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.
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 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.
