siding with loser white conservatives, would rather expend most of their political energy on waving the gay flag or lionizing the likes of Sandra Fluke as a heroine when such things really favor privileged gays and pampered elite 'feminists'. It's all very pathetic.

But, this problem exists on the conservative side as well. A whole bunch of white conservatives refuse to side with white liberals against the elites because they care more about 'right to life' than economic issues. Powerful and privileged conservative elites have cynically exploited issues like abortion to keep the underclass masses of white conservatives to keep voting for the party of Wall Street instead to finding common ground with 'loser' white liberals who've also been left out of global game of power and privilege.

Of course, the biggest joke of all on the so-called Left is the cult of Holocaustianity and the fight against 'antisemitism'. If indeed American society was infested with neo-Nazis and skinheads--and if Jews were indeed a truly powerless group--, I can understand the need to stand up to antisemitism, but most of the hysteria about 'antisemitism' today isn't to protect powerless Jews from powerful 'anti-Semites' but to forbid criticism of Jewish power that only happens to be the most powerful power in America. If leftism is about standing up for the powerless against the powerful, how can it be leftist when one of the hallmarks of today's leftism is all the hysteria about 'antisemitism' that silences legitimate and necessary discussion and criticism of Jewish power, privilege, and influence?  Thus, what now goes by the name of 'leftism' is really calibrated to protect power/privilege than to challenge it. Since the elites are dominated by so-called 'progressives' and since these 'progressives' are hypocritical power-lusters(indeed hardly any different from the piggish elite class that formed in Kremlin in the 60s/70s and within the Chinese Communist Party since the 90s), they feel this need to maintain the charade of their commitment to 'progress' by increasing political correctness. In a nutshell, they hide their immense economic success as globalist capitalists by drowning the public sphere with the bullhorn of political correctness--and too many people are too stupid to figure this out.

As for RED DAWN the movie, I recall hating it with a passion when it came out for reasons ideological and personal. I used to have leftist sympathies back then, and RED DAWN just struck me as a crazy, stupid, and irresponsible movie pandering to the fears and prejudices of simple-minded gun-nuts. As for personal reasons, let's just say I have an allergy to anyone or anything that vilifies Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
In some ways, a movie like RED DAWN has been poisonous in encouraging the militia mentality that reared its ugly head in the 90s. Not that I have anything against the idea of the militia, but having known some people in those circles, I can vouch that liberals are not entirely wrong about paranoid far-right lunatics.
Yes, the Cold War was for real, and USSR was in some ways an 'evil empire', but the very idea of the Soviets invading America seemed too preposterous, even for a political fantasy.
To be fair to Milius, RED DAWN has to be taken with a grain of salt. I doubt if Milius really thought US would be invaded by the Soviets, and the movie's scenario is willfully sci-fi-paranoid-futuristic. And I suppose why not? If it was okay for paranoid liberal filmmakers in the 60s to make movies like DR. STRANGELOVE--though Kubrick considerably subverted the subversive message itself--, FAIL SAFE, and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, the scenarios of which had the US government infested with military psychopaths just itching to trigger a nuclear WWIII--and if it was okay for liberal directors of the early 70s to make stuff like PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF CONDOR--, what was so wrong about Milius's own brand of right-wing fantasy? Besides, it wasn't long after RED DAWN that a Costa Gavras' BETRAYAL came out where a bunch of 'decent patriotic' white folks of a small town turn out to be a bunch of crazy militiamen(who even use a Negro for target practice). Even so, I must say the liberal paranoid movies tend to be a bit more thoughtful than right-wing ones like RED DAWN and RAMBO(which is especially stupid). Also, the scenario of liberal paranoid movies tend to be somewhat more plausible than right-wing ones. There were indeed some extreme right-wing elements in the US military in the 50s and 60s, and the Timothy McVeigh affair amply demonstrated the dark side of the militia mentality. When I accompanied a friend who went to see a gun-seller in a small town, the guy--a veteran of the Vietnam War--was talking crazy about how Americans must arm and get ready because Libyans--yes, Libyans!--and others were planning to invade America. He looked like a normal guy with a normal job, nice little house, and normal family, but he was talking nuts. Now, of course, most small town folks aren't crazy or think like the gun-seller, but such people do exist, and it doesn't take too many nuts to carry out stuff like the Oklahoma bombing.

But the most harmful effect of movies like RED DAWN is that they divert white American patriots from their real enemies and emphasize the primacy of guns over all else. This has created a culture of stupidity, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and anti-intellectualism among many American conservatives. Whenever a lot of conservatives feel threatened by social change, they grab onto their guns like their teddy bears. It's as if guns have a talismanic power to save them from the looming danger. While guns are necessary as a last resort when all else fails, power is mostly fought and won intellectually, culturally, economically, creatively, and institutionally. The paranoid-gun culture on the Right has turned many white conservatives into turtles hiding in their shells than wolves fighting for turf, influence, and power. American conservatives have the mentality of the French on the eve of WWII. Fearful of Germans, French only hunkered down and focused on defense.

RED DAWN and RAMBO--and HEARTBREAK RIDGE--did harm to American conservative culture because they focused American patriotic rage against foreign enemies who didn't pose much threat to America. Vietnam War was over and forgotten by the 80s, and it made little sense for Stallone to dredge it up for cheap entertainment. One could certainly understand Cold War fears to some extent--through the 60s and 70s, even experts thought the Communist East was on the rise while the capitalist democratic West, especially after the social and political chaos of the 60s, was on the decline. And with Nicaragua falling to communism in the late 70s and Central America embroiled in civil wars pitting Marxist guerrillas against rightwing regimes, some feared that Latin American nations would fall like dominos to world communism. As Milius came of age in the 60s and 70s, it is understandable why he'd come up with a scenario like RED DAWN. But by the 80s, it was all just a silly fantasy and rather stupid one at that.  Anyway, by directing American conservative rage at all these foreign enemies--Vietnamese, Russians, Cubans, etc--, American conservatism failed to deal with the problem of their real enemies AT HOME.
Unlike conservatives, American liberals and Jews mainly targeted their domestic enemies. So, while liberal Jews, gays, blacks, and illegal aliens were gaining in power, American conservatives, in culture and politics, preferred to fix their bayonets against the Russkies, Vietnamese, and Cubans--and later the Muslims.
What happened to America in 2008 is many times worse than the scenario in RED DAWN.  A slick pimpish mulatto--promoted as a posterboy of interracism--was elevated to the presidency with the backing of the cabal of Jews, gays, and liberal Wasp traitors that controls nearly all the elite institutions of this nation. While stupid conservatives were watching the skies for communist and Muslim invaders from abroad, the real enemies of America have been growing in power IN America. Milius claims that RED DAWN was a ballsy movie, but it really wasn't. If anything, Hollywood Jews probably tolerated and even approved of it precisely because it was the sort of thing that diverted American conservative rage from the real enemy of American conservatism: Jews, gays, blacks, and illegals. Jews push a guy like Obama into the presidency while American conservatives fixate on supporting a foreign nation, Israel, against Palestinians, a dispossessed people whose situation is very much like the one whites are facing in America today. Jews on Wall Street steal trillions from the white middle class while the white middle class support politicians who promise even more aid to Israel. Jews are committed to destroying the white race, but the white race is committed to backing Israel no matter what it its oppression of Palestinians. Perhaps, deep down inside, Milius wanted it this way too. After all, despite all his 'zen fascist' antics, he too is Jewish(though, I must admit, I only found out this year).

That said, upon re-watching RED DAWN some years back, I found myself hating it a lot less. For one thing, the Cold War is now a distant memory, and the movie is something of a relic. There is also the nostalgia factor as I often find myself feeling a certain fondness for 80s movies I hated back then even though I still don't think too highly of them. I hated FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, PRETTY IN PINK, SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL, COCKTAIL, OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE, LESS THAN ZERO, ALL THE RIGHT MOVES, TOP GUN, KARATE KID II, MANHUNTER, BREAKFAST CLUB, SMOOTH TALK, ABOUT LAST NIGHT, ST. ELMO'S FIRE, and many others, but I must admit I enjoyed re-watching them.

While I still think RED DAWN is pretty stupid, I don't think it's a bad movie at least within the premise it lays out. And it is interesting in reversing the roles of the occupier and occupied. For most Americans, the idea of foreign invasion is unthinkable.The only time Americans had problems with 'foreign invasion' was in the War of 1812 when the British even managed to burn down the American capital. Since then, Americans continued to gain power, wealth, and land against Indians and then Mexicans. In the 20th century, America even took to playing the role of world policeman and was on the winning side in WWI and WWII and, at the very least, stopped communist aggression in Korea. Technically, Americans fought to a stalemate in Vietnam, and it was South Vietnam that lost the war, but in truth, Americans quit the war as hopeless and left the South Vietnamese to the certain fate of being overrun by communists. Even so, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong never posed a danger to America itself. Even Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor had no agenda and no ability to invade any part of America, not even Hawaii. Thus, Americans got used to exerting their power abroad.
Milius reversed the scenario as playful fantasy and goofy paranoia but also out of moral envy. Generally, the underdog wins the moral sympathy, which is why we root for little Jerry the mouse against Tom. Americans were the underdogs in the Revolutionary War but the aggressors or overdogs in all subsequent wars. In the War of 1812, the Brits may have been the overdogs--and they certainly got the better of it though neither side won--, but Americans started the war. (One could argue the American South understands what it means to be an underdog and 'oppressed' group since it was attacked, defeated, and occupied by Yankees, and indeed, there is a tragic aspect of neo-Confederacy-ism  in every kind of white militia movement, even in the North.)  Americans have long been the overdogs, but there is a lingering cult of underdog-ism in the American psych-political-moral mind-set.   Americans still like to think of their nation having been founded by idealists who had the courage to challenge the greatest empire in the world. Though French played the  decisive role in defeating the British, Americans still like to believe that a ragtag bunch of patriots of a newly declared republic led by George Washington defeated the mightiest military in the world. I don't know what they teach in schools today, but in grammar school, we learned of how the Minutemen used guerrilla tactics against the British army.

So, the American mythology has long informed us that this nation was founded by underdogs who fought against all odds. Of course, as America grew rich and powerful, Americans became very proud of their nation as 'the greatest power in the world'.  Nevertheless, a kind of underdog-victim mentality remained in the American psyche, and so Americans tended to frame all wars in moral terms that harked back to the Revolutionary War. So, even though Japan was doomed and no match for the US after it attacked Pearl Harbor, Americans were led to believe that mighty Japan was on the verge of invading America. And though Americans were killing many more Vietnamese than vice versa, the war was framed in terms of decent Americans aiding helpless South Vietnam against an evil communist enemy. And even though the 9/11 attacks were a fluke, for a while many Americans convinced themselves that they were engaged in a great War on Terror against the Islamic Jihad that attacked us because it doesn't like our freedom. Oh my, if we fail in our crusade against this great enemy, we might be defeated in the Clash of Civilizations and lose our freedom to listen to Lady Gaga.

Thus, there is a kind of dualist-schizophrenia at the core of the American psyche. Americans proudly say "We are #1 and America is the greatest nation/power on Earth" but, at the same time, Americans believe that the very source of their great power derives from their underdogness. The Revolutionary War is remembered as one in which the underdog victim-side defeated the overdog victor-side, and so, the rest of American history has come to be seen through the prism of victims-as-new-rightful-victors, i.e. American power grew so powerful precisely because good decent Americans favored victims over victors.
But when victims defeat the victors and become victors themselves, are they proud as noble victims or notable victors? In the American political psyche, two things, moral righteousness and power-lust, cannot be separated, and this may been why it was so easy for Jews to gain elite power in America for Jews have an even more extreme version of noble-victim-gaining-power-over-the-victor complex.
Though Jews have become immensely powerful and privileged, they see their power as morally and historically justified for having grown out of Jewish victim-hood's eventual triumph against 'antisemitic' victorhood. Jewish victims vanquished the anti-Jewish victors, and Jews became the new victors, but Jewish victory is to be seen as justified since it's morally rooted in victim-hood. Losers have a right to win, and this is why it's so difficult to criticize Jewish power. Jews have premised Jewish power so much on Jewish powerlessness of the past that it sounds mean-spirited to question Jewish power.  Jews, like the Anglo-Americans of old, have defined their power as having been gained for power-for-power's-sake but for power-against-oppression-sake. Thus, Jewish power is seen as the empowerment of noble victims than power-mongering of oppressive victors. But then, this moral logic of power goes back to Christianity, which, even as the predominant force in Europe long after the fall of Rome, justified its power as having been earned by noble victims in their spiritual struggle against Satanic forces of heathenism.

Anyway, this kind of duality informs Milius's RED DAWN that puts Americans in the role of the Viet Cong in an America that is invaded and occupied by a foreign enemy. Though Milius detested communism, he had a certain respect for the patriotic-resistance mentality of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. They had the wrong ideology but the right virtues. They were, at least as tough warriors, committed to their ruthless war against the foreign invaders who, in this case, happened to be Americans. In APOCALYPSE NOW, Kurtz explains how he was shocked by the ruthless deeds of the Viet Cong but then came to realize how the communists had arrived at a kind of harmony between sanity and brutality. The communists had embraced war as the natural state of man, and so they could do brutal stuff in battle but then go back to being decent family men back home. Some people have asked how Germans could read Rilke in the morning and kill Jews in the afternoon, but that wouldn't have been much different from Viet Cong chopping people to death in the morning but then returning to their roles as farmers/fathers/husbands in the afternoon. The rise of advanced civilization has cocooned modern man in the conceit of peace as the social norm, but the true nature of man is as much hunter/warrior as farmer/settler. In APOCALYPSE NOW, Kurtz 'goes native' to learn and embody the true art of war. (Milius's right-wing comic book intellectualism probably has its counterpart in Romero's left-wing comic book intellectualism.)
But then, he's no longer fighting for Americans but for the honor of the warrior soul. He becomes both an enemy and friend to both Americans and Vietnamese. He's still an American fighting the Vietnamese communists, but he's also a primal warrior at war with the modern world. As a jungle warrior, he's no longer fighting for cookie-cutter ideals of anti-communism. He's fighting for something beyond ideology and morality, something beyond 'good and evil'.
And there is an element of that in RED DAWN. What matters above all for the Wolverines is their own turf and kin. Their fight is more tribal than national. They are not fighting to defend an abstract idea of America from foreign enemies but to defend their own turf where they grew up and have families and friends. It's like a high school football team playing for pride on its home turf; in a way, it's kinda like Coppola's ONE FROM THE HEART, which also starred Patrick Swayze.
Had RED DAWN focused on the US military taking on the Soviet military, it would have been a war against equally matched giants, and it would have missed out on the element of underdog-ism. For Americans to be like the Minutemen--or the Vietcong--, the courageous underdog fighting against all odds, RED DAWN had to focus on a bunch of proud young boys in an isolated community. Perhaps, this explains why the far-left NATION magazine ran a rather favorable review of the movie. Though it was staunchly anti-communist and paranoid-right-wing, it favored the idea of underdog guerrillas taking on a technological superpower. White Americans were now the Indians or the Viet Cong. They were the victims, and from a leftist viewpoint, RED DAWN was about white Americans getting a taste of their own medicine.