For anyone with any honesty and modicum of knowledge of the world, it should be plainly obvious that Jews constitute the most powerful people on Earth. Of course, we are talking mainly of Ashkenazi Jews positioned in elite institutions in the US, EU, Russia, and Israel. We are not talking of Iranian Jews though, to be sure, they are better off than most Iranians. And of course, there are plenty of Jews who are just ordinary people though, given their political and tribal predilections, they’d probably act like the current Jewish elites if they themselves were ensconced in positions of great power. Though Jews don’t have elite power in most nations around the world — indeed, many nations tend to be openly anti-Jewish — , Jewish power is truly global since all nations around the world, pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish, are economically beholden to the US and EU that are controlled by Jews. US and EU also have the military might to crush any nation that Jews don’t like. So, directly or indirectly, Jews exert more influence over the world than any other people do. Take Russia. There’s no reason for Vladimir Putin or any Russian nationalist to trust Jews, especially as the most powerful Jews around the world are venomously conspiring to turn Russia into a playground for Jewish lawyers-in-lust-with-power. But the fact is Russian Jews, though small in number, tend to be far more talented than most Russians who are either drunk, childish, confused, self-destructive, barbaric, or useless; and those Russian Jews have special connections with World Jewry, and if Russians were to make a move against Russian Jews, the World Jewry would do everything in their power to destroy Russia economically, indeed even more so than they are doing already. (Jewish-American opposition to the Soviet Union was less about ideology and more about American Jews sticking up for Russian Jews, especially the Zionist ones who came under suspicion of Soviet authorities who didn’t tolerate dual loyalty. Jews will always choose tribalism over ideology. Consider how even many anti-communist Jews in the late 1940s and 1950s sided with Jewish communists and radicals during the so-called ‘Red Scare’ years.) Russians seem to be #1 in driving badly, acting drunkenly, doing daredevil things of no value, and beating up one another like the idiots do in the film
LUNA PARK. Unlike dumb Russians, smart Jews stick together instead of beating each other with sticks. I sincerely wish the best for Russia, and I hope that Russians wake up to their true potential — as Russia can become like Germany with a huge land mass(average Russian IQ isn’t lower than that in any other part of Europe) — , but Russian culture hasn’t done much for Russian discipline and work ethic. Because Russians tend to be lazy and directionless, they’ve tended to favor a strong hand to maintain order, but then, a strong hand can easily become corrupt and abusive, and then the people may rise up to overthrow it, but then, unless the people can rule and control themselves, they will demand a new stronger ruler to set things right. A vicious cycle. Anyway, because the Russian economy is tied to the European economy which is tied to the American economy(which is totally controlled by Jews), Russia has to be very sensitive toward Jews. If words gets out that Russia isn’t good for Jews, Europe will treat Russia as a pariah state — even more so than already — , and Russia will be backed up against the wall.
This slavishness of the people in the EU toward Jews is partly due to political and economic pressures. Because much of EU is essentially an economic-military protectorate of the US, Europeans don’t want to displease the US that is controlled by Jews. Also, despite European resentment about American military presence and economic influence, Europeans fear that if Americans depart, the two main powers in Europe will be re-militarized Germany and big Russia. Western Europeans have been instilled with dread about any future scenario where Germany is re-associated with military might. Indeed, even most Germans feel this way and would prefer to be checked by American presence because they don’t trust themselves. Germans feel themselves to be an exceptionally evil people who need to be forced(by outside forces) to remain good. Not only do Germans still remember the tremendous humiliation of defeat and destruction in World War II, but new generations of Germans have been drummed into believing that being born German is a kind of pathology that, unless restrained and repressed, may lead to another World War and another Holocaust. Germans see their nation as a vast mental asylum where all Germans must be medicated, inspected, and instructed constantly lest they go nuts again as during the Nazi years. Indeed, Germans have come to associate even normality and healthiness with sickness because the Nazis identified their vision of Germany with cults of normality and health. Though Germans are still into habits that favor health, discipline, and efficiency — such habits led Germany to rapid post-war recovery — , Germans feel that their penchant for orderliness means that they are still subconscious Nazis at heart. Germans want to remain clean and orderly, but since the end of WWII they’ve come to subconsciously associate cleanliness and orderliness with pathology and ‘racism’ — a kind of reverse-Nazism has taken root in the German mind where what is most normal and healthy is seen as most sick and dangerous. (And to be sure, one could argue that an excessively anti-pathological mind-set is a pathology in its own right. Indeed, Nazism was essentially an extreme form of pathological anti-pathologicalism. It’s like we should try to be germ-free as much as possible, but we can’t be totally germ-free, and indeed, some germs are actually beneficial; we even need bad germs to strengthen our immune system. Thus, all attempts at purification need to be accompanied with the understanding that absolute purity is not only impossible but unnatural and unhealthy. Because Nazism took its anti-pathological agenda too far, its anti-pathology-ism became itself a form of pathology.)
Germans have been indoctrinated into believing that their penchant for order, discipline, and cleanliness may have something to do with the rise of Nazism. After all, Hitler spoke of ‘racial hygiene’, and many members of the medical community joined the Nazis. Indeed, even the Nazi policy on art tended to be medical-ist, what with all the pronunciations about stamping out the sickness and perversity of ugly, degenerate, & deformed Modernism that was explained as essentially a form of Jewish disease. Therefore, post-war Germans have gone out of their way to show that they are no longer into the cult of order and cleanliness. Thus, the face of German culture in the 1970s became the putrid, scuzzy, and homo R.W. Fassbinder whose general artistic sensibility was like pulling down his pants in public, taking a dump, wiping with his own hands, and then wiping the shit all over the wall. And even though all Germans acknowledge the Weimar Republic period as a time of great economic hardship, there’s the quasi-official sanctification of ‘Weimar culture’ as the best that Germany ever produced because it was steeped in Modernism, Jewish influence, decadence, sexual debauchery, pornography, homosexuality, and anti-conservatism. And indeed, much of Germany today is, at least culturally and intellectually, more like Jewish-dominated Vienna of the Fin-de-Siecle than bastions of nationalist conservatism/traditionalism. Even so, Germans are still among the most orderly, clean, and disciplined people in Europe, and this fact worries Germans(as well as their neighbors who fear that German orderliness may be put to aggressive uses in the future)). Not only do harder-and-better-working Germans win the economic competition(at the expense of other Europeans as some see it), but what if Germans were to stop being ‘liberal’ and turn ultra-nationalist/imperialist once again? Won’t all their positive energies be directed toward aggression and violence? Germans feel they have the diligent bodies of angels but the murderous hearts of devils. They work like dogs but hunger like wolves. Thus, they must be mindful at all times to make their hardy bodies resist the temptation of their hungry hearts that, if left unchecked, will lead to Nazism, WWII, and the Holocaust all over again. If white Americans have been made to feel that the ‘original sin’ of America is slavery, Germans have been made to feel that the ultimate ‘revelation’ of the Germanic soul is the Holocaust. According to the American Narrative controlled by Jews, white Americans aren’t necessarily evil but they committed a grave sin in enslaving Negroes, and so, white Americans must make a great effort to redeem themselves and wash themselves of their sin. According to the American Narrative, slavery happened not because it’s intrinsic to the American cultural-political DNA but because early Americans, out of greed and prejudice, went against the very ‘proposition’ of what America should be all about. In contrast, the German narrative — also concocted by Jews — says that the Holocaust-lust is something written into the very DNA of German history and culture. Thus, the Holocaust wasn’t an horrible aberration of German history and culture but its fullest actualization. So, if there is a vision of ‘hope’ for white Americans to redeem themselves by embracing true Americanism — rewritten by Jews to stand for ‘change’ via white self-abnegation — , there is no such hope for Germans since the very idea of Germanness is essentially about blood-and-soil, warmongering, & mass murder. So, in order for white Americans to be good, they should strive to be ‘more truly American’, whereas in order for Germans to be good, they must work ever so hard to be less German(even to the point where Germany abolishes itself; if white Americans must abolish ‘racism’ from their minds, Germans must abolish Germanism itself whole hog). Indeed, the German effort to increase diversity and ‘abolish itself’ reflects the feeling among Germans that they are hopeless since their very cultural DNA drives them to Holocaust-lust. It’s like the very DNA of alcoholics drive them to drink excessively.
But negative feelings abound in Europe not only against Germans but against Russians too. Eastern Europeans still remember the long occupation of Eastern Europe under the Soviet Union dominated by, of course, Russia. And even after the Cold War, many Europeans associate Russia — justifiably to some extent — with drunkenness, boorishness, barbarism, vulgarity, childishness, insane auto-driving, slovenliness, dirtiness, and simplemindedness. In the minds of many Europeans, Russians make ‘lazy-dumb-Polacks’ look hardworking and smart. If you know anything about Russians — here and abroad — , you know such perceptions are not entirely unwarranted, and it would be nice for Russia to be ‘Prussianized’. And if World War I hadn’t intervened and if Russian elites had continue to look to Germany as a model for development — only natural since many Germans had worked to shape & build Russian government, economy, and military into shape throughout the 19th century — , things might have turned out very differently. German developmental model was hard and intensive, but it wasn’t inhuman. Furthermore, as Germans stressed discipline, thoroughness, and efficiency, it was a formula for faster progress with fewer human costs.
Bad work habits require more brutality to keep things under control, and far more human energies and natural resources must be expended to get things done. The German developmental model became inhuman when associated with Nazi theories of ‘Aryan’ racial superiority that gave green light for Nazi henchmen to treat Slavic populations like animals, indeed in many cases, worse than the Soviets treated their prisoners. (But then, the Soviets and Russian Tsars before them had often treated Russian masses in similar manner because of the not entirely false perception that Russians, being lazy and crude, had to be beaten like animals to achieve anything. Paradoxically, while the historical process needed to produce a culture of work ethic may involve cruelty and brutality, once the principle of work ethic becomes the norm among a populace, far less brutality is needed for further economic achievement since most people will work hard and efficiently as a cultural and personal ideal. In contrast, with a people lacking in work ethic[and respect for rule of law], much more violence and brutality is necessary to drive them to work and produce results. Developing work ethic isn’t just a matter of using brutality and coercion, because if that were so, Russians should be the hardest working people in the world given the brutality of the Tsars and the Soviets over many centuries. Genuine work ethic isn’t just about the pressure to work but idealization of certain habits as spiritual or moral virtues. The pressure must be internalized so that one wants to work hard of his or her own volition. If the pressure is only external and people are made to work hard simply out of fear, they will revert to laziness once the external pressure is lifted. It’s the difference between a student who studies because he must and a student who studies because he has no choice. Even without external pressure, the former student will feel ‘guilty’ for not giving his best.) But prior to WWI, Germans who worked in Russia didn’t see Russians as less-than-human and did their best to raise the standards of the Russian government and economy. It was a tragedy that this influence was lost on Russia because the new socio-economic norm implemented by Georgian Stalin and his Jewish henchmen was brutal, inhuman, and utterly merciless. And from them, Russian communists also learned to be mass killers who made the secret police under the Tsars look like Mr. Rogers and Kermity the Frog. And once Russia turned into a totalitarian tyranny that used people like cattle and once Germany turned into a Nazi madhouse that regarded Slavs as cattle, the groundwork of Russocaust was being laid for implementation in the looming war.
Anyway, it should be obvious to all honest and courageous people that Jews are indeed the most powerful people in the world. Jews not only have direct control over Wall Street, Washington D.C., global media, Pentagon, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. but have indirect control over all the economies of the world that are intertwined with the Jewish-dominated centers of power. And by sanctioning Iran and Russia, Jews have demonstrated to all the nations around the world that they too can be targeted and undermined if they displease Jews. Of course, no amount of groveling before & appeasing Jews will satiate the Jews as Jews have the kind of pushy personalities that, if given an inch, demands a mile, and if given a mile, demands a light year. Jew is the sort of guy who, if making thousands a year, wants to make a millions a year, and if making millions year, wants to make billions a year, and if making billions a year, wants to make tens of billions a year and etc, all the way to Google bucks. Jew is always dreaming of more, more, more.
But Jewish power isn’t merely economic and political. If anything, a power that is merely political, economic, and/or militaristic is vulnerable, especially in the modern world, because we’ve all been raised with mantras about ‘equality’, ‘social justice’, ‘liberation’, and etc. If indeed people indefinitely cower before power simply out of fear of power itself, the Shah would still be ruling Iran. People support or reject power on the basis of its righteousness, and this goes back to the beginning of civilization when the military caste, merchant class, spiritual clergy, and scholarly elites forged a mutually reinforcing bond. Military caste without economic support, moral righteousness, and control of knowledge would be unstable. People would come to see it as naked brutality. But then, moral/spiritual power without military protection/support would be vulnerable like a head attached to a paralytic body. Might had to be melded with right to become ‘mighteous’. Hebrews discovered as they fought other tribes that they needed to be led by the might of a warrior-king. Prophets may be morally righteous and have a special connection to God, but when it came to the survivalist needs of daily ass-whupping among various tribes, there was need for a strong military commander who could whip his people into shape and lead them into battle. But this might, without the checking-and-balancing power of the right or righteousness, could become vainglorious and megalomaniacal. So, there was a need for might plus right. King David came to be admired not only for his great qualities but for his self-critical realization of his negative qualities.
 |
| Richard Gere as King David in Bruce Beresford Film |
Of course, since the might often appointed the guardians of the right(eous), the right often just became a moralistic strong-arm of the might. The Russian Orthodox Church served the Tsars and later Stalin. In today’s China, all official Christian groups need the approval of the state. And King Herod had chummy ties with Rabbinical authorities who served worldly powers than God. Though communism came to power in the name of moral righteousness, in time its elites grew vain, corrupt, and cynical — especially as it became all too apparent that the communist East was not only falling behind but would never catch up with[let alone surpass]the capitalist West — , and communist orthodoxy simply became a tool of right(eousness) used by mighty to justify their own power and privileges. Does anyone in power in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam really believe in communist ideals anymore? Fidel Castro is one of the richest man in the Latin America, Kim Jong Un reportedly spends $600 million a year on luxury goods, Chinese Communist Party bosses have amassed huge fortunes, and Vietnamese communist leaders seem to love capitalism more than Americans do.
Still, the righteous rhetoric of communism still has its uses, just like Christianity and Confucianism were useful as moral justifications for the respective elites of the West and China over many centuries. Divine Right of Kings, the Mandate of Heaven. The vision of rule steeped in moral right than warlord might. Though Greeks were masters of philosophy and had the greatest influence on elite endeavors in the arts, science, and philosophy, the greatest influence(at least in emotional terms) on politics and morality came from the Jews(in the West) and the Chinese(in the East). Though matters of morality are indeed possible without God or gods, what would be missing is the sense of righteousness. Greek philosophers spent many days and nights debating on all matters of morality and ethics, and they produced more philosophical schools of morality and ethics than any other people did. But what is lacking in Greek philosophy is the powerful sense of righteousness, because no matter how correct-sounding an argument may be, it is only the product of the human mind. In contrast, read the Epistles of St. Paul and it’s righteousness piled upon righteousness piled upon righteousness. Though not without moral logic and some degree of philosophy, the true power derives from the fact that St. Paul invokes God and Jesus over and over and over as the source of what he believes to be sacred and true. Thus, his morality isn’t merely the product of his personal thoughts but wisdom and truth shown to him by higher powers. Moral philosophy without righteousness can be thoughtful, but it’s like a flaccid penis. In contrast, righteousness is the boner of morality. It’s like Beavis with a stiffy, and higher powers gave moral stiffies to prophets through the ages. More than any other people, Jews added ‘boing’ to morality. If Jews literalized their moral stiffiness through the Covenant of circumcision that required Jewish men to scalp their puds — Jews became the Pud People through the Inspiration of the Foreskin Snatchers — , St. Paul spiritualized this stiffy into a matter of faith so that even gentiles who didn’t undergo circumcision could become righteously erect through spiritual conversion. The odd spectacle of Richard Dawkins is that, despite his anti-religiosity, he is trying to steal the stiffy of righteousness from the religious community. But how can anyone be righteous without God? One can be thoughtful, contemplative, critical, rational, logical, skeptical, and sensible without God, but it’s difficult for one to be truly righteous without some connection to a higher being or higher power. For this reason, Dawkins’ righteousness seems weird, like artificial righteousness via Viagra. Since Dawkins rejects God, he cannot be truly righteous — even if he’s scientifically correct — , so he tries to ‘righteous-ize’ science with himself as its godhead(though many people just see him as a dickhead). It’s like someone who’s opposed to a certain narcotic plant but still craves for chemicals in that plant and thereby distills the chemicals for personal use while rejecting the plant as a whole. Dawkins, though an enemy of religion, has sought to distill the essence of righteousness that is the heart-and-soul of religion but is not of science.
Anyway, because Jews, as the Pud People, advanced the culture of righteousness more than any other people, there is an element of righteous pushiness among Jews that goes well beyond other forms of righteousness found in other peoples. But what makes Jews especially difficult-to-take is that they’ve been, at once, the most righteous people and the most devious people. As the Chosen People of God, they felt a special burden had been placed on them to be more moral and righteous than any other people. It was like a Jewish Man’s Burden. But because Jews, a relatively weak and powerless people through most of history, had to hustle and wheel-and-deal with goy peoples to get the upper hand, they also became very adept at hoodwinking and cheating other peoples. Also, the Chosen-ness was a double-edged sword. It could be interpreted to mean that Jews had the responsibility to be more moral than others OR that Jews were racially-culturally superior to other peoples, therefore non-Jews could be exploited by Jews any way they chose. Anyway, because of this powerful combination of righteousness-and-deviousness, Jews were bound to be especially dangerous in the Modern Era when their righteousness-deviousness came to be combined with reason and science(especially as Jews have naturally higher IQs). It’d be taking Osama Bin Laden, Isaac Newton, & P.T. Barnum and rolling them into a single person. That is the modern Power Jew: righteous, intelligent, and opportunistic. Ideally, those who are righteous should forsake the world of reason; those who are rational should tone down their righteousness; and those who are devious should stick to money-making and shut up about truth and higher things. But Jews have the triple package, and that makes them dangerous. Jews are rationally calculating in their righteousness, and Jews are righteousness in their deviousness. It’s difficult to tell apart a Jewish moralist from a Jewish gangster from a Jewish intellectual. But then, Jews are careful not give the game away since they are the ruling elites in majority gentile nations; and if indeed gentiles were to find out what Jews are really up to, it’s Game Over for Jews.
If Jewish-inspired righteousness in the forms of Christianity and Islam came to dominate the political and cultural norms of the West and the Near East, it was Confucianism that came to dominate the East. It may seem counter-intuitive that Confucianism served as the basis of the culture of righteousness since Confucius wasn’t interested in spiritual matters and was a philosopher of human affairs. In this, one might think he was more comparable to the Ancient Greek philosophers than to the Jewish Prophets. But Confucian philosophy wasn’t one of unfettered reason or about the advancement of logic but a kind of emotional and cultural sanctification of certain socio-moral norms that developed around the Chinese family. Generally speaking, Greek philosophy isn’t about families since familial bonds of blood tend to get in the way of clear rational thinking. It’s difficult to think of Man as an abstract, ideal, or concept if one’s mind is fixated on one’s father, brother, or son. (This may be why some homosexuals were key figures in Greek philosophy as they had fewer attachments to the traditional idea of family.)
Familial ties are deeply emotional, and even though such feelings may not be necessarily religious, there’s a sense of righteousness that goes beyond morality and ethics founded on philosophy and logic. After all, even a liberal parent might try to protect his or her child from justice out of blood bonds even though the child is very likely guilty. Though Confucianism wasn’t about "my family, right or wrong", it’s sense of virtue, truth, and righteousness was inseparable from the principle of the family, and indeed the family was used as the basic metaphor for all power-relations, even of the relation between rulers and the ruled. A good emperor should be like a good father who looks upon his subjects as his children. This deep sense of connection made for a very quasi-righteous order in China. In some ways, it was even more so in Japan because, whereas Chinese rulers could theoretically be deposed for having lost the Mandate of Heaven, the Japanese Emperor was seen literally as the patriarch of the nation. In China, Confucianism’s notion of ruler-as-father-of-nation in the realm of politics was a powerful metaphor but still just a metaphor, but Japanese revered the Emperor as the literal descendant of the gods who created Japan. To be sure, one could argue that Japan also saw the rise and fall of dynasties and that its notion of continuous rule is something of a conceit since most Emperors were figureheads and never had much power. The real power was with the military lords, and real power passed from one set of clans to others all throughout Japanese history.
Anyway, returning to the subject of Jews, what accounts for their great power? Too many people are blinkered when it comes to Jewish power because much of our discourse is dominated by leftist models, and of course, Jews prefer to obfuscate the true nature of their power with leftist-sounding smoke-and-mirrors. To understand Jewish power, we need to understand the concept of ‘will’, something that’s been suppressed in modern Western discourse since it’s been associated with the modern right, especially the far or radical right: ‘will to power’ and ‘triumph of the will’. According to classical leftism, the concept of will as a determinant in history is an illusion. Rather, as Karl Marx explained, history happens because of certain laws centered around economic forces. Social trends, given their material basis, develop in a certain direction until contradictions become so great that they bring forth a revolution that founds a new order and a new era, that is until new contradictions develop into future revolutions. (Perhaps such thinking on Marx’s part wasn’t primarily the influence of Hegel but product of Jewish Rabbinical tradition. Though Marx was raised as a Christian and soon became an atheist, he was very much the genetic and cultural inheritor of a long Jewish tradition. For thousands of years, Jewish intellectual tradition favored those who were most adept with dealing with contradictions. Jewish religion was more contradictory than most other religions/mythologies because of the conceit of God’s perfectness, aloneness, and all-powerfulness. The Jewish God was man’s lonely God, and He was said to be all-knowing, all-invincible, infallible, and perfectly good in every way. Since pagan gods, even the most powerful, never claimed such power for themselves, the chaos of pagan cosmology and sociology seemed most natural. There was no reason to solve the problems of contradictions since contradictions were all-too-natural to the cosmological order of the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, or Persian gods. If mankind was far from perfect and the world was messed up, why should that surprise anyone since gods themselves had problems of their own and conflicting agendas. It’s like Odysseus takes it as a given that his voyage will be hazardous since there are as many gods who are against him as there are those who are for him. In contrast, the Bible says the perfect God created a perfect order with his perfect creations. But if that were so, why did the Adam and Eve, the perfect creations of a perfect God, disobey God? It’s like HAL in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY growing neurotic because it, as a perfect system, is not supposed to make any error but it apparently did when it notified the astronauts of a malfunction in some part of the space ship. Whether HAL decides to kill the astronauts to hide the proof of its imperfection or because it still believes itself to be correct vis-a-vis the astronauts who may have mis-diagnosed the malfunction, it’s anybody’s guess. But the thing is HAL wouldn’t be so neurotic if it hadn’t been programmed with the idea that it is a perfect system — though it’s possible that such a self-image was formed spontaneously by HAL itself. If HAL had been programmed with a more pagan frame-of-mind, it might have been more accepting of the possibility that it made a mistake. But as it firmly believes it is perfect and can never be wrong about anything, it becomes cyber-neurotic when the astronauts insist that it made a mistake. And when the astronauts decide to shut HAL down, HAL behaves like God against men who are building the Tower of Babel. The conviction or conceit of perfection and absolute moral righteousness of God led to spiritual neuroticism in the Jewish mind because the conviction or conceit was so much at odds with the way of the world. Also, even the various faces of God seemed to contradict one another. The logical conclusion would have been that God is not perfect, but because Judaism made it a matter of faith that Yahweh is indeed all-perfect, all-good, and all-powerful, Jews had to find all sorts of clever, creative, weird, brilliant, nutty, inspired, ludicrous, and/or sublime reasons to square their conviction/conceit with reality. And such a mind-set served as the basis for Jewish humor and folklore, much of which make sense against no sense. Indeed, it is in bridging absurdity with clarity that Jewish mentality produced some of its most original thinkers, artists, and comedians. It’s easy to be totally absurd, and there are simple rules in reason and logic. But it takes an especially brilliant and witty mind to make sense of nonsense. This has been the brilliance of Woody Allen. He seems to be acting crazy, yet there’s a perverse logic behind the nutty antics. [Paradoxically, the profoundly scientific truths discovered by Einstein may have owed to Jewish penchant for seeking clarity in the realm of absurdity. Perhaps, it required a peculiar kind of mind-set to search for such possibilities that, on face value, seem utterly absurd. Though there have been many great scientists before Einstein, most of their discoveries, once explained, made perfect sense even to layman. In contrast, the Theory of Relativity, even if true, still sounds so unreal. It seems like the discovery of not merely high intelligence but a strange mind-set. This is rather unsettling since we associate science with clarity and unambiguity. But if possibily the greatest scientific theory was arrived at by a mind steeped in warped ambiguities, where does that leave us? Are we like the Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Lee characters in the final scene of David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ who are both awed and afeared of Jewish genius that can gain infinite power over us?] This is especially true of Kafka, whose stories are absurd yet also intensely logical. It’s no wonder that Freud felt most at home when applying logic to the dream world. Things that happen inside a dream make no sense on the literal level — especially when recalled from waking state — , but if understood as symbols they do start forming into sense. Likewise, Judaism sees the world as a kind of a warped dream. The way of God may not make sense since what Jews believe of God seems to have little bearing on the real world, but what if the things of ‘reality’ are really symbols of deeper truths? No need for idols when the entire world is a system of symbols waiting to be decoded and deciphered. So, on the literal level what happens to Job seems most meaningless, but perhaps what we take to be ‘real’ is actually symbolic of hidden truths known only to God as the psychoanalyst of the universe. The problem of contradiction in Jewish tradition can be seen in Darren Aronofsky’s NOAH, the first half of which is barely tolerable but the second half comes alive by wrestling with some of the key contradictions of Judaism. Though the movie deviates from the original story, Aronofsky took the psychoanalytic root and probed into hidden thoughts about God among his tribesmen thousands of years ago. [To simply retell the Noah story would have been like professional wrestling where every move has been preordained and pre-practiced. It would require no struggle since we know the good guys and bad guys of the story, and we know God chose Noah to build the Ark, and Noah dutifully obeyed God, and that was that. It would hardly have been a spiritual or moral challenge since it’s one of the most famous stories in the world.
So, Aronofsky decided to really wrestle with the material and find his own truths. He goes for hard blows and draws blood. But then, as with the Mickey Rourke character at the end of THE WRESTLER, one can only be so ‘real’ with something that has a preordained ending. Rourke’s character tries to fight real in a fake match, and Aronofsky, despite his ‘heroic’ struggling with the material, knows he had to end the story more or less as it’s told in the Bible. His fight is both real and fake. It is a contradiction.] What is to be made of the contradiction between God’s all-perfectness & all-powerfulness AND the state of the world? When Noah decides to do away with all of mankind — his family included[he even becomes like Ethan in THE SEARCHERS toward his grandchildren] — , his conviction is at once a moral and immoral idea. Immoral in the conventional sense since how could any decent man choose to wipe out even his own family? And yet, it is moral in the sense that it’s a logical extension of what God has done to the rest of mankind. If mankind is wicked and must be wiped out, then why should Noah’s family be spared? As humans, don’t they also carry the seed of evil, and won’t their children also repeat the transgressions of Cain all over again as they repopulate the earth? In this sense, Noah in the movie is correct. If wickedness is to be stamped out from the world, then all of mankind, including his own family, must be wiped out. After all, the later chapters of the Bible tell story after story of how the world is filled with murder, rape, strife, warfare, tyranny, and etc. So, the Flood was all for nought. It killed countless people in the name of stamping out evil, but the world came to be refilled with evil all over again. It’s horrible to kill countless people and animals, but it’s even worse when even the goal that might have justified it halfway turns out to be futile. [It’s like Stalin killed millions but at least he developed a industrial superpower. In contrast, Mao killed many more but only made China into a bigger economic wreck. That makes Maoism much worse: mass killing and nothing to show for it.] And yet, Jews were required to believe that God is all-perfect and all-knowing. If God were just a philosophical concept, Jews could have changed or rejected its formulation. But as a spiritual idea is a matter of faith, Jews had to remain true to their worship of God. And since Jews couldn’t come up with any satisfying resolution to this contradiction at the core of their religion, their way of thinking got loopier, more surreal[which may explain Jewish love of modern abstract art], and ever stranger. And yet, thinking demands logic and reason, so Jews became very adept at those faculties as well. The problem was Jews applied tremendous amount of logic and reason to a subject that was beyond logic and reason. [But then, this may have made Jews into nimbler and more fluid thinkers because, as mental Houdinis, they had to squeeze sense out of what made no sense. It’s a challenge to make sense of difficult things that ultimately do make sense, but it’s an even bigger challenge to make sense out of impossible things that make no sense.] Purely on the philosophical level, the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are contradictory since philosophy is about use of reason, logic, and/or facts whereas the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are rooted in our emotional and/or sensual responses. Before something IS ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we must FEEL that it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The law of gravity is what it is regardless of whether it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Science, founded on rational and empirical philosophy, is about truth regardless of whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. An asteroid coming to blow up Earth may be ‘bad’ to us, but in astronomical terms, it just is. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to a black hole, sun spots, or the coming or going of the Ice Age. So, when we say a hurricane or earthquake is ‘bad’, we mean it’s bad for our immediate interests. When we say a certain food tastes good, we mean it’s agreeable to our taste buds. In this sense, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ need not have a moral component. We know the Japanese tsunami that killed so many people was bad for Japan, but it wasn’t ‘evil’ because it was just a natural phenomenon. It’s like a backache is bad but not a moral issue. Nevertheless, we also know that what is ‘good’ for us can be ‘bad’ for others, and what is ‘bad’ for us can be ‘good’ for others. Agriculture is good for us, but as it clears away much of nature to make for farms it’s bad for animals that rely on natural habitats. If a disease were to wipe out all of humanity, we might see it as a very bad thing, but it would be good for the number of fishes in the ocean as humans won’t be around with their vast nets. Nevertheless, situational concepts of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ aren’t a moral issue but simply one of relative interest. When a bear kills and eats a gopher, it’s good for the bear, bad for the gopher. But it’s the way of nature. It’s not about morality. But humans have moralized ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’, and this development owed to the concept of free will/intention, sacro-idealization of social harmony, and projection of our values onto the non-human world. If a rock fall off a cliff and kill someone, it’s bad but not ‘evil’ since the rock had no intention to kill anyone. It was just an ‘accident’. But if someone picks up a rock and uses it to kill someone, we say it is ‘evil’ since there was the intention to kill. We say humans have free will, and that means each of us has the power to choose ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Some societies have very weak sense of free will or don’t believe in it at all, but they too have a sense of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ based on a communal sense of harmony. Thus, is someone acts out of order and commits murder, he is said to have upset the harmonious order of things and therefore guilty of evil. Furthermore, prior to the rise of scientific thinking, mankind projected his moral sense onto the non-human world of nature and the cosmos. Many cultures came to see snakes as forces of wickedness. Instead of seeing snakes as creatures equipped with their own means of survival, humans saw them as malicious forces of nature. And if an earthquake happened, humans might see it as the work of evil forces that meant harm upon mankind. Other cultures saw such disasters as the work of amoral gods that needed to be appeased. As Jews believed in only one God who was the master of everything, their only possible explanation was that it was the act of God who was either punishing mankind for its wickedness, punishing Jews for their disobedience, or punishing the enemies of Jews for their mistreatment of Jews[as when God sent down all manner of horrors upon the Egyptians in the Exodus story]. One of the hazards of being the one and only God was that such a figure not only got the credit for everything that was good but the ‘blame’ for everything bad as well. In the case of the Greek gods, Zeus might say to the displeased members of mankind, "I didn’t do it. Poseidon did." But as the Jewish God was the one and only God, He had to be responsible for not only all the good things that befell mankind but all the bad things. But since He was said to be all-perfect, He could never be blamed — in the end, even Job decided to drop the case against God — , and other explanations had to be found to not only let God off the hook but to justify what He did. In a way, Jewish supremacist power is turning all of us into existential Jews because Western gentiles today act toward Jewish elites in the manner that ancient Jews acted toward God. As Jews are seen as the god-race, we can’t blame them for anything. No matter how many social, economic, cultural, political, and military calamities are caused by Jews who control Washington D.C. and European capitals, we must tell ourselves that Jews are utterly blameless, and we must direct the blame for all the problems on the world on Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Syrians, Palestinians, Europeans, Japanese, and, most of all, white male conservative Americans who, though constantly smeared by Jews, are among the biggest toe-suckers of Jewish power. So, never mind that Jews played the main role in bringing down the world economy in 2008. Democrats just blamed Republicans, and Republicans just blamed Democrats — with neither side mentioning the Jewish role in all this — , and both sides hailed prominent Jews for ‘saving the world’. In today’s world, Jews play god and have appointed homos to be their avenging angels. Anyway, the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are problematic from both a religious and rationalist viewpoint. From a religious one, if indeed everything has been predetermined by God, who is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful, then everything we do has been preordained, in which case, we can’t be blamed for anything. Furthermore, according to spiritual system like Buddhism, nothing can be moral since even what we consider to be ‘good’ relies on what is ‘bad’. We live because we eat but to eat we must kill, and killing is never a happy business. Even good people must kill to eat. So, according to Buddhism, the only way out is to reject both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and find some way to not only vanish from the world but to vanish the world-as-an-illusion itself. From a rationalist viewpoint, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are relative things. After all, humans are animals, and human behavior can be understood in terms of biochemistry. So, we might say something is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ for the sake of social convenience, but is morality anything more than a social construct? Does it exist in nature or apart from the conceits of our minds? Why is it evil if a man kills a man but it’s not evil if an ape kills an ape? At what point in the evolution of man did something that was natural albeit unpleasant come to be seen as something that was not only nasty but downright evil? With the coming of morality, mankind began to create and organize thoughts and actions into categories of good and evil, but the underlying contradiction could not be resolved. This contradiction is addressed in NOAH when the patriarch asks his wife if she’s willing to kill people to protect her family, and she says yes. Her noble feelings of love are bound with feelings of potential hatred. Love means being bound to one’s group, and for the interests of that group, one must be willing to harm and/or kill other groups. Israeli Jews love their own kind, so they go around killing Palestinians. Palestinians love their own kind, so they go around looking for ways to kill Jews. Zionists love their own kind, so they will foment any amount of violence among Arabs and Slavs to make gentiles kill gentiles so that Jews can gain advantage over the goyim. The problem that ‘Noah’ addresses in the film is related to the one raised by Jesus and St. Paul much later. Is goodness about Jews acting in love for fellow Jews or for the love of all of mankind? ‘Noah’ comes to be appalled not only by wickedness of men but of the wickedness hidden within the goodness of his own family. While his family seems good and righteous unlike most folks who act like drunken Irish, the fact is his family will also commit murder for the sake of tribal affection within the clan. So, the only moral option for ‘Noah’ to do is to ensure that his family will follow the rest of mankind in utter demise. He figures he must carry out the duty with the Ark in order to save the animals, but as for mankind itself, all of its seeds must be destroyed. As crazy as this sounds, there’s a certain moral logic, but then, every moral logic violates other moral logics. When ‘Ham’ finds some nice girl and tries to bring her onboard, ‘Noah’ lets her be trampled to death by the drunken Irish mob. ‘Ham’ not only becomes furious with his father but sees him as evil. ‘Noah’ acted morally in accordance to his moral logic but acted beastly according to the moral logic of his son. These contradictions pile up. Most interesting in the movie is how the character of Tubal-Cain isn’t presented as a simpleminded villain but a ‘moralist’ in his own right. Given the multi-faceted and contradictory nature of God, Tubal-Cain’s vision of God has its own logic, however brutal it may be. He’s like the darkly figure in SUNSHINE[the sci-fi movie]that stands for the brutal ham-fisted side of God. And indeed, given the horror of the flood, one wonders if anything moral about God could be salvaged from the Noah narrative. HAL just killed a handful of astronauts to cover up its error, but God decides to wipe out just about everyone and everything. But then, why did God spare Noah and his family? Perhaps the answer is to be found in ‘Noah’ being unable to plunge the knife into the little babies. There was something in him that just couldn’t do it, and this feeling goes beyond any moral logic or philosophy. It’s a feeling, like the moment when sunlight breaks through the clouds after a terrible storm. And this feeling is what both redeems ‘Noah’ and condemns him & all of mankind because from those spared children mankind spread out all over the world again to commit all sorts of crazy acts. Among the proto-Jews and early Jews, there were various factions with conflicting view of God, and in time, the faction that believed in the ideal of the one-and-only, all-powerful, all-wise, all-good, and all-knowing God won and gained control of the narrative, and their concept of God came to define Judaism. And yet, while other Jewish schools of thought were vanquished or suppressed, some of them came to be subsumed by the official narrative. One doesn’t have to read the Bible too carefully to sense that the views of the other schools are embedded in the narrative. The Tubal-Cain-ish view lost out to the Noah-ian view, but it too remains in parts of the Bible. Winners write the history, but they don’t necessarily expunge entirely the views of the losers. Oftentimes, they spin the views of the losers to serve the views of their own winning side, but the original meaning of the views of the losing side can still be gleaned from close reading. It’s like how the Jew-controlled Liberal media spin even facts and information that undermine the Liberal Narrative to serve the Narrative, but close reading of the facts, however distorted and warped they may be, reveal something more than what the Narrative intends. And this is what is valuable about Aronofsky’s NOAH. Instead of just sticking with the official narrative of Noah as the only good man who was spared by God, he dug through the material and found a darker ‘Noah’ who was wracked with doubt and despair than with certainty and hope. It’s not enough for this ‘Noah’ to go through the motions like a professional wrestler. He is forced to genuinely wrestle with the meaning of God and virtue, and none of it comes to him naturally nor easily.) Though people will have to act when the moment arrives, the progression of history is really beyond the will of any individual or any group of people. Whether one chooses to see Friedrich Nietzsche as a rightist figure or not — he was too ambiguous, multi-faceted, and willfully contradictory to be pigeonholed one way or another — , it was this concept of Will that set him apart from someone like Karl Marx who believed in the Iron Law of History; individual human will may navigate through history — like a surfer riding the tidal waves — but it cannot change the direction of history.
In contrast, the ideal of the Overman suggests that great men can make history, indeed that history would be nothing without great individuals as thinkers, prophets, artists, visionaries, and etc. Ayn Rand applied this theory — consciously or not — to her cult of ultra-capitalism.
As most Jews have been on the political left — and came to dread the Modern Right that became synonymous with the cult of the great men of iron will — , the concept the Power of Will changing history became anathema to them. (The influence of Freudianism also undermined the concept of the Power of Will in positing that human behavior was driven far more by subconscious forces that were beyond the understanding of conscious will. It wasn’t long before Jewish psychologists got to diagnosing white folks’ Conscious Will[premised on nationalism, tribalism, and race-ism]as irrational and dangerously rooted in the cancerous regions of the psyche.) And yet, no people in modern times achieved and gained so much through the Power of Will as the Jews have done. Did Israel just happen, or was it the product of iron Jewish will? Did Jews go from rags to riches in America due to some objective laws of history or were Jews stronger-willed than most other people in seeking wealth, control, and power? Of course, some will mention higher Jewish IQ, but if high IQ is all that is necessary for great power, then Episcopalians should be just as powerful or more powerful since they have comparable IQ with Jews. If Jews were very smart but mellow in temperament and more laid-back in will power, would they have grown so powerful? So, we have to understand modern Jewish in terms of their Iron Will. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say Jews have an Alloy Will. Germans and Japanese had iron wills in the first half of the 20th century, but their wills made them rigid and narrow in their thinking. They overstepped their bounds and got clobbered. (In some ways, it might have been better for Japan if it had lost the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. It would have been a sobering experience, and Japanese wouldn’t have gotten mired into conflicts in Northeast China, and the hard lesson would have reminded the Japanese not to mess with the US. Though Russia had the material might to destroy Japan in 1905, the problems of logistics made it difficult as Japan was close to Korea/Manchuria whereas it took forever for Russians to send supplies to their forces in the Far East. So, Japan managed to eke out something like a victory though Russia was far from defeated as a nation. It was a hard-fought battle, but Japanese mythologized the war into a great victory for invincible Japan, and such arrogance poisoned the coming generations. It is likely that Japan thought the US, also far away from Asia, simply wouldn’t be able to wage a full-scale war all across the Pacific on Japan’s ‘home turf’. Anyway, if Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, it would have been a limited defeat — Russians would have gained control of Northeast Asia but wouldn’t have invaded Japan itself — , and Japan would have embarked on a more cautious foreign policy in the coming years. But the victory, reiterated and mythologized by Japanese schools for two generations of Japanese children, created a mentality whereby Japanese thought that the sheer power of their will could achieve just about anything. Sometimes, you lose a little but avoid losing bigger later. Japan won little but lost much bigger later. It was like a white guy beating a second-rate black boxer and then thinking he could take on George Foreman as well.) Jewish will is powerful but it’s also more adaptable. It’s alloy-like. Also, as Jews have no concept of honor and dignity, they will mold their will in any manner to get things their way. There’s nothing stiff about Jews. Jew vs Wasp is like a fight between a tall white guy who stands stiff & straight and throws predictable punches AND a Jewish guy who crouches low, weaves left and right, and doesn’t even mind going for the low blow. There was something Houdinish about Jews. Houdini, as we all should know, was a man of both great will and great flexibility(and cunning). He was an alloy-willed and rubber-bodied Jew. Indeed, the fascinating thing about alloys is that they can be changed into many things but can also be even more powerful than iron and steel. It’s like the Terminator is made of alloys, and
T-1000 is made of super-duper-alloys. He’s like the Zelig of robots. Indeed, look how Jews have wormed themselves to the top of both political parties and into key positions of elite institutions in law, medicine, high-tech, entertainment, media, academia, government, and etc. Though Jews are generally associated with the left, Jews have long given up on classical leftism and has gone about morphing leftism from an ideology of class consciousness and racial justice — and Third World liberation from Western Imperialism — to an ‘idology’ of homo ass worship, global Wars for Israel, Holocaustianity, porno-interracism(envious ugly Jews want white beauty to be muddied with black blood and turned ape-like or monkey-faced like Obama), and elite urban privilege especially where Jewish power is centered.
Anyway, alloy will or iron will, Jews are among the most powerful-willed people on Earth. Indeed, they may be the most powerful-willed people in the sense that Jewish will is both tribal and individualistic. Though Germans and Japanese were strong-willed, it was a collective will where most people mostly followed and supported the will of their rulers. So, Germans mindlessly surrendered their own individual will to follow and obey the will of the Fuhrer, and the Japanese were all-too-willing to surrender their individual wills to rally around the will of the military elites with the Emperor on their side. In contrast, even as Jews do stick together and work for common Jewish interest, your average Jew is likely to be more strong-willed on the individual level than gentiles are. After Germany and Japan were defeated, most people just sheepishly followed the will of Americans or the Soviets. So, without powerful national/tribal leadership, most Germans and Japanese, as individuals, have no great will of their own. They may still have a powerful work ethic and sense of discipline, but will is more than order and discipline. It is an aggressive and assertive force that says, "I am here, I am right, and I don’t take no shit from no one." (What goes for the Will also goes for the Narrative. A Jewish family has a more powerful sense of identity, history, and culture than most non-Jewish families. Even apart from media and education, Jews have a sense of deep-rooted Jewishness that goes back thousands of years. Jews not only seek to gain control over media and academia but also seek to maintain their sense of tribal identity apart from media and academia. It’s like Jews lost control of the media and academia in the USSR, but they still maintained their powerful sense of Jewishness. It’s like Jews became Americans but still retained their powerful sense of Jewishness. And even when Jewishness mixes with other ethnic bloodlines, it tends to be dominant because of its ancient roots, pushiness, and nastiness. The mind-set that insistently maintains its tradition and identity will rule over the mind-set that is more lax. Nastiness may be unpleasant but it’s strong stuff. Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were nasty than nice personalities, but that was the source of their power and even attraction. Devotees seek a powerful personality. They like pushers than pushovers. It’s like tough military leaders like Patton commanded the most respect. Compare most white ethnic groups with Jews in America. Jews have a very keen and deep sense of Jewishness, and Jews preserve and pass down their sense of Jewishness on four levels: historical, racial, cultural, and personal. There’s a sense of long tradition of Jewishness that survived through endless obstacles. There’s the sense of all Jews being bound by blood and ancestry. There’s a sense of Jewish achievement in spiritual, intellectual, and artistic matters. And as Jews love to talk, Jewish parents relate their own personal experience of Jewishness among one another and to their children. Without the personal element, Jewishness would eventually become just a vague concept. It’s the personal element of Jewishness that makes Jewish identity and culture seem intimate to younger Jews. It’s not just about "Jews suffered the Holocaust" but "how so-and-so among our relatives survived the Holocaust". It’s not just about "We became Americans" but "this is we AS JEWS coped in America as immigrants and made the climb to the top." In contrast to Jews, most German-Americans just became Americans. Most Italian-Americans just became Americans; and even in cases where they have maintained their sense of Italian-ness, it’s mostly been trashiness on the level of JERSEY SHORE. There aren’t too many Corleone-ites around. Look at Armenian-Americans, and too many of them are trashy like the Kardashians. Most white Americans have no sense of identity, history, or culture beyond ‘red, white, and blue’, Apple Pie, country songs, and drinking beer at the parking lot of college football games. Most white parents impart nothing racial, cultural, historical, or even personal to their kids. This is all the worse because increasing number of white kids are growing up without fathers. And what is often imparted from more cerebral/concerned parents tends to be almost entirely a matter of what is approved by the media and academia controlled by Jews. So, Liberal white parents will teach their kids that the true ‘founding father’ is that jive-ass ape MLK. And for many white Conservative families, history doesn’t go back much beyond Ronald Reagan. But then, why would white folks want to look further back into their own history when it’s been mostly tagged with ‘slavery’, ‘racism’, ‘imperialism’, ‘patriarchy’, and etc. by Jews who control the media and academia. Of course, by the standards of current morality, everything that whites were ‘guilty’ of in the past could be tagged on Jews as well. Jews were involved in slavery and slave trade, Jews had ‘racist’ attitudes, Jews were ‘patriarchal’, Jews were ‘sexist’, Jews were ‘xenophobic’, Jews were ‘imperialist’, Jews were ‘homophobic’ and etc. Lots of Jews were involved with Italian Fascism and Soviet Communism. [If we were to judge history in terms of indirect impact, Jews are the top killers of the 20th century. As Jews were instrumental in developing and spreading communism, one could argue that all victims of communism were indirect victims of Jewish radicalism. So, not only the Slavs but the Chinese who were killed by communism could be deemed as victims of Jewish radicalism. There’s a school of thought that blames European ‘racism’ for the genocide in Rwanda on the basis that the Hutu-Tutsi conflict was fomented by ‘scientific racism’ planted in African minds by European imperialists. If that argument is valid, then it should be no less valid that Jews are to blame for inventing and spreading the idea of Marxist communism that led to countless mass killings and tyrannies across the globe. If European ‘racists’ deserve blame for the genocide of Tutsis by Hutus, then the Chinese victims of Chinese communists are also victims of Jewish radicals since Jews created and spread that poisonous ideology all over the world. Of course, while Jews wholeheartedly support the idea that Europeans are to blame for the Rwandan genocide, they will scream and howl at anyone who dares to suggest that Jews are to blame for the horrors of communism all over the world.] Jews financed much of the ‘evils’ that the West came to be ‘guilty’ of. And Jewish merchants supplied white explorers and conquerors with all sorts of materials. Whites shot the American Indians, but a good number of Jews sold guns to whites who shot the Indians; and some Jews sold guns to Indians to shoot white folks. So, everything whites are guilty of, Jews are guilty of too. Wherever whites went, Jews piggy-backed along as parasites to get their share. If white imperialists sucked on the blood of non-whites, Jewish leeches sucked on the blood of whites who sucked on the blood of non-whites. This should be obvious, and it’s about time we expose the Myth of Jewish Innocence. But Jews don’t allow non-Jews to control their narrative, and Jews have indeed effectively maintained their own narrative — even in societies where Jews were forbidden from gaining control in the media and academia — because the Jewish cultural-historical-tribal mind-set was essentially centered on something like Home Schooling. This is why Jews hate home-schooling for goyim. They fear that white goyim will develop a Jewish-like mind-set in defense of white identity, white culture, white history, and white interests. Jews may be proud of being Jewish, but they don’t want any other people to be Jewishy as well. It’s like white slave owners didn’t want blacks to think and act like whites, because if blacks did, they would wake up and gain power. Even when Jews were forced to convert to Christianity in Spain, the so-called ‘conversos’ maintained their Jewish identities, leanings, traditions, and culture in the privacy of their homes. Jews developed a cultural closet as a repository of true Jewishness. Thus, Jewish culture and identity aren’t only public and official but secretive and personal/familial. Even in places where Jewishness and Jewish power were banned, Jews maintained their own identity and history because Jewishness isn’t something that is taught only in the classroom or in the synagogue but practiced and passed down in the household from generation to generation. Though devout Christians and Muslims also have similar traditions, both are credo-religions and as such lack the tribal potency and cultural grit of Judaism. Jews feel special because they are Jews in both body and soul. In contrast, Christians and Muslims can only feel special in spirit but not in body as anyone — even a jive-ass Negro — can convert to their religions. Mormons used to be special, but as they’ve moved into ultra-conversionist mode, their sense of specialness will also ebb away and become weak and diluted. Most gentiles in the modern world have no sense of identity, history, and culture beyond influence of media and academia. In pre-modern times, there were the customs of their local communities that lent them a sense of place and identity. As most peoples remained put in their small communities for much of history, there was little need to worry about identity, history, and culture since change was so slow in coming, and most people never moved far away from where they were born. But in modern times, everyone has been on the move, and it’s easier than ever to lose one’s sense of identity and history, especially for migratory folks and immigrants. There have been three modes of dealing with such displacement. One way is to settle in foreign lands yet maintain one’s own community out of distrust of the majority community or due to repression from the majority community. Chinese in America once maintained their own Chinatowns because they preferred the company of one another and because whites didn’t want yellows in white communities. The second way is to attempt thorough assimilation into the majority community, and most white ethnic groups have done that in the 20th century by becoming, more or less, Anglo-Americanized. The third way is the Jewish way, and it is to both maintain one’s own identity, history, & culture AND to fully take part in the culture-at-large, indeed even to the point of gaining dominance over it. The strange thing about Jewish control of America is that Jews are, at once, the most and the least assimilated ethnic group in America. They are most assimilated in that they are the most successful, most varied in their talents, and most involved in all forms of business and endeavors. And yet, more than any other ethnic group, Jews have maintained their separateness in identity and culture so that whenever Jews bitch about ‘white privilege’, they don’t mean themselves even though Jews are the most privileged and powerful ‘white’ people in America. In having taken control over the American academia, media, and entertainment, Jews can be said to be the brains and spokesmen of all of America — though Jews are only 2% of the population, over 50% of all pundits on TV are Jewish, and Jews control over 90% of the media — , and Jews use their power of media and academia to pressure white gentiles to reject and abandon all sense of white identity, white interests, and white power, but such rules never apply to Jews themselves. If anything, Jews urge white gentiles to admire, adore, serve, support, and even worship Jews precisely because Jews are so wonderfully, nobly, awesomely, powerfully, and proudly Jewish. Jewish identity/pride good, homo identity/poo-ride good, but white pride bad. Even secular Jewish intellectuals like Katha Pollitt, Susan Sontag, Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman, Ayn Rand, and etc. have been profoundly Jewish in their sense of identity. At any rate, even though we speak of Jewish power in relation to their control of media and academia, the fact is the seeds of power of Jewish identity and culture exist independent of such powers. Jewishness is instilled in the home through lore, history, culture, tragedy, self-pity, self-aggrandizement, resentment & hatred toward goyim, ethnic pride, and etc. Such comparable sense and feelings of identity and history are missing from the white community. In a way, the advantage of Jewish identity is it has a place for greatness and smallness, for both pride and humility. There’s a humanist element that is missing from most white nationalist identities. The problem of Alt Right white nationalist types is they think in highfalutin terms. They are always bragging about how they are one with Nietzsche, how they’re all about ‘manhood’, and how they have no use for ‘victimology’ — as if white history has been one of warrior pride and chest-pounding triumph for most whites when, in fact, most white folks toiled as serfs or peasants for most of European history. So, what about your average/ordinary white folks who possess nothing of greatness? While Jews do have a profound sense of pride in their history — religious Jews see God as having chosen them as His special people, and secular Jews are proud of all the great Jewish thinkers, scientists, doctors, writers, artists, composers, businessmen, and etc. — , they also have a profoundly humble aspect to their identity, and it’s this element that lends a humanist dimension to Jewishness. And this is crucial because even though Jews have, on a pound-for-pound basis, produced the highest number of great individuals, most Jews are far from great, and in order for them to feel as proud members of a community, Jewishness has to emphasize something other than greatness. After all, God chose Abram not because Abe was great but because he was good in the eyes of God. A cultural identity founded only on greatness is bound to fall, and we know this from Nazism that should have clung closer to its earthy volkish-ism than its airheaded ‘Aryan-godman-ism’. It must be founded on both greatness and goodness. Also, people must be mindful that just as greatness has its limits, so does goodness. One can be only so great, and one can be only so good. The problem of Christianity is it is good-supremacist and inspires its devotees to be good beyond what is reasonable. Jewish concept of goodness has a certain advantage since its scope is limited to Jewish interests. Jews are not required to be good for all of mankind, whereas Christianity requires its followers to be good for all of mankind. Thus, Christians end up with guilt for not having been so good, whereas Jews need feel no such guilt since Judaism never required them to save all of humanity. Anyway, white folks need to develop a ‘home-school’ version of white identity and culture. While no one should marry and have children just for political or cultural reasons — love matters in marriage — , there’s no reason why parents shouldn’t feel a bond of race, identity, culture, & history and impart such a mind-set to their children. Jews have done it for 1000s of years, and look how powerful they’ve become. If Jews long ago had acted like white Liberals do today, there would be no Jew around today. I was watching THE GETAWAY, the Sam Peckinpah movie with Steve McQueen and Ali Magraw the other day, and I wondered what kind of parents would those two make? They’re a good-looking couple, but what would they impart to their children if they were to have kids? I can see the guy just sitting around drinking beer and watching TV. I can see the woman shopping for stuff and just being a ‘good mother and husband’. They would just leave it to the school to teach their kids, and they’d just let their kids watch whatever’s on TV, listen to whatever’s popular on the radio, and etc. Even if they were to find religion and attend Church, what kind of cultural or historical identity does the Church teach? Not much because Christianity is essentially ahistorical where Judaism, a blood-religion, is very historical. Judaism is very mindful of how such-and-such Jew was the ancestor of such-and-such Jew who was the ancestor of such-and-such Jew, and etc. In contrast, Christianity begins whenever and wherever someone converts to the faith and ends whenever or wherever someone leaves the Church. In contrast, even secular Jews are still considered Jewish by other Jews and by themselves. The reason why so many white folks have become so soulless is because they are like the couple in THE GETAWAY. They have no historical, cultural, or racial identity and interests to impart to their children, and so, it isn’t difficult to understand why so many white children have grown up to be vapid, shallow, rootless, at-the-whim-of-fashion, and etc. White parents should be like Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone. It must be about the family, the culture, the ancestry, and history of one’s people. Such tribalism, if pushed to extremes, can be dangerous, but without such a mind-set in our fast-changing modern world, white folks will end up like parched top soil eroding and blowing in the wind.) Ayn Rand, like her or not, had a powerful will. Indeed, whatever their ideologies — left, right, communist, capitalist, and etc. — a lot of Jews are strong-willed. In this sense, there was more in common between Susan Sontag and Ayn Rand than between Susan Sontag and most dweeby white leftists or between Ayn Rand and most dweeby white libertarians. Notice that most German-Americans just decided to meld with Wasp norms and disappear ethnically. Notice that most Japanese-Americans, though successful, tend to just seek approval and fall in line with the cultural norms. In contrast, while Jews sometimes pretended not to ‘rock the boat’ but go along peaceably with everyone else, they were always trying to redefine and redesign America in their own image. Whether it was Jews running Hollywood or Susan Sontag pontificating about photography, Jews weren’t going to just accept America as it was founded and constructed by Anglo-Americans but were committed to remolding it so that their own narrative and vision would become the primary one. As much as we may hate Jews for what they have done, we must also hold their power in awe and admiration for Jews have indeed been the most strong-willed Over-men and Over-race in the Modern World. We are living in the World of the Triumph of the Jewish Will. But again, we may be blind to the nature of this will — or not even notice this will at all — because Jews have cunningly hid their will by spinning before us a narrative centered around leftist theories that say history is ‘determined’ by forces beyond the will of individuals or even groups. Indeed, Jews often mock the conservative notion that progress and achievements are the products of hard work, iron will, self-discipline, and etc. Jews would rather hide behind Obama who say people didn’t build their own business or hide behind ideological hacks who laugh at the notion of the ‘self-made man’. Of course, no one did everything all on his own. For starters, no one made himself or herself since everyone is the product of mother and father. So, the notion of ‘self-made man’ was never meant to be taken literally but only relatively, i.e. some people did more on their to gain great success than most people who are content to find some modest niche in life and follow orders as cubicle workers or paper-shuffling bureaucrats.
Now, why would Jews mock the notion of will, hard work, and effort when no people have gained as much through those very qualities? Is it because Jews don’t want others to emulate their secret to success and power? That seems dubious since Jews must know that even if most gentiles did emulate Jews by working harder, they aren’t gonna make it as far since they lack comparable innate talents. It’s like Mexicans and Asians can train all they want but they’re not gonna make it to the NBA or NFL. More likely, Jews don’t want us to consider the power of the will because they don’t want us to notice the Jewish will behind the Jewish agenda. If indeed will matters, then it means Jews have the strongest will-to-power since they have the most power, wealth, and influence. And why would Jews have such strong wills? For the good of all mankind or to serve Jewish interests? The latter of course. If we notice Jewish will, we will also notice the Jewish agenda, and Jews don’t want that. Another likely explanation is that Jews want certain peoples, especially the so-called ‘people of color’, to feel helpless and powerless so that Jews can use non-white ‘plight’ to blame whites for everything. If indeed will and hard work matter, it means that blacks and browns should work harder, be more responsible, and cultivate stronger wills. Then, they will either do better by acting more responsibly and stop hating whitey so much OR they will blame themselves for their own failures. But if blacks and browns thought like that, they would be politically useless to Jews whose agenda is to use the rage of the ‘people of color’ against ‘racist white privilege’. So, according to Jewish ‘leftism’, many whites(excluding Jews of course despite their being top dogs in the West) are supposedly so powerful and privileged not because of their values, will, or hard work but because their whiteness privileged them for success over non-whites(though such a view doesn’t explain yellow success in academia and certain fields such as high-tech). Likewise, blacks and browns aren’t accountable for their own failings or backwardness, and their problems must be blamed on whites(though not on Hispanic whites who pass as ‘people of color’). So, we are made to believe that Will has little to do with either success or failure. Instead, we are to believe that power and privilege begat more power and privilege, and poverty and hardship begat more poverty and hardship, and it’s always been and always will be that way.
"That’s the just the way it is, some things will never change." Of course, if the social argument ended there, it would be something of a bummer. It would mean rich will be rich, poor will be poor, and there’s nothing to be done about it. So, Jews do offer a solution, and it revolves around the ‘progressive’ statist role of government. Since individual will doesn’t amount to much — rich will remain rich or get richer, the poor will remain poor or get poorer — , the only way to make the rich less rich and make the poor less poor is by having the government take more from the rich and give to the poor OR expend huge sums on programs to teach underprivileged kids to rise higher and to teach privileged kids to feel shame for their ‘unearned privilege’. And of course, there is the call for Affirmative Action. Liberals say we need such extra-Constitutional means to redress past wrongs since a nation isn’t just about the authority of impartial justice but about the burden of its history. Even if laws today are impartial, history was never impartial because some groups had power over other groups. Therefore, the groups that had been ‘oppressed’ need to be favored to redress past wrongs and imbalances. (Using this argument, how did Britain become a major power? Brits had been conquered and oppressed by Romans, but there was no ‘affirmative action’ to redress the wrongs done to Brits by Romans. Romans and later Italians weren’t forced to fund programs to help the Brits, and yet, Britain became a far stronger and wealthier nation than Italy. And how did Russia become a great power? Russians had been conquered and abused by the Mongols. Yet, there was no ‘affirmative action’ carried out to redress these wrongs. Yet, Russians grew powerful while Mongols eventually lost their empire and fell behind. And what about Jews in Russia? Under the Tsars, Jews were second-class citizens. And though powerful and privileged in the early history of the USSR, Jews eventually lost favor with Stalin and later Soviet rulers who, if anything, imposed ‘affirmative action’-like policies in favor of Slavs and other non-Jewish groups over Jews. And yet, your average Jew in Russia is still richer than your average dumb drunken Russian. So, the notion that ‘affirmative action’ is so crucial in redressing past wrongs seem false. Indeed, if blacks fail in school because of past wrongs, why do they excel in sports? Don’t blacks fail in school because too many of them are less intelligent and temperamentally wilder than non-blacks, and don’t blacks excel in sports because they are naturally stronger, faster, and tougher than non-blacks? Liberals say blacks fail academically because blacks were discouraged from learning in the past, but then, white animosity toward black success in sports was far more hostile during the late 19th century and for a good part of the 20th century. Jack Johnson was not encouraged by whites. And many professional sports teams told blacks to get lost. But blacks still excelled in sports. Isn’t biology the crucial factor here?) But then, if the law is to be distorted this way to redress certain historical wrongs, who decides what was or wasn’t a wrong? After all, history is not some objective quantity but a tool of power that depends on who gets to write it? South Africa and Israel were both founded on the basis of one group of newcomers, colonists, or invaders gaining control over another group who could be said to be indigenous to the region. Yet, the use of history in America pertaining to those two nations tended to focus on the evil of the South African system while ignoring the much greater injustice of the Israeli-Zionist system. So, the idea of redressing past wrongs is a matter of who controls the history. If Southern historians controlled past narrative, we might not see the slave era as particularly evil. Indeed, given the level of destruction carried out by the North on the South during the Civil Rights and the extent of Northern economic domination over the South since the war, some white Southerners might demand ‘affirmative action’ for southern whites at the expense of ‘privileged’ northern whites. As for slavery, white southerners could argue that it was wrong but still a form of progress for blacks since Sub-Saharan African savages had at least been brought into the bosom of the most advanced civilization on Earth. After all, don’t Zionists use that kind of narrative when it comes to Palestine/Israel? They say, sure Palestinians suffered, BUT Jews turned a barbaric desert into a democratic garden, and furthermore, Arabs living in Israel as second-class citizens are still better off than Arabs in Arab-ruled nations. So, on the issue of distorting laws to redress issues of history, we must first ask ‘who has the power to write history?’
Anyway, the ‘leftist’ rejection of the power-of-will is actually a very useful anti-white ‘racist’ weapon wielded by Jews. Jews say evil white oppression over blacks and browns — for some reason Anglo-Americans have even been blamed for the deeds of Spanish Conquistadores and Portuguese/Jewish conqueror-settler-enslaves of Brazil while white Hispanics, whose ancestors conquered and ‘exploited’ Latin America, have been allowed to morph into ‘people of color’ victims of ‘gringos’ and ‘yanquis’ — has been so intense and unremitting that whites have set themselves up with permanent privilege whereas blacks and browns have been trampled into the dirt with permanent dysfunction. Thus, the ONLY way to correct the wrongs of the past/present is through ‘progressive’ government controls and statist solutions enforcing ‘social justice’.
Now, one could argue that such a view is related to the principle of the Will since it assumes that the state can use its Public Will to change history. And in the case of Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, the concept of The Will was indeed welded with the mythic power of the state. And Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara, though communists, were also convinced of the power of the collective will to move mountains. Che didn’t go very far, but Mao did become the supreme ruler of China and Ho’s men did eventually defeat the most powerful nation on Earth in a protracted war of iron wills. But in the current ‘leftist’ perspective, it’s not a matter of ‘will’ when the state and elite institutions embark on ‘correct’ policies to address issues of ‘social justice’. Rather, it’s all part of a necessary political and historical process that is bigger than any of us. The leftist notion of ‘General Will’ is not to be confused with what most Americans mean by ‘will’ as defined essentially in individualistic terms.
Indeed, the reason why Jews love the recent book CAPITAL by Thomas Piketty is because it reiterates the notion of determinism: The same rich and powerful of yesterday are the rich and powerful today and will be the rich and powerful tomorrow whereas everyone else will be stuck where they are — or even grow poorer due to forces of global capitalization and other trends. This view would have us believe that US is still ruled by old Wasp oligarchy since the rich and powerful of yesterday are the rich and powerful today and will be the rich and powerful of tomorrow and forever. It’s a neat way to discourage us from thinking about all the new wealth and power that have fallen into the hands of Jews throughout the 20th century. Though the book has been compared with Karl Marx’s tome of the same title, albeit without the ‘the’, the message of the book is essentially pro-neo-elitist. Unlike Marx who anticipated the downfall of the capitalist order with approval and hope, Piketty would like to see the capitalist system continue forever. He knows his history enough to know communism doesn’t work. He knows capitalism is the most productive force in the world and will be for a long time. However, rising inequality could be a problem, so he urges rich folks and rich nations to pay more in taxes to make things easier for those who have less. If people are thus ‘taken care of’, they will be less likely to revolt. It’s basically New Deal on a global scale, though, if we clear away such highfalutin talk, it may actually be more about France vis-a-vis Germany and US. As we know, the French economy is faltering badly whereas US, for all its problems, is the leader in high-tech and ruler in global finance, and Germany, though beset with problems of its own, is a giant in manufacturing, engineering, and even a leader in some high-tech areas. So, it could be a French way of saying that Germany and US should be more generous toward economically slipping France, but then, French pride simply can’t admit to such beggary, so Piketty yammers about global poverty and that stuff that don’t amount to a plate of beans. The idea of US and Germany going out of their way to transfer wealth to Nepal and Bolivia is too laughable. When Leon Trotsky was talking about World Revolution, he was really eying Germany as the prize. What did he care about spreading communist revolution in Tibet or Peru? Likewise, though Piketty speaks in global terms, his thesis could really be US and Germany should do more to prop up France.
Piketty is smart career-wise but cowardly scholar-wise not to discuss the matter of Jews. After all, Jews went from rags to riches in the US. Indeed, Eastern European Jewish immigrants who were disregarded even by German-American Jews eventually overtook both Wasps and German-American Jews in power.
After WWII, it seemed as though that Jews who survived the horror wouldn’t amount to much ever again. How could any people recover from such tragedy and trauma? As for Israel, it seemed like some ridiculous experiment about Jews trying to be soldiers and farmers. And yet, today, US-Jewish-Israel-AIPAC Axis rules the world. If, as Piketty says, rich remain rich forever and poor remain poor forever — and therefore the poor need the help of the rich in order to lead tolerable lives — , how do we account for the rise of Jewish power? Doesn’t Jewish power tell us something about the factor of talent and also the Will to power? Indeed, would Jews have survived for over 3,000 of years without such a will of alloy vis-a-vis oceans of goyim? Though I haven’t read Piketty’s book, I get the impression that according to his world-view, US is still run by the Carnegies and Rockefellers. While it’s true enough that many descendants of rich families of yesteryear are still doing very well, it’s simply not true that they hold the main power. Jews got the real power, and current trends suggest that it won’t be long before Jews, though only 2% of the US population, will own more than 50% of the national wealth in the near future(if indeed they don’t already). Because Jewish power and wealth are so disproportionate to Jewish share of the population, Jews are eager to push any theory that would have us see the world in abstract terms of the upper classes, middle classes, and lower classes. Thus, even the richest Jews disappear into ‘white privilege’ even though — and here’s the zinger — they themselves are not blamed for ‘white privilege’. So, if Hollywood is run by Jews, we are too tell ourselves it’s a case of ‘white privilege’ and blame white people but we are never to blame Jews. So, a lot of numbskulls end up associating Hollywood with Wasps and even hillbillies than with Jews.
Jews don’t like for us to discuss the element of Jewish Will because Jews have been negatively associated with ‘pushiness’. Though plenty of Jews are pushy in popular culture — Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Don Rickles, Adam Sandler, etc. — , Jews want us to associate Jewish pushiness with harmless funny stuff. Or, Jews want us to associate Jewish pushiness with passion for ‘social justice’. Or maybe with neurosis, whereby we might feel sorry for Jews as victims of modern alienation syndrome. But Jews don’t want us to associate their pushiness with hunger for wealth, power, and revenge. Indeed, many Jews prefer to the play(publicly at least) the soft-spoken role of advisor, intellectual, or scholar and hire shabbos goyim like John McCain, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, John Bolton the Dolton, Chris Krispy Kreme Christie, and other worthless running dogs to do all the ranting and barking about Iran, Russia, Palestinians, China, Syria, and etc. This way, Jews can pretend to be level-headed(than pushy and nasty), and silly goyim can pretend to be heroic white knights stepping into save the world(and Jewish interests) from parts of the world that still don’t think the most wonderful thing is to suck up to Jews and bend over to homos.
But in truth, Jews are an extreme people of Great Will on both the collective and individual level. To get a sene of the Jewish Will, think of APOCALYPSE NOW written by John Milius. Because Milius is a right-winger — he once called himself a ‘zen fascist’ — , most people will not associate him with Jewishness, even though he himself is Jewish. After all, while Milius was rooting for the Americans, most Jews were rooting for North Vietnam and the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. Indeed, Jews saw themselves as the Viet Cong in the US fighting the Wasp Establishment. And yet, the kind of Will Milius talks about in APOCALYPSE NOW is very Jewishy. Consider what Colonel Kurtz(Marlon Brando) says of the Viet Cong:
"Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us." Unintentionally, Milius was spilling the beans on a very Jewish concept of Will to Power. Kurtz says if he had ten divisions of such men, the war would be won. Well, Jews had ten divisions of such men in the US, and they took over the entire system. Not long after Vietnamese communists overran all of Vietnam, Jewish neo-elites took over just about all of America. Though Jews shrouded their cunning, ruthless, savage, and devious War on Whites with nice-sounding stuff about ‘social justice’, they were really driven by the Will to Power to win the power. It’s like the communist Vietnamese made all sorts of nice-sounding gestures about ‘peace’, ‘brotherhood’, and ‘freedom’ but, in fact, had the Iron Will to fight all the way to drive out the Americans from all of Vietnam. And they won. Of course, will alone cannot win. Jews and communist Vietnamese were very cunning. While striking with ultra-ruthless force, they also brilliantly used the power of media and publicity to spin a narrative that made themselves out to be innocent and hapless victims. The reason why most American Jews sympathized with communist Vietnamese and Zionists(during the Six Day War) was that, if stripped of ideological smoke-and-mirrors, both were Will to Power stories where David slays the Goliath. Jews wanted Vietnamese communist David to slay the American Goliath, Jews wanted small Israel(seen as David though actually quite powerful) to slay the Goliath of Arab nations, and Jews in America saw themselves as the rising David against the Wasp Goliath. And even though all three — Vietnamese communists, Israeli military, and American Jews — seemed to be fighting an uphill battle against impossible odds, they also sensed the vulnerability of their enemies. True, America dropped lots of bombs on Vietnam but didn’t have the will to fight to the end. True, Arab nations were big and allied against Israel, but they were stupid and inept. True, Wasps had immense political and economic power in the US, but they were too nice, too bland, too conscientious, too soft, too snobby(to get down and fight dirty), too dry-and-detached(to fill their children with powerful sense of blood and soil), too highfalutin-hypocritical(thereby leaving themselves to criticism), and/or too complacent. If you know the soft spot, you can bring down anything. It’s like Siegfried killed the dragon by driving the sword into the heart. It’s like even Achilles had an Achilles’ Heel. No matter how big a boxer, if you hit him ‘right on the button’, he’s going down.
No matter how big and strong someone is, he can be brought down by kicking him in the nuts. Goliath was big, but David didn’t focus on the entirety of his enemy. He just focused on Goliath’s head. If you bash the head, the body will follow. It’s like the Death Star was blown up in STAR WARS because Luke shot his lasers into a ventilator connected to its nuclear reactor. If you know where and when to hit, you need not worry about the rest of the body; it will follow. Even lughead — by Jewish standards — Samson understood this. When the Philistines were mocking and tormenting him, he finally got clever and made Delilah — at least in Cecil B. DeMille’s movie — place him between two pillars, and as he knocked the pillars down, the whole palace came tumbling down. If you know the soft spot, what seems like a mighty fortress can become a house of cards. This is why, in our fight against the Jew, we mustn’t focus on everything about the Jew but on the key spot that will undo the Jew. What is the essential core of Jewish power, and what is the Jew’s soft spot through which we can drive our knife? When US fought Japan and USSR fought Germany, it was an all-out-war where both sides threw everything at one another. They were all-out brawls with ‘anything goes’ mentality. Such wars need not be precise or well-focused.
All four nations were major industrial powers and could muster enough resources to fight total wars though, in the end, Germany and Japan were no match for the combined powers of US and USSR. But in the case of North Vietnam, they were hopelessly outmatched against America, so it had to fight more intelligently and rely as much on the power of the media, and it was lucky in this because many in the European media/academia were anti-American and many in the US media were Jews and liberal Wasps hellbent on undermining any war against communism or world revolution. Even so, the Vietnam War was still a war, and both sides threw a lot of hellishness at one another. But in times of peace, the warring has to be carried out far more intelligently and discreetly. When Jews fought Arabs in the Middle East, they could drop bombs, shoot missiles, fire off artillery, and send in the tanks. They could level entire towns filled with goyim. But Jews in the US couldn’t wage such a war against white gentiles. The war had to be carried out under the Rule of Law and without loss of life. Since Jews couldn’t use military power to conquer and intimidate whites(especially as the US military was dominated by white conservative types, and of course that’s why Jews have been working so hard to PC-ize the military with homos and interracism), they had to use mind-games centered on the Narrative, ‘social justice’, and morality to render white folks paralyzed with ‘white guilt’. There’s military war, and there’s the culture war. But there’s also the mind war, and Jews won in America by aiming for the white mind. Jews used the media and academia as David’s stone to pummel the mind of the white Goliath with paralytic guilt.
Some people tend to focus on only one thing, and some people tend to let their minds wander freely. The Amish and Mormons traditionally focused on one thing, which enabled them to form strong cohesive communities. But in their single-minded focus, they lost sight of lots of other possibilities, and as such, their communities tend to be mono-cultural, narrow, and somewhat dull — though Mormons have remade themselves into a globalist brand, indeed even to the point of defacto signing onto ‘gay marriage’ in order to bring Goldman Sachs to Salt Lake City.
Then, there are other groups, such as urban bohemian aesthete types who tend to have no fixed loyalties or interests. Their minds wander freely over lots of things, and they physically wander from one city to another looking for new opportunities or trends. Such people might lead fun lives, but there’s no core essence to what they’re about. Some of them may have the requisite skills — especially in high-tech — that earn them good money, but they will never amount to much in terms of power; and whatever power they do accumulate is directed toward nonsense issues like ‘gay marriage’ that only aids and abets the agenda of the globo-elites.
Jews, in contrast, have both concentrated focus and wander-mentality. The Jewish mind is expansive, curious, broad, adventurous, and exploratory. But unlike the typical bohemian whose mind and body wander for wander-ment sake, Jews cast their nets far and wide to drag the bounties of the world onto their own boat. An Amish is someone who focuses on his own little world and tells himself that what he has is morally/spiritually ideal and all that he’ll ever need — though, to be sure, modern Amish are not without some cunning in negotiating with the outside world, but then, I don’t see Amish demanding an Amish-run casino anytime soon. A bohemian hipster is someone who’s always on the lookout for new trends and fashions; he easily grows tired of anything ‘old’ and favors whatever lies outside the purview of the norm. Thus, a bohemian hipster may see and experience lots of new/different things, but his lack of core means that all his observations and experiences won’t amount to much in the long run. In contrast, Jews act like bohemians but with the focus of the Amish/Mormons. Ultimately, Jews cling to their powerful sense of Hebraism and everything they see and learn about the world is used to serve and strengthen Jewish power. Like the samurai sword that is blended of both hard steel(sharp but brittle)and tough steel(flexible but resilient), Jews are both ultra-ancient and ultra-modern, and this duality gives their will a special quality. Most gentiles tend to see Jews as being one thing or the other. So, Liberal gentiles like to see Jews as the most cosmopolitan, liberal, modern, secular, and progressive of all peoples, whereas Conservative gentiles like to see Jews as the most ancient, traditional, tribal, conservative, and religious of all peoples. Yet, the true power of the Jew derives from an intriguing blend of both. And to an extent, the remarkable rise of the Japanese in the modern era owed to the same kind of duality, and this may explain why so many Jews have been fascinated with Japan. Of course, the same Jews who are fascinated with Japan are also repulsed by it, but then, deep down inside, all honest gentiles know that their feelings about Jews is a combination of fascination/admiration and repulsion/revulsion. Jews are, at once, profoundly ‘atavistic’ and ‘avant-garde’, making them ‘atavangardistic’. (The rise of Jewish power and Japanese power coincided in the late 19th century and 20th century. Jews began to make giant strides following the so-called ‘Emancipation’ that did away with laws and codes restricting Jewish liberties and opportunities in Europe. Japan underwent massive transformation when it was forced to open up to world trade. Though both peoples benefitted greatly as the result of these changes, the crucial difference is that the Jewish community welcomed the ‘Emancipation’ whereas Japanese were wary of the changed forced upon them. Jews became freer because they wanted to be free, whereas the Japanese were forced to be ‘free’ under the threat of Western gun ships. In time, of course, Japanese came to appreciate the changes and soon began emulating the West out of genuine admiration than merely for reasons of self-strengthening and self-preservation. Still, the Jewish Narrative and Japanese Narrative on their respective relations with white gentiles differed on one crucial point. Jews resented white gentiles for having denied them freedom[prior to the ‘Emancipation’], whereas Japanese resented white gentiles for having forced Western-style freedom on them. Though most Japanese came to value new freedoms made possible by Westernization, as Japanese patriots they couldn’t help shaking off the resentment that their transformation had been forced at gunpoint. A key point of difference is Japanese power was essentially limited to Japan proper — though Japan did make a grand gamble to gain control of Asia — whereas Jewish power was dispersed all across Europe and America. Jews, unlike the Japanese, also developed a dual identity whereby they could be both Jewish and Polish, Jewish and French, Jewish and Russian, Jewish and German, Jewish and American. In contrast, Japanese were just Japanese, a point made obvious even in the US where Japanese-Americans were seen as an alien race. Japan did try to create a larger sense of Asian Identity whereby all Asians would be both a member of a particular tribe and a ‘Pan-Asian’, but the experiment didn’t pan out due to native resistance, Japanese brutality, and Russian/American defeat of Japan. Both Jews and Japanese suffered horribly during World War II. Jews became associated with the Holocaust, and Japanese got associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And both peoples made a great recovery from the rubble of war. According to the Western Narrative, the key difference between the two peoples is that Japanese brought about their own destruction with overt aggression whereas Jews were purely innocent victims of a madman whose nation was, by the way, allied with Imperial Japan. But of course, this is just Jewish-media-and-academia-controlled BS. It’s more difficult to assess Jewish ‘guilt’ and responsibility since there was no Jewish nation until the creation of Israel. So, while we can blame Japan for its actions and policies, whatever Jews did — and Jews did lots of nasty things — has always been associated with the larger goy population of that nation. It’s like Jews run Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood, but all three power centers are associated with ‘white Americans’. So, if Jews steal on Wall Street, it’s a crime committed by ‘white Americans’. It’s like Jews played a key role in Bolshevism and in Russian gangsterism, but all the dirty Jewish deeds are blamed on ‘Russians’. If German Jews did shitty things, the blame went to Germans. If Hungarian Jews did nasty stuff, Hungarians got the blame. So, it isn’t so easy to ascertain what the Jews were ‘guilty’ of, whereas we know what Japan was ‘guilty’ of since the Japanese nation invaded China and attacked Pearl Harbor. But if we study Jewish history closely, there was the Jewish Hand behind communism, finance capitalism, decadence & degeneration of culture, warmongering among gentile nations, and etc. So, in that sense, Jews were hardly innocent. Though most Jews didn’t deserve the Holocaust just like most Japanese civilians didn’t deserve Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or fire-bombings, the fact is both peoples had done things that brought the wrath of the world upon them. Because of the holy cult of the Holocaust, we’ve forgotten — or have been forced to forget — how many foul things Jews did to make gentiles hate them so. Because of the cult of the Holocaust, we cannot discuss Jewish history/power truthfully because whenever someone points out some filthy aspect of Jewish history, some nasty Jew will shriek that it was precisely that kind of mind-set that led to the Holocaust. But then, what caused such a mind-set in the first place? It was because gentiles couldn’t help noticing that a lot of Jews are a foul bunch, rather like Gypsies with high I.Q. In the US, Jews are a foul & filthy bunch who use Wall Street, Ivy Leagues, Washington D.C. Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, and etc to rob us, fool us, corrupt us, and destroy us. But the Holocaust cult blinds us to Jewish filth because our minds have been filled with the idea that "If you say bad things about Jews, it will lead to another Holocaust." And Jews would like for us to believe that every negative perception about Jews was entirely false and fantastic, rooted in some ‘Medieval’ superstition about Jews as demonic spirits. Such denials of Jewish rottenness just makes Jews more rotten. When Jews act rotten but we aren’t allowed to call out on their rottenness — because it might lead to another Holocaust of course — , it means Jews can become infinitely rotten because, no matter what they do, the rest of us have to unconditionally pretend that Jews are the nicest people on Earth. How long can this go on? Furthermore, the notion that anti-Jewish feelings will lead to the Holocaust is false and fantastic. The Holocaust was an historical anomaly made possible by the confluence of several highly unlikely events and trends. Recall that Germans rejected the Nazi Party until 1933 when the economic situation got so bad that enough Germans decided to give the Nazis a chance. Even so, those who voted for the National Socialists were only 1/3 of the population, and they did so mainly for economic reasons. Furthermore, had it not been for Hitler’s charisma, the Nazis would never have won, and a man of such charisma are rare indeed. And his dark demagogic charism was appealing to many Germans because times were so bad. Furthermore, had the Western powers been a bit sterner with Hitler, Hitler would never have triggered off World War II. Anti-Jewish feelings had been rife in Europe for a long time, but nothing like the Holocaust had ever happened. Sure, Jews had been victims of violence and pogroms but no more so than pagans, Muslims, and heretical Christian sects. If indeed anti-Jewish feelings inevitably lead to the Holocaust, there should have Holocaust-a-minute all throughout European history because, after all, anti-Jewish feelings were quite common. Today, there are a lot of anti-Muslim feelings, but do we see a Islamocaust on the horizon in Europe? Though anti-Muslim feelings can be extreme and irrational, many such feelings are valid and warranted in today’s Europe because lots of Muslims are grubby and hostile. Likewise, anti-Jewish feelings in the past, though sometimes extreme and irrational, were often valid and warranted because too many Jews had the personalities, foulness, and characteristics of the likes of Tim Wise, Howard Stern, Frank Rich, Sarah Silverman, Barbara Boxer, William Kristol, and Sheldon Adelson. But despite all that, there were no Holocausts through most of European history. There were times when Jews were expelled from one region or another, but this was par for the course all over the world. After all, Muslims sometimes pushed Christians out, Christians sometimes pushed Muslims out, and etc. And when Jews had the advantage, what did they do? They ethnically cleansed the Palestinians. So, most violence used against Jews for most of history was hardly exceptional. The fact is there was only Holocaust, and it owed to the very extraordinary events that led to World War II, the kind we are unlikely to see ever again. Iran is considered a very anti-Jewish nation, but its Jewish population is treated rather well. Hugo Chavez had said nasty things about Jews, but Venezuelan Jews haven’t suffered the Holocaust. So much for anti-Jewish feelings automatically leading to the Holocaust. Where indeed is the evidence that anti-Jewish feelings lead to the Holocaust? It’s like saying criticizing the rich will naturally lead to Stalinism and Pol-Pot-ism. The triumph of communism, like National Socialism, was also the product of a confluence of extraordinary events during extreme times. Consider Russia since the 1950s. Stalin turned anti-Jewish/Zionist, and Soviet Jews came under suspicions from Soviet gentiles who gained control over the state. And following the fall of communism, many Russians got angry with Jewish oligarchs, Jewish gangsters, and Jewish outsiders, especially from America, who worked with Russian Jews to loot Russia together. As a result, there was a good deal of anti-Jewish rhetoric in Russia. But was there a Holocaust in Russia? No. If anything, Jews seem to be treated rather well in that country DESPITE the fact that World Jewry is dead-set on destroying Russia. So, we must reject the hysterical notion that negative feelings about Jews will lead to the Holocaust. Though Hitler and the Nazis are to blame for the Holocaust, the conditions in Germany that paved their way to power was created by victorious Allies at the Versailles. They forced such extraordinary conditions on Germany that made life intolerable for many Germans, and then and only then was the National Socialist Party able to come to power after the democratic experiment failed with the economic collapse. It wasn’t anti-Jewish feelings that led to the Holocaust but horrible times that made extreme views the last resort of a desperate people. Most Germans did not want to support someone like Hitler. They didn’t war, and they didn’t want the Holocaust. To be sure, most Germans did nothing to stop the Holocaust, but it was for the same reason most people in the USSR did nothing to stop the mass killing of Ukrainians under Stalin. But then, what did Americans do when their airplanes were carpet-bombing countless civilians in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam? What did Americans do when their nation illegally invaded Iraq that wasn’t involved in 9/11? What did Israelis do when their military was bombing the hell out of civilians in Gaza? I don’t see how Germans were particularly guilty for having ‘done nothing’. At any rate, it wasn’t anti-Jewish feelings in the air that led to the Holocaust. Such feelings had been all around Europe forever, but there had never been anything like the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because horrible economic conditions led to German desperation, and enough Germans were willing to experiment with National Socialism. But then, didn’t Jews play a role in creating such a condition via finance capitalism and cultural corruption of urban centers? Many Jews are utterly blind to this. They were blind then, and they are blind now. Jews today are responsible for all sorts of political abuses, financial corruption, cultural decadence, moral degeneration, legal sophistry, and sexual filth, but they refuse to accept any blame. If Jews continue on this road, they may again create the conditions that will turn many people against them. Today, people say 1% vs the 99%, but there could be a day when they see it as 2% vs the 98%. Jews sense this, and this is why they push for ‘diversity’ so that the 98% of goyim will be divided among one another, and of course, Jews at the NY Times and other media outlets do their utmost to encourage non-white gentiles to hate whites, to encourage whites hate Muslims and Asians, to encourage ‘Latinos’ hate ‘gringos’, to encourage yellows to hate ‘white privilege’, to encourage Muslims to hate Christian Conservatives, etc. Deep down inside, Jews know that they are degenerate grabbers of power and wealth. They can’t help being what they are. It’s like Jordan Belfort couldn’t stop being a dirty Jew because the Dirty Jew DNA was in his very blood. Too many Jews are too pushy, greedy, ambitious, driven, and nasty to be a good people. Deep down inside, Jews know they are a foul bunch, and it’s impossible for any people to like Jews indefinitely. When people see the Real Jew at last at work in Israel, Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Silicon Valley, they will realize that the hideous Jew is indeed a stomach-churning foul cretin. How long can Jews fool us that the likes of Rahm Emanuel and Anthony Weiner are nice Jewish kids who wanna serve humanity? One cannot be good and gain so much power/wealth. And Jews have decided to gain power/wealth, and that means Jews will become worse and more abusive — like the Max character in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. So, the only way they can prevent the 98% from rising up against the 2% is through ‘diversity’ and ‘divide and rule’. Jews must be laughing at the sight of dumb white Americans barking at white Russians when, in fact, white Russians have done nothing to harm or undermine white America. Jews have done everything to undermine and destroy white America. Sometimes, I wonder if Jews are this way because of the blinder-factor or the trap-factor. The blinder-factor applies to cases where people really can’t and don’t see the truth because they are culturally caged within their iron paradigm. For example, many Muslims in the Middle East have blinders on. They are so steeped in their own culture and tradition that they cannot see how their ultra-commitment to Islamism is actually doing them harm and preventing them from making progress. And until cracks began to form in the communist system in Russia, many Russians were truly and rabidly blinded by ideology. They could not consider living in a world without communism. Though communism is now history, it could be that there are still true believers in Cuba and North Korea with blinders on and cannot think of any kind of life without communism. Could it be that some Jews are so steeped in Jewish self-pity, self-aggrandizement, self-justification, and tragic consciousness that they fail to see all the BS piling up around them? It’s like if a Jew farts a nasty fart and you notice the stink, the Jew will accuse you of noticing something negative about the Jew. This could be true of some Jews. But I suspect that the trap-factor applies to the smarter Jews. Trap-factor applies to cases where people are aware of the problem but cannot break free because they feel trapped by circumstances, contexts, and conditions. It’s like during the Nazi era, some Germans were truly blinded with ideology and marched along as if there could be no other possibility than serving the great Fuhrer. But other Germans knew Hitler was a dangerous & unstable character who could lead Germany to some terrible end. But even knowing what they knew, they felt trapped and helpless but to go along. Same was true of many Japanese. If many Japanese supported the war effort with the blind fury of nationalism and the ideal of Pan-Asian resistance against Western Imperialism, other Japanese knew the militarist regime was playing a dangerous game in its ventures in Asia and against America. But as Japanese whose lives and careers were intertwined with the system, they felt they had no choice but to go along. Albert Speer and Zhou En-Lai were intelligent and superior men who knew better. Speer knew Hitler had gone too far, and Zhou knew that Mao had pretty much lost it beginning in the late 1950s. But as their lives had become so enmeshed with the system, they simply couldn’t cut themselves loose. Today, it could be that many smart Jews do notice a lot of shitty things about Jews in Israel and NY, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and etc. Morally, they may be appalled by much of Jewish power, but as Jews, they are still on the side of Jewish power and proud of Jewish power. So, they know better but also feel trapped in their obligation to support Jewish power. Same goes for Conservatives and homo power. Many Conservatives are still appalled by ‘gay marriage’, but their own positions are so dependent on the approval of Jewish power allied with homo power that they feel they have no choice but to go along with the Agenda. It’s like Omar Sharif’s character in LAWRENCE IN ARABIA didn’t want to attack the retreating the Turkish troops, but once the charge began, he felt compelled to go along. A lot of Republicans and American Conservatives must surely know that Jews pulled a dirty trick on them. They must know that Jews are a cunning, deceitful, dirty, and nasty bunch. But as their careers have become so intertwined with Jewish power and clout, they feel trapped in having to support everything that Jews demand of them. Consider Noodles in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. He knows Max’s plan to attack the Federal Reserve is crazy. He knows it’s suicide and doesn’t want to take part. He wants to talk Max out of it, but he knows Max won’t listen. He knows their bond of friendship goes back a long time. Max is like a brother, so Noodles can’t just walk away. He knows better but is trapped by circumstances.) Before people try to understand the politics or the values of the Jew, they need to understand the Will and the personality of the Jew. Though John Milius has been associated with the Right and Oliver Stone has been associated with the Left, both have powerful Jewish personalities. They’ve had drive and guts. Clear away the ideological smoke-and-mirrors, and they are both essentially strong-willed Jews obsessed with power or, more precisely, will-to-power. Of course, Stone, being a Leftist, tries to cover up this fact. He talks about equality, justice, tolerance, diversity, and all that crap, but he’s really fascinated with great men of powerful will with the vision, determination, ability, and even madness to push through with their ambitions. He once planned to make a film about Mao Zedong; his obsession with Mao was probably not unlike his obsession with Alexander the Great. Oliver Stone may sincerely believe in his ideals — at least consciously — , but his narratives are more about will-to-power than about need-for-justice; they are essentially about using Justice as moral cover for the Will. It’s the fist offered as a helping hand. And among many Jews, this will to power isn’t about serving a particular ideology but about serving Jewish power. Indeed, notice that Jewish ideological preferences tend to change in accordance to ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ So, free-speech-Jews of yesteryear became political-correctness-Jews of today. So, class-warfare-Jews of yesteryear became homo-ass-worship-Jews of today.
We need to understand that, when push comes to shove, Rahm Emanuel and William Kristol have more in common with one another than with gentiles allies in their respective camps. Emanuel isn’t a Jew committed to using his Jewish talents to serve Liberalism, and Kristol isn’t a Jew committed to using his Jewish talents to serve Conservatism. Rather, Emanuel manipulates Liberalism to serve Jewish interests, and Kristol manipulates Conservatism to serve Jewish interests. With most Jews, it’s Juden Uber Alles, and we must never ever forget this aspect of Jews. Of course, the same argument can be made for Amish and Mormons, but the differences is the Amish keep to their own communities and don’t seek political or economic power over non-Amish folks. Mormons are far more worldly in their ambitions, but they generally want to get along and be liked than gain domination over other peoples; they are not a pushy and nasty bunch. Mormons do go around spreading their faith, but there’s nothing to indicate a plot to control the world. Jews, in contrast, not only have a powerful sense of tribal community in both US, EU, and Israel but do have plans to dominate the world. This is no ‘paranoid antisemitic conspiracy’ but a fact borne out by current world events. There is a Jewish Hand behind just about every global power-play carried out the West that is controlled by hideous Jews. Actions speak louder than words, and one only needs to notice things and connect the dots to realize that Jews are the Barzinis and Hyman Roths of the world.
"Tattaglia's a pimp. He never coulda outfought Santino. But I didn't know until this day, that it was Barzini all along."– Vito Corleone. In THE GODFATHER, Michael realizes that there can’t be any deal with Sollozzo the Turk. Michael knows that despite all the Turk’s oily charm and talk of peace, his ultimate goal is to have his father killed. So, the Turk has to be dealt with. White goyim need to understand that, despite all the Jewish yammering about ‘peace’, ‘equality’, and ‘justice’, Jews really mean to take all the power and to destroy the white race. Jews mean to desecrate the tombs of your ancestors, defame your reputation in the eyes of the world, and defile all your descendants by having them mix their blood into mulatto-hood or mestizo-hood. That is the ultimate goal of the Jew and you better believe it.
Of course, Jews are so vain, narcissistic, neurotic, and demented that many of them really feel that Jewish power and moral progress are one and the same thing. The likes of Tim Wise, David Sirotta, Matt Yglesias, and Oliver Stone seem to really believe the crap they dish out, but then, this shouldn’t surprise us as it’s not a condition unique to Jews. It’s like Pat Buchanan considers himself a genuinely devout Catholic even though his innermost core is animated by white nationalism. It’s like blacks may really believe themselves to be committed to message of peace and equality in accordance with the MLK myth, but we know most blacks are into black power and black identity.
Having power is infinitely better than having no power, but one advantage of having no power is that you got nothing to lose, so you might as well speak the truth and speak truth to power. As power is contingent on maintaining a certain respectable image, the powerful aren’t prone to speaking the truth — and why should they when they have the power and means to use their Empire of Lies to protect and project their power? Indeed, we saw what happened with Donald Sterling when power met honesty. He lost some of that power when his truest sentiments were leaked out. We saw what happened to Mel Gibson when he spoke honestly about how Jews are behind many of the wars around the world. Of course, many on the ‘left’ and Liberal side pretend to speak truth to power, but in employing the terminology and narratives of the ruling elites, they hardly speak the truth and they hardly pose any real challenge to the power.
So-called ‘leftism’ in this country is not about the People vs the elites. Rather, American leftism through most of the 20th century — especially the second half — was essentially geared to express the passions and serve the agenda of the rising elites(of Jews and of homos to a lesser degree) against the Wasps elites(of both Democratic and Republican Parties).
In Russia during World War I, the Bolsheviks — key members of which were Jewish — did push through a mass-centered revolution that was indeed about the People vs the elites. But the Russian Communist Revolution turned out to be a fiasco that actually did more harm than good to the people. (If not for Hitler’s role in World War II, National Socialist Revolution was a lot more humane for both the elites and the masses, and despite harsh laws against Jews in Nazi Germany, Jews were better off in Germany until 1941 than Palestinians are in the West Bank and especially Gaza today.) Also, it soon dawned on communist rulers that in a nation as big and unruly as Russia, the chaos that had been unleashed to bring about the revolution had to be reined in with new controls that actually turned out to be many times more extreme than anything under the Tsars. Revolutionary chaos and ‘anarchy’ had been tactics, not ideals, and once the Bolsheviks took power, the Revolution soon became all about consolidation, order, and authority. Though some on the left prefer to see the conflict between the right and the left as being about ‘property rights’ vs ‘human rights’, Marxism was actually all about ‘property rights’ as the basis of real justice and real power. This is where Marx differed from Classic Liberals who did believe in ideals as ‘human rights’, ‘dignity of man’, ‘individual liberty’, and etc. Marx’s point was that all such nice-sounding ideas didn’t amount to a plate of beans UNLESS the people themselves owned and controlled the properties of production and distribution. Thus, Marxism wasn’t so much anti-property-rights as pro-property-rights-for-the-collective than pro-property-rights-for-individuals. According to Marx, because we live in the material world and we ourselves consist of matter and rely on matter — food, clothing, shelter, goods, etc. — for survival, true justice was less about high-minded ideals such as ‘human rights’ and ‘civil liberties’ than about hard-factual control of material property. No amount of abstract ideals meant anything unless one had control over the production and distribution of material reality, so the bourgeoisie can keep all their ideals as long as they handed over all their property to the People. There’s of course, some degree of truth to this since most Americans have the right to free speech and other civil liberties, but their rights don’t amount to a plate of beans in terms of real power since most of the material controls over the economy are in the hands of Jews and their running dogs. You can say this and you can say that, but politicians are going to go with the men with the money than with losers like you. You can say this and you can say that, but most people are going to get their news and ideas from big media and big academia controlled by Jews, not from losers like you who own nothing. (But then, as the case of Donald Sterling shows, even money alone isn’t enough. Power is also a matter of who has the control over the media and academia to establish and enforce certain taboos. There was once a time when a white person’s reputation would have been destroyed if he or she said nasty things about God or Jesus. Knocking God or Jesus is hardly troublesome in our world. Today, one’s reputation will be destroyed if one says negative things about Jews, homos, or Negroes. Taboos change according to who has the material control of the institutions that control the ideas and images.) But as all honest people should know, Marxism too turned out to be a high-minded theory because the notion of property being collectively owned-and-controlled by the People is an illusion. Not only are most people idiots but when everyone owns everything, no one owns nothing. If your house is my house, and my car is your car, and etc and etc. what do you own, what do I own? If my business is your business and your business is his business and his business is her business, what the hell is that? (Some fools even dream of familial communism based on primitive societies whereby your children is their children and their children is your children in a ‘it takes a village[idiot]’ manner.) But of course, such common ownership is ridiculous, so communism in actuality turned out to be control of everything by the state, and those who controlled the state became the new elites who were even more powerful than the emperors of old. Indeed, even the mightiest Tsars and Emperors of old ever dreamed of amassing the kind of power held by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Anyway, Russian communism was a failure, and even though Jews were at its vanguard in the early stages, Jews lost out as well, especially as Stalin and his goy associates became wary of cunning and smarter Jewish Bolsheviks. Furthermore, even if Jewish communists had maintained supreme control in the USSR, they would have grown tired of communism as its radical universalism suppressed Jewish identity and interests. Also, Jewish communists, even as elites, would have grown envious of Western Jews who were raking in lot more cash and living much more luxurious lifestyles. Is it any wonder that as soon as communism fell in the Soviet Union, Russian-Jewish hustlers dove head in to plunder the new republics arising from the breakup of the USSR for all they were worth? One thing Jews learned from the Russian Revolution is they really don’t wanna be like everyone else. It’s like what the Jew kid says in DAZED AND CONFUSED:
"Look, I got a confession to make... I've been talking about going to law school, to help people. I was standing at the post office and everybody's looking pathetic. People got drool sorta... This guy's bending over. You could see the crack. And I realized that I don't want to do it. Sounds good but I don't like the people I was talking about helping. I don't like people, period. You guys are okay, but I'm a misanthrope." By ‘misanthrope’, it could be that his subconscious really means a smart Jews who detests dumb worthless goyim. Indeed, why should a smart Jewish guy devote his life to serving worthless dumb goyim he doesn’t really care for? More often than not, when a Jew calls himself a ‘misanthrope’, it doesn’t so much mean that the Jew holds all of humanity in contempt but only the goy part of humanity. After all, even Jews who seem pretty jaded and cynical about humanity — like Howard Stern and Sarah Silverman — will go out of their way to support Israel and defend Jewish power. And despite Stanley Kubrick’s misanthropy, he was profoundly Jewish(and pro-Jewish)in his own way. Also, even though Jews sometimes like to bash other Jews, they circle the wagons when others do it, but then other peoples are like this too. Blacks love to trash-talk about other ‘punkass niggers’ and black men love to dump on black ‘skanky bitchass hos’, but if others speak badly of blacks, blacks instantly flip into ‘we all be brothas and sistaz’ mode and scream "it be racis’!!"
Anyway, it soon dawned on American Jews — even to far leftist Jews — that something like communist revolution simply wasn’t going to happen in America. Also, as America was freer and governed by Rule of Law(at least more so than any other part of the world), Jews realized that, despite all the difficulties and certain discriminatory practices, they could do very well for themselves within the system created by Anglo-Americans. So, why be too radical? Also, even Jews who remained radical had brothers, cousins, uncles, and nephews who became successful as capitalists. So, Jewish leftism and Jewish capitalism mutually served one another, especially as both viewed Wasp power as the main competitor, rival, or even enemy. Even a Jewish capitalist who detested communism might be excluded from a Wasp country club, be filled with resentment, and make common cause with Jewish leftists against white America. Hollywood, a bastion of Jewish capitalism, was also a favorite hangout for Jewish leftists. Jewish communists lounging around the swimming pools of millionaire Jewish moguls wasn’t an uncommon sight. A Jewish mogul might have a brother, nephew, or niece who was a communist or leftist agitator. But as familial/tribal bonds of blood came first, the mogul might hire his Jewish relatives and provide them with privilege and protection.
 |
| Zionist-Capitalist Jew Steven Spielberg with Zionist-Marxist-Homo Jew Tony Kushner |
In turn, even as Jewish leftists railed against capitalism and privilege, they were generally careful not to bitch and whine about JEWISH wealth and privilege. Indeed, shaping and controlling terminology so that wealth, power, and privilege came to be understood only in abstract or Waspy terms gave protection to Jewish wealth, privilege, and power. So, even as Jews grew richer, more powerful, and more privileged, the Jewish leftist manner of berating about the Rich-and-Privileged created the illusion that only Wasp elites had it all. (Even today, Jews bitch about ‘white privilege’ but never mention the bigger reality of Jewish Power.) Or it created the impression that Jews were not particularly rich or powerful since Wealth and Power were discussed in abstract terms of the upper classes and lower classes.
As there was so much freedom and so many opportunities for Jews to rise up the socio-economic ranks in America, Jewish leftism in the US became less about Jews trying to be equal with everyone else as Jews trying to be equal with the ruling elites of America(and then toppling them so that Jewish elites could take over as the New Boss). In Old Russia, though there were some very successful Jews, many Jews were indeed mired in working class poverty, and they didn’t see any kind of a promising future in Tsarist Russia. So, there was some degree of sincere commitment on their part to create a new society where Jews would indeed be equal with everyone else as workers and comrades. That seemed the only objective Jews could hope for given the prevailing conditions in Russia. But in America, Jews didn’t have to worry about being equal with everyone else since all Americans — at least white ones, and Jews could pass themselves as white/European — could take for granted the guarantee of equality under law and pursue opportunities for economic success. In Old Russia, even generic equality wasn’t something any Jew — or even any Russian — could take for granted, but in America almost all white folks were generically equal. So, in America, Jews developed a new ideal of equality(at least for themselves) at odds with the concept of mass-prole-centric equality prevalent in Europe.(Paradoxically, even though leftism came to be understood in universalist and anti-tribal terms, it was the greater degree of tribalism and homogeneity in Europe that made leftism more appealing in the Old World than in the New World. As most European nations were small, homogeneous, and crowded, most people had no hope of owning a piece of their own land. Even in vast Russia, most of the land had been claimed by the nobles and capitalists. Also, since ethno-cultural homogeneity and national unity could be taken for granted, the masses fixated on collective economic interests than on matters of tribal identity; it was different in racially more diverse regions of the Balkans and Eastern Europe where the politics became defined more by tribal identity than collective economic interests. German working class didn’t have to worry about Germanness since they were all German. It was truer of Swedish working classes. So, their concern was for collective workers’ rights and benefits. Same was true in Ireland and Great Britain. In contrast, the ethnic diversity of America — even when America was mostly white, it was a nation divided along ethnic lines — made people more aware of their differences though divisions dissolved over time through assimilation among Anglo-Americans, Dutch-Americans, German-Americans, and Irish-Americans. But then, the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th century once again threw the monkey wrench into the hope of any mass unity in labor. It was difficult for workers and poor folks to make common cause across ethnic, let alone racial, lines. And yet, as America was vast, one couldn’t make it simply be sticking with one’s own tribal community. An Irish-American who insisted only on working with fellow Irishmen would have missed out on a lot of opportunities. So, the American ideal became centered around the free-roaming Individual. And in time, the ideal of the Individual chipped away at the sense of ethnic identity among most white ethnic groups. The one exception was, of course, the Jews. Perhaps, the resilience and power of Jewish identity owes to the fusion of Blood and Brain in Jewish culture. While Jews seek to kosherize or bleed dry non-Jewish forms of power — Jews have drained the red blood of white America like the blood of cows and sheep — , they are very mindful to keep the Jewish blood as richly red as possible. Commitment to ideas is essentially individualistic since a true thinker thinks alone and thinks freely about matters of truth unbound from narrow tribal loyalties. After all, there is no English gravity, Jewish gravity, Muslim gravity, or German gravity. There is only gravity. Truth transcends tribe. Commitment to ideas also tends to be anti-economic or anti-business. Economics and business are essentially about doing-whatever-is-necessary-to-stay-in-the-competition-and-to-maximize-profits. Therefore, capitalism is neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘conservative’. Capitalists will bend over for Conservatism or Liberalism depending on the profit motive. In the past, capitalists who were for the homo agenda dared not endorse it lest their business interests be harmed. Today, even capitalists who are against the homo agenda dare not oppose it lest their business interests be harmed. In this sense, capitalism can be a tremendous force of conformism since capitalists will generally bend over to the prevailing taboos and ‘new norms’ in order to stay in the competition. And when big capitalists conform to something, that something grows ever more powerful because capitalists provide huge sums to support it even more. This is how the homo agenda snowballed into something so big in America. Not only were capitalists pressured by the Jewish elites[in Wall Street, Washington D.C. Jews, and Big Media] into supporting it, but their support provided even more funds for the homo movement to spread like a virus all throughout the culture. American capitalists, in order to do business in China, will submit to standards set by the Chinese Communist Party. American capitalists, in order to do business in Saudi Arabia, will submit to standards set by Islamists. This is where American Conservatives made a big mistake in associating capitalism with conservatism. They assume that there is something inherently ‘conservative’ about capitalism when, in fact, capitalism will do just about anything to maximize profits. Capitalism is like the monster in THE THING. It will morph into any shape or form to gain more ground. If capitalists have to cave into demands of fascists, they will do so. If capitalists have to cave into demands of Zionists[as in current America], they will do so. If capitalists have to cave into demands of southern whites, they will do so. When the American South and Catholic Church exerted far greater pressure in the past, even Jewish-run Hollywood was very sensitive about not offending white southerners and the conservative Catholic groups. Capitalism is a great economic engine, but its profit-centrism turns everyone into a ‘whore’, which was the theme of Jean-Luc Godard’s anti-capitalist films. Today, as Jews and their mini-me homos are the ruling elites, capitalists must win Jew/homo approval to do business. Even Mormons are bending over to Jews and homos, and why? Because Mormons, unlike the Amish, are obsessed with capitalism and money-making. Mormons will choose Mammon over Morality because they are utterly money-and-success-oriented. This is why people-of-ideas generally dislike business and economics. Ideas turn into ideals, and true ideals are not for sale. If intellectuals acted like businessmen, they’d be little more than whore-scribes to the ruling elites — and of course, most intellectuals today are little more than whore-scribes for Jews and homos. Look at Charles Murray who poses himself as a free thinker but is really little more than a shameless ass-kisser of Jewish and even homo elites. Look at the phony baloney intellectual Walter Russell Mead whose face is smeared with Jewish cum as he does little else but blow his hideous Zionist masters. There are intellectual whores all around[especially as thinking generally doesn’t pay, and therefore thinkers need the patronage of institutions and think-tanks dominated by Jews and homos], but true thinkers don’t want to compromise their beliefs and values for status or money. Also, there’s something ‘clean’ about the world of ideas so at odds with the world of business which is about wheeling-and-dealing, bargaining, and all sorts of grubby behavior. No matter how dignified businessmen might make themselves look with expensive suits and polished office buildings, it’s all a matter of haggling. So naturally a lot of people have a natural distaste for business. They prefer ideas or the arts as ‘cleaner’ and ‘purer’ pursuits since ideas are about high ideals and since art/culture is about beauty, truth, and/or vision. But intellectuals and artists envy the wealth of the businessmen and indeed rely on businessmen as patrons. Even when government provides the funds to thinkers and artists, it is only because government takes from the business class and gives to the non-business groups. Government-as-intermediary gives the false impression that artists and thinkers are independent of the business class. In fact, without the business class to tax, the government wouldn’t have any funds to dole out to the intellectual and creative groups/individuals. Furthermore, because businessmen have so much wealth, they often buy up many of the politicians who run the government. Just as the thinker or artist envies the businessman for the latter’s wealth, the businessmen envies the thinker or artist for the latter’s ‘purity’. In the Muslim world that remains profoundly religious, the prophetic type is also revered for his ‘purity’. A thinker or artist may deal in ‘degenerate’ material, but his devotion/commitment to his vision, however controversial it may be, is ‘pure’ and ‘uncompromising’. It is ‘true’. "Piss Christ" may be a foul piece of art, but it’s a genuine work of personal expression. In contrast, there’s nothing ‘true’ about a businessman who will do just about anything to pull in more bucks. Che Guevara or Osama Bin Laden would never have compromised with ‘exploitative’ and/or ‘decadent’ Western powers, but Latin-American and Muslim businessmen will stoop to any level to rake in the bucks. While some businessmen types are shameless and happy to wallow in greed, others do feel a certain shame and envy the man of ideas or creativity. So, some businessmen have provided support to thinkers while other businessmen have patronized artists. Besides, money-as-money gets rather boring. How much food can a rich man eat? How man cars can he drive? After a while, a businessman wants ‘respect’, ‘culture’, ‘virtue’, ‘dignity’, and/or ‘hip-and-cool-ness’.
This is why most rich folks can’t stand American Conservatives who slavishly praise rich folks simply for being rich. Rich folks know they got the money, so they want to be respected for something other than wealth, which makes them appear ‘crass and greedy’. So, rich folks would rather hang with Liberals who pontificate about the arts, creativity, progress, and other highfaluting things. Material vanity feeds moral vanity. Friedrich Engels was a rich man who provided funds for Karl Marx. And most successful artists today rely on the financial support of rich folks. And this symbiotic relation was especially acute among Jews as few peoples had comparably developed sense of both prophet-ism and profit-ism. One side of Jewish culture was all about pure and uncompromising commitment to God and Truth. Another side of Jewish culture was about raking in as much dough as possible. Both prophet-ism and profit-ism could lead to the dissolution of the Jewish community since ideas take on life of their own and money has its own logic. And indeed, this was the case of Jesus and St. Paul. The more they thought about the meaning of God, the less tenable it seemed that the one and only God could favor only the Jews. Thus, Christianity was born and came to threaten Judaism. Likewise, the more Jews did business with gentiles, the more they were tempted to neglect Jewish laws and rub shoulders with non-Jews. Think of all the profits Jews were denying themselves by refusing to work with pork products? The more Jews did business with gentiles, the more they mingled with them and even intermarried with them. Pure devotion to ideas and pure devotion to profits both undermine the power of the tribe. And indeed, the rise of idea-ism and profit-ism destroyed the power of Wasp America. Most Wasp-Americans think in terms of ideals or profits, both of which have eroded away any sense of Blood-and-Soil identity among Wasps. Then, how is it that Jews have been able to maintain their Jewish identity and interests? Was it the Holocaust that sobered them up into tribal solidarity? Was it the creation of the beleaguered Jewish state of Israel that boosted their sense of Jewishness? Possibly. But maybe it was the powerful combination of both idea-ism/prophet-ism and profit-ism that made Jews remain more acutely Jewish. Wasps either go for idea-ism or for profit-ism. It’s one or the other. Idea-ist Wasp merely become bloodless universalists or ‘progressives’. Profit-ist Wasps merely become bloodless cosmopolitan businessmen. But because Jews cling to both idea-ism and profit-ism, and since the two qualities can never be resolved, perhaps a powerful sense of contradiction has kept Jews knotted and bound in a state that is eternally existentially Jewish. Jewish identity is paradoxically held together as a fusion of opposites.) Jewish leftism in America wasn’t to be equal with the masses but to gain equal footing with the ruling Wasp elites. This is why Jews have built up this mythic narrative about the ‘golfocaust’. Though many Jews were rising high and raking in lots of dough — and even living like kings — , they weren’t admitted to certain posh Wasp country clubs. To most of us lowly helots, it would seen like a case elitism vs elitism: Wasps trying to create and maintain their own exclusive cultural space and rich Jews trying to climb over the walls so that they could share in the snobbery(and to stick their hook-noses into the beavers of blonde white women in Heartbreak Portnoy Kid fashion). But in the minds of Jews, such discriminatory policies by Wasp country clubs constituted horrible ‘racism’, and rich Jews who sought entry were almost like the Negroes who done aks to be served greasy hamburgers in a Southern diner during Segregation. American Jews began to think, why seek to be equal with the masses who look ‘pathetic’, ‘drool’, and show their ‘crack’ — the Homer Simpsons of the world — when they could be equal with the Wasp elites or even usurp them and take over as the new elites? Therefore, the Jewish leftist thrust in America tended to be cultural, moralistic, and intellectual than economic and material. Classic Marxism concentrated its energies on transforming ‘property rights of individuals’ into ‘property rights of the masses’, but if American leftism were to be steered in that direction, it would have had a suppressive effect on the rise of Jewish power. Something like communism would force smart Jews to be equal with dumb goyim.
Though FDR was supported by many Jews, the fact remains that the New Deal, at least in the long run, wasn’t good for Jews since it favored national capitalism, manufacturing, the unions, Wasp-dominated monopolies, and regionalism. Though the New Deal was federalist and expanded big government, it was supported by many localities far from Washington because it was about bringing water, electricity, jobs, and development to areas that had traditionally been neglected by both big and small industries. Though local bosses lost some power during the New Deal, many ordinary people supported FDR because the government seemed to be doing something for little people, the sort you see in THE GRAPES OF WRATH the John Ford movie. The New Deal had a bonding effect between Northeast Wasp industrial class and southern white farmers. It was kind of National Socialism with a smiley face. What the New Deal didn’t favor was Wall Street, but as times were desperate, even Wall Street saw the need for stronger government to keep the order and stave off a revolution. But in time, the new socio-economic order created by FDR reined in the power of Wall Street. Also, with the rise of powerful unions, American corporations and businesses had to be mindful of the collective interests of workers. Though the New Deal was useful for poor Jews to rise to the rank of middle class Jews, its lasting effect was to make it difficult for middle class folks to become rich folks and for very rich folks to become super-rich folks. So, even as most Jews reviled Ronald Reagan, deep in their hearts they know that the Reaganite ‘revolution’ — continued by Billy Boy Clinton the ‘New Democrat’ — was necessary for Jews to break free from the masses and gain total power, total wealth, and total domination as super-elites growing ever richer. Under Reagan and Bush, Jews finally became in equal in power with the Wasp elites, and during the Clinton Era, they became the new absolute elites. Today, they rule over us like an oligarchy. Is it any wonder that Jews are so supportive of the homo agenda? It is completely devoid of class politics, favors elite snobby-and-vain attitudes, promotes the notion of elite minority power and privilege over the values of the moral masses, and has subverted leftism into neo-‘leftist’ competition & fashion show of lifestyles. It’s Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Wall Street’s idea of ‘leftism’. Remember how the Albert Brooks character in Las Vegas talked about making Las Vegas synonymous with Christmas and a ‘family place to be’ — a kind of Disney Land for adults and children? Well, the Jews made ‘leftism’ synonymous with haughty decadence, narcissism, and vanity favored by the rich and privileged. The homo agenda isn’t about true morality but moral snobbery premised on lifestyle attitudes and celebrity-mentality. They also made homosexuality synonymous with the ‘rainbow’ and with clean-cut living; consider all those TV ads — advertising is totally controlled by Jews — that feature the most clean-cut-looking ‘gay dads’, indeed as if children crawled out of a fecal hole that’s been inseminated with sperm.
Albert Brooks’ character says, "Las Vegas, a Christmas place to be", and I’m sure the decadent neo-moralists in Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and elsewhere would love to associate homosexuality with Christmas, indeed as if Jesus was born, lived, died, and was resurrected so that men who stick their sex organs into fecal organs could become married, so that women who have their breasts amputated could become ‘men’, and so that men with hairy chests who wear bras can use the lady’s room. That is the New Morality foisted upon us by the disgusting and vile Jewish elites.
 |
| The New Morality according to Jews |
An intellectual people cannot be egalitarian for long, and of course, Jews are the most intellectual among peoples. Even intellectuals committed to mass equality think they have the best ideas/strategies to create such a social order and therefore should hog most of the power and privilege to make the ‘dream’ come true. If Noam Chomsky could remake the world into his brand of socialist paradise, he would be a member of the ruling elite than a worker on the assembly line. Furthermore, it won’t be long before those with brains, curiosity, and drive will grow impatient, bored, and/or cynical with all the humdrum banality about equality — just like Albert Brooks’ character soon tired of becoming ‘one of the people’ in LOST IN AMERICA. He knew he had to be where the action is instead of working as a crossing guard in the pursuit of some ideal about ‘dropping out’ and being ‘true’ and one with the people. Unless Jews are at the top of America, they truly feel lost in America, the land of ‘dumb goyim’.
While most people might be content with ‘enough’ — enough comfort, enough money, enough pleasure, enough knowledge, and etc. — , people with bigger visions, dreams, ambitions, and thirst-for-knowledge, ‘enough’ is never enough. They have to make more money, amass more power, gain more privilege, gain more knowledge, win more recognition, and etc. It’s like dullards don’t much mind being in prison but people of immense talent want more freedom to do great things. It’s like sheep are more content to be hemmed inside fences than wolves and weasels are. As Jews are an intellectual, business-oriented, knowledge-obsessed, and a highly driven people, they could never find a comfortable seat in classic egalitarianism of the Marxist-Leninist school. True, many Jews were involved with communism, but it got tiresome sooner than later. They felt like Albert Brooks as crossing guard in LOST IN AMERICA.
In a way, communism vs capitalism was about Jewish prophet-ism vs Jewish profit-ism. As Marx and many Jews were its key figures, communism stood for the higher power of truth and justice. Though Marxism focused on materialist solutions, it believed itself to be intellectually and morally superior to all other ideologies and thought-systems. So, in that sense, it too was elitist and anti-egalitarian. In contrast, capitalism(of which the most ferocious, cunning, and skilled operators happened to be Jewish) tended to be pluralistic in the field of ideas and values — freely adaptable toward serving, adapting, and/or penetrating into any intellectual system — but made it possible for the smartest, most driven, most cunning, most ruthless, and/or most creative people to become very unequal in material terms.
As it turned out, Jews tired of communism because it was not only stifling of Jewish material ambitions but even of intellectual aspirations. Even though Marxism was put forth as the greatest intellectual idea — it certainly provided considerable breadth and range of possibilities as theory and world-view — , it had its limits like all ideologies, and it soon dawned on free-thinking and different-thinking Jews that their minds would be stifled under a Marxist system. Worse, Marxism turned out to betray even its own moral principles in practice as the communist economy came to be controlled by jaded elites who cynically spewed the old truisms while seeking power and luxuries for themselves.
So, almost all Jews eventually came around to place their bets on capitalism, liberalism, anti-white-ism, and Jewish nationalism, of which Zionism is the most brazen manifestation. In some ways, Jews today are more fascist than communist though they’re loathe to admit it. Jewish power in US and Israel ranges from globo-Liberal-capitalism to Jewish ultra-nationalist-fascism, but it has nothing to do with communism.
And Jewish bloodlines and networking had a lot to do with this development. After all, many Jewish-American leftists were able to lead comfy as armchair radicals only because their capitalist parents left them a good deal of dough. The means of Jonathan Rosenbaum’s sneering leftist posturing was funded by his capitalist grandfather.
Or, a Jew committed to Marxist revolution might notice that his cousin made millions in the music industry or on Wall Street. In time, the radical Jewish activist would feel kind of stupid talking about ‘revolution’ and organizing reluctant(or even hostile)workers when so many other Jews are doing so much better as businessmen, professionals, or official members of the establishment(in government and universities). At least making radical noises was fun in the 60s when the whole Zeitgeist was about trouble-making, street protests, creating a scene, or being part of some ‘happening’. But once all of that passed as fads — especially with the end of the Vietnam War that was the main fuel of youth radicalism — , a Jew would have felt idiotic to still don a beard and hold up placards about the revolution, black power, workers of the world, Che Guevara, or Ho Chi Minh.
The likes of David Horowitz and Jerry Rubin probably gave up on radicalism not only for ideological reasons but because the slogans were sounding emptier by the day as the times they were a-changing in the Disco 70s and New Wave 80s. And yet, because modern Jewish history has been so closely associated with the left, radicalism, socialism, Marxism, feminism, anti-white-ism, and etc., it wasn’t easy for Jews to just dump the past and embrace their new roles as rich, happy, and successful capitalist-Zionist Jews. Of course, white Conservatives salivated at the possibility, hoping that as Jews got richer, more successful, more powerful, and more privileged, they would also become more Conservative, pro-white, and pro-status-quo(and stop stoking black rage against whites and other trouble-making). But Jews didn’t want to morally, culturally, or politically conform to any existing model or be hemmed within its white-centric boundaries. People like William. F. Buckley thought that if the Jew was allowed into the Wasp House, Jews would accommodate to Wasp norms — like the Wasp father in THE HEARTBREAK KID expects the Jewish guy to quietly assimilate into the Wasp world if allowed to marry his daughter and relocate to Minnesota.
 |
| Wasp dad loses it vis-a-vis insane passive-aggressive Jew |
But once a Jew enters a system, he feels a powerful urge to rearrange everything to serve his own ego, biases, preferences, and prejudices. It’s like Jews arrived in the US as immigrants with only shirts on their backs but have taken control of America to rearrange and restructure everything about American history, values, laws, and icons. As Jews would have it, Ellis Island should be the new Plymouth Rock of America. And if, following the Civil War, Northern Whites and Southern Whites came around to burying the hatchet and working toward a modicum of reconciliation, the new Jewish Narrative on North-South relations urges Northern whites to seethe with animus against Southern whites, encourages all Americans to regard the Southern history as totally evil, and demands that all vestiges of Southern culture be wiped clean — just like Bolshevik Jews had once tried to exterminate every last residue of Russian Christian culture. If Jews could really have their way, they wouldn’t mind wiping out all Christian churches and Muslim mosques in Israel/Palestine. Contrast that with white American preservation of many Spanish and Indian names for cities and towns. (Americans don’t argue that every vestige of Spanish-American culture must be wiped out because Spanish Conquistadores were involved with conquest, ‘genocide’, slavery, exploitation, and etc. After all, no people have been entirely nice or entirely nasty. If we go by Jewish PC norms, we should ban the Zionist flag since it represents Jewish fascism, Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and Israeli apartheid policy against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Besides, shouldn’t the American Flag be banned too since American history has been about conquest, ‘genocide’ of Indians, slave trade, and global imperialism?) Like the ancient Israelites who sought to wipe out their enemies totally and absolutely, Jews are not content to have won the political and economic contest in America. They must totally destroy their perceived enemies lest they rise again. It’s like Russian Jews once bitched about Tsarist repression but once they came to power, they went out of their way to remove every last vestige of the old power at its roots. It’s like Jews carried out Nakba to totally break the spine of the Palestinian people. So, why wouldn’t Jews go all out to utterly uproot and destroy every last remaining evidence of white power. (Jews with power are bound to be paranoid because, no matter how much wealth and privilege they have, they shall remain in the minority in all nations except Israel. When Anglo-Americans eventually took the land from Indians and Mexicans, they could relax since Anglo-Americans came to outnumber the non-whites by a huge margin. Even without uprooting Indian or Mexican culture by its entirety, whites could rest assured that their domination over non-whites was stable. In contrast, Jews can never feel this way since they will always be in the small minority. So, Jews are forever worried about the gentile majority waking up to challenge Jewish power; therefore, Jews want to weed out every trace of ‘evil thought’ in the majority population. Needless to say, such ‘bad thoughts’ usually have something to do with nationalist sentiments of the goy majority. To be sure, there are times when Jews will encourage goy tribalism-nationalism but ONLY IF it’s a case of goy vs goy, e.g. Jews approve of black rage against whites, brown power against ‘gringos’, white Christian hostility toward ‘Muzzies’, and Muslim hostility toward Christians. The dominant population tends to feel generous when its members feel they’re in control both politically and demographically. When Hitler felt sure that Germans would prevail in Russia, he figured he could go somewhat easier on the Jews. He decided to use ethnic cleansing to relocate most Jews to some part of Siberia. But when he felt Germany will likely lose the war and be overrun by Slavs, he took out his full fury against Jews, especially as he identified Jews as the decisive force that persuaded Anglo-Brits and Anglo-Americans not to make common cause with Germans. Jews today feel like Hitler in the sense that they too feel besieged on all sides despite their great power. Jews feel as Hitler did in the winter of 1941: The war seemed winnable but far from over. Hitler knew that if Germans failed to gain total victory over Russia soon, Russians would eventually gain the advantage over Germany. American Jews today feel like Hitler after blitzkrieg invasion of Russia. All of US, EU, and the Western World seem to be in the hands of Jews. But Russia still remains as an obstacle, and what if white nationalism finally emerges as a power in the West? And what if blacks and browns stop making common cause with rich, decadent, homo-maniacal Jews? Indeed, the Jewish experiment of using Muslim immigrants against white Europeans seem to have backfired in recent years. Not only have Muslim immigrants committed violence against Jews but the immigration issue has stoked rightist fires all over Europe. Furthermore, some white Europeans, such as George Galloway, have made common cause with Muslims against Jewish bankers and Zionist-imperialists. Today, Jews seem triumphant in the US, but what if winter sets in like the Russian rain, mud, and snow that halted the German military in late 1941? So, Jews are acting like cultural ZioNazis, trying to purge and drain every last drop of white power and white pride. Bleed the white body-and-soul like kosher butchers bleed cattle.
Consider how Jews exerted pressure on Hungary to ban the pan-white/pan-European consciousness conference organized by Richard Spencer. What Jews fear most is a pan-white identity and consciousness spanning the globe from US to Canada to Australia to EU to Russia. Jews blatantly and proudly work together with collective consciousness all over the world, but white people better not. It’s like homos can march and make endless noises about ‘gay pride’, but straight people better not make any fuss about straight values and straight pride. Jews are mental-Hitlers of the New World Order. They are committing holocaust against the soul of every white person. This soul-holocaust does not physically exterminate white people immediately but nevertheless turns them into defenseless zombies who will do nothing to defend or save their own race, nations, cultures, and heritages from massive migration, immigration, invasion, and interracism. Jews are also paranoid because their power is based on the ‘progressive’ conceit of ‘equality’. Jews take great moral pride in their association with the political left, and they want us to associate Jewish power with the tireless struggle to make the world a better place for all mankind. But any honest assessment of world affairs will show that Jewish networking in the media, finance, academia, government, judiciary, and international relations is all about World Jewry working to increase Jewish power and wealth. Also, take an honest look at Israel[and AIPAC’s influence on US politics], and it’s obvious that the Real Jew is a supremacist who regards gentiles as mere cattle or running dogs. It’s about time we wake up to the fact that we are all Palestinians, and of course, that is precisely what Jews don’t want to us realize. But people are beginning to notice on both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, and this fact scares Jews, which is why Jews are working ever harder to impose taboos and carry out soul-holocaust against gentiles.) In some ways, Jews are being smart in their total war to eradicate every last ounce of power/pride premised on white identity. After all, the story of Jews shows that even a seemingly crushed-and-defeated people can rise like a phoenix and gain control of the world. In the aftermath of WWII, it seemed as Jews were down in the gutter. Though Nazi Germany was defeated, Jewish power too had been greatly diminished as the result of the war and genocide. And it wasn’t long before Jews would also lose power in communist nations as the USSR and its satellite nations grew leery of Zionism as an agent of American power. In World War II, too many Jews had died, too many were left destitute, and too many had to begin all over again. But Jews rose from the grave like Lazarus and gained control of the world. So, never think that something is dead because it seems dead. It’s not dead until it’s totally dead. As far as Jews are concerned, white power is on life-support, but it is still alive, and so it must be killed totally and absolutely before Jews set their eyes on something else to kill and destroy as the new enemy of Jewish power. As Jews see it, the rise of new Russia and the powerful white voting block in the American South are evidences of the new seeds of white power.
 |
| The very meaning of CHUTZPAH. |
Even so, it’s something of an odd spectacle to see Jews acting so censoriously, especially in America, as many of us grew up associating Jewish activism with free speech movement, civil liberties, and struggle for more tolerance for dissident views. So, why would the very same Jews who’d once called for more free speech and more tolerance now call for more speech controls and less tolerance for differing views(that are now dismissed as ‘unacceptable’)? Jews even think they own history itself, as when they declare that people who oppose ‘gay marriage’ are on the ‘wrong side of history’. So, I guess all the nations/peoples of the world that are appalled by ‘gay marriage’ are on the ‘wrong side of history’ because ‘history’ is nothing more than what Jews in Wall Street and Hollywood say it is. All the world should shut up since their views are ‘unacceptable’ and submit to the ‘right side of history’ that is determined solely by the whims of Jewish supremacists. But then, hideous Jews have been known for their foul chutzpah.
Of course, Jews know the dangers of their two-faced weasel approach. Though Americans are generally amnesiac, many people(especially in elite circles) still remember that the very Jews who are so censorious today had been for total freedom of speech in the past. So, Jews can easily be accused of hypocrisy. Furthermore, some Jews could be worried that if a new form of censorship is instituted, its apparatus could be taken over by ‘anti-Semites’ if political trends may turn against the Jews. Anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist forces could then use ‘hate speech policies’ against Jews. After all, all the ‘war paranoia’ and ‘war hysteria’ fanned by American Jews during World War II came to haunt the Jews when American foreign policy shifted from fighting the far right forces of Japan and Germany to the far left forces of the USSR, with which many Jewish leftists had connections. Jews loved HUAC going after Nazi-sympathizers during the war, but they freaked out when the same HUAC went after Jewish leftists as the Cold War set in. Suddenly, what Jews had hailed as HUAC patriotism(in its war against Nazism and ‘Japs’) became HUAC ‘paranoia’ as Jewish leftists became the target.
Today, some Jews see the rising tide of pro-Palestinian sympathies on college campuses and worry that ‘hate speech’ policies could come to target Zionist speech that could be condemned as ‘atavistic’, ‘hateful’, ‘racist’, and ‘Islamophobic’. But if such were to come to pass, Jews would only have themselves to blame since they are the ones who propped up and pushed political correctness to control free speech in the first place. (When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s disingenuous for both sides to accuse the other side of ‘atavism’ since both sides are equally motivated by ‘atavistic’ passions. Jews claim the Holy Land because of their ancient cultural-historical ties to the land, and Palestinians want the land back because of their own blood-and-soil roots on the land.)
Anyway, the issue of free speech is a very precious and sensitive one for Jews because their political and intellectual pride has been closely associated with it. According to the Jewish Narrative prior to Political Correctness, there were those on the side of freedom & liberty and there were those on the side of censorship and repression. (Jewish civil libertarians waged war on cultural/intellectual repression in the way that Freudians waged war on sexual repression, and it’s only natural that ACLU fought for both free speech and free expression via pornography. To be sure, there was an element of sexual repression in sexual liberation itself. After all, the true nature of sexuality isn’t merely ‘boing’-ish and lusty but possessive, anxious, jealous, and competitive. Free love was never about all the men and women sharing one another’s bodies on an equal basis. It was about some men getting more women and about some women getting more attention from men. It was never about sexual democracy, sexual distribution, or equal sexual pleasure for all. Also, sexuality is linked with identity, and identity isn’t merely individualistic but tribal and racial. After all, when Turks raped Greek women, it wasn’t just a case of individual men raping individual women but of Turkish men raping Greek women. When Mongols raped Russians, it wasn’t just about individuals raping individuals but the yellow horde raping white women — and maybe some yellow homo guys raping Russian guys. Likewise, even in the world of ‘free love’, people begin to notice the relationship between race and sexuality, especially since races are different. So, when Jewish men lusted after ‘blonde shikses’, they weren’t merely horny as individuals but as Jewish guys with stiff dicks for ‘Aryan’ pooter like in DEBBIE DOES DALLAS. PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT has no meaning without the ethno-sexual element. It’s about a hook-nosed Jew who wants to stick his nine-incher into the pooter of every ice goddess. And though Ethan in THE SEARCHERS would have been angry if Debbie had been abducted by any bunch of men[even whites], he was especially enraged because the abductors were ‘red savages’. And black men in the Old South were especially angry when cretinous white slave-owners had their way with black women — though that stuff was relatively rare. Today, white women have the hots for more muscular, thicker-voiced, and bigger-donged Negro men, and yellow women have the hots taller, more manly, and bigger-donged[relative to yellow men]white males. So, white male rage about Negro conquest of white women and yellow male rage about white conquest of yellow women are understandable. Indeed, such feelings are naturally sexual. But as PC endorses and promotes the cult of ‘diversity’ to the hilt, such sexual rages and passions are disapproved and repressed, which is why THE BIRTH OF A NATION, one of the most powerfully honest movies about white male sexual-racial fear of the bigger and stronger Negroes,
has become culturally taboo. Though PC types would argue that D.W. Griffith’s film is sexually repressive, I would argue it’s the very opposite. It’s sexually confessional, and it said what most whites failed to say during the days of Jack Johnson’s whupping of white men. It said white men have no hope against the bigger and stronger Negroes on an individual basis. Stronger and nastier Negroes will whup white men and take white women, so if white men wanna fight for their cock power and remain as the top studs among their own women, they must unite and fight the apelike black race. It’s so candid, honest, and confessional that it blows Freudianism out of the water.[Howard Stern’s PRIVATE PARTS was confessional both sexually and racially or sexuo-racially because it took into account how skinny Jewish kids were terrorized by bigger and stronger Negroes in integrated public schools. And there was a sexuo-racial element in Norman Podhoretzs’s remembrance of his youth with ghastly Negroes, though his solution to the problem was radical race-mixing, presumably as a means of killing two birds with one stone: make whites and blacks mate with one another and destroy both white nationalism and dilute black animalism via infusion of mellower white blood.] Indeed, even though Freudianists called for a more confessional approach, the fact is their founding father kept something crucial about himself repressed and locked away: the root obsession within Freud wasn’t merely sexual but sexual-racial. Freud’s agenda wasn’t merely to liberate repressed sexuality but to conquer white sexuality with Jewish sexuality. Freud believed in speaking softly and carrying a big Jewish dick. His methodology was really an ideology of Jewish domination via sexual anarchy among white gentiles. Create the disorder and then Jews will reestablish the new order with their ‘new values’ and ‘new norms’. Anyway, because the racial aspect of sexuality cannot be discussed, ‘sexual liberation’ merely led to another form of sexual repression. Sexual liberation said everyone should let it all hang loose and pretended that everyone was an equal winner when, in fact, there were winners and losers, and this applied not only to individuals but to entire groups. It’s natural for white guys to be repulsed by white women going with hook-nosed ugly Jews. After all, sexuality is about lust AND beauty. Men lust after beautiful women, and they want the kind of beauty they prize to be preserved. If white beauty is precious, why should it be muddied with funky-ass Negro genes or hook-nosed brillo-pad-head Jewish genes? Also, if Negroes and Jews really believe in the wonders of race-mixing, why do they prefer pure blonde-and-blue-eyed white women over mulattos or mestizos? Tiger Woods the ugly mongrel pile of turd is never seen with mixed-race women who look like him with a wig. He’s also going after Nordics. And if Jews indeed believe in the greatness of race-mixing, why do they prefer tall blondes to stubby Mexican mestizo women or some Afro-Arab mongrel from Yemen? While race-mixing can produce exotically beautiful men and women, more often than not, it produces atrocities like Sonia Sotomayor or nappy-headed monkey boy Obama. Also, even when the mixed-race person looks attractive, it’s usually because white traits are dominant. Good-looking mulattos tend to look like white people with darker skin, and good white-Asian mixtures tend to look like whites with yellow skin. But imagine a Afro-Asian mix. 99 times out of a 100, and that would be a disaster. Anyway, sexual repression is very a part of so-called ‘progressive sexual liberation’ because certain natural sexual emotions are considered by PC to be taboo, especially for white males. Sexual emotions are not merely pleasurable and lovey-dovey but powerful, fierce, maddening, and aggressive. Look at nature, and male animals crazily battle each other over turf and sex, and of course, the turf and sexuality are interconnected since males of any species want to control territory to fill it with their own offsprings. Any bunch of males who pretend that they, as perfectly civilized & ‘progressive’ human beings, are totally above such emotions are repressing their true sexual nature. PC narrative of ‘sexual liberation’ would have us believe that modern sex is all about happiness, pleasure, self-esteem, and lovey-dovey stuff. No wonder some naive white girls are raped when they approach young males raging with hormones whose attitude toward sexuality are more primal and natural. Much of ‘sexual liberation’ is an idealization of sexuality that is no less repressive than Victorianism, but it fools a lot of people as being ‘one with nature’ because it’s supposedly cool with ‘free love’ and ‘sexual equality’. But, sexual nature isn’t equal to begin with. Men are naturally sexually more aggressive than women are. It’s easier for men to be sexually assaultive against women than vice versa. Also, men sometimes want to kill other men for the sexual prize, and men sometimes want to kill women who wander off with other men. Such feelings and behaviors are regarded purely as cultural since honor killings aren’t uncommon in ‘backward’ societies with pre-modern cultures. So, the assumption is that it’s the culture that drives men to commit brutal acts against women or other men in the name of cultural notions of ‘honor’. While that’s partly true, such sexual codes and customs are also manifestations of natural sexual feelings through the facade of culture. Feelings of sexual jealousy, possessiveness, and competitiveness are real and natural. Culture both suppresses and magnifies those natural feelings, not least because something becomes more potently explosive the more it is repressed. In ZORBA THE GREEK, the men decide to kill the beautiful widow played by Irene Pappas because they are all filled with mad lust for her. Since her desirability makes them want to kill one another to own her, they decide to get rid of her so they can co-exist in peace and be content with their own less desirable wives. It’s a kind of crude subconscious game theory in action. Their act is sexually repressive but also sexually expressive of their natural sexual drives because, deep down inside, each man would like to kill any bunch of men to possess her. This is why the notion of being sexually free and liberated is an illusion. If we were to fully open the Pandora’s Box of sexuality, then jealous & competitive lust will overtake ‘free’ or ‘equal’ love-dovey stuff. Consider that rape became one of the main problems in the Haight-Asbury district in San Francisco in the late 60s and early 70s. Even feminists who profess ‘equality’ in sexuality do not practice equal accessibility to men. If a short, ugly, poor, and low IQ male went up to a wealthy, intelligent, and good-looking feminist for sexual favors, she would be appalled. Despite her conceit of ‘free love’ and socio-economic egalitarianism, her natural sexuality is hierarchical and discriminatory, and she only wants to spread her legs to quality males in physique, money, status, and/or intelligence. At the core of Christianity is a kind of anti-male-sexualism. Though feminists have charged Christianity as being repressive of female sexuality, it’s also been repressive of male sexuality. After all, the story of Jesus begins with the ‘cuckolding’ of Joseph by God. Joseph’s natural sexual feelings are of jealousy, anger, and murderousness when he finds his wife pregnant. He wants to beat Mary, even kill her. But an angel tells him to calm down and assures him that Mary has been impregnated by God. Since God done it, Joseph has to repress his jealousy and serve Mary & her Child. This element of Christianity is very repressive of male sexuality that is naturally competitive, fierce, aggressive, jealous, and even murderous. Unlike Abraham who really didn’t want to kill Isaac, Joseph really wanted to bash Mary’s face in. But the angel sent by God tells him to take it easy and find joy in the fact that his wife is carrying the child of God. And of course, Jesus and His Disciples were men without women, so that adds another element of anti-male-sexualism in Christianity. Anyway, this aspect of Christianity lives on today in a corrupted form. We have neo-Josephism in the cult of Obama. It’s natural for white guys to feel angry, jealous, aggressive, competitive, and even murderous at the thought of white women betraying their own race and having children with non-whites. White Liberal guys who claim to totally above such feelings and drives are repressing the naturally competitive and possessive nature of their sexuality. And indeed in the past, white males sometimes went crazy when white women had babies with non-white males, especially Negroes who were especially threatening becaue they, being bigger and stronger, posed a natural threat to white males. But with the quasi-deification of the Negro as moral saint, sports hero, music star, and charismatic dude, there’s this image of the suprahuman godlike Negro. Therefore, instead of feeling anger and jealousy when black males impregnate white women, wussified white males often turn ‘pussy’ like Ken Burns and behave in the neo-Josephist mode. Just as Joseph was made to feel honored that his wife was ‘cuckolded’ by God, white males today increasingly feel honored to have their daughters, girlfriends, and even wives have sex and babies with black men who are seen as super-godlike figures. If Ken Burns’ wife got pregnant with a Negro in an adulterous affair, you bet that Kenny boy will get all sappy-weepy, wet his pants, hold his hands up to his face like Pee Wee Herman, congratulate his wife, and pledge himself to raising the mulatto kid as a mini-messiah. At any rate, modern sexual repression exists not only in regards to normal sexuality but deviant sexuality. The natural feelings of most honest guys toward homosexuality is one of revulsion and repulsion. I mean just think about ‘sex’ where a bunch of guys indulge in fecal penetration. That is so icky-poo. The sight of someone like Tim Cook and Andrew Sullivan kissing one another and porking each other in the poop-hole doesn’t make for a pretty sight. It’s a violation of the yin-and-yang. It’s like trying to make electricity by wiring + with + or - with -. And consider trans-genderism which is even more freaky as sexual deviants even go so far as to have their bodies mutilated and pumped with artificial hormones to ‘Frankensteinize’ themselves into another ‘sex’. Our natural response to such things is either mocking laughter or revulsion. But Jew-controlled PC has used pressure and propaganda to persuade a lot of people that homosexuality and trans-genderism are perfectly normal, healthy, & decent while those who find that stuff yucky are suffering from ‘phobias’ that are so horrible that they must be fired, blacklisted, and destroyed in career and reputation. So, we now live in a culture where we must repress our true feelings about ‘sexual’ freaks like Tim Cook who says the greatest thing about his life is God made him want to stick his penis into the anuses of other men. Now, I can respect Tim Cook as a businessman and manager. But what the hell is so great about his ‘sexual’ lusts? And I will fall for the fallacy that conflates homosexuality with success, power, and talent, because, after all, there are plenty of homos who are dumb, poor, and powerless; and there are plenty of people around the world who are opposed to the homo agenda who are richer and more successful than Tim Cook. But notice how no one, not even Conservatives, are mocking Cook’s ludicrous statements that homosexuality is the blessing of God. God blesses men by making them want to use fecal holes as sexual organs? But since the ruling ideology is decadent elitism and since the super-rich class loves homos as the new face of ‘leftism’, we are supposed to muffle our mockery and laughter and pretend that Tim Cook is the wise man for the ages. The homomania thing is also repressive because it tries to de-emphasize and suppress from public view & consideration the sexual-physical-and-biological truth of homosexuality. Indeed, journalists are now fired for using the term ‘homo’, and some homos even object to the term ‘homosexual’ because it is graphically suggestive. Homos want to emphasize the socio-cultural side of homosexuality so that they will be regarded as a culture, nation, or society than as a biological dysfunction. Homos don’t want us to think about what actually happens among homosexuals in the bedroom. Homos would have us believe that there is a ‘gay nation’ with the ‘rainbow’ flag as its banner than a community of homos whose underwear are stained with feces and blood from too much fecal-penetrative ass-ramming.) Organizations like ACLU recognized that demands for censorship often has an understandable moral or communal basis, as indeed many books, movies, music, ideas, views, and etc. are indeed offensive, even vile. However, Jewish proponents of Civil Liberties still argued that freedom means freedom, and rule of law means protection of the right of even free speech or expression that is offensive, upsetting, or vile. In other words, liberal democratic values mean not only the political rule of majorities but the rights of minorities — racial, ethnic, political, religious, and etc. — being protected too from majority or communal pressures. Indeed, ACLU went so far as to defend even KKK and Neo-Nazi speech on the basis that everyone in American should have the right to conscience and the means to express it, even if the conscience in question seemed utterly lacking in conscience as most people define it. For this reason, even individuals who didn’t like Jews or the ACLU felt a certain grudging respect for the organization because it seemed to practice what it preached.
But that was then, and this is now. The prevailing position among Jews on the issue of free speech has changed drastically. Jews today no longer believe in free speech, and even the ACLU is working to curtail and penalize certain kinds of speech. It should be obvious by now that the ACLU’s original principles were all just a shtick. But then, Jews have always operated in bad faith. Now we know that Jews were for total freedom of speech only when they didn’t have a total lock on elite power. After all, if in the past ACLU had called for the banning of ‘hate speech’, the ruling Wasp elites could have included as ‘hate speech’ the many radical voices on the Jewish Left. Hate is so common in the world of politics and ideology that one could argue that all political speech is a kind of hate speech. Democrats and Republicans often attack one another with rabidity and virulence. There’s a lot of hateful things Jews and atheists say about Christians, a lot of hateful things Christians say about Muslims, and a lot of hateful things Muslims say about Jews, Christians, and Infidels. Communists hate capitalist, and libertarians hate communists.
But then, suppose we limit ‘hate speech’ to matters of innateness since no one chooses to born into a certain race, sex, nationality, and etc. After all, a Christian can theoretically change his mind and become something else. Or a communist can drop his ideology and become a capitalist, and a capitalist can become an anarchist. In contrast, a black person can only be a black person, a white person can only be a white person, a man can only be a man, and a woman can only be a woman(though the Trans-gender movement might argue otherwise; by the way, if trans-racialism becomes a possibility, would hating other races be like hating other ideologies? Nothing would be innate to anything or anyone). Suppose we argue that we shouldn’t hate something or someone of an innate nature. But if we follow this logic, men should be fined for ‘misogynist’ talk, women should be imprisoned for ‘anti-male’ talk, whites should be denounced for finding a certain race less attractive, blacks should be censured for making fun of white guys who can’t jump. After all, they would all be speaking negatively of innate differences. Furthermore, as long as certain innate traits are more prevalent among certain groups of organisms, why should any people be forced to like or love another group that happens to be preponderant in traits come across as offensive, vile, disgusting, and dangerous. If indeed too many Jews are pushy & nasty and use their high intelligence to degrade and destroy the interests of survival and power of other groups[and this pattern repeats itself over and over in nation after nation and all throughout history], why should any people like Jews? And if it’s a well-known fact that blacks of Sub-Saharan origin are generally more aggressive, stronger, wilder, more unstable, less reflective, and less conscientious, why should any group be forced to love blacks? Furthermore, Jewish-controlled Political Correctness isn’t just about tolerance but Coercive Love, but true love isn’t about forcing people to love things. Imagine if a woman were forced to love a man she doesn’t love or vice versa. Political Correctness is ultimately about Political Coercion. It begins with talk of tolerance, i.e. people should tolerate others even in disagreement or dislike. So, even if a Christian doesn’t like Jews, he should tolerate Jews and acknowledge the Jewish right to equal protection under the law. So, even if an atheist doesn’t like Christians and Muslims, he should acknowledge the right of people to worship. But then, at least when it comes to certain groups, Political Correctness turns into taboo-ization of certain feelings and expressions. If tolerance alone is the rule of Political Correctness, then a Christian should be allowed to express his negative feelings about Jews while, at the same time, acknowledging and accepting the right of the Jew to have equal protection under the law, i.e. "I don’t like Jews and shall explain why, BUT I believe the Jew should have the same legal rights of citizenship as I do." But with taboo-ization, one must not only tolerate Jews but never say anything negative about them... or face firing, blacklisting, and even government-sanctioned penalties(as already is the case in Europe). So, Political Correctness goes from tolerance and right to express one’s dislike/hatred to tolerance and mandatory silence about certain groups. But then, there’s another step in the logic of PC. Certain groups are not only protected by powerful taboos from criticism and expressions of dislike/hatred BUT they must be praised, honored, welcomed, celebrated, and revered by all other groups. So, if one is asked about Jews, one must express ecstatic reverence for them. If one is asked about blacks, one must express total enthusiasm about blackness. If one is asked about homos, one must get down on one’s knees and bow before & kiss the homo ass. It’s like all politicians must kiss AIPAC’s ass. So, all prominent figures must express the deepest sympathies for blacks and pledge to do more for the black community. Even a Republican like Rand Paul, following the black violence and mayhem in Ferguson, Missouri, goes to that blighted community and says more must to be done for blacks while muttering not a peep of sympathy about all the whites and non-blacks who’d been attacked and brutalized by black mayhem. It’s like the logic of communist reeducation where it was never enough to merely tolerate Marxism; indeed, it wasn’t even enough to mute one’s negative feelings about communism; instead, one had to express one’s total love and support of Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism. In George Orwell’s 1984, the state wasn’t content to own Winston Smith’s body. It wasn’t content to cower to Winston Smith’s will. It wasn’t content to have Winston Smith’s obedience. It had to have Winston Smith’s soul. Winston Smith had to be made to truly love Big Brother. Thus, Political Correctness isn’t just a Culture War but a ‘Spiritual War’ for the souls of individuals. We must be made to love the Big Jew, the Big Negro, and the Big Homo(and maybe Big Tranny too). Of course, such slavish unconditional love isn’t demanded of us for Iranian-Americans, Palestinian-Americans, gentile Russian-Americans, and Chinese-Americans since Jews still look upon Palestinians, Iran, China, and Russia as enemies of global Jewish power and domination. And it certainly doesn’t mean unconditional love for the white race since the main agenda of Jews is to destroy the white race that is still regarded as the main rival and obstacle to Jewish supremacism. Though white race is now intellectually, spiritually, and culturally enslaved by Jews, there’s still the chance of its breaking free from the chains of Jewish supremacism and carrying out a giant intifada against the Jewish oligarchs and their commissars who rule over us all, and this is why Jews are still so rabidly and virulently anti-white.
Needless to say, even though PC is identified with the ‘egalitarian left’, it is NOT equal in its regard and treatment of races, ethnic groups, and the sexes. It has a strict hierarchy with Jews at the top, Negroes in the second slot(though it could be argued that homo snobs, being so chummy with& adored by ‘blue city’ elites, are now only below the Jews), homos in the third slot, and white women in the fourth slot(as feminists). PC is designed and calibrated to serve Jewish supremacism. Notice how Jews are the most powerful and richest people in American, but we must never speak truth to Jewish power, and all politicians and figures of prominence must sing hosannas to Jews at all times. Jews placed Negroes in the second slot not because they love blacks but because blacks are useful for profits and guilt-baiting the white race; when it comes to guilt-baiting whites, homos aren’t that useful, especially as homo power is something like the ‘new white privilege’. As Jews run the entertainment industry, sports industry, and media industry, and since blacks are prominent in sports and music, Jews have forged a symbiotic relation with blacks even though most powerful Jews’ private feelings about blacks are pretty much that of Donald Sterling’s. Blacks are also useful for Jews to guilt-bait and thus paralyze white people from fighting for their own interests and power. According to the Jewish mythology, slavery is the ‘original sin’ of America, and since Americanism dominates the world, the guilt of white Americans supposedly rubs off on all whites around the world. Also, the narrative of American Slavery can be associated with European imperialism, role in slave trade, and, of course, ‘antisemitism’. Never mind that only a handful of European nations were involved to any degree with imperialism outside Europe, and Russians themselves had once been conquered by Mongol imperialists and invaded regionally by Turks(as well as by other Europeans). Never mind that Jews played a key role in financing imperialism and the slave trade. Never mind that Jews worked with Muslims to conquer and tyrannize huge parts of Europe, especially Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy, Greece, and the Balkans. According to the Jew-run Narrative, Jews and blacks have always been wholly innocent and were tragically victimized by ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ whites, and this ‘white guilt’ is applied to Poles, Hungarians, Russians, and etc. as well to the Anglos and the French who were the main imperialists since the 18th century. (Interesting that the most aggressive imperialist powers in the two centuries prior to WWII were fully or partly democratic.)
Of course, the Spanish and Portuguese were among the biggest imperialists and spearheaded European thrust into Africa, Asia, and especially the New World, but the Jew-run narrative goes relatively easy on them(despite the fact that Portuguese-ruled Brazil imported ten times the number of slaves the North American colonies did). Why do Jews go easier on the Latinos? As the most powerful and richest nations are Northern European or of Northern-European-origin, Jews value any allies they can find against the Waspy races. So, even though the ‘historical crimes’ of the Latinos are much greater than that of the Anglos — some estimates say the native population of Latin America was reduced from 60 million to 5 million due to diseases spread by and violence employed by the Spanish and the Portuguese conquerors, and of the Latinos imported many more slaves from Africa than North America did, and slavery was abolished in the Southern Hemisphere after the end of slavery in America — and only because of pressure from Great Britain and the US. But as long as Latinos are useful allies against Wasps, blancos, and gringos, Jews pretend that all Latinos — even white ones with blue eyes — are part of the ‘people of color’ who were ‘victims’ of Yanqui imperialists. It’s like Henry Kissinger, in order to contain the Soviet Union, was willing to go easy on Red China, a far more virulent, repressive, and murderous communist power in the early 70s. It’s like Jews, in order to smash Syria and Iran, will go easy on Saudi Arabia even though Saudi Arabia has been among the main ideological and financial providers of radical Islamic movements. Indeed, elements in Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than anyone in Iraq ever did(if at all), but Jews exploited 9/11 should to invade and destroy Iraq, not Saudi Arabia. There is no consistent principle in anything Jews do. It’s all about power, their own. It’s like Jews will even support far-right anti-Jewish ultra-nationalist elements in Ukraine against Putin’s Russia — even though Putin’s been good to Jews — because Jews see Putin’s example of nationalist renewal as a bigger threat to Jewish global hegemony.
Similarly, Jews overlook the horrible history of Latin America in order to forge an alliance with Latinos against ‘gringos’. Since the Latin American community in the US is dominated by white Latinos, it wouldn’t be smart for Jews to attack white Latinos for their history of imperialism, slavery, and ‘genocide’ — though tremendous number of natives died in Latin America, there’s still debate as to whether the deaths constituted a genocide since diseases, more than anything else, devoured the most number of lives; it’s like the Bubonic Plague brought to Europe by Mongols killed a whole bunch of people, but that doesn’t necessarily means Mongols committed intentional genocide against Europeans though, to be sure, Mongols intentionally did lob disease-ridden bodies into a few European castles to break the resistance. So, we have white Jews and white Latinos working hand-in-hand to bash ‘gringos’ and Northern Europeans. As Latin folks in Europe and Latinos in the Americas have long harbored resentment and inferiority/superiority complex against the more successful upstarts of Northern Europeans(who’d been barbarians when Southern Europe was flourishing as the greatest centers of civilization in Roman times and the Middle Ages — after all, even the Renaissance began in Italy), they are only to happy to work with Jews to attack and demean people of Northern European stock. (Of course, if people of Northern European stock wanna be clever, they should accuse Latins and Jews of ‘cultural genocide’, mass murder, and slavery. After all, Romans, who were Latins, conquered whole swaths of Northern European territories, killed countless number of indigenous Barbarian folks, and enslaved even more. And Christianity, which grew out of Jewish culture in the Near East, came to blanket all of Northern Europe and destroy almost all vestiges of indigenous paganism among Northern folks. If that wasn’t ‘cultural genocide’, what was?) Even though European Latins and New World Latino peoples lost the game of power fair-and-square in their economic, political, and imperialist competition with Northern Europeans, they don’t wanna face the music but instead prefer to pretend that they were forced into an inferior situation because of Yanqui imperialism and/or Northern European tyranny and domination. (As the final chapter of Jim Thompson’s THE GETAWAY illustrates, the Latins/Latinos are among the most venal people on Earth. One also gets this sense of ‘magic realist’ horror in the ‘advice’ of the Mexican drug lord in the final part of Cormac McCarthy and Ridley Scott’s THE COUNSELOR. There’s an element of ancient-surrealism in the Latin mind — as with the Jewish mind, as conveyed by the Jewish diamond merchant played by Bruno Ganz in the film — that is warped beyond measure. Though people of Northern European stock can be corrupt, brutal, nasty, deceitful, and etc. there’s a relative simplicity to their way of doing things. It’s like when the Irish are nasty, they are just plain nasty like James Cagney. When British elites are snobby, they are spiffily so. Though Anglo cowboys could be murderous and brutal, there was a simplicity of bang-bang to their killings. When Northern European types are bad, they are simply bad. When they’re good, there’s a clarity to their goodness. So, there’s a degree of starkness among various modes they operate by. Things are more black-and-white. In contrast, the Latin and Latino world has been blend of various modes, and they never needed no stinking badges to clarify what is and isn’t authoritative. It’s been a blend of rich heritage going back to ancient paganism and the development of Christian traditions. There was also the mixing of races as Southern Europe periodically came under the domination of Muslims, North Africans, and Turkic peoples. Also, Southern Europeans, especially during the era of the Romans, imported many slaves from non-European areas. So, culturally, racially, and historically, there was a far richer blend in the South. But everything rots, and the Latin world became a combination of many rotting narratives, values, threads, norms, and cultures. In the New World, this became even more acute as the Spanish and Portuguese racially mixed with huge numbers of natives who had ancient cultures of their own. Furthermore, Latino whites not only mixed with natives but sought to maintain control over them. It was like they were merging with natives while keeping them apart at the same time. It required a certain warped logic to maintain such contradictions, and we see this today in how white Latinos are said to be ‘people of color’. If Anglos mixed ‘magic’ and ‘realism’, it would seem odd, but it seems natural among Latinos. Anglos like realism over here and magic/fantasy over there. With Latinos, the realist and the magical become part of a fermented mango brew. Though Northern Europeans had culture before the coming of Christianity, it was a relatively lowly form of paganism. So, it could effectively be wiped clean from their lands and replaced with a new cultural mode. Christianity could begin with something like a blank slate.[And later, Germans in the 19th century thought themselves to be even more purely Greek than the real Greeks. Whereas real Greeks had racially and culturally mixed with non-Greek peoples & cultures and lost their original essence, racially purer German neo-classicists could take the essential core of Ancient Greek culture and revive it as a blank slate ideal.] Also, as Northern Europe was racially and culturally more cohesive and contained, they had a clearer sense of categories and divisions. It’s like Japanese have a ‘cleaner’ sense of distinctions than do the Indonesians and Indians whose worlds are a strange combination of so many races, cultures, histories, and strands. Thus, while we may not agree with Japanese conceptions of right and wrong, they have more clarity when it comes to what is right or what is wrong than do the Indonesians and Indians whose sense of right and wrong is downright surreal to most advanced modern folks. What’s truly unsettling about the ending of both THE GETAWAY — the novel, not the movie — and THE COUNSELOR is the sickly blend of civility, corruption, evil, good manners, sadism, kindliness, wisdom, savagery, propriety, cruelty, and etc. In THE COUNSELOR, the drug lord counsels the ‘gringo’ counselor with what sounds like kind words of advice — like a philosopher-king — , but he’s really a heartless gangster who is capable of anything to maintain his control. In the ending of THE GETAWAY, the killer duo end up in a Mexican resort that, on the surface, looks like a perfectly nice and well-kept place. But it is a death-house. It’s like an
idyllic-and-beautiful-seeming pitcher plant that attracts insects with bright colors and sweet fragrance but traps them and slowly devours them slowly. It’s like the
deceptively alluring island in LIFE OF PI that seems bountiful with plants, water, and animals but, in fact, gradually and carnivorously consumes its inhabitants. This is why Anglo logic cannot truly appreciate or penetrate the Latin logic — or the Jewish logic — because Latin logic is a form of ‘magic logic’. It’s like a Luis Bunuel film, and perhaps it’s not surprising that some of the strangest artists of the 20th century were Spaniards like Bunuel, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Antoni Gaudi, Ernesto Sabato, and Jorge Luis Borges. And of course, Magic Realism in literature is a Latin-American product. Many in the Anglo/Northern European world only notice the enchanting, romantic, or imaginative side of Latin culture. But when the Latin mode shifts from the arts to the society, politics, and morality, it can be unfathomably corrupt and mind-boggling, especially as Latins are so ‘timelessly’ in tune with this form of contradictory madness; there’s no sense of panic or desperation. Among Northern Europeans, time and space are ideally in sync with one another. In a way, Mussolini was trying to emulate Northern Europe when he tried to make trains run on time. But in the Latin way, there is no ideal unity between time and space. Things don’t happen when you expect them to; things happen when you don’t expect them to. To Northern Europeans, this is exasperating, but to Latins and Latinos, it’s just the way things work and have always worked. In THE COUNSELOR and THE GETAWAY, we get the sense that there’s plenty of nastiness, crookedness, and corruption among ‘gringos’ too. Evil, crime, violence, and corruption are universal problems. But the style/manner of evil is different from culture to culture. In THE GETAWAY’s America, there’s a clear distinction between law and criminality, between friend and foe, between honor and deception, between truth and falsehood. We see a lot of bad shit, but there’s no doubt about their bad shit nature. But once the story winds up in some part of Mexico, all such categories dissolve. There are no more distinctions. It’s impossible to distinguish what is lawful and what is unlawful, what is honorable and what is dishonorable, what is official and what is corrupt. It’s heaven and hell as the same thing. It’s civilization and barbarism interchangeably entwined. It’s kindness and sadism rolled into a single burrito. Because of the murkiness of Latin way of thinking & behaving, Latins and Latinos achieved far less socio-politico-economically than the most starkly minded Northern Europeans with greater clarity about meanings of things. But when it comes to messing with people’s minds, Northern Europeans have nothing on Latins and Latinos whose deviousness is the very essence of their culture and character. It’s like in THE GODFATHER PART II, people like Senator Geary may have done more to build the United States, but people like Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth, the Latin and the Jew, are more adept at manipulating the system to get their way. It’s no wonder that one of the growing political alliance in the US is between Jews and Hispanics. But then, Latins and Lationos don’t see their way as particular devious, no more than Asian-Indians think of curry as being particularly odorous. It’s what they consume and inhale all the time. It comes naturally to them. And this applies to Jews as well. Though Jews are a very modern people, their mind-set also has ancient roots, and therefore, it’s a weird blend of the here-and-now mentality and timeless mentality. One must be careful when dealing with Jews. When you stare into a warped mirror, you’d be foolish to expect a clear reflection of yourself. Jews are like warped mirrors.) Also, even though Southern Europeans and Latin-American whites were racially very conscious and used every form of discrimination they could find or devise to keep the power and privilege over the natives, they’ve spun the Narrative so as to make themselves out to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘diverse’ race-mixers compared to the ‘racist’ Northern Europeans and North Americans who clung to racial purity. In truth, many Latin males took indigenous wives only because they arrived without white women. Also, the sexual encounter wasn’t on equal terms because it was overwhelmingly the case of white Conquistadores humping indigenous women while dumping on indigenous men. One might also argue that many indigenous women were raped. So, the mestizo is essentially the product of white Latin sexual subjugation and conquest of the native populations of the land masses that came to be known as ‘Latin America’. The mestizo is not the product of a policy devoted to ‘tolerance’, ‘equality’, and ‘diversity’ but the sordid historical-sexual product of Latin conquest, ‘genocide’, slavery, and subjugation of the natives. It’s like Turks raped a lot of Greek women during the Ottoman years, but only an idiot would celebrate that as some kind of happy love-fest between the two ‘races’. But as long as Jews seek to maintain an alliance with Latin American white elites(who feel a great resentment toward ‘gringos’ and ‘yanquis’), there’s much shushing about the extent to which Latin America is the product of Spanish and Portuguese tyranny over the native populations. (One of the most amusing spectacles is Latin American whites and mestizos dumping on Columbus as a hero of white Americans. Didn’t Columbus sail for Spain? Didn’t the empire that developed from his discovery expand across what came be known as Latin America? I don’t recall Columbus having any ties with Anglos. Latinos blaming ‘gringos’ for the ‘crimes’ of Columbus is like Russians blaming Finns or Swedes for the wars of Ivan the Terrible. Or, it’s like Mongols blaming the Japanese for the conquests of Genghis Khan.) Another factor that makes Latin American whites dearer to Jews is that both Latin whites and Jews are less racially pure than light-skinned(and even blonde and blue-eyed) Northern Europeans. Indeed, the radical racism of National Socialism had much less appeal among Italians, Spanish, and Latin Americans because, despite their own prejudices against non-whites, they resented the sneering attitude of Northern Europeans who, at least in the modern era, looked down on Southern Europeans as less clean and less pure: swarthy, hairy, brown, and oily. It’s like what Senator Pat Geary says to Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER PART II. So, even as Jews looked down on Arabs and ‘schvartze’, they resented being looked down by Northern Europeans as ‘hook-nosed, sloped-headed, curly haired kikes’. But Jews found less such racial prejudice from Latinos since many Latinos also had curly hair, tanned skin, and more exotic features.
 |
| 'Greaseball' Italian who could pass for a Jew. |
Of course, some Latins and Latinos became even more race-conscious than Northern Europeans precisely because of their anxiety of impurity, and indeed, such consciousness goes back to the time of Reconquista when the Spanish finally drove out the North African Moors from Spain. As the Spanish felt tainted by the dirty hands and penises of Africa — aided and abetted by hideous Jews who’d loyally served the Muslim invaders — , there was much emphasis on purification of blood among the Spanish(though too much of that stuff in the Royal Court led to the birth of too many idiots). The African/Islamic/Jewish taint may also have indirectly fueled the Inquisition to spiritually purify Spain of alien elements. And among Latin American whites, there was always a toady element that sucked up to the whiter/purer Northern Europeans as the model and guide as the torchbearers of white destiny. There were Latin American regimes and organizations that idolized National Socialism and gave protection to Nazi officials on the lam. But because of the racial diversity and mixtures of Latin America, it could never truly emulate the National Socialist model — the fascist Vargas of Brazil was fitfully aware of this — , but fretful white Latin elites who felt that their bloodlines had been compromised via contact/mixing with the non-white populations did identify with and lend support to the German cause during the National Socialist years. And though Mussolini wasn’t a racial theorist, there was an element of Latin toadyism when he allied himself with the much more powerful Germany headed by Adolf Hitler.
Since we know what Hitler did to the Jews, it’s not surprising that Jews came to associate all Northern Europeans with everything evil; after all, National Socialism wasn’t merely a German ideology but a pan-Northern-European ideology, especially as Hitler felt boundless admiration for the British, the most race-ist of great imperialists. This may seem somewhat ironic since it was Northern European UK and Northern-European-dominated US that did most among the Western powers to defeat Nazi Germany whereas Spain, Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European nations(populated with ‘lesser’ and/or ‘swarthier’ whites) were allied closely or nominally with Germany. Still, the ideology of Nazism was pro-Northern-European, and therefore, Jewish hatred of Germans have spread to all other Northern European peoples as well. Furthermore, as the greatest power blocs following World War II were US, UK, and new Germany(economic if not political power) and as Jews concentrated on gaining power in the US(in competition with Wasp elites), the Jewish Narrative came to focus on the evils of Northern Whites. With Germany it was the Holocaust, and with white Americans it was slavery. Though Jews made a big fuss about the American Indians — especially in relation to what was happening in Vietnam — in the 1960s and early 1970s, the emphasis faded away as Indians hardly constituted a viable power bloc in America, were economically useless to Jews(though Jews did figure out a way to fit every Indian Reservation with a Casino), and were associated with a historical tragedy that rather closely resembled what Zionists did to Palestinians. Is it any wonder that Marlon Brando, the patron saint of Indians, was no great lover of Jewish power? Also, didn’t Jewish-run Hollywood make all those Westerns where brave and noble white folks shot down all those ‘red savages’? When it came to ‘dehumanizing’ the Indians in the American mythology, Jew-run Hollywood played a prominent part.
Anyway, because Jewish history has become closely associated with the struggle for free speech(at least in the West as communist Jews who gained power in Russia and Eastern Europe had no use for that stuff), the issue of free speech has become a sensitive subject for Jews. Jews still want to own the cult of Free Speech, but they don’t want real free speech to be used by anyone to speak truth to Jewish power. Jews don’t want to renounce free speech since they have a long history of denouncing stuff like Nazi book burning, anti-communist ‘paranoia’ & censoriousness, Christian community pressures on arts & culture, and etc. in the defense of free speech. Jews built up their reputation as warriors for freedom by denouncing all forms of censorship. It’s like ACLU even defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie(though given that the so-called Nazi leader turned out to be a Jewish-weasel-in-wolf’s-clothing, one wonders if it wasn’t all just shtick). So, how would it look if Jews were to suddenly declare that they no longer support free speech? They would come across as a bunch of two-faced hypocrites(that they really are). In order for Jews to have the cake and eat it too, they’ve cleverly concocted a new concept called ‘hate speech’. This way, there is ‘free speech’ over here and ‘hate speech’ over there. This ‘hate speech’ happens to be whatever free speech that Jews don’t like, but since it’s been labeled as ‘hate speech’, it’s supposedly not free speech and, therefore, banning it is not banning free speech. It’s like Nazis justifying genocide by dividing humanity into humans deserving of preservation and subhumans deserving of eradication. Since ‘subhumans’ are not really humans, it’s okay to wipe out such people — such as Russian Slavs — by tens of millions. Through such sleight-of-hand terminological trickery, a regime can wipe out peoples and freedoms. If you degrade certain forms of free speech as ‘hate speech’, you can ban them while pretending that the principle of free speech hasn’t been violated.
Because PC has instilled the cult of ‘sensitivity’ in generations born since the 70s, whole new generations have come to value ‘sensitivity’ over freedom, i.e. if something free gives ‘offense’, it’s better to sacrifice freedom to protect the feelings of certain favored groups, such as Jews and homos.
Dirty Jews have also resorted to blacklisting and destroying the careers of people based on their creeds and convictions. Jews insist on the separation of Church and State, but of course, what they really mean is separation of traditional Christianity and State. When it comes to the secular religion of PC, MLK worship, and Worship-of-Jews-and-Israel, Jews want total fusion of state and secular ideologies/agendas that are essentially ‘spiritual’ since they are premised on powerful taboos and call to worship. It’s like new members of the FBI must stand before the statue of MLK, which is not unlike how children in Cuba must pledge loyalty to Fidel Castro before his painting and how government officials must bow before the Kim statue in North Korea. It’s about worship of state-sponsored idolatry. PC is as much about ‘spiritual’ purification as it is about ideological correctness. Indeed, PC prefers mindless worship to critical thinking(even from their own kind, as critical thinking eventually comes to doubt certain facets of the Narrative; it’s like the more the
homo journalist Stephen Jimenez dug into the case of Matthew Shepherd, he discovered a case of murder committed by drug dealers[one of whom was a homo himself] than by ‘redneck bigots’. PC homos are upset with Jimenez because the truth he uncovered via critical journalism upset the favored Narrative that portrays Shepherd as an angelic figure worthy of worship. Anyway, consider the way in which the US government and the media[that is supposed to dig up the truth]willfully conspired and colluded to bury the truth in order to promote the Narrative of angelic homo purity. PC is about ‘spiritual’ purification and inquisition than about rational thought, truth, and real morality based on reality.) Matters of politics should be open to discussion and debate, but we live in a Jew-run world where the sacred cows of PC cannot even be debated. It’s ‘unacceptable’ to debate the real nature of the loutish MLK who was no saint but a thug and fraud. It’s not up for debate as to the real nature of Jewish power and the extent to which AIPAC has its claws sunk into the heart of American politics. We must worship the Jew. And we must also worship the Homo as, indeed, even Conservative politicians are backing away from defending True Marriage from the degeneracy of ‘gay marriage’ pushed by Jews and homos. If running dogs of pushy Jews are pushovers, the running dogs of homos are ‘bendovers’. There is no real debate or discussion of the homo issue. Instead, the big media and big government controlled by Jews just declared that the ‘debate is over’, ‘homos won the culture war’, and if you oppose ‘gay marriage’, then ‘you are the wrong side of history.’ This is what has become of American democracy, which is now really just an oligarchy controlled by corrupt Jewish referees who rig the game in the media, government, finance, and academia —
just like Jewish casino bosses rig the game to rake in all the dough from goy suckers. Worse, most prominent Conservatives just demur and say that the culture/spiritual war is lost, ‘gay marriage’ is gonna be law of the land, "there’s nothing we can do about it", and that’s that. It’s like when a mobster in GOODFELLAS say of Tommy, "he’s gone; we couldn’t do anything about it; that’s all." Jews at the top make all the decisions, their running dog gentile elites rubberstamp Jewish decrees, and the rest of us have no say in any of this and we have to take it. If we disagree, we are ‘on the wrong side of history’ and our complaints are ‘unacceptable’, so say the elites who control the media, academia, and government. Jewish neo-gangsters have elevated the decadent golden calf of the homo agenda before us. In a way, by deca-paganizing Christian Civilization with the cult of homosexuality, Jews are taking God away from the Christians. Jews are replacing moral Christianity with golden-calf version of Christianity that makes a mockery of Jesus by saying that He died so that tutti-fruity men who wallow in fecal penetration should get ‘married’. Such a Christianity is worthless, and of course, Jews know it. Though Jews pretend to be so close and chummy with the homo community, Jews don’t want the spiritual core of Judaism to be contaminated with homo decadence. While Jews insist on the Catholic Church to approve of ‘gay marriage’, they don’t call on the Orthodox Jewish clerics in Israel to do the same thing. Of course, Reform Jewish Rabbis come out for ‘gay marriage’, but they are really using homomania to target the Christian Churches. Their support of homomania is really political than moral or spiritual. That way, Christianity will be trivialized, fashion-ized, and infantilized. There is robust and healthy paganism, and there is trashy and shallow paganism, and Jews use shallow/vapid homo-cult to paganize Christianity in the worst way possible. There was a time when Christianity had been fused with healthy & virile pagan warrior pride, pagan devotion to blood-and-soil, and pagan call for unity and solidarity. Today, Jews want to infuse the vain, pansy, and silly antics of homos into Christianity so that the main thrust of Christianity won’t be about God and Country, family, heritage, and community but about a browbeaten majority seeking PC approval by bending over to silly homos whose puppet-strings are pulled by and whose purse-strings are held by the Jews. (To be sure, some Jews are fascinated with homosexuality and trans-genderism as facets of their own transhumanist dreams. If Jews were a more handsome people, they might not be so transhuman-oriented, but the fact is a lot of Jews are ugly or funny-looking. So, Jews are obsessed with finding ways to transform into something more attractive. It’s like blunt-and-lumpy faced Koreans and Chinese are obsessed with plastic surgery to attain more attractive and delicate features. Because Jewish frogs wanna be Jewish princes, some Jews identify with homos and trannies who wanna be something more than or different from their natural physical attributes. Such form of transhumanism was less appealing to the ‘Aryans’ since they liked the way they looked. Nazi ‘Aryans’ weren’t trying to transform into something Other but trying to perfect and purify their own essence. But because the very essence of Jewish physicality is funny-looking, Jews want to change into something more attractive. I mean who the hell wants to look like Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, or Anthony Weiner, who makes Beavis and Butthead look handsome in comparison? Still, there is something in common between Nazi ‘Aryanism’ and Jewish transhumanism in that both are after something better and higher than the human norm. As such, both are anti-humanist, as humanism stressed the heart of man as his true core. After all, even most Germans and Nordics didn’t measure up to the ‘perfect Nazi ideal’. Though Hitler waged a full-scale war on Jews and Slavs, he also meant to wage a gradual war against Germans so that better-looking Germans would outbreed the uglier Germans with thick-skulled Neanderthal-Teutonic features. As for Jewish transhumanists, being human is too boring. When Jews were religious, their sense of superiority and specialness — above rest of humanity — was premised on uniqueness of Jewish blood and the chosen-ness of Jews as God’s favorite people. Most modern Jews are not religious, but the Jewish supremacist mind-set still remains, and some Jews today satisfy their deeply ingrained psycho-cultural superiorist tendencies with transhumanism’s dreams of creating a super-future-race that will leave humanity-as-we-know-it in the dust. The
weirdo Martine Rosenblatt[who looks like a cross between Howard Stern and Bono] isn’t content to have transformed himself from a man to a woman. He wants to gain immortality as a form of artificial consciousness on a computer. He wants to be a cyber-god. Of course, such Jews are clever enough to disguise their superhumanism with PC cliches about ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, and ‘tolerance’, but they really want to be gods over the rest of mankind. They seek the means by which they can super-evolve way past the rest of us. It’s like Jewish-nerd-bully-Star-Trek-homo-Nazism. Rosenblatt wants to be a one-man or one-woman 1,000 Yr Reich in a Tronic universe.)
Anyway, as long as Jews employ the terminological trick of ‘hate speech’ and fool a lot of people(and most people are easy to fool), they can have the cake and eat it too. They can pretend to be on the side of ‘free speech’, all the while invoking ‘hate speech’ to silence and suppress any free speech they don’t like. The Constitution says that no one should be discriminated on the basis of race, color, or creed, and since ‘creed’ means belief, conviction, religion, ideology, or value system, there should be a separation of profession and personal beliefs. And indeed Jews made this very argument in their defense of communists, communist-sympathizers, and radical leftists — many of whom were Jewish — who were fired from their jobs for ideological or political reasons in the late 40s and early 50s. According to the Jewish argument, every American citizen has the right to his own beliefs and convictions — religious, political, ideological, cultural, etc. — and therefore one’s creed shouldn’t be used as a criterion for denying his participation in professions. So, even communists should be allowed to teach in schools as long as they carried out their professional duties professionally. Even atheists should be allowed to serve in government.
Using this logic, no one should be fired or denied promotion based on his negative views of Jews, blacks, homos, and etc. as long as he, in his professional capacity, carries out his duties according to standards expected of him and as long as he keeps his personal views within the domain of his personal life(separate from work). But this is not how Jews play the game. Though Jews will condemn any university, business, or government institution that denies hiring or promotion to Jews on the basis of their far left views, ultra-Zionist views, or antipathy toward whites or Christians, Jews will go out of their way to pressure any university, any business, or any government institution not to hire or to fire anyone who is associated with negative feelings about Jews, blacks, or homos. So, it’s okay for universities to hire lots of far-left professors and ultra-Zionist Jews, but they better be very careful about hiring anyone who is tainted with ‘far-right’ — code words for ‘white interest’ — ideas, ‘racism’, or anti-Jewism. According to Jewish logic, personal creeds should NOT be invoked to ban any Jew, Negro, or homo from professions — unless they rag on one another — , but even personal creeds should serve as grounds for firing people whom Jews don’t like EVEN IF the individuals-in-question have performed their duties with utmost professionalism.
Jews hate white folks so much that they will even go out of their way to protect the rights of radical Muslims to pursue and hold jobs, but when it comes to white folks, it doesn’t matter how well they perform their duties on a professional basis. If their personal creeds are found to be offensive to Jewish elites, Negro activists, or homo snobs, they are out, like the CEO of Mozilla who was fired for his personal beliefs on ‘gay marriage’. This is how Jews operate. (Jewish defense of the rights of radical Muslims in the West serves two purposes. It’s like killing two birds with one stone. On the one hand, Jews get to play heroic-friend-of-a-beleaguered-minority-that-is-oppressed-by-paranoid-right-wing-white-Christian-bigots, but on the other hand, by making terrorist attacks more likely via protection of civil liberties of hardline Muslims, Jews get to stoke Western fears of ‘Islamofascism’. Jews play noble defenders of poor Muslims suspected of ‘terrorism’ by hostile ‘Islamophobic’ Americans, but Jews also create the very conditions that makes more Islamic terror possible, thereby justifying the Jew-run government and Jew-media to pursue more aggressive policies in the Middle East at the behest of Israel.)
Jews are no longer for freedom of speech or freedom of conscience, but they still want to own the cult of the ‘freedom of speech’. So, they use the sleight-of-hand trick whereby ‘hate speech’ is made distinct from ‘free speech’. But then, who gets to decide what is and isn’t ‘hate’? Do libertarians have the right to silence communists on the basis that communism hates freedom, individual liberty, property rights, traditions, religions, and nation-states? Do Palestinians have the right to silence Zionists on the basis that Zionism is about ‘racism’, ethnic cleansing, oppression of Palestinians, mass killing of Palestinian women and children, hateful propaganda against Arabs, and etc? Do Christians have the right to silence the homo lobby on the basis that agenda of ‘gay marriage’ is hateful toward true marriage, degrading of Christian values, and an affront to the truth of the biology of sex? Of course not. (The very notion of ‘gay marriage’ is hateful to True Marriage also by means of association. Something is degraded if it’s associated with something other of no value. If an F paper is said to be equal to an A paper, it is an indirect assault on the A paper. If an expert French chef cooks up something wonderful and if someone places a dish piled with shit next to the French dish and declares that both are of equal value, then it is an indirect act of hatred on the French dish. Though it doesn’t attack the French dish directly, by associating it with a dish piled with shit, the French dish has been greatly devalued.
If your ounce of gold is said to be no more valuable than an ounce of lead and priced accordingly, you may still have the gold but its value has been reduced to zilch. When true marriage is equated with ‘gay marriage’, it no longer has any value. This is why the current art world is anti-art, indeed filled with hatred for real art. When the worthless junk of Andy Warhol and his imitators are hailed by the art community and fetch tremendously high prices — even beyond those of genuine works of art — , the art world might as well be eating its own shit and drinking its own urine because it can no longer distinguish gold from dross.) The meaning of ‘Hate’, according to PC, is to be controlled by Jews. The War against Hatred is really a hateful Jewish war on all voices that are critical of Jewish power. Of course, Jews invoke extreme organizations like the Neo-Nazis and the KKK as examples of hatred, but these very Jews have no problem with extreme Jewish groups like
Chabad Lubavitch that is even invited to the White House and allowed to ‘light’ giant Menorahs outside the White House. While the New York Times or Jew York Times extensively and hysterically throws fits about the slightest sign of white identity politics in Europe, it sweeps under the rug all the brazen and blatant examples of Jewish pride, Jewish nationalism, Jewish power, and Jewish consciousness among Israeli Jews and American Jews. And of course, hateful and murderous Jews can kill as many Palestinians as they want. So, trusting Jews to control the meaning of ‘hate’ is like allowing communists to control the meaning of ‘greed’. Communists have no problem with their own greed for total power over the economy, culture, schools, media, and etc. But then, communist greed isn’t greed since it’s practiced in the Name of the People. But, even a small businessman who tries to keep what he’s earned through dint of hard work is deemed as very ‘greedy’. Jews are hideous snakes, and they twist the meaning of words in any way they choose to serve their own interests. Consider the term ‘right-wing death squad’ oft-employed by the Jew-run media. Have you ever heard of Jews use the term ‘left-wing death squads’ even in cases where communists carried out mass killings? Or consider how the Neo-Nazi elements in Europe are labeled as ‘the far right’, but the diehard communist elements after the fall of the USSR were referred to as ‘conservatives’. According to Jewish logic, diehard communists were ‘conservative’ since they clung to an old moribund order even though communist ideology is on the left. But following such logic, shouldn’t Neo-Nazi gangs in Europe be called ‘leftist’ since they’re committed to destabilizing the existing political and social order? No, the Jews say. The Neo-Nazis must be labeled according to their ideology. So, the Russian communists in the 1990s were labeled contextually but the Neo-Nazi elements were labeled by the content of their ideology. You see how Jews play fast and loose with the rules of terminology? By the twisted logic of hideous globo-Zionist-capitalist Jews, both Neo-Nazism and Paleo-Communism belong on the ‘right’. This is how Jews play the game.
And of course, many Jews would have us believe that Israel is a ‘liberal democracy’ when it is a ‘far-right’ nationalist Jewish fascist-democracy. As some Jews realize it’s a tough sell to promote the likes of Benjamin Netanhayu as ‘liberal democrats’, they’ve concocted a sly Narrative that would have us believe that Israel was founded and developed as a ‘secular liberal democracy’ and its politics has been hijacked only in recent years with the rise of the Israeli Right(enabled by American Christian Right), but then, as this political shift has been a reaction to Palestinian terrorism and violence, Jews should be seen as the real victims. Jews are like the James Woods character in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. They will never quit lying, cheating, stealing, hoodwinking, and using every dirty trick in the book to not only get whatever they want(however immorally and unethically) but to fool us that they’ve always acted as the paragons of moral virtue. It’s like no matter what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did, the propaganda in their respective nations presented their actions as always justified and correct. So, if Hitler spewed hatred against the USSR, the Nazi-controlled media said Hitler’s views and policies were entirely correct. But if Hitler decided to make peace with the USSR, the Nazi media hailed it as a tremendous achievement, even though it wasn’t long ago that Hitler was telling the German masses that there was no greater enemy than the USSR and communism. But then, when Hitler ordered the invasion of Russia, the Nazi-controlled media had Germans believing once again that Hitler was entirely correct in his all-out war on Russia. Mao pulled the same shit. So, the Chinese were told that China and Russia were brothers forever. And then, in the early 60s, Chinese were told that China and Russia were enemies forever and there couldn’t be peace between the two nations for centuries to come. China also said US is even worse than the USSR. And Mao hailed Lin Biao as the most trusted comrade. But with the death of Lin Biao after a failed coup, the Chinese Communist media declared that Lin Biao was the worst scum that had ever lived, and when Mao met with Nixon, the US was no longer so much on the shit list. As Jews have a near-monopoly on the media in the West, they can pull the same shit over and over. If Jews say, shit is gold, shit is gold. If Jews say night is day, night is day. Jews say, we obey. (Consider Arnon Milchan the billionaire movie producer who is allowed to get away with just about everything. He spied on and stole from the US for the sake of Israel. He worked on deals to transfer Israel’s nuclear technology to South Africa then under Apartheid. And who knows what other dirty tricks he pulled, but he’s allowed to travel freely between the US and Israel. If you think the pardoning of Marc Rich — while on the lam — by Bill Clinton was outrageous, Rich has nothing on Milchan who hasn’t even been prosecuted for all the illegal or unethical he’s committed over the years. As long as he justifies himself by saying he did whatever he did for Israel, he’s forgiven and even admired since US is now a bitch of Jewish power, and most Americans think there’s no greater good than worshiping Jews and serving Israel, even when Jews and Israel act in ways that undermine American security and interests. As for Milchan’s dealing with South Africa during Apartheid years — indeed even to the extent of transferring nuclear weapons technology — , well, that’s all forgiven and forgotten[along with the fact that Israel was Apartheid South Africa’s #1 ally] because Milchan produced 12 YEARS A SLAVE. If the Rosenbergs and Jonathan Pollard had done what they did today, they’d be awarded the Medal of Freedom. Given behavior like this, it’s crazy for any people to trust Jews or try to work with Jews in good faith. Jews will use you and then throw you away like an orange rind. Consider how Roman Polanski got away scot-free too even though he drugged and raped a 12 yr old girl. Jews stick together and gleefully snub the goy community. Is it any wonder why anti-Jewish feelings were so rife through the centuries? Though Jews highlight cases like the Dreyfus Affair where Jews were victims of injustice, they’d rather have us forget all the cases through history where Jews were the liars, cheaters, and abusers.. Anyway, just as Hitler and Mao were right no matter what they did in the eyes of the people since they controlled the media and the Narrative in their own nations, Jews are always right no matter what they do, and we better just go along as Germans did under the Fuhrer and Chinese did under the Chairman. But Americans still want to believe that they’re free — unlike all those peoples living under tyranny — because America still goes by the label of ‘liberal democracy’ when, in fact, US is a Jew-run oligarchy. In a way, neither US nor Russia won or lost the Cold War. Rather, Jews and oligarchs won in both nations and the masses lost. We tend to remember the Cold War as mainly a conflict between US vs USSR, but in both nations the more crucial division was between the elites[who wanted it all] and the masses[who came to be seen as a burden by the elites]. American capitalist elites — among whom Jews were prominent — came to see the American working class and even the middle class as a burden. They got tired of dealing with labor unions. In the USSR, the elites enviously looked upon richer Western elites and wanted some of the capitalist goodies for themselves. But as long as their system was communist, the economy was geared to taking care of the people. Though USSR and other communist nations were far from socially or economically equal, the elites could attain only so much wealth under communism. So, in both the US and USSR, the elites wanted to be liberated from the workers who were making too many demands and were proving to be a huge drain on either profits or national budgets. Though we are apt to see the end of the Cold War in terms of US defeating the USSR, it was more like fall of both the Soviet Union and American Labor Union. The fall of the Soviet Union didn’t so much mean the fall of the Soviet elites but the liberation of the elites to do as they pleased, and it wasn’t long before a handful of former Soviet elites — many of them Jews — grabbed all they could for themselves. And much the same thing happened all across former communist nations in Eastern Europe. Former communist elites amassed huge fortunes, especially if they were Jewish, which was a huge advantage since they got special aid and advice from Western Jews like Larry Summers and other globalist Jewish hoodlums. So, it would be naive to say the American people won the Cold War against the Soviet people. Rather, both the American/Jewish elites and Russian/Jewish elites won the Cold War and the peoples in both nations lost. In a way, the American people lost worse because, despite the corruption, repression, and Jewish-influence in Russia, it is still a dominantly a Russian nation made up of Russians and led by a Russian ruler with a profound love for his motherland, whereas the white population in America will be a minority soon and every American politician of both parties sheepishly serve Jewish and homo elites. So, before American Conservatives pontificate about how good ole Reagan won the Cold War, they should ask ‘against whom?’ Since the end of the Cold War, the elites in the US, Russia, and China have grown ever richer and more powerful. The global elites won. But at least Russians and Chinese are still led by their own kind who have some sense of national, cultural, racial, and traditional identity and interests. In contrast, white Americans have to live under the tyranny of an alien elite whose main objective is to utterly degrade and destroy the white race. In that sense, the masses of white Americans are the biggest losers of the Cold War. It makes no sense to see the Cold War in terms of nation vs nation — US vs USSR — since the globalist elites that rule the US don’t feel any nationalist/patriotic connection to the majority of Americans who are gentiles. Jews only want to turn gentile masses into servile running dogs of Jewish interests, power, and agenda. The main objective of Jews is to suppress racial-political consciousness among white gentiles — though Jewish racial consciousness is always encouraged — and to make gentiles kneel before Jews and homos. Your average Irish-American today is more likely to participate in the ‘gay pride’ or ‘gay poo-ride’ parade than in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, which, by the way, has been pressured to be taken over by homo propagandists. So, who really won the Cold War? Was the Cold War really about West vs East or US vs USSR? Or was it, in the end, really about the elites vs the people? Both Soviet communist elites and American Liberal elites came to the same conclusion around the same time: the hell with Labor, drop the masses like dead weight, and strive for elite oligarchy-ism. To the extent that the elites in both US and Russia ultimately chose hierarchy over egalitarianism and privilege over ‘progress’, one could argue that it was indeed the triumph of Anglo/American Capitalist Conservatism, at least as embodied by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did much to expand upon the transformations wrought by Reagan and Milton Friedman. But the elites got nervous as the widening gulf between the rich and the rest was bound to be noticed sooner or later. The especially pernicious legacy of Clinton and Blair was that both were essentially neo-globo-elitists who covered their tracks with ‘progressive’ rhetoric that fooled a lot of people. Furthermore, as the ‘new leftism’ came to be defined in terms of ‘diversity’, ‘gay rights’, and ‘creative’ urban hipster attitudes, it further eroded the power of the working masses. As the native working masses were less keen about ‘diversity’, they could be morally browbeaten as ‘racists’ by the globo-elites signed onto ‘multiculturalism’. Under classic leftism, the masses targeted the rich over economic inequality. Under ‘new leftism’, the elites sneered at the masses for the latter’s PC deficit. With homomania on the march, billionaire Jews in Wall Street could morally browbeat working class whites who didn’t think ‘gay marriage’ was such a great idea. In the UK, rich privileged globo-neo-aristocrats snottily demeaned working class Britons opposed to increased immigration as ‘racist’? Tartly, the neo-progo-elitist snobs turned up their noses and asked, ‘Are you a racist?’ As the masses were conditioned by mass media and mass education controlled by PC-pushing elites, they could only be defensive and fumble for words that never came to them easily. Also, increased diversity via massive immigration was a huge boon to businesses that could hire cheap docile labor. And ‘gay rights’ issue drove a wedge between the elites and the masses because the elites became chummy with vain, narcissistic, and egotistical homos who catered to riche tastes. Though Jews and homos are associated with ‘victim-hood’, the reason why both groups were so adept at gaining power in the New World Order was because they have a long history of sticking close to centers of power, especially as Jews had operated the finances for the gentile aristocrats while homos had done the hair, dress, and makeups. Homos weren’t so much in the closet as in the tunnel that interconnected the centers of power. Today, Jews and homos have so much power that they can be totally antithetical to something yet demand that they be ‘included’ in that something — and even serve as its chief arbiters. So, even though the notion of ‘gay marriage’ is totally antithetical to the true meaning of marriage, homos not only demand the legality of ‘gay marriage’ but demand that ‘married homos’ be promoted or prohomoted as the new face of what marriage is all about: the New Normal. Likewise, though Jews have done more than any people to degrade, defame, and destroy the West, Christianity, and the white race, Jews demand that white people not only include Jews as an essential component of the West but promote Jewish interests as the cornerstone of what Western civilization is all about. It’s like homos trying to take over the Catholic Church and making stuff like ‘gay marriage’ as the centerpiece of Catholic doctrine. This explains why white American Conservative politicians say NOTHING about the very real dangers faced by white Americans but instead babble endlessly about how we must do more for Israel and the Jews. Imagine Creationists, whose beliefs are antithetical to science, demanding that science not only include the teaching of Creationism in the curriculum but to promote Creationism as the fundamental basis for biological science. Ridiculous, ain’t it? But with their immense power, Jews have made ‘gay marriage’, which is antithetical to true marriage, the face of marriage and have made Jewish interests the highest priority among white people even though the Jewish agenda is so utterly antithetical to white interests.) Since control of the media, academia, and government translates into control of the Narrative & Memory and since most Americans are too addicted to comedy shows, Hollywood movies, celebrity culture, sports, video games, garbage on TV, and other amnesia-inducing fare, they have no sense of memory or perspective except what Jews tell them at the moment. Jews know that most people are satisfied with sound bites, laugh tracks, and labels. So, if the Jew-run media tell us that US attacked some nation for its ‘human rights abuses’, many Americans think the accused/accursed nation must be a ‘rogue state’ or an ‘international pariah’, terms applied on and off at the whim of Jews who run the matrix of government, media, and academia. Though it’s true enough that there are plenty of rotten nations around the world with terrible human rights record, it’s no less true that most ‘human rights’ organizations are controlled and financed by Jews, so Jews get to decide which nations have intolerable ‘human rights’ record and which nations with horrible records are on good terms with the US. After all, most human rights organizations don’t rag too much about Israel’s oppression and mass killings of Palestinians. Notice that most human rights organizations funded by the US don’t make much noise about all the abuses in Saudi Arabia, a nation that is far more repressive than Iran, let alone Russia. Notice that, for some reason, the main targets of the so-called ‘human rights campaign’ are nations hated by Jews: Russia, Iran, and Syria. Though Chinese human rights record is much worse than that of Russia, Jews push harder against Russia since it is a white nation and because Jewish oligarchs still have a good chance of gaining total control of Russia like they’ve done over US and UK. Also, white Russian nationalism is more likely to inspire and encourage similar nationalisms in other white nations, whereas yellow nationalism will seem alien to most white folks. Also, there’s no chance in hell that Jews can gain elite control INSIDE China, so they don’t even bother; in contrast, there are powerful Jews inside the Russian economy and government. For the time being, the Jew-run media go relatively soft on China because there are too many business dealings between US and China. Jews figure that a two-front war is bad for Jews. So, first go after Russia and break its backbone, and then go after China and ruin its economy. After all, Jews first took care of the Wasps in the US, and indeed the Wasp elites are now little more than craven cowards who suck up to the Jewish elites for a piece of the privilege pie. Look at the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid, and it’s a pitiful sight. Nothing but running dogs of Jews begging for doggy snacks.
The notion of ‘hate speech’ is dangerous because the Jewish elites — the most powerful people in America and EU — will get to play thumbs up or thumbs down on what constitutes ‘hate’. The rules of ‘hate speech’ will not be controlled by the powerless despite the Jewish BS that ‘hate speech laws’ are about protecting the powerless from the powerful. If indeed ‘hate speech laws’ should be controlled by the powerless, then we should leave it up to Palestinians and Palestinian-Americans to decide what is and isn’t ‘hate’. We should allow Iranians to decide what is and isn’t ‘hate’ since their national economy has been attacked and devastated by all-powerful Zionist Jews who command the governments, banks, and media of the US and EU. If indeed the powerless should define what constitutes ‘hate speech’, then we should leave it up to poor whites to decide what constitutes ‘hate’ since they are the most unfortunate people in America. Despite their poverty, their whiteness automatically associates them with ‘white privilege’, and therefore, even rich blacks and browns are favored over them by ‘affirmative action’ policies that are essentially anti-poor-white. Of course, even rich whites are favored over poor whites by ‘affirmative action’ since the former have connections and tend to espouse the PC cliches favored by elite institutions. Poor whites not only suffer economically but physically and politically. Since they have fewer means to protect themselves from blacks, they are the primary victims of black crime and violence. But since the Jew-run media’s Narrative would have us believe in an America where blacks are running scared from the KKK, black thugs are only referred to as ‘teens’ and ‘youths’, and poor white victims receive no sympathy whatsoever — not even from Republican politicians who care more about those ‘poor’ and ‘helpless’ Israelis who routinely slaughter Palestinians, demolish Palestinian homes, and spy on American government and citizens. Naturally, since poor whites experience far more overt black violence and thuggery than affluent/privileged Jews and whites ever do, they are going to have more ‘racist’ attitudes, but the Jew-run media, instead of trying to empathize as to why poor whites feel this way, just viciously attack and defame poor whites as subhuman bigots and ‘haters’, and privileged Liberal whites and mainstream Conservative whites, who get their all their news, info, values, and taboos from the Jew-run media, academia, and government, show zero sympathy for poor whites who are bullied, assaulted, raped, robbed, and/or murdered by blacks. According to the Jew-run media, the interracial violence is overwhelmingly white-on-black when anyone who knows the truth is that black-on-white violence is as overwhelming as Zionist-on-Palestinian violence. Blacks beat whites, but we are made to feel blacks are under attack from whites; Zionists slaughter Palestinians, but we are made to feel poor Israelis are being brutalized by neo-Nazi Palestinians. This is how dirty Jews wage their War on White People(especially Poor White People), but because many poor whites belong to Evangelical churches that have been bought by Jewish money or because they get most of their world-view from Neo-con owned Talk Radio, their sense of national honor and cultural pride is about joining the military and killing Muslims and returning home crippled or in body bags in Wars for Israel. Jews are running circles around white folks so fast that white folks can’t even see what’s going on.
 |
| Dumb goy US soldiers think they're powerful because they got big guns, but they take orders from Jew-run government. Drill sergeants talk big and loud but must follow guidelines handed to them by Jew-and-homo Cabal, which is why they can no longer say negative things about fruitcakes. They act tough but are nothing but running/barking dogs of the Jew-homo elites who run the government. Soldiers pray as Christians while Jews fill the military with homo commanders and use dumb goyim as cannon fodder in Wars for Israel. Dummies will always be manipulated by smarties, and Jews are smarter. If we want real 'progressivism' and equality in the military, they should do away with ranks and hierarchy. Furthermore, soldiers should be allowed to vote on which wars to fight. If they must do the dying and killing, why should wars be entirely decided by Presidents, Congress, and the Jomo Cabal when their children never do the dying? But of course, such kind of egalitarianism won't be endorsed by Liberal Elites since they still want to use the US military as running dogs in Wars for Israel and to spread homo-agenda around the world. |
For there to be real free speech, the speech of the powerless must be protected, and as poor whites are the most powerless people in America, their speech rights and the speech rights of those who defend poor whites need to be protected. Poor whites are under economic assault, cultural assault, ideological assault, moral assault, and physical assault. (White elites, who should care about, inspire, and lead the less fortunate among their kind — like rich Jews take care of poor Jews — , prefer to cozy up to rich powerful Jews instead. They are little more than Collaborators.) If black thugs rape, rob, and murder the family members of a poor white person and if the white person growls "fuc*ing niggers", the Jew-run media will dump more on the white person’s frustration than on the black thugs’ mayhem. According to Jews, not only must poor whites be forced to integrate with dangerous blacks but, if they were become victims of black violence, they should just tell themselves that they got their just desserts as payback for the ‘legacy of slavery’. Poor white folks must be turned into White Uncle Toms. Of course, affluent whites need not worry since they got the money and connections to live in safe neighborhoods. As far as rich Jews and affluent white Liberals are concerned, it’s a good thing that blacks and poor whites are being forcibly integrated since such racial mixing — of course, overwhelmingly black guys conquering white girls while white boys are reduced to ‘pussy boys’ — will have a diluting effect on the black race. Though mulatto is nastier than a white person, he is still nicer than a Negro. So, if dangerous Negroes must be mulatto-ized to be made less troublesome, why not create a situation where they racially mix on a huge scale with poor whites? Let black guys beat up poor white guys and let white girls(turned on by ‘jungle fever’ via rap music and sports culture) put out to black guys and produce mulatto babies. That way, Jews can kill two birds with one stone. ‘Racist poor white trash’ will be reduced in number & broken in spirit, and dangerous blacks will be racially diluted and made somewhat more bearable with some infusion of white blood.
For free speech to have any meaning, it must protect the speech of the most powerless members of society. After all, the powerful need no free speech protection since they have the power to say whatever they feel like. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Mugabe, and etc. don’t need any free speech protections. As top rulers, they could say whatever they wanted and get away with anything they did. Free speech is insurance for the powerless because the powerful have the means to say whatever and get whatever they want. Stalin didn’t need free speech protection since he had the power of the word to order the deaths of millions of people. If Stalin said he doesn’t such-and-such person or an entire people, his henchmen would go about destroying that person or those people. But men like Alexander Solzhenitsyn sure could have used some free speech protection. Of course, he was accused of hating the Proletariat because he stood up to the Soviet system. When Jews had less power in the US and even came under suspicion of treason(as many Jews were on the radical left and worked as spies for international communism) when World War II ended and the USSR became the new enemy #1, Jews felt very nervous and sought free speech protections out of fear that the ‘paranoid style’ in American politics might lead to white gentile ‘fascism’. Back in those days, Jews saw the value of free speech protection, and if anything, they were the proponents of total free speech against conservatives forces that sought to quell or suppress unpatriotic, subversive, obscene, and/or radical speech.
But today, as Jews are the most powerful people in America, they no longer value the true meaning of free speech. Why would today’s Jewish elites need free speech when they control the government, media, academia, banks, high-tech, information, intelligence agencies/departments(working in cahoots with Israel)? Why would they have any use for whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden when Jews control American Intelligence and share its data among themselves to target their enemies?
Over the decades, Jews used free speech not for free speech’s sake but to gain supreme power, and now that they got the power, they want to hog all the speech for themselves, especially as the internet has made it possible to exchange and express unorthodox ideas and views that may be subversive to the Jewish-supremacist order. Today, Jews no more need free speech than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did. As the powerful have the control of Truth, the Narrative, the News, and information, they don’t need the protection of freedom of speech. On their path to power, of course the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao would have appreciated free speech protections, but once they gained the power they held the loudspeakers and had no use for competing voices. Today, Jews got all the big media loudspeakers, and therefore, they are likely to find free speech an hindrance and challenge to their supremacist power.
But, as mentioned earlier, Jews still want to own the cult of ‘free speech’ since they’ve been associated with its principles in the second half of the 20th century. So even today, there are annual rituals to remind us of ongoing problems of censorship around the world and in America. But needless to say, Jews selectively invoke examples to create the impression that censoriousness only exists among the Right, Russians, Muslims, or Third World nations. For example, Jews will point to some conservative community seeking to remove pro-homo propaganda from the school library. There is no mention of how Jewish power and pressure have made it virtually impossible for most libraries to even think of carrying books by David Duke, David Irving, Jared Taylor, or Henry Williamson. And in Europe, entire bodies of literature deemed to be ‘antisemitic’ have been banned outright. But there is total silence on the subject in the Jew-run Western media.
Jews continue to associate themselves with ‘free speech’ by using the bogeyman of ‘hate speech’ to ban and censor any free speech they don’t like. But since ‘hate speech’ is not said to be ‘free speech’, banning such books and expressions is not deemed as attack on free speech. Jews are fiendishly clever, devious, and dirty — and goyim are stupid enough to fall for such nonsense.
The most powerless people in America are poor whites. They are suffering economically, they are the main victims of ‘affirmative action’, and they suffer from black thuggery and violence. Not only are they on the bottom but no one speaks up for them since their whiteness automatically associates them with ‘white privilege’. It is indeed a sickening sight whenever powerful and privileged Jews and Liberal Wasps dump on poor whites as ‘white trash’, ‘rednecks’, ‘crackers’, and etc. It used to be that poor whites were reviled for having ‘racist’ feelings toward black thugs and criminals, but today, they are hated by rich Jews and privileged Liberal Wasps for opposing the homo agenda. They are not only subhuman ‘racists’ but super-subhuman ‘homophobes’ because them stupid rubes still don’t buy the idea that a man’s fecal hole is a proper sex organ. According to movies like DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, the ONLY way a member of the ‘white trash’ community can become genuinely human is by making common cause with some homo or tranny. It’s like Jews convinced the GOP that the only way GOP can be good and cleansed of ‘racism’ is by associating itself with Neocon-Ziocon Jews and howling for more Wars for Israel. Since whiteness has been associated with Evil, the only way whites can be good is by association with certain ‘victim’ groups, especially Jews, Negroes, or homos. (But forget about associating oneself with Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, or Christian Arabs.) Jews on their own are supposed to be noble. Blacks on their own are supposed to be noble. Homos on their own are supposed to be noble. (Being homo is one way a white person can instantly be morphed into a ‘noble victim’.) But whites on their own are said to be ‘racist’, ‘homogenous’(now a dirty word) and lacking in ‘diversity’(now a good word), ‘exclusive’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘far right’, ‘isolationist’, and etc. So, the ONLY way white nations and white communities can win moral credits is through association with Jews, Negroes, and homos. They have to set up Holocaust memorials to honor Jews, they must allow Jews to come over and exploit the economies, they must allow massive immigration from Africa and encourage their women to have babies with blacks, and they have promote massive homo ‘pride’ parades funded by filthy globalist Zionist Jews.
All over Europe and all over America, poor white people — as the white middle class shrinks, there will be even more poor white people — are calling out for help, they are yearning to be heard, and they want inspired leadership from the elites of their own people. And much of their passion is understandably race-ist(meaning pride, conviction, and consciousness in one’s own racial/cultural identity, as is surely the case among Jews and Negroes), nationalist, and conservative. It is race-ist because white masses want to survive as a race. They are nationalist and conservative since their most valuable possession is their special connection to the homeland of their ancestors. When people become very rich, they are likely to become less nationalist since they have the privilege and the means to get so much enjoyment through life through travel, investing all over the world, and rubbing shoulders & sharing cocktails with fancy global elites. But most people don’t have much, and what is most valuable to them is a sense of shared nationhood and racial identity. It’s like most Cubans own very little, but they have a strong sense of Cuban-ness because even a Cuban who has little or noting at least has his country. It’s like most Chinese own very little, but their pride derives from being cultural members of a land where their ancestors have lived and died for thousands of years. Likewise, a poor white Briton may not have much, but there is still pride in being a Briton in the land of Britain that has a long illustrious history with its own heroes and martyrs. So, in some ways, poor folks can be more patriotic, nationalistic, and racialist or race-ist than rich folks who, with their globe-trotting riches and cosmopolitan airs, can pretend to above such ‘atavistic’ concerns. They are the fancy-poo ‘citizens of the world’, ooh-lala. And they can afford to play such games.
For most people, cosmopolitanism is too expensive, too elitist, too rootless. It is also soulless and bloodless, shallow and vapid. The bogusness of the ultra-cosmopolitan mind-set is apparent in Western globe trekkers who search the non-western world for ‘authenticity’. They reject their own authenticity as they mindlessly ape the globo-American Hollywood brand but then seek authenticity in OTHER cultures. But then, why are there still authentic nations, cultures, and peoples around the world? Because they haven’t yet surrendered wholly to the fatal embrace of McCosmopolitanism. Ultra-cosmopolitans are so lacking in their own cultural authenticity (rejected as ‘atavistic’) as well a sense of irony that they go out of their way to look for authenticity in other cultures. Idiot James Cameron even created a fictional world inhabited by a race of ‘authentic’ tribal folks so that he, a bland colorless white guy, could fantasize about becoming a member. It never occurs to him to search for and recover his own racial and cultural roots.
Poor white masses all over the EU and America are calling for revival of white nationalism, white unity, white homeland, and white power. It’s because that’s all they have left, and furthermore, in the long run, nothing is as valuable. (It’s like Perceval in EXCALIBUR remains true to the Quest because that’s all he has left. And what is the secret of the Grail? The king and the land are one. In other words, the head and the body are one. The white elites, white masses, and white lands must unite as one. But the collaborationist white elites are too busy sucking Jewish dick to remember the taste of the blood of their own race.) Consider all the horrors the Poles, Chinese, and Russians have gone through in the 20th century. They were beset with one crisis after another and mired in poverty. And yet, why do Poles still have Poland, why do Russians still have Russia, and why do Chinese still have China? Because they did everything to hold and keep their sacred land for their own peoples. Most people have no wings of privilege, so they develop a close bond to the land below their feet. It’s the one certain thing in their lives. In contrast, globalist elites gain wings, so they feel as if they aren’t bound to anything and should have no such obligations. The whole world is their oyster, and they have the financial means to fly all over the world as if all the world is their vacation resort.
But then, the real dirty secret is that Jews, seemingly the most cosmopolitan of all peoples, do have a powerful sense of rooted-ness in Jewish identity, Jewish power, and Jewish homeland. Jews value Israel as a proud Jewish nation, and they see places like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, and London as their own centers of power. If Jews are indeed so cosmopolitan, why don’t they open up upper-echelon Hollywood management to gentiles? Would Jews in Israel allow non-Jews to take control of the Israeli media or economy in the manner that Jews have gained control over media and finance in US and UK? Can anyone imagine a Hong Kong financier or Polish Catholic banker controlling banks in Israel like Jews control banks in London, Paris, and New York? Jews are the richest and most cosmopolitan people, but they are also the most rooted and tribal of peoples. Rich Jews do care about poor Jews. Jewish supremacists do anything to maintain dominance over their turf. Jews will fight tooth-and-nails to maintain control over Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood. AIPAC and J-Street work tirelessly to keep American politicians in line as their kosherized cattle. Secular Jews do care about and take care of religious Jews, which is why all Jews were outraged when black thugs attacked the Hasidic community in Crown Heights. If secular white Liberals dump on religious white Conservatives in the US, secular Liberal Jews have a close working bond with religious Conservative Jews in Israsel. In SCHINDLER’S LIST, notice how the Liberal Jew Spielberg was filled with sympathy for ultra-religious Orthodox Jews who were being humiliated and brutalized by Nazi thugs. In contrast, if white secular Liberals were to see white religious Conservatives being attacked and brutalized by black thugs, they would cheer and laugh like hyenas. Jews have race-ist consciousness and they stick together.
However, Jews don’t want any such consciousness among white gentiles. Jews don’t want to see any kind of connection/unity between white cosmopolitan elites and white masses. (Jews want white Liberals to feel closer to Jews than to white Conservatives, and Jews want white Conservatives to feel closer to Jews than to white Liberals. So, we have in America the spectacle of white Liberals bashing white Conservatives and vice versa, but both sending never-ending valentines to Jews. In contrast, a Liberal Jew will side with a Conservative Jew against Liberal goyim, and a Conservative Jew will side with a Liberal Jew against Conservative goyim. Of course, Liberal Jews and Conservative Jews pretend as if they’re angry at one another, but it’s all just shtick. In truth, it’s an under-the-table tag-team match. A Jew is like a trespasser who places himself on the bed between a man and his wife. If the man and the wife wanna reconcile and make love, the Jew says to the wife that he should be her main lover and the Jew says to the husband that he, as homo Jew, should be his main lover, so bend over please. White and white is no good, so says the Jew. It must be Liberal whites serving Jews and Conservative whites serving Jews. Jews have fixed things so that ‘blue state white America’ and ‘red state white America’ hate one another. But notice that both sides praise and love Jews, and notice that Liberal Jews and Conservative Jews still get along with one another just fine. Democrat or Republican, kneel before AIPAC.)
When white masses cry out for decisive actions against black thuggery, Third World invasion via massive immigration(much of it illegal), globalization of the economy that benefits the Jews at the expense of white masses, and the degradation of culture by decadent homos, what do white gentiles elites do? They close their ears and pretend not to listen. White elites have ‘come apart’ from the white masses, and they suck up to Jews, worship MLK, attend homo rallies(now obligatory for anyone who seeks power, privilege, and success), and call for more Third World immigration & ‘diversity’. They not only close their ears to the cries of white plight but fume nastily and berate poor whites for being ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘homophobic’, and other PC nonsense promoted by Jewish overlords who control the media, academia, and government. White masses are now being assaulted from all sides: black thuggery & crime, Jewish financial exploitation, lowering of wages via massive immigration, homo degradation of basic morality so fundamental to well-being of poor folks, ‘affirmative action’ discrimination against poor whites, drug culture & meth, and etc. And yet, there is no connection between them and the white elites. Though Democratic Party once used to be a party that cared about white working class and common folks, it is now a party mainly devoted to urban Liberal gentry, Jewish oligarchs, homo elites, and mulatto opportunists. As for the GOP, though sometimes pandering to white conservative sentiments, it remains slavish to the elite industrialists and capitalists whose values are no longer nationalist and race-ist. When American used to be a National Capitalist nation, rich whites felt a certain affinity with middle class whites, working class whites, and poor whites. Indeed, rich whites in the past felt closer to other whites — even poor ones — than with rich Jews. Think of Henry Ford who saw the Jew for what he is. Today, while a rich Liberal Jew will side with a poor Republican Jew — if such exists — than with a rich white gentile, a rich white gentile will go out of his way to show that he’s more with Jews, blacks, homos, yellows, and browns than with other whites, especially ‘poor white trash’. Bill Gates funded programs to help poor blacks but none to help poor whites. A people who are no longer led by their own elites are doomed(as only a small percentage of any people have real talent for leadership, organization, and management), and in the US and UK — and most of EU — , it is now the case that white elites would rather collaborate with globalist Jews, side with immigrant masses(from African, Middle East, and Asia), and hang with homo snobs than make common cause with the masses of their own race who are angry with Jewish financial leeches, attacked by African thugs and Muslim morons, and aggravated with all this homo BS that has zero value for most people. Indeed, how does it help poor people to wave the ‘rainbow’ homo flag and convince themselves that it’s wonderful & healthy for everyone to pretend that the male fecal hole is a proper ‘sex organ’? How does it help the values of family to make believe that two lesbians whose idea of ‘sex’ is rubbing vagina with vagina can be ‘two mommies’? But as white elites have given themselves over to the Worship of the Jew, the cult of ‘diversity’, and homomania, they feel oh-so-very superior to the white masses who still cling to basic values and instincts of God, country, and blood. The white elites today are like the Shah of Iran. Though the ruler of his people, the Shah felt closer to foreign envoys, foreign kings, foreign elites, foreign oligarchs, foreign politicians, and etc. During the celebration of Persepolis, he ignored his own people and invited mostly foreign dignitaries to win approval of the elites of the West. Though Iran went the wrong way in its embrace of Islamic Fundamentalism, one can understand why so many Iranians came to hate the Shah and support the Revolution. It was because most people felt neglected and unrepresented by the Shah who seemed to care more about shmoozing with the rich fancy folks all around the world than inspiring and leading his own people. Though Hitler was a scumbag in many ways, he had genuine value as a ruler of his own people up until 1939. And the same goes for Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who genuinely tried to modernize the Turkish nation as a whole, which is why the secular order lasted as long as it did. In contrast, the Shah of Iran just ignored most people of the nation and sought to modernize the elites of Iran. So, the Shah and the elites around him came to sneer at the masses, their own people. It was likewise with Batista of Cuba and his downfall. True, Cuba would have been better if Castro had not come to power as he turned out to be a communist. Had Castro followed the lead of Mussolini or Ataturk, he could have been a great fascist ruler of Cuba; fascism is not only economically more viable but far less totalitarian than communism. Anyway, Batista fell from power because he had very little rapport with the people and was perceived, correctly, as a spineless stooge of globalist economic interests. Today, every American and British politician is a Shah or Batista who have almost no connection to his or her own people. Indeed, if more white people really felt that Mitt Romney stood for their interests than sucked up to Wall Street Jews, more whites might have decided to cast ballots in the 2012 election, but because Romney came across as a stooge of Wall Street — which he is — , many white people just decided to boycott the election.
The GOP has been totally Shah-ized and Batista-ized. Its elites and representatives now do little else but shmooze with Jewish oligarchs, suck up to homo elites, and repeat the mantra about ‘diversity’ and MLK worship. Like Sal sucking up to Barzini near the end of THE GODFATHER — he perceived Barzini as the new boss in town — , GOP elites ignore the interests of white people who constitute the main voting bloc of the party and grovel at the feet of Sheldon Adelson and his foul Jewish ilk. Just as the British Imperialist overlords once pressured and bought off the native elites in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East to serve British rule(than their own people), almost all white elites in US and UK have been bought off by Jewish globalist-imperialist oligarchs to serve the Jews than to lead the white masses. At this point in history, white people need their own Moses, Castro, or Gandhi to give the middle finger to the alien elites(Jews) and lead their own people to recovery, restoration, power, and triumph. It’s the only way white folks can recover their Promised Homelands. Instead, white people have craven whores like Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and etc. all of whom grovel at the feet of Jews as Obama does.
Anyway, the main reason Jews insist on ‘hate speech’ laws is to prevent the Coming Together of the white elites and white masses. In a society with vibrant free speech, some courageous elements of the white elites might speak up for the white masses, and then, the grievances of poor whites — victimized by Negro violence and harmed by ‘diversity’ of massive immigration — would go heard and would have to be addressed. During the Westward expansion, white authorities listened and responded to the concerns of white farmers and ranchers who faced danger from American Indians. It was the unity of white elite power and white masses that paved the way for American greatness. Of course, the elites cannot cave into the demands of the masses of all the time. When white settlers were attacked by Indians, some of them(angry over the loss of loved ones)wanted the US cavalry to just wipe out all the Indians, but such would have been extreme and even evil, so the US government took measures to round up Indians and put them in reservations so that both the white populations and Indians would be safe from one another. Today, no matter how much poor whites complain about black violence and mayhem, there is either total silence from white elites or nasty excoriation of poor whites for their ‘racist’ views. Indeed, things have gotten so bad that most poor whites suffer in silence because they’ve been browbeaten by the media & government and abandoned by their own elites. Things are even worse in South Africa where the whites elites are utterly silent about the horror of rapes, robberies, and murders that are visited upon the white community by savage blacks. Afrikaner elites merely collaborate with the new Negro ruling caste.
Even white elites who do see the problem remain silent because Jews have created blacklisting apparatus that will bring down anyone for the merest whiff of ‘racist’ thoughts. Consider what happened to Donald Sterling(and he’s Jewish). If it can happen to a billionaire Jew, it can happen 100x over to a rich gentile person. Or consider what happened to Paula Deen because, more than twenty years ago, she uttered the word ‘nigger’ concerning a black punk who robbed her at gunpoint. Things are so hysterical and fortunes can be destroyed so quickly by the Jewish Blacklist Network that rich white elites dare not say or do anything that might be construed as ‘racist’, even though poor whites are being mauled and conquered by jigger-jiver thugs. So, just as there is total silence about Zionist oppression and mass killing of Palestinians among the American political and business elites, there is total silence among white elites about all the problems faced by poor whites. Jews have fixed it so that whereas Jews can call out and work for Jewish solidarity — unity of rich and poor Jews, unity of American, European, and Middle East Jews — , white elites cannot mutter a peep about white identity or white interests across class lines and national lines. So, rich whites better only care about their fortunes/privileges(as libertarians are wont to) or voice concern/compassion for non-white poor folks(as ‘progressives’ are wont to). For sure, American whites better NOT try to forge any pan-white/European identity across the Atlantic. The reason why Jews exerted pressure on Hungary to arrest Richard Spencer and shut down the conference promoting worldwide white identity and unity was because what Jews fear most is the unity of white identity and power across the globe. Jews want white Americans to hate white Russians; Jews want European whites to look down on white Americans; Jews use the GOP to make rich whites look down on poor whites as ‘losers’ and ‘takers’; Jews use the Democratic Party to convince working class whites to see rich whites as leeches(even though the main leeches on Wall Street are Democratic and Neocon Jews who are served by white gentile leeches) and to convince urban whites to see small town and rural whites as ‘white trash’ subhuman scum. What Jews fear most is neo-fascism among whites because it will unite whites across classes. That was the positive aspect of National Socialism. Though many white folks associate GOP-style capitalism with conservatism, capitalism can be damaging to racial/national interests because the upper classes may come to see to their core interests as economic than national and cultural. Thus, the rich may just decide to look down on those who have less(even people of their own race)and feel smugly superior and cocooned in their own privilege, and such attitudes came to be the hallmark of American Conservatism. An ideology that is primarily economic than national or racial is bound to fall apart. While Jews oppose any neo-fascist mentality among whites, they go out of their way to be neo-fascist themselves, though they are careful not to use that term. Jews like to paint themselves as ‘liberal’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘progressive’, ‘secular’, and etc. but if one clears away all the smoke-and-mirrors, the core of Jewish power is neo-fascist because Jews have fused capitalism, socialism, nationalism, and race-ism to promote and preserve their own power and interests. In Israel, there is generous welfare for Orthodox Jews so that they will serve as the baby-making machines of future Jews. How nice if in the West faced with low-birthrates a section of sober white people were paid to have lots of kids to ensure the survival and the power of the white race. Rich Jews do care about middle class Jew, working class Jews, and poor Jews. While rich Jews will do business with people all over the world, they will also ‘come home’, come together with other Jews, and work in the interests of Jewish people as a whole. This is the real source of Jewish power — their neo-fascist juggling of capitalism, socialism, cosmopolitanism, nationalism, race-ism, traditionalism, modernism, and etc. — , whereas white peoples keep losing in power because most whites tend to be totally committed to one ideology or another. So, we have white libertarians, white socialists, white nationalists, white cosmopolitans, white religionists, and etc, but because of their mono-investment in a single idea, they are all at each other’s throats. In contrast, Jews are neo-fascist because they found a way to balance liberalism with conservatism, nationalism with cosmopolitanism.
Anyway, Jews want to suppress free speech and denounce the angry speech of poor whites as ‘hate speech’, because if poor white speech were heard, it would finally begin to dawn on better-off whites that white masses are indeed facing hard times and need leadership. Jews don’t want the cries of poor whites to be heard by white elites, and they don’t want white elites to say anything that might inspire the poor whites. Look at UK. During the London Riots, did David Cameron say anything to rally white Britons who were being beaten and attacked by black thugs? Instead, he sent government goons to clamp down on white neighborhoods organizing to defend themselves from street thugs — though Asian-Pakistani communities that rallied together to defend their own turf were praised by the Jew-run media.
Some commentators on the Right such as Paul Gottfried point out that anti-white-ism doesn’t exist only among Jews but among Mainline Protestants and Liberals Wasps as well, and this is true enough. Due to the Christian concept of Sin, self-righteously self-loathing self-flagellation has long been a hallmark of Western moral culture. Notwithstanding the fact that Christianity originated from the Jewish community, European Christians have been bashing themselves long before Jews arrived on their lands. So, Gottfried is right to point out that, throughout his life, he’s met and observed many white gentile leftists and liberals — and even conservatives — who feel burdened with ‘white guilt’ and are into atonement and self-stone-ment mode.
However, what he fails to mention is the fact that such tendencies, though a part of the West, had been healthily checked by other cultural forces(those of power and pride) that, in turn, were healthily checked by the tendency of self-criticism. So, white ‘self-loathing’ and white ‘self-promotion’ were good for one another. Too much ‘self-loathing’ leads to despair and racial suicide. Too much ‘self-promotion’ leads to excessive bigotry and radical chauvinism. The Golden Age of White America was defined by the checks and balances between white ‘self-criticism’ and white ‘self-pride’. So, even though white Americans acted in white interests and white power, they didn’t turn into Nazis or surrender to the lunacies of what became of the KKK. But, it was also true that white pride/power consciousness checked the pathological aspects of white ‘self-criticism’ that could degenerate into suicidal ‘self-loathing’ and self-hate. It’s like the human body is made up of white blood cells and germs, and the body needs both. Not only are some germs necessary for the body but even bad germs are useful in boosting the immune system to work harder. But suppose a foreign element enters the body and undermines the power of the white blood cells to fight the germs. Then, the germs that had once been checked begin to multiply out of control and destroy the entire body. Gottfried is correct that there’s always been a self-critical element in white Christian society. But how did white self-criticism and white conscience turn into full-blown suicidal white self-loathing? Why did the ‘self-loathing’ brand of white Liberalism gain such predominance over ‘self-promoting’ white Conservatism? Did it just suddenly grow much more powerful all on its own, or was there a foreign element that tipped the balance in favor of one by fatally weakening the other? Consider an AIDS patient. Before he contracted the HIV virus, his body maintained an equilibrium between the immune system and germs. But once the virus coursed through his body, the immune system was weakened and germs began to take over. Without the HIV virus, this loss of equilibrium would never have happened. Did the germs multiply out of control and take over the entire body on their own? Did the immune system give up on its own? Or did a virus neutralize the immune system so that the germs could invade in greater numbers and take over the entire body?
Likewise, was it the case that ‘self-critical’ white liberalism morphed into a ‘self-loathing’ epidemic on its own and thereby prevailed over the ‘self-proud’ white conservatism? Or was a third element the crucial key in the triumph of white ‘self-loathing’ over white ‘self-pride’? Without the Jewish virus, wouldn’t white liberalism and white conservatism mutually and healthily checked one another, with one serving to reform the system and other serving to preserve the order? Though there was a strain of ‘white guilt’ from the very beginning of the American history, it has always been checked by the white pride, white power, white unity, and white prowess. Therefore, the cult of ‘white sin’ focused on reforming the system than undermining it altogether. Also, as even those whites who filled with ‘white sinfulness’ relied on tough white guys to fight Indians, keep the wild Negroes at bay, and build a new nation from scratch, there was no chance in hell that white ‘self-criticism’ would go ‘full retard’ into the mode of white ‘self-loathing’. But the rise of Jewish power in 20th century meant a fatal injection of the anti-white AIDS virus into the American bloodstream whereby ANY notion of white pride, white power, and white interests became anathema. Under such conditions, the germs of white ‘self-loathing’ grew unchecked. So, even though Gottfried is correct to call out on the influence of white Liberals and Leftists, he needs to ask why the checking/restraining power of white conservatism and nationalism was lost as a counter-force. And to understand this, we have to take into account the role of the Jewish virus. Every community has its share of ‘self-loathers’ and ‘self-priders’. Even though they may be loggerheads with one another, they need one another because the radical overgrowth of one over the other will very likely lead to self-destruction through surrender or defeat. If ‘self-loathers’ totally take charge, then the community will lose confidence and become defenseless against its enemies. (Paradoxically, ‘self-loather-ism’ is a form of ultra-narcissism because only an ultra-narcissist would be traumatized by the fact that oneself or own’s own people are not perfect. It’s like sufferers of anorexia nervosa are actually ultra-narcissists who starve themselves because they find any ounce of fat to be ‘ugly’. A balanced person accepts that he/she or his/her people have good sides and bad sides, did good things and bad things, and, well, life goes on. In contrast, an ultra-narcissist wants to believe that he/she or his/her people are best in the world, and so, any evidence to the contrary makes them flip out and lose all faith in himself/herself or his/her people. It’s like Siddhartha was an ultra-narcissist and ultra-utopian[a communal narcissism] before he turned into a totally self-abnegating individual committed to extinguishing all of reality as an ugly and frightful illusion. But then, ‘self-loathing’ itself becomes a form of narcissism or moral narcissism to demonstrate the purity of one’s soul committed to self-cleansing.) On the other hand, if ‘self-promoters’ totally take charge, then the community may become overly arrogant, chauvinistic, and reckless in its aggressiveness; and that too can lead to the downfall of the community, as happened to Japan and Germany in World War II. Both nations came under the control of radical ‘self-promoters’ who forbade any healthy and necessary criticism of the system; therefore, both nations dove headlong into reckless wars of aggression for total dominance. So, a community needs both the forces of self-criticism and self-pride/preservation, and that balance was the heart of why UK and US became such great powers in the 19th and 20th century.
But then, hideously venal Jews infiltrated both nations and injected the political AIDS virus against the white racial/cultural/national immune system, and as a result, both the US and UK are run amok in ‘self-loathing’ white political culture and helpless against the invasive Third World germs that are aided and abetted by white ‘self-loathing’ in the destruction of the white race and civilization.
 |
| Third World scum of Rotherham who raped poor white girls ignored by British elites. |
 |
| Ordinary whites beaten by black thugs aided by Jews, Obama, and Holder. |
We must call out the Jews on this. Indeed, suppose we were to do the same to the Jews. Like any other community, Jews too have ‘self-loathers’ and ‘self-priders’. Suppose devious and cunning closet Neo-Nazis were to take control of the elite institutions of Israel and suppose they were to neutralize and paralyze the forces of Jewish ‘self-priders’, thereby boosting the forces of Jewish ‘self-loathing’. Suppose the Narrative pushed by Neo-Nazi infiltrators emphasized only the things that made Jews seem awful, disgusting, vile, and wicked through the ages. Suppose this Narrative fills Jews with a great sense of guilt over what had been done to the Palestinians and Slavic victims of communism. Thus, Jewish ‘self-pride’ were essentially taboo-ized. Meanwhile, suppose ‘self-loathing’ Jews who love to beat up on themselves are praised, promoted, and favored for privilege. Suppose the only way Jews can succeed in professions, business, or government is to rhetorically, ideologically, and morally beat up on themselves, their ancestors, and their poorer brethren. Suppose the new Jewish elites are committed to undermining and destroying Jewish power and interests, indeed even endangering Jewish well-being, protection from harm, and survival itself. Now, a lazy observer might say that Jewish ‘self-priders’ simply lost out to Jewish ‘self-loathers’, but then, which group gave the ‘self-loathers’ the decisive advantage over the ‘self-priders’? It will have been the closet Neo-Nazis who infiltrated into the Jewish socio-economic bloodstream to neutralize the power of Jewish white blood cells and immune system. (It’s like in THE GODFATHER PART II. When Michael asks Hyman Roth about who killed Frank Pantengeli, Roth says the Rosato Brothers. Roth is technically, but Michael asks the crucial question: "Who gave the go-ahead?" It was Roth of course.) This is why we need to be ‘morealistic’ than merely moralistic. Morality must reflect reality than operate in some abstract wonderland of pure principles. So, it’s actually useless for Conservatives to argue for pristine Constitutionalism because such absolute legalism ignores the nature of the threat faced by whites from Jews, Negroes, and homos. Jews, Negroes, and homos don’t care about the Constitution per se and only care about invoking in their own fashion to get what they want. But then, white folks had used the Constitution in the same manner for much of American history. They distorted the meanings in the interests of whites. Just like Christians cannot live according to the absolutist principles in the New Testament, white Americans need to realize that pure Constitutionalism is impossible in America. What is important is using the laws to serve the interests of one’s own people. (Ideally, Constitutionalism is possible if all peoples are equally committed to its abstract principles. But it’s not the case in the US and will never be, especially as Jews are hideous, Negroes are vile, homos are vain, browns are corrupt, and yellows are craven. And Wasps weren’t such stalwart practitioners of Constitutional principles through most of American history either despite their having been the least corrupt and most progressive people on Earth.) Just think. Suppose your people make up 50% of the population of an island but another people who comprise the other 50% are smarter than your people. Supposed, based on absolute meritocracy of the law, the other people gain control of all the elite institutions and have power over your people. Should your people just shrug and let the other people totally rule over your people on the basis of meritocracy? Now, imagine if your people on the island make up 90% while the other people make up 10%, but suppose the other people are considerably smarter than your people and, based on pure merit under the law, the other people gain control of almost all the elite positions. Should your people just accept such an arrangement? Whether your people should or should not, the fact is most people around the world will not and do not accept that kind of social reality. They work for the benefit for their own power. Likewise, so should whites. It’s time to drop Pure Idealism.
While there is much to be recommended about meritocracy — and it is absolutely necessary in some fields as, after all, even black African tyrants who kicked out all white people will seek out the best surgeon — usually white or Jewish — if they have to go under the knife. Indeed, when it comes to hard sciences, there’s nothing like meritocracy, as the Nazis found out when Jewish scientists outperformed ‘Aryan’ ones during the 1930s and 1940s.
But just because meritocracy has its value doesn’t mean that you should root for the best, especially as the best could be mostly composed of a people who hate your people. It’s one thing to accept the fact that members of another group constitute the best in the field but quite to root and cheer for the winners of the other group. It’s like New York fans accept that the team of another city won the big game, but that doesn’t mean that they should favor the other team over their own. It’s like Russia has to acknowledge that the best scientists are in the US, but that doesn’t mean that they should root for American science against Russian science. If your kid gets into a fight with another kid and if the other kid wins, you need to admit that the other kid is a better fighter, but only an idiot parent will favor the other kid because he’s better at fighting. If the other side wins, you need to acknowledge it is better, but instead of surrendering to or rooting for the other side, you should work to make your side just as good, just as smart, just as talented, just as capable. This can be done socially, economically, culturally, and even genetically. When Japan discovered that the West was far more advanced than Japan, it decided to learn from the West in order to strengthen Japan to be a great power. Japanese didn’t decide to just admire foreigners because the latter happened to be superior militarily, industrially, culturally, intellectually, and economically to Japan. It’s like Chinese probably know that Jews are smarter. But instead of worshiping Jews, the Chinese are looking for cultural secrets and genetic means to boost the IQ of Chinese because high IQ is the most decisive factor in the power of a nation. So, just because meritocracy selects the superior talent doesn’t mean you should root for the superior talent, especially if it’s committed to doing harm to your people. Germans were the best rocket builders during World War II, but I don’t recall Jews cheering on guys like Werner von Braun for their genius for rocketry. While Jews acknowledged German accomplishment in rocket engineering, they knew the Germans were their enemy, and they did everything to defeat and destroy Germany. When the Soviet surged ahead of the US in space exploration in the 1950s, the US didn’t just throw up its hands and praise the Soviet as the best in the field. Instead, US pulled its resources and talents together to create a space program to surpass that of the USSR. Though meritocracy is necessary in choosing the best — especially in hard sciences, mathematics, medicine[a matter of life and death], and technology — , it doesn’t follow that the best in the field are on your side or sympathetic to your people. Plenty of top Jewish scientists hated whites, plenty of top German scientists disliked Jews, and plenty of top Chinese scientists resent the power of America and Japan. So, even as we need to acknowledge the winners of meritocracy, we need to ask if the winners are on our side and working for our interest OR against our side and working against our interest. Many top legal experts are Jews, but they don’t work to serve the justice of whites. Rather, they resort to all kinds of sophistry to vilify whites, degrade whites, and disenfranchise whites. If meritocracy is all that counts, we should cheer on those Jewish lawyers since they graduated with top honors from Harvard and Yale. But if we were genuinely perceptive about the nature of power, we would realize that meritocracy in the real world isn’t so much about the best serving the highest principles and the interests of all mankind but about the best serving the narrow interests of his own people, agenda, ideology, and/or cause. Sonia Sotomayor abuses the power of ‘justice’ to brazenly serve her own kind as the ‘wise Latina’. Jews like Rahm Emanuel and mulattos like Eric Holder are rabidly and virulently anti-white and will twist laws in every which way possible to forbid restaurants from doing business in Chicago if they support True Marriage or to overlook black thuggery & crime so as to perpetuate the mythic Narrative that would have us believe that innocent blacks are being victimized by white ‘racists’. Or Obama and Holder will pretend that the reason why black students are disproportionately suspended from school is due to ‘institutional racism’ when, in fact, school administrators and teachers are overwhelmingly Liberal and Democratic committed to pushing PC.
So, meritocracy is not an objective or neutral standard but the means by which the best of a certain people gain top positions and often use their power to push agendas that favor their own kind against others. White people had been doing this since the beginning of the Republic, and now, Jews, blacks, and homos are doing it. Of course, Jews, Negroes, and homos justify their misuse of power on the basis of redressing past wrongs, but it’s really all about self-interest since the game of ‘affirmative action’ is played very loosely, as in pretending that white Hispanics are a ‘people of color’ and recent African immigrants are also ‘victims of Jim Crow’, etc.
Perhaps, there was a window of opportunity in the early 1960s when America could really have committed itself to ‘color-blind’ objectivity, but that ‘dream’ is long gone, and in the new reality, Jews, blacks, homos, browns, and even yellows/Hindus/Arabs think in terms of ‘our people and our power’. Therefore, it’s meaningless for American Conservatism, American Libertarianism — almost entirely a white gentile movement — , and the GOP to insist on ‘equality under the law’. Also, the issue of class must be addressed because it’s simply not true that this thing called ‘white privilege’ was ever universally enjoyed by most white folks. Until the 1950s, most white folks only knew hard labor in factories or farms. Many served in brutal wars and did the bulk of the dying. It was only in the affluence of postwar America that even working class Americans began to enjoy something like a ‘middle class lifestyle’. Most white Americans through most of American history knew little more than hard back-breaking labor from sun up to sundown. The idea of associating all white people through all of American history with the lifestyles with the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Fords, and Rockefellers is ludicrous.
Though Jews oftentimes act pushy, outspoken, and forthright, there’s nothing straight about them. Their behavior is as hooked-crooked-and-curved like their noses. They are like Southern Italians or modern Greeks with high IQ, and that makes them dangerous. Imagine Joe Pesci’s Tommy in GOODFELLAS crossed with Albert Einstein, and you get the point. Jesse Ventura may be an idiot, but he’s a straight-talker. Even when he’s talking conspiratorial nonsense, he believes in what he is saying. Generally, whites either speak the truth straight or lie straight. When they try to be honest, they make a sincere/earnest effort to be honest(even if they may be wrong); and when they lie, you know they are lying either out of fear, cowardice, or opportunism. In contrast, regardless of whether Jews are telling the truth or telling lies, the primary dynamics is not about submitting oneself to the truth or to the lie but about using the truth or lie to serve the interest of oneself or one’s own tribe. What goes for white folks also goes for the Japanese. There are times when a Japanese will feel it is his utmost duty to tell the truth whatever the cost. More often, Japanese tell lies, but even their commitment to the lie has something straight about it. It’s like the guys in Akira Kurosawa’s BAD SLEEP WELL who will push the lie and even sacrifice their own lives for the higher interest of the interest. Thus, there is a sense of honor, dedication, service, and self-sacrifice in the Japanese cult of the lie. It’s like how Captain Yonoi in MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE expects Lawrence to accept his punishment of death — even if it’s based on false accusation — to preserve the culture of ‘honor’ between the Japanese captor and British captives. As crazy as it sounds, Yonoi is committed to sacrificing his own life in the same manner if necessary. And consider the British officer played by Alec Guinness in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Though his rationalization to build the bridge for the Japanese is ludicrous, there is a certain straightness in his conviction that he’s doing the right thing. It may be wrong to serve the Japanese but as long as he’s serving the higher principle of group honor and discipline among British soldiers, he sincerely feels he’s in the right. As white folks have the tendency to fool themselves in this manner, it wasn’t difficult for Jews to convince white Americans and Britains to construct the ‘bridge’ of their own destruction. Bill Clinton spoke of ‘building a bridge to the 21st century’, an enterprise that entails whites becoming a minority in the very land of their ancestors, and Jews like David Remnick refer to Obama as ‘the bridge’. Of course, this bridge could not have been built by Jews and Negroes alone since so many professions, high positions, and institutions are manned with white people. Without the collaboration of whites, Jews couldn’t have built the New World Order, one of whose main agenda is to undermine white power-interests-identity and promote Jewish power-interests-identity. But how do you convince a people to build a bridge that serves the enemy and will hurt their own people and descendants? Just as the Alec Guinness was blind to what he was doing — building a bridge to strengthen Japan’s consolidation of Southeast Asia — because he became enamored with principles of honor, discipline, and dignity, the white elites in America have been hoodwinked into believing that the Clinton-Obama Bridge to the 21st Century will redeem their ‘white guilt’ through ‘Tolerance’, ‘Diversity’, ‘Anti-Racism’, etc. Alec Guinness’s character becomes so earnestly delusional with abstract principles of ‘honor’, ‘dignity’, and ‘pride’ that he becomes blind to the fact that he is materially and objectively aiding the Japanese in the War against the British. Likewise, white folks, especially white elites, have had their vision so rose-tinted with abstract propositions of ‘diversity’, ‘tolerance’, ‘equality’, ‘inclusion’, and etc. that they fail to realize that what they are really doing is aiding and abetting in the Jewish-and-Negro-War on the White Race. In the case of Alec Guinness’ character, he sort of did it to himself as the Japanese couldn’t find a way to break him, which goes to show that the British can be awfully ridiculous, though, to be sure, since the novel was written by the Frenchman Pierre Boulle, maybe it was just a nasty French dig at the overly tip-toppy manners-and-attitudes of the British. (Besides, as the French had collaborated with the Nazis, maybe it was therapeutic for a Frenchman to imagine the British collaborating with the Japanese. Or maybe the collaboration in the novel was meant as an allegory of French rationales for their own collaboration with the German occupiers, i.e. how invocation of higher principles can easily blind oneself to what one is really doing.) In the case of US and UK, at any rate, the ‘Proposition’ for the Bridge was planted in the minds of white people by the Jews themselves. So, we are to see MLK as the true ‘founding father’ of America, and we are too see Ellis Island as the true Plymouth Rock. And we are to see the true destiny of America as an open society where whites are but a drop in the bucket in the rising volume of color. And as whites have been tainted with all the ‘historical sins’ in the world, the only way they can attain redemption is to embrace the Proposition over the Preservation of their own race, culture, power, and heritage. Of course, there are still proud and committed white people who are committed to blowing up the bridge and shaking the white race out of its doldrums of certain suicide, but time is running out, and fiendish Jews are cackling with hideous glee.
 |
| Bridge on the River Kwai |
Because Jews never talk straight, we need to focus less on what they say and more on what they really feel behind what they say. Jews often speak in the manner of throwing-out-stuff-to-divert-our-attention. It’s like a scene in action movies where some guy picks up and tosses a loose object into some place to divert the enemy’s attention to the sound of the falling object. Jews use language in this manner; they toss out words, meanings, and terms so as to lead us astray and cloud our focus of the real nature of Jewish power. This is why Jewish control of terminology via the academia and media has been very effective in messing with our minds.
Indeed, consider how the subject and phenomenon of opposing Jewish power has been ‘terminologized’ and contextualized by Jews. When it comes to criticism of Jewish power, the Jew-run media/academia allow only two terms to denote opposition to Jewish power: ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Zionism’. And Jews will concede that one can be anti-Zionist without necessarily being ‘antisemitic’. So, while anti-Zionists can be decent people — after all, there are Jewish anti-Zionists too — , anyone who veers away from the specific issue of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is smeared as an ‘anti-Semite’. You see how the trick works? Suppose I were to say there are only two ways of opposing white power: "anti-white-Americanism" and "irrational & insane genocidal hatred of whites". Suppose I say ‘anti-white-Americanism’ isn’t necessarily evil if it focuses on the political abuses of white Americans, but I then insist that any criticism of white power outside the bounds of white-American political power is a totally ‘irrational’, ‘crazy’, ‘paranoid’, ‘murderous’, ‘pathological’ and ‘demented’. Shouldn’t there be something between ‘anti-white-Americanism’ and ‘irrational & insane genocidal hatred of whites’? Suppose someone notices a pattern of white political and economic dominance(often of harmful nature to non-white nations) stretching from Europe to Canada to America to Latin America to Australia. Would such a view be ‘irrational’ and ‘paranoid’ because it moves beyond the narrow purview of criticizing only the political power of white Americans? Of course not.
Similarly, why should the only options be ‘anti-Zionism’ and ‘antisemitism’? As we all know, ‘antisemitism’ is not a generically negative term in the sense of being generally opposed to Jewish power. If one were anti-Russian, anti-Iranian, anti-Chinese, anti-German, anti-French, or anti-Mexican, the negativity is understood to be generic. After all, many Poles are anti-Russian, but we don’t denounce Polish attitudes as a form of pathology or irrational paranoia. Maybe Poles feel the way they do because, based on personal experience, too many Russians tend to be boorish, vulgar, and trashy. Maybe, it’s due to the historical fact that Russians imposed communism on Poland for half a century and prior to the end of World War I, much of Poland had been under not-too-enlightened rule of Tsarist Russia. And if a Vietnamese have anti-Chinese feelings, maybe it has something to do with historical, economic, cultural, social, or or current political reasons. If someone spent a lot of time in France and came off with negative feelings about the French as a people of arrogance, pomposity, hypocrisy, and etc. no one would bat an eye. So, most forms of anti-something are understood to be generically negative. Of course, one can be deranged and pathological in one’s hatred of Russians, French, Chinese, Iranians, Arabs, and etc. — I know a Polish-American whose hatred of Ukrainians is cuckoo-bananas — , but we don’t jump to conclusions that just because someone has negative feelings about Italians, Germans, or Russians, he or she must be suffering from some kind of pathology. But when it comes to Jews, one’s negativity toward them is only understood in terms of a pathology because, apart from anti-Zionism, there is ONLY ‘antisemitism’ that is used to describe anti-Jewish feelings. After all, the term ‘antisemitism’, as having originated in the 19th century Europe, has a certain cultural-historical pedigree due to its association with pseudo-racial theories and, of course, Nazi Germany. Furthermore, ‘antisemitism’ has been associated with so many negative adjectives — ‘notorious’, ‘rabid’, ‘virulent’, ‘ugly’, etc. — that it cannot be used as a term of generic negativity. In truth, we need to acknowledge that a person can be anti-Zionist and antisemitic, pro-Zionist and antisemitic, or anti-Zionist and philosemitic. But more importantly, one can be anti-Jewist, pro-Zionist, and anti-antisemitic OR anti-Jewist, anti-Zionist, and anti-antisemitic. We need a term like ‘anti-Jewism’ to denote a generic negativity toward Jews because, after all, most people in the Alternative Right sphere are anti-anti-semitic. Though there are goonish idiots like Alex Kurtagic and Greg Johnson who are little more than refurbished neo-Nazi scum, most people in the Alternative Right sphere have no use for Nazism or classic antisemitism. Personally, I’ve never seen a skull-measuring instrument and never used one on a Jew or anyone else. I don’t blame Jews for all the evils in the world. I see Jews as exploiting many problems around the world for their own advantage, but most of the problems in Russia, China, Latin America, Africa, and Middle East are the products of idiot goyim. I’m not the one to blame the tyranny in Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, or Cuba on some international Jewish plot — even though there has been a Jewish Hand exploiting the troubles in such places. Also, I would be the last person to denigrate the intelligence, talent, brilliance, genius, and originality of many Jews. I have no use for the classic antisemitic canard that Jews only copy and are lacking in originality. Only an idiot or fool would say so. And though I make fun of Jewish features, Jews have done the same thing — see Woody Allen movies — , and besides, Jews have used Hollywood and TV to disseminate nasty, ridiculous, or dehumanizing stereotypes of Southern whites, thick-skulled German ‘krauts’, thug-like Russians, funny-looking Asians(Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S was directed by Jewish Blake Edwards), insane Muslims(most of whom are rabid, virulent, and notorious terrorists), blonde bimbo ‘shikses’, goofy-pudgy Mexican tacoheads, and of course the Evil White Male. So, in poking-fun-at-others, Jews have been no better than other peoples, and if anything, they’ve been worse, especially because they control the media; Jewish prejudices and hatreds are flashed on the big screen and across billions of TV sets around the world. Consider FRIED GREEN TOMATOES if you wanna know how Jews see southern white males. White males are so evil that all they do is beat up their wives, whip Negroes, and act demented 24/7; and therefore, it is only right to kill one of them, chop him up, barbecue his flesh, and serve it up to other evil whites as spare ribs. Yes, Jews are this demented, but they bitch about other people harboring ‘antisemitism’. THE BIRTH OF A NATION was a downright humanist movie compared to something as utterly demented as FRIED GREEN TOMATOES.
Anyway, we need a term like ‘anti-Jewism’ that is neither particularly anti-Zionist or antisemitic. Indeed, many anti-Jewists don’t care about the Israel/Palestine conflict one way or the other; they merely want the US to take no sides and let the Jews and Arabs sort it out. Other anti-Jewists are anti-Zionist not because they oppose the idea of Jewish nationhood per se but because they either believe a Jewish nation should not have been founded on ethnic cleansing & oppression of another people OR because they all too plainly see the parallels between what Jews have done to Palestinians and what Jews are doing to white peoples in EU and US. Indeed, one wonders why Jewish insistence on ‘diversity’ applies to EVERY Western/whiten nation but not to Israel. One can argue that it’s something of a stretch to compare US and Israel since US is so huge while Israel is so tiny. Naturally, given the size of Israel, Jews have to be more picky about immigration than the US that still has large open spaces for newcomers. But then, why do Jews insist that even the tiniest European nation — whose national idea has never been ‘propositional’ in any way — emulate the current crazy policies of the US? Why should Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and other nations that are either small in size or population also embrace open borders policy, the kind of favored by that freak-of-nature Bryan Caplan? What is the point of tiny Austria emulating US immigration policy when it is hardly bigger than Israel? It’s because if any white nation, no matter how small, were allowed to reject open borders, it would imply that other white nations, big and small, should also control their own immigration policies independent of Jewish influence. Even if one white nation rejects open borders, it might have a domino effect on all other white nations.
It should be clear by now that the globo-Jewish policy of open borders is pure madness. I mean just imagine open borders policy between Russia and China. Russia has something like 150 million people while China has 1.3 billion people. Russia Siberia has only 8 million people while a single Chinese city might have over 10 million people. An open door policy would essentially give away the bulk of Russia to the Chinese in a single year. It’d be crazy. So, why do Jews push open borders? It’s because they wanna destroy white power, white unity, and white identity in white nations so that Jewish elites can consolidate their positions against a white population that, no longer being the majority, is too busy dealing with problems of diversity to deal with the Jewish problem. (What’s truly disgusting — though amusing too — is that whites will pander to Jews as their competition with non-whites heat up. Even though Jews were instrumental in opening the Third World floodgates, whites will desperately plead with Jews to side with whites against the alien horde. And two-faced Jews will play it both ways. They will continue to support the alien hordes against ‘racist’ whites while also encouraging whites to rag on the alien hordes for being ‘antisemitic’. Notice that in the US, white Conservatives oppose massive Mexican immigration on grounds that browns are ‘antisemitic’. Why should they care when it’s the Jews who are using browns against whites? In Europe, the Right argue against Third World immigration on grounds that Muslims and Africans hate Jews. They never discuss the fact that Jews have been behind the Third World immigration. Jews open the floodgates, observe whites drowning in the tide, and giggle at the sight of whites screaming in defense of rich Jews who are standing on dry higher grounds of global privilege.) The anti-Jewist view is no antisemitic fantasy but a clear-and-cold fact of world politics. Only a damned naive fool, brainwashed tard, or a craven liar(hoping to get his goodies by serving Jews) would deny this reality. Anti-Jewism is a necessary world-view, and it has little to do with classic antisemitism that arose in Europe in the 19th century and grew cancerous in the 20th century. Though anti-Semites were right to see Jewish influence as poisonous and cancerous, they made the mistake of fighting a cancer with a cancer, as the kind of antisemitism that came to define the Nazis and their allies became ludicrous and, in some cases, as sick or even sicker than Jewish influence. Finally, Hitler out-Jewed the Jews in pathology and brought upon World War II and the Holocaust that came to haunt the Right, indeed to the point that conservatives and rightists everywhere were convinced that the ONLY way to redeem the Right was to blindly and slavishly serve Jews. But no European or White Right can be healthy if it mindlessly serves Jews because too many Jews are pathological, demented, nasty, notoriously rabid & virulent, and venomous in their attitude toward goyim, be they Western European, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Palestinian, and etc. Indeed, even the Jewish-Negro alliance in the US is just an accident of history as there was never any real love between Jews and Negroes for most of history. Look how Jews treat most blacks, even Jewish blacks from Ethiopia. And despite all the public relations feely-good talk among Jews about blacks, the private Jewish views of blacks are no less ‘racist’ than what any other people — including blacks — have said about blacks: "nigga’s crazy".
So, let us do away with the dichotomy of ‘anti-Zionism’ vs ‘antisemitism’. Those are NOT the only options. We can be anti-Jewist in the way we can be anti-Russian, anti-French, anti-British, anti-Chinese, anti-Iranian, and etc. Similarly, we can be anti-black without being ‘racist’. Or, we can be race-ist without being ‘racist’. We can believe in racial differences and the need for racial consciousness without subscribing to the notion that one race is superior to other races in everything or that one race should dominate over other races all over the world. If any people happen to be ‘racist’ in the sense of racial supremacism in our time, it’s the Jews as they believe that they have some God-given or history-sanctioned right to lord over not only Israel but the US, UK, EU, and even Russia though Jews make up only a tiny percentage of the population in those countries. Most of us are not ‘racist’ in the racial supremacist sense since we want to be left alone in our world and we want other peoples to be left alone in their worlds. We all accept that the Age of Empire is long over, and if anything, we prefer ‘isolationism’ because it is anti-imperialist. We don’t want white nations to globe-trot around the world and mess with other nations, especially at the behest of Jewish supremacists. The new imperialists are Jews who invoke ‘human rights’ and other BS to justify brutal Western ‘interventionism’ in places like Iraq, Syria, and Libya so as to wreak havoc in the Arab/Muslim world so that Israelis can laugh at the sight of gentiles slaughtering gentiles.
In a way, when Jews say that the ONLY responsible criticism of Jewish power is ‘anti-Zionism’, they are saying we should limit our criticism to Jews in Israel and never expand our criticism to Jews in America and EU. But in truth, even if one’s main focus were Zionist abuses in Israel, one cannot truly understand the power of Zionism without taking into account the power of Jews in the US and EU. Indeed, without the support of US and EU, Israel wouldn’t be able to act with such chutzpah against Arab nations.
And if not for Jewish domination of the West, prominent gentile politicians and figures wouldn’t be so slavish to Israeli demands. It is the power of Jews in the US/EU and
their control of Western governments, media, and academia that give Israel the leeway to throw its weight around in the Middle East. So, criticizing Jewish power in Israel — anti-Zionism —
is meaningless without taking a critical look at Jewish power outside Israel in the West. Imagine being allowed to condemn a vicious barking dog but not being allowed to notice the leash that leads to the sadistic and venal dog owner. Israel is a merely a mini-me of the power of World Jewry. Likewise, without the protection and support of Jews, it would have been impossible for the homo agenda to fuc* the West in the ass. It is out of fear of Jews that even Conservatives don’t stand up to homos. Just like criticizing Israel in isolation from the power of World Jewry makes little sense, criticizing homo power without taking into account the Jewish power behind it is a fool’s errand. Vain and snobbish homos depend on Jews. Homos get to fuc* everyone in the ass only because they let Jews fuc* them in the ass. If a king says everyone must suck up to his obnoxious nephew, everyone will do so in fear of the king than for any respect for the nephew. If Jews withdraw their support of homos, homos will go down faster than Gaddafi in Libya. So, homos serve the Jews — notice how the homos are utterly silent about Israel’s mass killing of Palestinians — , and Jews use homos to promote the New Normal so that the gentile majority will grow accustomed to the idea that a tiny elite minority should rule society and dictate social-cultural-and-‘moral’ policy.
 |
| IDF regards Palestinians like American Jews regard White People. |
Anyway, given Jewish power on Wall Street, Hollywood, Washington D.C., Silicon Valley, London, and Tel Aviv AND given the Jewish role in the troubles in the Middle East — yes, lots of Muslims and Arabs are barbarous idiots, but things wouldn’t be half-as-bad if Jewish-controlled US policy hadn’t stirred up the hornet’s nest to make Muslims/Arabs fight one another — and Ukraine/Russia, it should be obvious to honest folks that Jewish power is all-too-often(though not always) a malevolent force in the world. And speaking out against Jewish supremacist globalist-imperialism is more akin to criticism/condemnation of British, French, or Russian imperialism in the past than to revival of ‘antisemitic canards’. Jewish power is real, it is global, and it is supremacist. It is no ‘canard’ to say so, and if anything, the world would be a better place with fewer philosemitic canards.
Besides, why shouldn’t we address the problems of Jewish power when so many Jewish intellectuals, ideologues, scholars, and activists have tirelessly criticized and/or condemned the global reach & influence of the French, the British, the Russians, and Wasp Americans? Are Jews to be immune from criticism as they exert their power all over the world? By invoking ‘antisemitism’ as the only possible anti-Jewish perspective other than anti-Zionism, Jews want to fool us that any negative view of Jewish global power harks back to Nazism and medieval Christian fantasies about demon-possessed Jews. We are to believe that anti-Jewists are all just superstitious and ignorant louts chasing after fictional witches. In contrast, naive goyim who believe that every Jew outside Israel is so wonderful, saintly, kindly, and innocent are said to be utterly sane even though they are the ones suffering from delusional fantasies of mistaking Jewish hucksters and sleazebags for angels. Seriously, who is more delusional? An anti-Jewist who sees the likes of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros as gangster-parasites OR some philosemite tard like Ted Cruz or Chris Chrstie who thinks cutthroat billionaire Jewish oligarchs are the noblest and most angelic wise-men that ever lived? Would someone like Bernie Madoff have been possible if the West wasn’t under the mindless fantastical delusion that all Jews must be angels? Even when Jews indeed played the most prominent role in nearly sinking the global economy in 2008, the Jew-run media would have us believe that it’s wonderful angelic Jews who are saving the world. Surely even Medieval Christian fantasies had nothing on this.
 |
| Jewish Crooks & Villains presented as Heroes & Saviors by the Jew-run Media |
If a Jew burns down your house and then pretends to put out the fire, you are supposed to hail him as your hero, as an angel sent from above. It’s like Jews messed up the Middle East but act like they’re advising American presidents to fix the problems in that part of the world. Jews break but pretend to remake.
We need to be more precise about the meaning of ‘antisemitism’. It should only apply to the mind-set arising in the 19th century that regarded Jews as a hostile RACE of people and did so in terms that proved to be pseudo-scientific and overly simplistic. Antisemitism cannot be divorced from the newly developing science of race, and the term justifiably became loaded with negative connotations because much of 19th and early 20th century racial sciences were hardly scientific — as often as not, racialist sciences were pseudo-scientific veneer for racial/ethnic chauvinism, supremacism, and bigotry, just like so much of ‘anti-racist’ social science and anthropology since the end of World War II was the sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense peddled by the likes of Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin who were Jewish supremacists posing as leftists — and eventually came to be associated with the Holocaust, a genuine horror among horrors.
But just as responsible and necessary criticism of Jewish power became derailed in the first half of the 20th century due to stupid racial theories, a responsible and necessary criticism of Jewish power became derailed since World War II due to stupid ‘anti-racist’ & philosemitic theories.
Of course, no one got a bullet in the back of the head for refusing to praise Jews in the West — though plenty of people did get a bullet to the back of the head for opposing the radical agenda of ‘anti-racist’ Jewish communists in the USSR and Eastern Bloc nations — , but as Jews had the power to shun, humiliate, degrade, and denounce people via their control of government and media, the prevailing climate of fear was enough to get most people onboard with the philosemitic program. Who in the media business wants to end up like Rick Sanchez, Chris Hedges, or Helen Thomas?
The plain truth is most people are cowards. So, Jewish-run IRS targets people whom Jews don’t like, the Jew-run NSA hands secrets over to Jews in US and Israel so that the Tribe can use the info to destroy people, and the Jew-run media and academia mostly turn a blind eye to all the foulness committed by Jews and direct our attention to nonsense news about Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and Katy Perry. Culturally and intellectually, US-under-the-rule-of-the-Jewish-oligarchy, has become as trashy and fraudulent as any Latin American nation.
At least the Wasps had an inner mechanism that balanced ‘self-criticism’ with ‘self-pride’, and at least in the 60s and 70s, there was a competing power dynamics among Wasps, Jews, Catholics, blacks, white ethnic groups like the Irish and Italians, and etc. Today, it’s all Jew, Jew, Jew, and their mini-me puppets the homos and mulattos who do the Jews’ bidding. And there is hardly any mode of ‘self-criticism’ among Jews, and even when it exists, it is limited to criticizing Zionism as if the problem of Zionism could be understood and solved without taking into consideration the power of Jews in US, EU, and Russia. But because Jews have people believing that any criticism of Jewish power apart from Israel is ‘antisemitic’, most people dare not make the connection between Jewish power in the Middle East and Jewish power in the West.
The notion of ‘antisemitism’ has loosely been applied to the entire history of the Jews and Gentiles, and this has had the effect of smearing all anti-Jewish peoples, forces, voices, and views throughout history in the same terrible manner. Everyone who has uttered anything remotely anti-Jewish has retroactively been painted with a Hitler mustache. It’s like every people and every person who had problems with Jews since the beginning of time were proto-Nazis. And if ancient and medieval peoples are associated with modern Nazism, modern anti-Jewish voices are associated with pre-modern superstitions. The ancients who fought the Jews were pseudo-scientific haters of Jews, and the moderns who are appalled by Jewish power are quasi-superstitious paranoids about Jews. (To be sure, there have been some outlandish theories about Jewish power, especially in the minds of modern anti-Semites. But in some ways, outlandish and outsized theories of Jewish power are understandable since Jewish power is so incredible, extensive, resilient, aggressive, ruthless, cunning, and lethal. Great power makes for great imagination. It’s like Kafka had labyrinthine fantasies about the power of the modern bureaucratic order because it had so many levels and layers. It’s like Orwell’s satirical fantasy about Stalinism in 1984 was so elaborate because, as Churchill said, "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." It’s easy to become ‘paranoid’ about Jewish power because it appears to be both everywhere and nowhere. Apart from Israel, Jews don’t have a nation that is officially theirs. But who can deny the Jewish Hand in US, EU, Russia, and foreign affairs? Who can deny the power of Jewish media and money? Though there are also outlandish theories about Russia, Iran, and China, it’s easier to imagine the nature and extent of their powers since there is a China, Russia, and Iran as clear geo-political entities. In contrast, Jewish power seems to be very fluid, international, networked, and hidden-behind-the-facade-of-goy-power. Though we should be wary of wild theories about Jewish power, it’s disingenuous for Jews to accuse gentiles of paranoia when they are among the most fantastically and hysterically paranoid people on Earth. Didn’t Jews tell us that Iraq was on the verge of making nukes? Didn’t they fill the media with unsubstantiated news about WMD held by Hussein? Didn’t they reiterate over and over and over than Iran is soon to have the Bomb and will blow up Israel? Don’t Jews say the entire Muslim world is planning to gang up on Israel and carry out another Holocaust? Didn’t Jews say the likes of Joe McCarthy were a bigger threat to the US than Jewish agents like the Rosenbergs who gave atomic secrets to Stalin, the killer of millions? Didn’t Jews say Putin is the new Hitler because ‘gay pride’ parades are banned on Red Square? Jews cook up the wildest fantasies but bitch about the preponderance of ‘paranoid antisemitic fantasies’. What a hideous bunch of shitters. Have they no shame?) So, even today’s most rational critics of Jewish power are associated with Medieval witch-hunters of 600 yrs ago via the smear of ‘antisemitism’. And devout Christians in the Middle Ages are associated with modern pseudo-science of Nazi radical racism. The term ‘antisemitism’ is even applied to events that happened thousands of years ago. So, Egyptians are said to have been ‘antisemitic’ for having kicked the Jews out even though their reasons were very different from anti-Jewish feelings in the Middle Ages and in Modern times. And Romans have been smeared with antisemitism even though Romans were pretty much equally brutal with everyone who rose up against them. Romans had no special hatred for Jews and only took harsh measures when Jews rebelled, but then Romans used equally or even more harsh measures against Greek cities, Germanic towns, and North African regions that also rebelled. As for the ancient Philistines and Canaanites, they hated the Jews because Jews were coming to take their land and wipe them out as a race as described in the Old Testament. Also, I don’t see what was so crazy or outlandish about Christian attitudes about Jews in the Middle Ages when Medieval Jews themselves held attitudes and beliefs that would today seem crazy, extreme, and ludicrous. Besides, the people who suffered most under Christians were the indigenous pagan peoples who refused to convert. As nasty as Christians could be toward Jews, at least the Jews were considered as the People of the Book and generally spared from death whereas entire pagan communities could be wiped out. Since Christians acted in such manner toward pagans out of the intolerantly ‘superstitious’ belief in the ‘one and only God’ that originated with the Jews, shouldn’t Jews be blamed for spreading such a ‘poisonous’ and ‘deadly’ idea among humanity? After all, there would have been no Christianity and Islam if not for the Judaism, the original religion of intolerance that insisted its God is the only true God and that all other gods and religions/myths are false, satanic, and worthless? So, why don’t Jews take responsibility for cooking up that kind of ‘poisonous superstition’? Like I said, Jews play fast and loose with history as with everything else. They rig everything — like Jewish hoodlums rig casinos — so that they are always right and always win while the rest of us schmucks are always wrong and always lose.
Anyway, on the issue of European anti-Zionism and anti-Jewism, they are, ironically enough, often the product of European philosemitism, more so on the Left but also on the Right. There are some on the recalcitrant ‘heretical’ Right that just loves use every opportunity to bash the Jew because they see Jews as their main eternal enemies. Their world-view can be summed up as ‘enemy of the Jew is my ally.’ But there are also many white people who are very sympathetic toward Jews, and it is this admiration that fuels enmity toward certain facets of Jewish power that threaten their overly simplistic and rosy/positive view of Jews. Generally, the Left is anti-Zionist because it associates Jewish people & history with liberal values, progressivism, cult of diversity, anti-nationalism, ‘anti-racism’, universalism, equality, cosmopolitanism, ‘anti-white privilege’, and neo-crucifixion by the Holocaust. It’s as if ‘6 million Jews’ were the ultimate martyrs who died for the sins of the ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ West. So, when they see the state of Israel and its two-faced Jewish enablers in the West — many of whom parade around as ‘liberal Jews’ — , they become troubled by Jewish mendacity & hypocrisy and lash out at the ‘nationalist-racist’ state of Israel; they demand that it conform to the same universal standards that have been foisted on the West(not least by Jewish power). Furthermore, philosemites on the Left were deeply moved by images of helpless and dispossessed Jews during the WWII era. Their meta-perception of Jews entails a weak & helpless people in need of the goodwill of decent caring gentiles. After all, the greatest kind of hero in the new European mythology is the ‘good gentile’ who risked his/her own life to save Jews during the Nazi era. We have it in America too. If the noblest European hid Jews from Nazis, the noblest American killed Nazis for Jews. A movie like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN says American gentiles who died in WWII were noble because they sacrificed their lives to save poor Jews. Though SPR doesn’t blatantly mention Jews, the theme of saving Ryan reverberates with Jewish concerns. Ryan lost 4 or 5 brothers, and he’s the last surviving son, so he deserves special recognition. Likewise, Jews deserve special treatment because so many died at the hands of Hitler. Others must sacrifice their lives for poor helpless Jews because nobody knows the trouble I seen, nobody knows but Jew-sus. Even though the European Left & Right had problems with the creation of Israel from the outset, most remained mum until considerably later because postwar Jews seemed so helpless victims and in need of a homeland. So, philosemites love the image of poor, helpless, and sappy Jews in need of the goodwill and kindheartedness of Good Gentiles. But they have problems with the image of Jewish power and wealth, especially the kind that crushes a poor, weak, and helpless non-white people like the Palestinians who, furthermore, remind the European Left of all the ‘victims’ of Western Imperialism in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America, Australia, and etc. As Western Left is essentially about privileged whites getting their jollies by feeling compassion for poor and ‘oppressed’ non-whites, it is bound to have problems with Jews who went from the hell bottom of WWII to the heaven heap of the New World Order. And Jewish power in places like Israel and New York(and other financial capitals around the world) leaves the Left feeling queasy because it is so absolutely powerful & privileged while, at the same time, Jews insist on being perceived as the biggest victims in the world. It’s like a once badly wounded patient who’s fully recovered and the strongest-healthiest man on the planet still insisting that he be treated as patient #1. He goes around beating people up and breaking their bones, but he demands that his victims be disregarded as goons while he, as the healthiest/strongest man on the planet, insists on more checkups and special drugs. Imagine the strongest man on Earth acting like the biggest hypochondriac. (Though Jewish suffering during WWII was monumentally tragic, we need to remember that it didn’t happen to ALL Jews. Indeed, far from it. Even in France where Collaboration was major socio-political phenomenon, 75% of Jews survived. And in the Soviet Union, most Jews survived and fought along with the Soviet system. No American or Anglo Jew was touched by Hitler. And in Holland, there were networks to save most Jews. The bulk of the suffering happened to German Jews and Jews in Eastern European nations and the occupied urban areas of Russia. In those areas, true horrors took place. But many rich and powerful Jews around the world were never touched by the Holocaust or WWII. If anything, they used their great wealth and power to manipulate foreign policy in US and UK in the interests of their Tribe. So, the notion that all Jews were down in the gutter after WWII and made a heroic climb to the top is false. Though WWII was a horror for many Jews, most Western and Soviet Jews survived intact and carried on as before. Also, though Hitler’s campaigns against Jews cannot be justified in any shape or form, there was a certain logic to Hitler’s madness. As he correctly viewed Jews in US and UK as using their financial resources and media power to steer those nations against Germany and as it dawned on him that his vision of Germany was doomed, he vengefully and mercilessly struck out against all Jews. Since World Jewry used its power to bring down Germany and kill as many Germans as possible through bombing campaigns and supplies to the USSR, Hitler was going to do likewise to Jews. Though World Jewry didn’t intend to wipe out all Germans — they couldn’t have even if they wanted to because Anglo-Brits and Anglo-Americans would never have gone that far — , they were pushing for policies and strategies that would kill or harm as many Germans as possible. As the result, not only German soldiers but millions of ‘innocent’ German civilians were killed and millions of German women were raped. And after the war ended, Jews were happy to see Ost-Germans be ethnically cleansed. In the ensuing hell, something like 2 million Germans died. And of course, Jews were loving it when drunkenly and beastly Russian troops went around raping millions of German women. So, something like a semi-Holocaust did happen to Germans as well. If Jews could have had everything they wanted, they might indeed have wiped Germany off the map. Indeed, if not for Anglo-American rejection of the Morgenthau plan, German industry would have been razed to the ground, and all Germans would have been turned into farmers. As Germans cannot sustain themselves by farming alone, it would have meant the deaths of tens of millions of Germans. Alan Dershowitz in his book CHUTZPAH is angry that Anglo-American politicians vetoed the Morgenthau plan that would Palestinianized the Germans. Anyway, though Hitler’s madness against Jews was excessive, it had a certain vengeful logic since World Jewry was using its power to destroy all of Germany. Hitler figured, if Jews are gonna use their power to bring down all of Germany, I will use my power to wipe out as many Jews as possible. Both sides were going for all-out collective war. Jews wanted as many Germans as possible to be killed and raped during World War II, and Hitler was hellbent on killing as many Jews as possible before he brought down. But then, Anglo-Americans were not immune to such thinking as the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows. A vengeful logic took place where all sides got into the mind-set of wanting to kill and destroy, often indiscriminately, as many people on the other side.)
Anyway, to European Leftists, Jews seem like fully recovered strongmen who are going around beating up Palestinians in the Middle East and using their control of America to wage wars all around the world. Oftentimes, what goes by the name of ‘European anti-Zionism’ is anti-Americanism in disguise, and what goes by the name of ‘European anti-Americanism’ is anti-Zionism and ‘antisemitism’ in disguise. Though loathe to openly admit it, many Europeans know Jews control the US.
The leftist mind-set loves to feel morally superior by favoring victims. The paradox of the Western Left is that it wants to help the ‘people of color’ around the world to rise up wealth and power but then feels betrayed when non-whites do indeed rise up in the world and challenge the power of the West. Western Left feels pity for all the poor and backward folks all around the world, especially as anti-imperialist orthodoxy says non-Western poverty is the result of white ‘racist’ domination of the world in the past few centuries. And even though Jews have been in the Western World(including Eastern Europe)for a long time, they too have been associated with ‘victims of white domination’. But if an ideology is premised on pity, what happens when the so-called non-white ‘victims’ rise to the level of whites or even surpass the whites? This is why the Left is often ambivalent about Jews/Israel and Asians. Many Asian-Americans make more money, on average, than even whites. Jews are the single most successful and powerful group in America. All American politicians are whores to AIPAC. China is rising and may even become a superpower. India is rising too. Meanwhile, once mighty nation of white Russia is a mere shell of itself. Western Europe isn’t having babies and being demographically replaced by Muslims and Africans. Oddly enough, the Western Left is premised on permanent white privilege. Western Leftists like to feel that they can be good-hearted, compassionate, and magnanimous forever because privilege comes naturally to them. So, even though Western Left rails against ‘white privilege’, it is faith in the permanence of their own ‘white privilege’ that makes Western Leftists feel that they are in a position to feel sorry for non-white folks. Paradoxically, though the Western Left sees itself as being committed to raising the power & wealth of non-white folks, it is often most upset when non-whites do rise in the world. Western Left suddenly feels empthy when indeed non-whites gain power, wealth, and privilege, sometimes exceeding that of whites. They feel betrayed. After all, aren’t non-whites supposed to be on the bottom so that Western Left lend them a hand in the spirit of neo-white-man’s-burden?
Of course, another reason why the Western Left is often upset with non-white success is it’s usually the product of non-leftist strategies. The rise of Asia — including that of the People’s Republic of China and once ‘socialist’ India — owes to a combination of nationalism and capitalism. Pinochet’s Chile did much better than Castro’s Cuba. Vietnamese communists, once the darling of the Western Left, are now busy with capitalism to catch up with other Asian nations. Though Liberal/Leftist scholars in the West often bitch about how the US went easy on right-wing Asian autocrats and officials during the Cold War, they hide the fact that they themselves went even easier on far-left mass-killers like Mao and Pol Pot. It’s true that the US decided to lift the ban on certain Japanese ‘war criminals’ and let them re-enter government & purge radical leftists from key positions once China fell to communism and the Cold War became the main priority. But the Western Left pretended that far-leftists like Mao were mere ‘agrarian reformers’ and helped them on the road to power, leading to the catastrophe of what became blood Red China. So, the Western Left has blood on its hands, indeed much more than the US government that backed right-wingers.
Anyway, what is the Western Left to do when their favored ‘oppressed peoples’ gain power and even compete with the privilege of the Western leftists? How do white Liberals and Leftists feel when their own children are squeezed out of elite universities by Jewish and Asian kids, especially as there’s a lot of immigration from China and India? Some white Leftists disguise their anti-Asian feelings(though consciously suppressed) with complaints about lack of creativity in the academia, which really translates into ‘too many Asians’ by the un-PC decoder. So, the Western Left is premised on contradictions. It wants to help non-whites but turns sour when non-whites succeed beyond expectation. It was when Israel easily crushed the Arab nations in the Six Day War that the New Left in Europe really begin to have second thoughts about Israel. They’d seen Israel as a necessary sanctuary for helpless survivors of the Holocaust but it turned into a regional superpower backed by the ‘neo-imperialist’ US. The European Left had a difficult time digesting this. They’d grown up in the postwar period attacking their parents’ generation for having done nothing to stop the rise of Nazis and crying to sleep with the image of helpless Jewish folks being killed by heartless Nazis, but there was Israel in 1967 smashing the big Arab nations in a mere six days. Those Six Days threatened the narrative of the 6 Million. Jewish Blitzkrieg was awesome. Hitler failed in Russia, but Jews prevailed over the major Arab nations with ease. European Left prefers Jews as victims than as victors. But their preferred world-view no longer has value because today’s world isn’t what it was decades ago, let alone centuries ago. That may be why the European Left has a special thing for sub-Saharan Africans. They seem to be eternally hopeless. And in some ways, Somalis are preferable to West Africans since Somalis are skinnier, less muscular, and less threatening than big-muscled West African Negroes. Needless to say, the Western Left is manipulated and funded by Jews who seek to inject white Americans and Europeans with ‘white guilt’ forever. All whites need to understand that Jews can never be satisfied through appeasement because Jews are not really after ‘good’ white behavior but for total Jewish domination over whites. White ‘goodness’ is a means, not an end. Jews are not trying to make whites ‘good’ because Jews love morally elevated people but because white ‘goodness’ is useful in keeping whites weak so that Jews can gain more power. After all, it’s Jews who get to decide via government, media, academia, and the courts what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’. It’s like nothing could be done to appease Hitler. Hitler wasn’t just after Danzig. Hitler wasn’t just after Poland. Hitler wasn’t just after other nations showing Germany respect and goodwill. He had a grand dream of a Pan-‘Aryan’ empire, and he was going to always find more problems[even if he had to invent them], lodge more complaints, demand more territory, and etc. And the more other nations tried to be ‘good’ in the eyes of Hitler, the more he saw them as weak and made more demands, all the while bitching that Germany was the ‘wronged party’. Of course, Anglos and Anglo-Americans pulled the same trick in their conquest of territory. When Americans wanted the SW territories, they kept finding issues to exploit against Mexico. And if Mexicans caved into those demands with the hope that ‘gringo’ was finally satisfied and would leave them alone, they were woefully mistaken because Americans merely found new complaints until they triggered a war to take all the SW territories. It’s how the power game is played. If you really want something, you keep making complaints and finding wrongs until there’s nothing the other side can do to redeem itself until it gives up everything and becomes your total bitch. It’s like there was nothing the Russian general could do in BURNT BY THE SUN to save himself. He was targeted, and the powers-that-be were always going to find some reason to accuse him and bring him down. It’s like what Jews are doing to Russia. If Putin thinks he will score points with Jew-run US by trying to be a ‘good boy’, Jews will only see weakness and push for more demands. Jews will always find something wrong, wicked, evil, odious, noxious, or ‘toxic’ about a nation or group when they want total domination over it. Suppose Russians caved to the demands of World Jewry and embraced the homo agenda. Will Jews then be satisfied? No, they will find something else to rag on about because their main agenda isn’t to make Russians ‘good’ but to permanently break the backbone of Russian unity and power so that Jews will rule over Russians forever. After all, Putin was very good to Jews and especially supportive of Israel. He knew Jews run the world, so Russia has to be in good graces with World Jewry. So, he clamped down on anti-Jewish attacks and rhetoric. You’d think Jews would be grateful and appreciative of his ‘goodness’. Nope. They just saw it as his weakness and now howl about how he’s the ‘new Hitler’ because he won’t sign onto ‘gay marriage’. So, this isn’t really about Russian ‘goodness’ or about homos; it’s about Jews using bogus moral issues to expand Jewish domination over the world. Jews behave toward whites the way classic anti-Semites behaved toward Jews. When anti-Semites had the power, it didn’t matter how ‘good’ the Jews tried to be. If Jews gave up their wealth and caved to every anti-Semitic demand, the anti-Semites merely found NEW reasons to attack and demean Jews. It was because anti-Semites weren’t interested in Jews becoming ‘good’ but in demolishing every last vestige of Jewish power. In the game of power, ‘goodness’ is really a matter of weakening the enemy. The politics of ‘goodness’ says "we are so good, they are so bad, and unless they change their ways, we will attack them ceaselessly."’ But will the attack cease when the other side finally acts ‘good’? No, the attack will grow bolder as the other side will be seen as weak in caving into the demand of ‘goodness’. Consider how the US promised Russia not to expand NATO to former Eastern Bloc nations but broke that pledge almost immediately. White gentiles have gone out of their way to be ‘good’ in the eyes of Jews, and yet, Jews still attack, mock, demean, and vilify whites, indeed more so today than in the past despite the fact that whites are far more ‘anti-racist’ and philosemitic today than they ever were. The likes of Tim Wise, Frank Wise, and David Sirotta are viciously anti-white for the sake of Jewish supremacism, and NOTHING short of total collapse of white power will appease them. Jewish media spin everything to make white people the culprits responsible for everything wrong with America. You should strive to be good in the eyes of your own kind and your loved ones. But you should never try to be ‘good’ in the eyes of your enemy because your enemy isn’t really interested in you becoming better. Its main interest is to gain moral power over you so that it can judge you forever until you are utterly broken. When Jews accuse you, accuse back. Accuse Jews of all their foulness and filth. Never give an inch. When Jews slap you, smash their face. Hate the Jew as much as the Jew hates you. And never stop accusing and judging the Jews as Jews are the new Hitlers of the world.
Jews are like Mordred in EXCALIBUR. When Arthur says, "I can’t give you the land, only my love", Mordred says, "That is the one thing I don’t want." Likewise, Jews aren’t really interested in whites becoming ‘good’ and lovable per se. They are really interested in taking over white lands permanently. Therefore, if filling white hearts with moral doubt and self-loathing will do the trick, that’s what the hideous Jews will do. It’s the same thing in the Middle East. Jews say they wanna spread democracy and liberal values among the Arabs and Muslims. But suppose Iran and Iraq were to modernize, liberalize, and become first-rank modern nations with great wealth and power. Would Jews really like that? No, Jews only used the moral pretext in the Middle East to smash Arab/Muslim nations and to make gentiles fight gentiles forever so that Israel will be the only major stable power region. There is moralizing because you really want others to be more moral, and there is moralizing to find excuses to discredit others so as to take over their power and property. And in politics, 99% of moralizing is really of the latter kind. Indeed, much of the bitching between the GOP and Democrats isn’t so much about right or wrong but ‘us guys or you guys in charge’. After all, most of Nixon’s policies were quite Liberal. So, why did Democrats and Liberals rip into him. Because they wanted to be in power doing what he was doing. Most of Clinton’s economic policies were Conservative, especially as he was one of the biggest ‘free traders’ and pro-super-rich presidents, so why was the GOP so crabby about him. Because it wanted to be in the seat of power to do the same thing he was doing. The main objective of politics is about winning the seat, not about right or wrong. Even if a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate were 100% agreed on all the issues, they would moralize the contest just to discredit the other guy/gal in order to grab the seat of power & privilege. It’s like the Corleones were determined to take over the casino in THE GODFATHER and there was nothing Moe Greene could do about it. So, when someone finds moral flaws about you, you first have to ask if he is sincerely interested in seeing a better you or really trying to get rid of you. If the latter, he will only be more irritated if you improve yourself since your self-betterment will mean one less rationale to discredit you. So, he or she will immediately find another and then another reason to keep ripping into you. It’s like Jews only get angrier and more aggressive when white gentiles really do make progress on social matters since it means one less excuse for Jews to discredit white gentiles. Since the main priority of Jews is to take control of America by discrediting white America, they will only grow more hysterical in claiming that whites still haven’t done enough or there’s some new great horror they found out about ‘evil white males’.
Like the joke about the Rabbi, the Christian, and the chimney, Jews will keep finding new excuses to rag on goyim and discredit them. The joke, as related by Yani Yanover in the Jewish Press, is as follows:
A gentile professor of Judaic Studies in Iowa finds out that to really learn the Talmud he must go to the Boro Park section of Brooklyn and find himself a teacher. The professor flies over and knocks on a basement door and this little Jew comes out. Upon seeing him, the professor asks to be taught the Talmud, but the little Jews says, “I can’t teach you Tal-mud, you got a goyeshe kop, you just don’t think Jewish.” The professor insists. The little Jew says, “OK, solve this problem, and I’ll teach you: “Two people go down a chimney. One stays clean, the other gets completely schmutzig, filthy. Which one washes up?” The professor eagerly answers, “The dirty one, naturally.” The little Jew wails: “Goyeshe kop, goyeshe kop! I told you I can’t teach you anything. Listen, the schmutzig guy sees the clean guy. Schmutzig doesn’t see any problem. But the clean guy sees the schmutzig guy and figures he must be just as dirty, so he goes and washes. I told you, you got a goyeshe kop. I can’t help you.” The professor begs for another chance, and the little Jew gives in, suggesting a new problem to solve: “Two people go down a chimney. One stays clean, the other gets completely schmutzig. Which one of them would wash up?” The professor says, “Sure, I know this one, it’s the clean fellow.” At this, the little Jew wails, “Goyeshe kop, the clean one takes a look at the dirty one and says, Moishe, you’re all schmutzig, go wash already! Enough. I really can’t help you, mister, you got a goyeshe kop.” The professor begs for one last chance, and the little Jews says, “Fine, one last chance, I’ll give you a completely new problem, then you’ll leave me alone: “Two people go down a chimney. One stays clean, the other gets completely schmutzig. Which one of them washes up?” At this point, if you’re telling this joke, it’s all physical stuff, as the poor professor from Iowa freezes, unable to decide which of the two conflicting solu-tions to choose. The little Jew can’t stand it anymore and interjects, “Goyeshe kop, who ever heard of two people going down a chimney and only one of them gets schmutzig?” Jews really want control of the world, and as white goyim stand in their way, Jews never stop ripping into white goyim in endlessly clever and creative ways. If white goyim try to appease and please the Jew by conforming to Jewish demands, Jews will just find new reasons and new ways to attack goyim so that there’s ultimately no way out for goyim... until they lose everything to the Jew... just like the restaurant owner in GOODFELLAS lost everything to Paulie. Jews are now doing to white goyim what the powers-that-be did to Joseph K in Kafka’s THE TRIAL. Because Jews are so relentless and dogged, the only way to beat the Jew is to be equally relentless and dogged.
Though Stephen Kotkin is no admirer of Stalin as a moralist, he ends his essay in the New York Review of Books in awe of Stalin’s iron will. Stalin never gave up and pushed harder and harder to get things his way. And that is how he beat everyone, not only the Jews but the Germans. That’s how he cowed Mao Zedong as well. Never give an inch. To fight the Jew, you have to out-Jew the Jew. If you can’t compete intellectually, you must fight via organizational skills. Of course, this is why Jews have worked so hard to change the institutional makeup of America. Recall how the Irish used to rule big cities through political machines. Irish were like little Stalins. Jews remember how Jewish Bolsheviks had intellectual and elite control in Revolutionary Russia, but the institutional controls were in the hands of Stalin and his cronies, many of whom were not Jewish. And it was institutional and bureaucratic control that finally gave Stalin the upper-leg against the Jews. This is why Jews, even as they pretend to be angry with the anti-statist position of white American conservatives, are actually very happy about it because anti-government rhetoric on the ‘right’ discourages conservatives from seeking government and state institutions. They will never gain the kind of power Stalin did. Jews have worked tirelessly to fill up the institutions with Jews, homos, and shabbos goyim who are the products of Jewish-controlled universities. Jews have both elite control and institutional-bureaucratic control. Jews also know the military to be a bastion of conservatism, so they filled it with homos and Negro commanders. The Irish understood one thing that white conservative never seem to understand. If you don’t control the economy, seek balance via control of the state. Blacks understand this too, which is why blacks in government exert disproportionate power. White conservatives are under the delusion that they are so successful at business when, in fact, Jews and urban Liberal elites generally win in business. Only in the fantasy-land of Ayn-Rand-ism are white Conservatives winning in business. Jews, like Stalin, have stronger personalities, and indeed, power isn’t just about talent and intelligence but the Will to Power and the stamina of power. You need grit and drive. Take the character of Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. He is driven and willing to go all the way to come face-to-face with the UFO visitors from another world. Nothing will stop him. Jews have this kind of will, but it’s missing from most white Americans. In America, both the mad passion for control & deception and the mad passion for exposure & truth are dominated by Jews. Neocon Jews and Liberal Democratic Jewish elites use government, Wall Street, and other industries/institutions to deceive and manipulate us. Neocons around George W. Bush used tricks not unlike the tactics used by the government in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS to drive us to war. In Spielberg’s movie, the government spread panic & hysteria about some toxic gas disaster and transports everyone within the 50 mile radius from Devil’s Tower. The government policy is headed by two Jewishy characters played by Francois Truffaut and Bob Balaban. They will go to any length to expel everyone from the entire region. They will use deceit and fear-mongering, just like Neocons and Jew-run media drove the US to war in Iraq over the threat of WMD. While most people are swept up in the government-induced panic and doing their best to flee, Roy the Jewishy character won’t have any of it. He’s committed to going to Devil’s Tower as his own Mt. Sinai. He has the will power of Moses and King David and the rest of them. He’s like Glenn Greenwald and Norman Finkelstein who are tireless in their criticism of the powers-that-be. In both the movie and the real world, the biggest elite liars/manipulators and biggest upstart-rebels are Jews. And in the movie, the Jewishy characters in control of the UFO project — Truffaut and Balaban — take a certain liking to Roy. It’s like they pick up on each other’s J-dar. Truffaut’s character argues that while MOST PEOPLE deserve to be removed from the area, a select number of people were ‘called’ to Devil’s Tower; they were ‘chosen’. It’s like arguing that while it was okay to drive out all those Palestinians from the Holy Land, it was only right that Jews flocked over there since they have a special covenant with higher forces. Truffaut’s character says "they belong here more than we do." ‘They’ refer to those who were ‘called’ by the UFO. Allegorically, it refers to Jews who ‘returned’ to Israel because the calling from God was just too powerful and irresistible. It’s like, even though modern Jews thought they were content with assimilation, something within them brought out there inner-Jewishness — as happened with Moses — and they just had to regain Jewish consciousness and regain Israel — and if deceit must be used, why not? In this regard, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and David Mamet’s HOMICIDE have something in common as both are about assimilated Jews who are happy to be ordinary Americans rediscovering a powerful sense of Jewish consciousness. So, in a way, even though the elites behind the UFO project and Roy seem to be at odds, they are actually serving the same goal. They hope for a special encounter with higher forces, and to have that special encounter, the land must be cleared of those who don’t belong there so that space aliens from above could finally meet, bless, and embrace the chosen ones. When Jews gain power, they use media and institutions to fool people, and most people are indeed fooled. Look around at all the idiotic goyim who mindlessly believe either Liberal Jewish elites or Neocon elites. Most goyim are content with nice-sounding lies and fantasies. But Jews without the power/privilege will not be fooled. They feel insulted that they are treated like the dumb goy population by Jewish elites in the inner circle. So, these Jews, like Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, get angry and throw tantrums. The thing about Roy is he’s not necessarily opposed to most people being driven out of the Devil’s Tower area. After all, at the official conference about the UFO earlier in the movie, he was impatient with goy dummies who seemed easily distracted and got to talking about ‘Big Foot’ instead; Roy feels about most UFO aficionados the way real Jews feel about dumbbell Christian Zionists. In his own way, Roy wants a special encounter with the UFO without the bothersome presence of most people. He doesn’t want all the dummies to be there when he comes face-to-face with the visitors from another world. He thinks he was chosen as the one of the special people. So, even though he’s furious that the government won’t let him climb up the Devil’s Tower, he is likely grateful that the place has set up especially for an intimate encounter between the space aliens and the select few. Besides, even the aliens don’t care about most of humanity. Though they had sucked up a bunch of peoples for several decades, they spew them all back to earth at the end and only want the Jewishy Roy to come aboard as their ‘chosen’. So, even though Roy seems like a populist hero who defies the government and champions the people’s right to know, his real agenda is to have a special and intimate encounter with the higher forces away from most people. And there is something like this mind-set among rebel maverick Jews. Though independent Jewish critics of the Power Elites seem to speak in the name of people and for the good of all of us, subconsciously they could really be motivated by the fact that they themselves have been kept out of the centers of power. It could be that they are angry not so much because the powers-that-be lied to the people but lied to them, the intelligent Jews, as well. Indeed, if the likes of Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, and Norman Finkelstein held elite power, would they be so adamant about exposing government secrets? Suppose there’s a 1,000 people. Suppose 10 hold elite power and use trickery to keep the 990 under control. Suppose most of the 990 are easily fooled and content with the lies and trickery. But suppose out of the 990, 5 are very bright, very driven, and very egotistical. They find it insulting that the top 10 expect them to swallow the BS that fools most people. Suppose the 5 speak out against the top 10, but are they really motivated by the rights of the 990 or because they feel jilted that they, who are just as talented and intelligent as the top 10, are being treated like the rest of the 990, most of whom are hopeless and laid-back dummies? This is why Jewish maverick types who are apparently committed to speaking-truth-to-power are actually difficult to pigeonhole. They are odds with the Jewish power-holders who feel compelled to hoodwink the people to maintain power & control, but they are also at odds with most people who are only too glad to be hoodwinked. Most white gentiles of the Democratic Party are hoodwinked by Liberal Jews, and most white gentiles of the GOP are hoodwinked by the Neocon Jews. But then, are Jewish mavericks like Glenn Greenwald really with-the-people against the elites or only using populist rhetoric to attack elite power of which he is not a member? Does he really believe in people power, or is he attacking the elites in the name of the people to gain power and privilege for himself? Being Jewish and homo — like Nate Silver — , he can’t possibly have much in common with most people who are dummies into ‘Big Foot’. So, despite the seeming conflict between Jewish mavericks and the established Jewish powers-that-be, it really seems to be a battle of elitism vs elitism. Greenwald and Silver, like Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, don’t want to be fooled like the rest of the dummies and don’t even want to hang with the dummies. Jews have a ‘special people’ complex, and homos have a sneering neo-aristocratic complex. Though they may speak in the name of public interest and for the People, they are naturally predisposed to being elitist. So, when Glenn Greenwald bitches about the elites, there’s something like the anger of the sorceress who wasn’t invited to the birthday celebration in SLEEPING BEAUTY. Her sense of grievance over the snubbing isn’t that the PEOPLE weren’t invited but that SHE wasn’t invited. As Jews like Greenwald are power-obsessed and driven, they feel especially insulted when the powers-that-be keep them in the dark about what’s really happening in government. Of course, it could be that Greenwald is aware of his elitist Jewish-homo nature and is consciously working in the interests of the People to associate Jewishness and homosexuality with speaking-truth-to-power, especially as so many Jews and homos have recently become associated with elite privilege, power, and corruption. You see, unlike Power Elite Jews and Power Elite Homos who are chummily secretive and conspiratorial within the hall of power, Greenwald goes out of his way to speak truth to power for our sake... or maybe that’s the way he wants us to think. If that’s the case, he is to be partly lauded, but who knows what really makes him and his ilk tick. Besides, if we were to conflate Jewishness and homosexuality with the fight for truth and justice on the basis of Greenwald’s example, might we not become blind to the fact that most Jews and most homos are associated with power, privilege, corruption, deception, repression, and manipulation? If one swallow doesn’t make a summer, one snowflake certainly doesn’t make a summer. Anyway, by nature Jews are less trusting of power that goyim tend to be. Roy is always skeptical and questioning about what the government is up to. And Jewish maverick scholars and journalists never take the official story at face value. This could be the product of Rabbinical tradition with tireless poring over old texts and/or Jewish involvement in business where one had to be alert to cheaters and swindlers. It could also be a projection of Jewish personality onto the world itself. Since many Jews know themselves to be liars, cheaters, hustlers, swindlers, tricksters, and/or hoodwinkers, they might fear that others are pulling the same trick on them. The problem of Power is that no one can keep it without telling lies. As Jews are smart, driven, and talented, they gain a lot of power, privilege, and wealth. And to keep their power, they must spin lies to fool and pacify the masses, most of whom are goyim. While they may fool a lot of dimwit gentiles, they cannot fool maverick Jews without power. Maverick Jews feel insulted and challenge the Jewish powers-that-be, but it could be that what they really desire is to be allowed into the circle of power. After all, once Roy is allowed to participate in the special encounter with the space aliens, he’s not complaining anymore about how the public has been left out of the heaven-earth love-fest. When Jews had considerably less power in the US, many were maverick Jews who dared speak truth to power loud and clear. But once such maverick Jews and their children gained the power, they changed their tune. They went from Roy ranting about government malfeasance to Roy happily going along with the government in the special meeting with the space aliens. I was watching CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND on Halloween, and it still strikes me as one of those movies that are cheesy but genuinely great. It’s like Mt. Rushmore. Kitschy and ludicrous but undeniably impressive. And it might have been influential in ways other than most people assumed. For example, the scene where all the toys in the little boy’s bedroom are activated by aliens in the first encounter has most of the audio-visual cues of Ridley Scott’s BLADE RUNNER. Even if Scott hadn’t been consciously thinking of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS while making his film, he could have been subconsciously drawing from Spielberg’s vocabulary of imagery and sound. And the scene where Roy drives against the traffic in Wyoming may have been the inspiration for the reverse-highway chase in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. But then, Friedkin was like a cross between Steven Spielberg and Gillo Pontecorvo, and surely Spielberg learned a great deal from THE EXORCIST though he may not have admitted it. But the most interesting relationship Spielberg had with another director is likely Stanley Kubrick. Spielberg’s link with George Lucas is too obvious to comment. Both were born to make blockbusters. But Spielberg’s long relationship with Kubrick is fascinating because they were regarded as polar opposites in the film community. And yet, they were good friends, and Kubrick was filled with admiration for, as well as envy of, Spielberg. Though Kubrick was the greater artist, there were things only Spielberg could do. When it came to movie magic, Spielberg was in his own league and a genius in his own right. Take the scene in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS when Roy and Jillian catch the sight of the actual Devil’s Tower for the first time. We see the car suddenly halt before barbed wire fence, so we expect anger and frustration from Roy and Jillian. But then we are shown Roy and Jillian transfixed upon a vision through the front window; they seem unfazed by the barb-wired fence and seem almost rapturous. And we sort of sense why. But Spielberg doesn’t show the object of wonderment right away. Instead, he goes for a overhead shot and we see Roy and Jillian walking on reddish ground, something that appears not only to have nothing to do with the probable object of interest but diametrically opposed to it, but then, as the camera follows their movement and then slows cranes upward, we see the Devil’s Tower looming into the sky. It’s a genius stroke to accentuate the heavenly quality of the Devil’s Tower by counterposing it with the prior shot of the reddish soil. Instead of just going for two people searching for the Tower and being ecstatic upon finding it, Spielberg goes through a series of steps and intentional ‘missteps’ to heighten that moment when we finally do arrive at the great moment. Spielberg pulled the same thing with the first encounter with dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK and with the blue fairy in A.I. First, we are shown a despairing David drifting to the bottom of the sea, but then, we see his eyes shine on something wonderful... but we are not shown what it is though we sort of know, as David is dragged back to surface by Joe Gigolo. The initial partial-revelation heightens our sense of anticipation, so when David returns via ‘amphibicopter’ to the ‘holy’ image, it has the feeling of pilgrimage and revelation. Spielberg does it so luminously and subliminally — with the perfectly modulated music of John Williams — that the carefully choreographed steps are rendered invisible; mechanics meld into magic. Spielberg has been criticized for his bombastic approach, and sometimes, he’s been over-the-top, but he also knows the trick of hypnosis. He could shuffle the thunderous with the somnambulism of Kubrick — though David Lynch at his best was almost Kubrick’s equal; the tone of THE SHINING may owe something to ERASERHEAD, but then maybe so does E.T. in its design of the space creature. Though Spielberg’s anticipatory/preparatory method of achieving sensory-‘spiritual’ crescendo wasn’t necessarily original, he perfected and expanded its possibilities for the blockbuster format. And when one does something so much better than anyone else, it becomes a kind of originality of inspired excellence. In some ways, the relationship between Kubrick and Spielberg was like between a rabbi and an errant student who infuriates but also charms the rabbi. Kubrick was a serious film-maker and artist, whereas Spielberg was not. And yet, Kubrick could spot Spielberg’s talent from a mile away. It’s like a rabbi discovering that one of his students has little aptitude for serious studies yet something remarkably rare and unique. It’s like Spielberg flunked seriousness but was worthy of A+ in inspired-ness that wasn’t part of the curriculum. It’s like the relationship between the father and son in the Israeli film FOOTNOTE. The father considers himself a very serious scholar and dismisses the son as successful charlatan. And yet, there’s no denying the son has a knack for doing things right that always elude the father. The son is also genuinely devoted to his father, though the father appreciates him far less than Kubrick did of Spielberg. In a way, the Kubrick-Spielberg relationship was like one between Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas. But if Coppola and Lucas both petered out pretty early — Coppola failed to make a great film after APOCALYPSE NOW and Lucas, though successful with STAR WARS, failed to grow and develop creatively — , Spielberg and Kubrick maintained their almost peerless excellence over a long stretch. Though Kubrick made only three films from 1980 to his death in 1999, each is a monumental masterpiece. And Spielberg has racked up an amazing body of work through the 1990s and 2000s. It appears Jews have more inspiration, drive, and stamina. Also, Kubrick and Spielberg were more savvy in balancing art and commerce than Coppola and Lucas were. Coppola risked everything to make APOCALYPSE NOW, something Kubrick never would have done for a project. Kubrick preferred to drive others crazy, whereas Coppola went out of his way to drive himself crazy. And Kubrick was always mindful about making his films would make somewhat bankable so that he could have a chance to make another one. He would never have indulged himself as foolishly as Coppola did with ONE FROM THE HEART and RUMBLE FISH. Kubrick knew one couldn’t survive in the business just by wallowing in personal vision. He needed room for personal vision but also viability at the box office, which is why he insisted on big stars for EYES WIDE SHUT. If not for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Kubrick’s last film might have tanked at the box office. And THE SHINING came with a safety net because it was horror and associated with Stephen King. Spielberg likewise had a keen eye for balancing money and seriousness, thereby enjoying huge hits but also plaudits for his more serious works. In contrast, Lucas began with the very serious THX 1138, lost heart when it failed at the box office, and stuck to lighter fare ever since. And he became so afraid of failure — especially with the fiascos of HOWARD THE DUCK and WILLOW that he’d produced or co-produced — that, like Sylvester Stallone, he came to rely on his one-trick pony that was STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES movies that were, however, directed by Spielberg. The Kubrick-Spielberg relationship wasn’t on equal terms. Kubrick was the respected as a genius and artist whereas Spielberg was seen as boy wonder or whiz kid. But money is power, Spielberg gained the kind of leverage that Kubrick could never dream of. Kubrick was the prophet with eye on profit, and Spielberg was the profiteer with respect for the prophets. But in terms of sheer cinematic talent, they were equal albeit in different ways. Kubrick was more Mizoguchi, Spielberg was more Kurosawa. However, Kubrick was keen on admiring talent-for-talent’s-sake, and he knew Spielberg was one of the true giants of cinema. It was apparent even in Spielberg’s cheesy and childish movies. Spielberg had the Gift, the Touch, something that can’t be learned but with which one is born with. In that sense, Kubrick probably laughed at film critics who revered him but put down Spielberg, because despite the fundamental differences between himself and Spielberg, they were both immensely gifted Jews born with incomparable talent and vision. It’s like some Rock critics and fans revered Bob Dylan but scoffed at Paul Simon and the Beatles as unserious when Dylan himself had the greatest admiration for them. Dylan knew he could do things they couldn’t do, but they could do things he could never do. Indeed, competitiveness through mutual admiration and envy has been one of the most potent fuels to creativity. Because critical interest tends to focus on one artist at a time — not least because many critics and scholars tend to be partisans of certain artists while detractors of others — , the creative interrelationships among artists are often ignored or missed. In the case of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, it’s well known that even when they composed their songs alone and apart, they were always mindful of what the other one was doing, and this frictional cooperation-competition sparked the inspiration for their best songs. It’s also well-known that Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys were especially mutually admiring and envious in 1965 and 1966 when RUBBER SOUL and PET SOUNDS were released. It isn’t difficult to see the creative relationship between Beatles and Beach Boys in the mid 60s, but the same dynamics could well have existed among artists and groups whose works and creativity we generally would not consider to be interrelated. In some cases, the creative relationship is a simple case of influence, as when an artist is impressed by what another artist has done and tries to use the formula in his own manner. But in other cases, it’s not so much direct influence as an inspiration-based-on-anxious-anticipation. Beatles and Rolling Stones were, for example, not only mindful of what others had already done but of what the others MAY BE doing. They were trying to outdo one another without knowing what the others were up to. Both groups were aware of each other’s talent — obviously apparent from completed works — , but, more importantly, they were trying to anticipate the element of surprise that might spring from the other group; they were not only trying to outdo what the other group had already done but might be in the process of doing; it’s like US atomic scientists were working on the Bomb with anxious anticipation that the German scientists might build it first. An element of prophecy was involved because neither side could be sure what the other band was really up to. It’s a kind of a ‘blind influence’, and it might be the best kind of inspiration to get artists off their ass to do their best work. Competing with what others might be doing is more feverish than competing with what has already been done. In the 60s, various leading Rock artists were not only inspired by what others had already done but fueled by the anxiety of what they might have up their sleeves. Since they couldn’t be sure what the Stones, Beatles, Byrds, Beach Boys, Dylan, or etc. might release next, they were pushing their own limits for creative ‘exponentiality’. Such a competition between Spielberg and Kubrick was unlikely since they had such contrasting working methods and paces, but despite their profound differences, their particularities of creativity fed on one another and assumed different modes. Though Kubrick was well-established as a giant long before Spielberg made his big splash with JAWS, it was never the simple case of student Spielberg learning from master Kubrick. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS certainly owes a great deal to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but one wonders if Spielberg’s movie inspired Kubrick to make THE SHINING, and, even if not, one wonders if Kubrick’s making of THE SHINING was, in some ways, informed by what he learned from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. To be sure, Spielberg’s attitude toward Kubrick was reverential, whereas Kubrick’s attitude toward Spielberg was both admiring and condescending. Boy Wonder could sure make a movie but how childish his movies could be. There’s a scene in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS where the Truffaut character says some people were chosen by the UFO but didn’t make it to Devil’s Tower because they didn’t make the connection between the image in their heads and the natural wonder itself. And why not? Because they didn’t watch the news on TV. In an early scene in THE SHINING, the son says he knows all about cannibalism because he saw it on TV, and the Nicholson character wryly comments, "See, it's okay. He saw it on the television." It could have been a playful dig at Spielberg and his idea of truth. It’s something on the telly. Maybe Spielberg got the joke, which is why his treatment of POLTERGEIST — directed by Tobe Hooper — has the TV as the source of wickedness than the truth. In THE SHINING, the boy is young and innocent but has powers beyond that of the more intellectual and worldly father. On a subconscious level, could the father’s envious feelings toward his gifted son have reflected Kubrick’s feelings about Spielberg, i.e. boy wonder Steve is so much younger, less experienced, and ‘innocent’, but in some ways, has gifts beyond that of even Kubrick the cinematic mentor and father figure? Later Spielberg took some cues form FULL METAL JACKET in his making of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and Kubrick was surely flattered by that. But Spielberg also stole Kubrick’s thunder when he made SCHINDLER’S LIST, which could have been one reason why Kubrick dropped his project on ARYAN PAPERS. And with A.I., Kubrick just passed the project over to Spielberg. Indeed, given Spielberg’s obsession with PINOCCHIO — evident from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS — , it could well have been that Kubrick had Spielberg on his mind when he first decided to base A.I. loosely on the PINOCCHIO story. More recently, it’s come to light that Spielberg is working on NAPOLEON, the great dream project of Kubrick that he failed to realize. The Kubrick-Spielberg relationship is one of the strangest in the history of cinema, but then there’s a shared sense among Jews that makes for the most unlikely bonds.)
The dynamics is somewhat different on the European Right. If the European Left admires Jews who claim to be leftist-universalist and is appalled that Israel’s actions are at odds with ‘liberal Jewish values’(though the European Left is mealymouthed on the fact that Israel is enabled by Liberal Jewish elements in the US and EU), the European Right is admiring of the nationalism, racial consciousness, conservatism, and blood-and-soil consciousness of Israeli Zionism. They see Zionists in Israel as the proper model for all Europeans, and they want to secure the blessing of Jews along these lines. But because Jews who support Jewish nationalism and/or self-interest in Israel and around the world oppose similar nationalisms for Europeans — Jews fear Europeans might come to treat Jews like Jews treat Palestinians, i.e. as second-class citizens or worse — , the European Right finds itself awkwardly in an anti-Jewist position. (Jews have problems with the European Left because Jews don’t want Israelis to practice the kind of liberal universalism prevalent in Europe, and Jews have problems with the European Right because Jews don’t want Europeans to practice the kind of nationalist particularism prevalent in Israel.) But in both cases the ‘antisemitic’ sentiments are rooted in admiration of Jews. Because of Jewish involvement in communism, leading role in ‘anti-racism’, prominence in leftist intellectual circles, victimization in the Holocaust, association with the Civil Rights Movement, and eloquence in the anti-war movement(during the Vietnam War especially), the European Left has come to see Jews as an especially valuable, tragic, noble, progressive, conscientious, revolutionary, and saintly group. Since the end of World War II, entire generations of kids have been raised on Jew Worship and made to associate Jews first and foremost with ‘war against evil racism’ and ‘saintly suffering under Nazism’. They’ve been instilled with such rosy Ken-Burnsy views of Jews that they are shocked and traumatized when they realize that Zionists are acting ‘just like Nazis’. Oddly enough, it is their boundless & worshipful love of mythic Jews(who are perceived as the ‘best’ people in the world) that turns them against real-life Jews who are such snakes, weasels, and leeches. Also, as there’s been general peace in Europe since the end of World War II, most Europeans cannot imagine the kind of violence unfolding in Gaza. Sure, there are wars all over the world, but it’s mostly about ragtag armies fighting one another. But in the case of Zionists and Palestinians, it is a First World ‘Western’ nation with a military equipped with the most advanced weapons systems supplied by the US — Israeli military is more powerful than the militaries of most European nations — mercilessly bashing a Third World people, and this seems horrible to most Europeans who were raised with the narrative of how the all-powerful Nazis mercilessly crushed weaker nations and how all-powerful Europeans with guns, ships, and planes mowed down helpless Third World folks during the Age of Empire. Furthermore, it’s shocking that JEWS are doing this when the European mind is fixated with the image of the helpless victim Jew. Imagine weeping for poor little Anne Frank only to discover that she survived the Holocaust, moved to Israel, joined the IDF, and gleefully bombed the houses of Palestinian women and children.
What’s happening in Gaza looks like violence during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
In a way, the Holocaust Narrative both mutes and amplifies the anger of the European Left toward Zionism. Because of the ‘Holocaust guilt’, one part of European consciousness feels that Europeans, with so much blood on their own hands(especially Jewish blood), are no position to be passing judgement on the Jews. On the other hands, precisely because of their ‘guilt conscience’, Europeans feel obligated to prevent other holocausts. And because Jews were the main victims of the Holocaust, Europeans feel that Jews, more than any other people in the world, should be extra-mindful not to ‘act just like the Nazis’.
So, when Zionists kill Palestinian women and children and even laugh and cheer about it, the Narrative is turned upside down.
Though most Europeans are on the ‘left’ — strongly, moderately, or mildly — , there are Europeans on the Right with a special devotion to Jews. To some extent, there’s an element of ‘atonement’ and ‘guilt conscience’ in this. Since the European Right had traditionally been associated with anti-Jewism and antisemitism(some of it pretty looney tunes) and since Nazism became the embodiment and enforcer of the extreme hatred of Jews, the new European Right feels an obligation to cleanse itself of ‘antisemitism’ to be made respectable again. But then, the European Right doesn’t have a choice because new laws all across Europe under EU auspices outlawed negative criticism or condemnation of Jewish power & influence. Any ‘careless’ or ‘offensive’ sentiment regarding Jews could get people in trouble, either fined or even imprisoned.
(Because anti-Jewish views from whites are taboo, some on the European Right — as well on the Left — find pleasure in the non-white ‘antisemitism’ of Muslim and African immigrants whose lapses are tolerated to some extent because they are also recognized as ‘victims’ of European imperialism, ‘racism’, ‘Zionism’, and ‘Islamophobia’. But the negative side-effect of this is that white Europeans on both Left and Right are drawn closer to immigrants from the Third World, thereby abetting in their own racial/national suicide.) So, as a form of self-protection, the European Right must show that they are admiring of Jews and are with the Jews. Therefore, to some extent, there’s an element of cynicism in the European Right’s profuse praise of Jews and Israel. Nevertheless, there are elements on the Right that are genuinely admiring of the state of Israel, it’s race-ist/nationalist blood-and-soil policies, its robust militarism, its ruthlessness in dealing with enemies, and its dogged will to power. They look at Israel with a mixture of envy and awe. They wish their own nations/peoples could be like Israel. As the American anti-Jewist scholar Kevin MacDonald said, he would side with the Jews if Jews sided with whites. Though MacDonald came down on the side of anti-Zionism — he sees no hope of Jewish-White unity as both Jewish Liberalism in the West and Jewish nationalism in Israel secretly collude to serve one purpose, which is global Jewish supremacist power — , if he saw any possibility of a Jewish-White partnership in the West, he would overnight become a vociferous supporter of Israel and drop his bogus sympathy for Palestinians in a heartbeat. But then, Jews are no less cynically moralistic in their alliances and sympathies as, for example, American Jews sided with blacks against Apartheid South Africa while Israeli Jews sided with Apartheid South Africa against the Third World that was overwhelmingly given to anti-Zionist rhetoric(especially during the Cold War when many nations around the world could rely on the USSR to defy the West that was the #1 supporter of Israel and even Apartheid South Africa[as South Africa has been a key supplier of platinum, an element necessary in the building of nuclear weapons, to the US]). Since the end of the Cold War, global anti-Zionism is a spent force as most ‘developing nations’ economically depend on the good graces of US and EU. Also, Russia is now pro-Israel, China is admiring of Jewish power and doesn’t care about Palestinians, and the rest of the world simply doesn’t care one way or another. Though anti-Zionist rhetoric is common enough in media around the world, most people have other priorities; and the notion that Israel is ‘isolated’ and has only US as an ally is so much nonsense peddled by Jews to garner pity and sympathy for Israel from dumb Americans.
A Jewish-White alliance would be possible if Jews only cared about prosperity and well-being in the West because almost no one — even the Western Right — has ill-will toward Jews, especially in the manner of classic antisemitism. Under such an alliance, Western nations would support Israel’s right-to-exist and pursue their own national interests, and in turn, Jews would accept gentile white nations being politically ruled by white gentiles, preserving their own national/cultural heritages, controlling their own borders and limiting ‘diversity’, and being conscious of their racial-national identities. Of course, Jews, as individuals, would enjoy all the social liberties and legal rights as everyone else. They just wouldn’t be able to gain elite power, control the flow of information, dominate finance, and dictate national policy(especially in the service of a globalist Jewish agenda). Of course, as Jews are intelligent and driven, many will reach the top in various professions such as medicine, science, finance, and media. But since Jews of each gentile nation will be under pressure to conform to the national norm, their talents will be in service to the good of particular nations than to the good of the globalist Jewish network. Hungarian Jews will be Hungarians first and foremost, Polish Jews will be Poles first and foremost, Russian Jews will be Russians first and foremost, Canadian Jews will be Canadians first and foremost, and etc. But this is something Jews cannot accept. French Jews feel closer to World Jewry than to French gentiles. American Jews feel closer to World Jewry than to Polish-Americans, black-Americans, German-Americans, Russian-Americans, Iranian-Americans, and Anglo-Americans. Jews working in finance in the US, France, UK, Russia, Ukraine, and other nations would rather work for globalist Jewish power than in service of the nation in which they happen to be citizens. Jews want to associate with gentiles in nations where they have residence, but they don’t want to meaningfully assimilate into the norms of the gentile majority, not least because Jews, feeling themselves to be smart/wise/brilliant, look upon gentile identity and culture as ‘dumb and slow’. So, Jews want to gain elite power, gain dominance, and change everything so that the gentile majority will surrender and submit to Jewish globalist ideals of ‘diversity’(at least for dumb goyim), homomania(an agenda that says the vast majority should bow down or bend over to elite minority demands), Zionist supremacism(the only permissible nationalism for white gentiles, i.e. whites can only be ‘nationalist’ about Jewish power, just like worldwide subjects of British imperialism could only be ‘patriotic’ about Britain and sing ‘God Save the Queen’), Holocaustianity(spiritual slavery of white goyim via the cult of ‘white guilt’), and interracism(a means by white race will become so ethnically-muddied that America and Europe will come to resemble Mexico or Morocco, therefore racially too confused to come together as a united racial-political-cultural force against the Jewish-and-homo elites or the Jomo Cabal). If Jews had an average IQ of 100 and less pushy/nasty personalities, a Jewish-White Alliance might be possible, but it’s very unlikely because the higher IQ among Jews makes them feel they should control even nations that are majority gentile. Jewish attitude toward whites is not unlike British attitudes toward Africans, Asian-Indians, and the like during the Age of Empire. The British Imperialists would have scoffed at becoming equal with them savages, barbarians, heathens, and backward peoples. Jews feel the same way toward white goyim. Of course, Jews will never admit to this because (1) they got burned by ideologies of racial supremacism, (2) gentiles will wake up to the true nature of the Jewish agenda if Jews spoke honestly (3) they want to dump ‘racist/supremacist guilt’ on whites while hiding their own.
But if you want to know the truth, always remember that actions speak louder than words. If we were to assess Jewish power, influence, and agenda based on their actions in the US, EU, Israel, Middle East, Ukraine, and Russia, it should be quite apparent that Jews do seek global dominance and do believe that even mostly white gentile nations like Russia, Ukraine, Poland, and Hungary should be ruled and ‘guided’ by Jewish brains and balls. When we observe Jewish networking across media, academia, government, banks, business, advertising, & entertainment in US, EU, Russia, & Israel, only a fool would fail to see a pattern that screams ‘Jewish Supremacism’. This is why the Jewish-White Alliance is futile, at least with Ashkenazi Jews. They are too smart, too pushy, and too obsessed with control & power. They don’t want to be equal with everyone else. It’s like the Jewish character(played by Charles Grodin) in THE HEARTBREAK KID. He goes after the ‘shikse’(it’s interesting that Jews generally use the term that means ‘unclean animal’ to describe blonde white women whom Jewish men lust after for their ‘pure’ and ‘clean’ looks relative to Jewish women who look gross & grubby and act uncouth & ugly like the Jewish girl the Grodin character marries in the beginning of the movie; but then, dirty Jews have used every possible means to befoul and pollute whiteness by encouraging the mating of white blondes with Negroes, thereby turning members of a ‘pure’ race into truly unclean jungle whores squeezing foul mulattos like Obama out of their pooters) in a pathologically pushy manner that says he won’t give up until he can join his meaty Jewish groin with her ‘Aryan’ loin. The interesting thing about the Grodin character’s pushiness is it’s not one-dimensional in the way of Big Boss Man, Randy ‘Macho Man’ Savage, or even Mr. Saito. Rather, it’s all the more effective because it’s passive/aggressive. The Jew keeps burrowing in like an incessant weasel but with a ‘nerdy’ puppy-like demeanor. He wants to conquer all like an alpha wolf but wags his tail like a harmless golden retriever. This is why so many white gentiles are fooled into thinking that they are helping harmless/helpless Jews when, in fact, it’s Jews using a soft fronts to drive their hard dicks into white cunts. It’s like when sappy-looking Ben Stein or goofy-faced William Kristol goes to the likes of Sarah Palin or John McCain for a favor; the impression is oh-so-nice but the demand is cold-as-ice. It’s like the Charles Grodin character is the real aggressor in THE HEARTBREAK KID, but his ‘sappy’ demeanor makes him appear as the underdog or even ‘victim’ deserving of our sympathy. It’s like what the Mariel Hemingway character says to the Woody Allen character in MANHATTAN. The latter is actually dumping the former to go off with another woman, but he acts as if he’s the victim of the breakup. The Hemingway character picks up on this and says:
"You state it like it's to my advantage, when it's you that wants to get out of it." Jewish cunning knows no bounds.
Of course, Jewish Neocons will one day dump Conservatives overboard in the same manner but then say what Allen’s character says to the Hemingway character:
"This was supposed to be a temporary fling. You know that." Indeed, Neocons are already working with Hillary Clinton to form a new alliance. Having squeezed the GOP lemon for all it was worth to get the US to fight Wars for Israel in the Middle East, many Neocons are now thinking Hillary is the better bet since the GOP is now too closely associated with the American South, the implication of which is Israel may become associated with ‘southern racism’, and that will make Israel less appealing in the eyes of urban elites in New York, San Franciso, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and etc. who look upon Southern Whites as less-than-human scum. (Recall that Israel was the #1 ally of apartheid South Africa, but Jewish control of the media rewrote the Narrative so that Israel and new South Africa became the best of buddies. If anything, dirty Jews in Israel have been trumpeting the notion that Israeli Jews and South African blacks are brothers-under-the-skin since both were victims of ‘white racism’. But the Neocon involvement in the GOP undermines this Narrative since the GOP depends heavily on white votes in the ‘neo-Confederate’ South. With the demographic demise of white America, Neocons are figuring maybe they no longer need such a close alliance with white conservatism.) But then, it must be noted there are plenty of gentile Conservatives who are just as vile and weasly, and this was certainly true of William F. Buckley. While some conservatives have very deep sense of values and loyalty, others have been Conservative mainly for status reasons, i.e. they conflate ‘conservatism’ with upper class hierarchy, privilege, riches, and rubbing shoulders with the ‘right kind of people’. So, as the rules of the game of status and respectability change, the status-centric Conservatives will go where the newest ritziest parties are and seek to gain approval by dumping old alliances with people who are no longer thought to be ‘respectable’ or ‘acceptable’. So, even though Buckley held ‘racist’ views all his life, he began to purge race-ist conservatives and cozy up to Jewish Neocons to win the game of New Respectability. As Liberal Jews became game-makers of what is and isn’t respectable and since Buckley had too many disagreements with mainstream Jewish Liberalism, he sought out Jewish Neocons as the next-best thing since Neocons were just about the only kind of ‘conservatives’ who were accepted and tolerated by the Liberal Jews who were gaining total control of elite institutions. Under the influence of Neocons, Buckley understood he had to abandon and betray many old friends on the Right whom Jews didn’t like, and a kind of night-of-the-long-knives took place when Buckley excommunicated the likes of Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran from the movement. In turn, even as he was ridding the Conservative Movement of more race-centric or hardline thinkers, he sought to make Jews warm up to aspects of race-ist thinking by having American Conservatism become the main cheerleader for race-ist-nationalist Israel. Though Establishment Conservatism championed and defended Israel on grounds that (1) Jews, as victims of the Holocaust, are deserving of their own homeland, (2) Israel is the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East and ‘beacon/outpost of Western values’, and (3) Arabs are the ‘new nazis’ and ‘racists’ who want to carry out another holocaust against Jews, the undeniable fact is that Israel was founded and functioned as a race-ist or racially conscious nationalist state. Therefore, because American Conservatism was fully onboard with Jewish race-ism in the Middle East, Conservatives like Buckley hoped that Jews would eventually become, in turn, less hostile to white forms of racial consciousness or race-ism(as long as it wasn’t directed at Jews). Of course, smart and cunning Jews knew the nature of Buckley’s trick up his sleeve and didn’t fall for it but only played him. As time passed, as American Mainstream Conservatism became ever more hysterical and shrill in its complete support of an increasingly race-ist/nationalist state of Israel, Neocons gained dominance in the GOP, began to clamp down on ‘heretics’, and purge every last vestige of white race-ist/nationalist thinking on the American Establishment Right. In the 1990s, one could still find in the page of the National Review some views and opinions on racial differences and white interests, but they were all gone by the Bush Era when scummy weasels like Jonah Goldberg, a vile supporter of ‘gay marriage’, pretty much dictated policy at the magazine and butt-rammed the likes of Rich Lowry into political correctness. As we all know, Lowry is the gutless, spineless, and ball-less ‘faggoty-ass white boy’ who swoons before Al Sharpton and weeps like a little girl to the boombox sermonizing of MLK the loutish assaulter of women. Just like Bill Cosby played Mr. Nice but raped women all his life, MLK played Mr. Saint but was really a sadistic apelike brute whose moral character was on par with that Rodney King.
Jews understandably complain that philosemitism is a really form of antisemitism because an overly positive view of Jews leads to unreal expectations of Jews, but then, Jews are being disingenuous since they only tolerate philosemitic views to be expressed in the media and academia that they control. (To be sure, the academia isn’t as slavish to Jews as the media are. The reason for this is that much of the academia is in the public sector unlike the privately held media that are mostly outright owned and run by Jewish oligarchs. To be sure, many institutions of higher education have lots of Jewish professors, Jewish deans and administrators. Also, as they depend on government aid and donations from rich people — needless to say, Jews control much of the government as most politicians are whores of Jews, and furthermore, many rich donors to colleges are Jews — , Jews do exert a tremendous influence over the academia. Nevertheless, there is still some degree of academic freedom in the universities, and professors with tenure cannot be touched even if Jews hate them; and this is why Jews like Alan Dershowitz have gone all out to ensure that professors like Normal Finkelstein — derided as a ‘self-loathing Jew’ by his critics — will not be hired or promoted by any university in the first place: Nip them in the bud because, once they get tenure, they cannot be touched. Also, Political Correctness has had something of a boomerang effect on Jews. Though Jews devised and promoted PC to bring non-white groups together against white gentiles and to make white gentiles hate themselves and attack white conservatives — it’s been wildly successful in that respect — , the cult of ‘diversity’, ‘anti-whiteness’, and ‘anti-Eurocentrism’ has also come to haunt Zionism that is seen by many ‘leftist’ and ‘diverse’ groups as an ideology of ‘western imperialism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘Zio-Apartheid’, and etc. Also, many people on the ‘left’ can’t help but notice that Jews are tremendously powerful, wealthy, influential, and corrupt in America, but because it’s still a taboo for them to talk about ‘Jewish power’, their repressed animus toward Jewish privilege is redirected at Israel. And even though this upsets American Jews, they’d rather have angry ‘progressives’ notice Zionist-Israeli power than notice Jewish-American power that is the real Nest Egg of Jewish global power. If disobedient journalists can easily be fired and blacklisted by the Jew-run media — as Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas were — , it isn’t always easy for Jews to remove academics with tenure, loyal following, and respect among peers. If Edward Said had been a journalist, he would have been fired long ago by the Jew-run media, but because he was a much-admired academic with tenure at Columbia University, he was untouchable. And this is why Kevin MacDonald still holds his job as a professor. Because of job security in the academia, it is a shame that so many Conservatives, in their anti-intellectualism, rejected the academic path. If conservatives/Conservatives would have found sanctuary in any field, it would have been in the academia.
The media, as they are privately owned, are something else. Even Rush Limbaugh, as influential as he is, cowered before the homo lobby since his show depends on advertising, a field that is Jew-and-homo-heavy. Jews sent a clear message to Limbaugh that he better shut up about ‘gay marriage’ if he wants to keep raking in the advertising revenue dough. Conservatives say the academia is an intellectual monolith whereas the privately owned media constitute a free market of ideas. To some extent, this is true. After all, Fox News(whatever one thinks of it) is privately owned, and there is nothing like it in the academia. Also, individuals like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck have succeeded in the media, whereas they would have had a difficult time in the academia. But then, the academia is so heavily Liberal because Conservatives, for the most part, rejected it as a career path over many generations. (This is a pity since the ideal of the university is conservative as it is liberal. As a repository of the entire heritage of civilization and wisdom, universities should be natural places for conservatives. Of course, the modern university, modeled on the German prototype, is also a place for experimentation, research, and new ideas. But as Professor Kingsfield says in THE PAPER CHASE: "You come in here with a skull full of mush and leave thinking like lawyers". Students come to receive wisdom that’s been handed down through the ages. Government is also a naturally conservative institution since conservatism is about law-and-order and good governance, but American Conservatives dumped on that too. With such little regard for the academia and government, what kind of conservatism is American Conservatism?)So, naturally Liberals took over most of the positions and recruited their own kind. Anyway, even though there’s proportionately a lot more Conservative voices in the media than in the academia, all prominent media Conservatives are under the kind of pressure that tenured professors in universities don’t have to worry about. While Fox News features typically Mainstream Conservative voices — most of whom are sockpuppets of the GOP controlled by Neocons — , you will never see or hear anyone with the opinions of , say, Kevin MacDonald, Paul Gottfried, or Jared Taylor. Every Conservative in the media must be philosemitic, pro-Israel, anti-Russia, anti-Iran, sing praises to scumbag MLK, and bitch/whine about the threat of ‘Sharia’. Pat Buchanan didn’t play along, so he got canned by CNN and MSNBC and is only an occasional guest on Fox. Even though Conservative voices are louder in the media than in the academia, because job security is so weak — anyone can be fired and destroyed instantly — , virtually every talking-head Conservative is someone like John Bolton the dolton, Karl Rove the swine, insufferable Sean Hannity, jerkoff O’Reilly, bimbo Sarah Palin, and other moral/intellectual midgets whose main agenda is sucking up to Jews and suppressing opposition to the homo agenda since their Jewish bosses passed out memos to everyone that any blatant criticism of homomania or the homo agenda is now ‘unacceptable’.
So, while Conservatives in the media speak louder and with more passion, they do so within a narrow range of opinions deemed ‘acceptable’ by Neocons and media moguls. Needless to say, most Neocons and media bosses are Jewish. Indeed, notice that, even though Jews are the biggest, most powerful, and most hateful enemies of the white race, there isn’t a single Conservative in the mainstream media who dares to mention the problem of Jewish power. Instead, they’d rather roll over and play fetch for Jews in their incessant attacks on Russia and Iran, two nations that pose no threat whatsoever to the white race or Western conservatism but are a thorn on the side of globalist Jewish supremacism.
 |
| With 'conservatives' like these... |
Also, Neocons in the media are not only censorious and purge-oriented toward other journalists — notice how not a single journalist came to the defense of Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, or Pat Buchanan when they were effectively blacklisted — but toward individuals in certain institutions that are independent of the media. For example, Jason Richwine was working as a researcher/theorist for the Heritage Foundation when Jennifer Rubin, the dirty Jewish Neocon hag, ranted hysterically about how he must be fired, thereby threatening the Heritage Foundation with destruction unless it complied with her demands. Since Heritage Foundation relies on donations from rich Jewish billionaires, it stabbed Richwine the back. But then, it’s not just about donations from rich Jews but from anyone. Once Jews condemn an organization as ‘racist’, even rich non-Jewish conservatives will no longer donate out of fear being associated with a ‘hate organization’. This is why even rich folks who privately agree with Vdare and American Renaissance dare not donate a cent to such organizations. They will be denounced by association, they will be made pariahs, and their businesses will hurt too. Also, as Jews control IRS and government, their companies will be especially targeted. Furthermore, businesses rely on loans, and Jewish-controlled Wall Street will withhold funds from companies associated with ‘hate’. Also, as many companies do business with government, they will lose contracts if they’re associated with ‘hate’ — defined by Jews, of course, as any company associated with the Zionist mass-killing of Palestinians are showered with all sorts of favors. And as smart and ambitious people tend to be products of Liberal universities or unscrupulous opportunists, they will work for a firm associated with ‘hate’, therefore such companies won’t be able to attract talent.
Anyway, not only do Jewish Supremacists force Conservatives in the media to the toe the line, but they also employ media power to threaten and coerce independent think tanks. But this sort of thing is something that the media and all the Jewish money in the world cannot do to professors with tenure in universities, though, to be sure, Jews resort to all sorts of dirty tricks to exert pressure on academics they don’t like. (Censorious Jews in the academia who do everything in their power to dissuade and pressure universities not to hire or invite ‘antisemitic’ speakers and academics — usually Arab-Americans or hardline anti-Zionist leftists — will also lament and wail about how their ‘free speech’ is being trampled by those either denounce Zionism or employ the same kinds of censorious tricks perfected by Jews themselves.) Jews will support or create student organizations to harass professors, or Jews will exert financial pressure on the academia as a whole to censure a professor for his unpopular or unorthodox views. But of course, Jews mostly try to nip political incorrectness in the bud in the academia by creating and enforcing an hostile atmosphere against conservatives, right-wingers, and white race-ists(racially conscious thinkers). This way, anyone with politically unorthodox views will be made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, alienated, ostracized, and unwanted. Also, as the promotion process has been so politicized, ideologized, and financialized, academics with certain views — no matter how competent they are as scholars — have a difficult time attaining tenures, which are reserved mostly for Jews, homos, ‘progressives’, feminists, and ‘people of color’. The only kind of Conservative with a good chance of receiving tenure in college is the Neocon type who is either Jewish or sucks up to Jews(and homos as well), like the slimy & sleazy Niall Ferguson with the personality of an anal wart. But, if American conservatism hadn’t been so anti-intellectual and anti-‘egghead’-ish, many more conservatives would have pursued the academic field, and there might be something like parity between the ‘right’ and the ‘left’. Conservatives hoped that their success in business would counter the domination of Liberals in media and academia, but in the end, Liberals(especially Jews)far out-performed Conservatives even in business. Liberals now control media, academia, government, and business. After all, just because a people are PRO-something doesn’t mean that they are best at it. Suppose Chinese are more PRO-basketball than blacks are. The fact is blacks will still do better in basketball than Chinese will. As Jews have higher IQ, more savvy, and more drive, even ‘socialist’ Jews became better at business than pro-capitalist Conservatives.
Furthermore, even if Conservatives had been better at business, their privileged children will still have come under the influence of Liberals prominent in the academia and media. Also, even if Conservatives owned the media, they would have to hire the best, and the best products from journalism schools would still have been liberals/Liberals as many more ‘progressive’ types gravitate toward journalism, investigation, and reportage. (Today however, with the ultra-profit-ization of the news media, many people go into journalism not to be hard-nosed investigators/reporters but to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful. It’s a means of status-seeking, but then Conservative ideology had something to do with the profit-ization of the news. Though the mainstream news media were turning flashy and formulaic long before Fox News — as depicted in BROADWAY NEWS — , Fox raised it to a whole new level, whereupon CNN and MSNBC competed to be just as trashy and trivial, which is why TV news no longer has any value. Indeed, compare Nightline back in the 1980s hosted by Ted Koppel with what became of the program in the Bush II era. It might as well be Tabloid news.
Anyway, Jews are disingenuous when they complain about philosemitism(that has a way of holding Jews to higher standards) because taboos against even legitimate and rational anti-Jewist views(always equated with ominous-sounding ‘antisemitism’) leave people no choice but to be ONLY POSITIVE about Jews. And it’s been the Jews who’ve used their control of the media, government, and academia to enforce such taboos in every corner of American society. Jews attacked Gregg Easterbrook of harboring ‘philosemitic antisemitism’ because his criticism of Jewish-dominated Hollywood was premised on his positive-and-sympathetic view of Jewish history. As Easterbrook viewed Jewish history through the prism of noble suffering, tragedy, and martyrdom — as if Jews all throughout history have been nothing but wise saints and suffering souls — , he was offended by Jewish Hollywood’s financing of the gross, violent, and sadistic movies of turd-boy Quentin Tarantino and other dementos. According to Easterbrook, since Jews know so much about noble/tragic suffering, they should be more sensitive and mindful about the kinds of popular culture they dump on the public. But Jews fumed over this criticism. Of course, in a perfect world, Jews would have a point. In a free society, Jewish individuals have the freedom to do as they please, and the Jewish-community-as-a-whole should not be held accountable for what some unpleasant Jewish individuals do. But there’s something dishonest about this line of argument(especially when it comes from Jews) because Jews often hold entire communities responsible for the actions of individuals. So, when Paula Deen was discovered to have said ‘nigger’ after she was robbed by a Negro, the Jew-run media used it to shame the entire South, implying that all the whites in the South have a moral obligation not to be ‘racist’. If a German movie-maker were to make an offensive or insensitive about Jews, you bet Jews will attack all of Germany and say Germans have a special responsibility not to produce such individuals or allow them to make movies. If one Republican jerk says something stupid about rape, then the entire Conservative community is reviled for its ‘war on women’(though it’s Jews who run porn that treat women like cum-buckets and it’s Negroes who are the biggest rapists). Or when
a mulatto kid and his mudshark mother pull a ‘hate hoax’ by painting their own garage with ‘racist’ messages, the entire white community is condemned for letting such a thing happen.
At any rate, if Jews have incessantly demanded that we see Jews in such a positive light, why are they surprised when some gentiles are shocked upon noticing that a whole bunch of Jews are lowlife dirty shits? As Holocaustianity has become the new religion of Europe, generations of Europeans grew up with the Narrative of Jews as an utterly blameless, wholly wonderful, entirely noble, boundlessly wise, and totally lovable people. Indeed, Jewish influence on EU even passed laws forbidding any sharp criticism of Jewish power. So, why should anyone be surprised when Europeans are shocked that Jewish Zionists in Israel are ‘acting just like Nazis’?
Among American Conservatives, Neocons have assured us that Jews are to be admired and praised as a profoundly conservative people who’ve preserved their heritage, culture, and lineage for thousand of years; Neocons have told American Conservatives that Jews are natural allies of white Conservatives, that supporting nationalist Israel is as good as supporting patriotism at home. But, how can an honest gentile Conservative not notice that most Jews in America and EU are weasels who push stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and open borders? Furthermore, increasing numbers of American Conservatives are beginning to notice that so-called Neocons themselves are hostile to white people and working hand-in-hand behind the scenes with Liberal Jews to destroy the power of white people. So naturally, when philosemitic American Conservatives discover that REAL Jews aren’t anything like the bill-of-goods they’ve been handed, they are likely to become bitter and become anti-Jewist(like Paul Craig Roberts). As long as Jews promote philosemitism and make gentiles love the Jews unconditionally, they shouldn’t be surprised when gentiles, upon seeing the Real Jew at last, turn ‘antisemitic’ or anti-Jewist.
It’s like people feel especially bitter when something that was sold to them as too-good-to-be-true turns out to be not only not-so-good but downright-shitty. When we see what Jewish influence has really wrought on America, EU, the Middle East, and Russia/Ukraine, who can deny that Jews are a foul and filthy people?
When even brain-dead ‘millennials’ are beginning to notice — especially with Israel once again getting off scot-free with its massive slaughter in Gaza — that all is not okay with Jewish power, it is really about time for us to address the problems of Jewish power. When the greatest power in the world still acts in the mode of ‘powerlessness’, the world is a dangerous place indeed.
Why was Hitler’s Germany so dangerous? Because by 1939 it was once again the greatest power in Europe but still in the mode of ‘Versailles humiliation’ mentality. No one could deny that Germany got a raw deal after WWI and was collectively punished in the worst possible manner — and German minorities had legitimate grievances in non-German-ruled nations — just when so many Germans were earnestly trying to build a liberal democracy, but it was also true that, by 1939, Germany was in the unique position to keep the peace or start up another war as the predominant power in Europe. But instead of recognizing their considerable power, Germans like Hitler griped that Germany was still a victim nation because it wasn’t allowed to be even greater. People like Pat Buchanan who continue to make excuses for Hitler’s behavior after 1939 are like Jews today who continue to rationalize everything Jews do by invoking the Holocaust or the threat of ‘New Hitlers’(who seem to sprout all over like mushrooms whenever Jews want to trigger yet another War for Israel or globo-Jewish-supremacism). In the 1970s, the music industry was hailing every new singer-songwriter as a ‘new Dylan’, and today, Jews who run foreign policy find ‘new Hitlers’ everywhere, which is rather ironic since if any people are acting like ‘new Hitlers’, it’s Jews like Victoria Nuland, Elliot Abrams, Benjamin Netanhayu, Bernie Sanders(a Zio-socialist), Bill Maher(just another Jewish supremacist), Rahm Emanuel(goat-faced gangster Jew), Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Abe Foxman, Richard Cohen, AEI sleazeballs, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, Sarah Silverman(vile hate-filled Jewess), Barbara Boxer(venomous Zio-witch who wants to take guns away from white Americans but ship more bombs to Israel so that more Palestinian women and children will be slaughtered by
David Brooks’ son and other IDF goons), and the rest of the gang.
It is indeed amazing that some ‘millennials’ are waking up to the problems of Jewish power, though, to be sure, it could just be a case of more sheeple behavior as universities now have segments of the faculty that are anti-Zionist. Such anti-Zionist figures come mainly in four kinds: (1) ultra-liberal Jews who are genuinely appalled by Israel’s increasingly blatantly rightist agenda (2) white Liberals and Leftists who, having swallowed the ideology of anti-race-ist & anti-nationalist universalism and the cult of ‘diversity’(pushed by Jews) whole hog, are baffled by aggressive Zionist behavior in the Middle East (3) foreign policy realists who believe that America’s national reputation and real interests are harmed by excessive subservience to the Jewish/Israeli Lobby (4) non-white or ‘people of color’ scholars who can’t help but notice parallels between Jewish treatment of Palestinians and Western European imperialism in Africa, Asia, Middle East, and etc. As university faculties become more diverse and filled up with ‘people of color’, the reputation of Israel keeps eroding. Jews are worried about academographics, especially with the rise of ‘people of color’ studies departments. As such departments rely on the politics of outrage to remain relevant, they need some ‘evil’ target to rail against, and since Israel is the most aggressive ‘Western’ power after the US(which is also controlled by Jews), there is growing rage on campuses against Zionism.
But then, there are still many more powerful professors who are pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. Furthermore, the Jewish Hand behind the scenes exert pressure on university administration not to hire professors who might be overly anti-Zionist. Recently,
one such effort involving Steven Salaita blew up in the face of Jews. Still, universities are one area where anti-Zionist rhetoric is relatively commonplace and allowed, and that could be why some ‘millennials’ have become either anti-Zionist or critical of Israel to some degree.
Why are ‘millennials’ generally so brain-dead and mindless? It’s not because they’re necessarily worse-educated. Heaven knows the 1980s and 1970s were hardly time of great academic achievements. I attended schools in the 70s and 80s, and the level of the education was no better than it is today. If anything, many post-boomer parents, as ‘helicopter parents’, ‘tiger moms’, or some such, have been far more intensively engaged with their kids’ education. When I grew up, my parents and those of most of my peers just looked at report cards and left everything to us, and most of us just goofed off, watched TV, or listen to pop music than finished our homeworks. During high school, I spent 4 hrs listening to music, 3 hrs watching TV, and maybe 30 min of homework on average everyday. To this day, the only Shakespeare I’ve read — ROMEO & JULIET and JULIUS CAESAR — was because highschool made me. I can’t imagine ‘millennials’ studying any less than we did.
I think the brain-dead-ness of ‘millennials’ has more to do with the breakdown of the bunkerist-vs-meatheadist dynamics. All they get is meatheadism from schools, news media, and entertainment. One reason is smaller families, especially among white folks. When people had more relatives in the past, they might know an uncle, aunt, or cousin with healthy ‘racist’ views. Today, as many kids are only kids whose parents are also only kids, their entire world-view is limited to themselves, their parents, and school/media. There is no uncle to tell them, "Well, Hitler was a sonofobitch but Jews are nasty buggers", or some aunt to straighten them out with, "MLK was a lying nigger who beat up women and laughed like an ape." Also, a cultural break took place in the 1960s that sort of relegated all of pre-60s America as mere prelude to the Real America of the Proposition. It’s no wonder that the Jew-run TIME magazine ran MLK on its cover as ‘the founding father’. It’s as if real American history begins in the 1960s. Many people certainly feel this way about American popular culture. Though there are still music lovers and movie lovers who know much about American music/cinema prior to the 60s, most young Americans have no interest in most movies and music prior to the 60s(unless its Jazz music highlighted by Ken Burns in his PBS series); it is indeed amazing that there’s no musical memory of America prior to Jazz among most Americans. A lot of young people still know who Frank Sinatra and Cole Porter are, but they hardly listen to them. As for 19th century American music, forget it. For most of them, the oldest ‘old music’ they’ll listen to is the Beatles or Stones. Ironically, though homos are committed to social transformation(as well as trans-other-things), they are more likely to be into retro-stuff as their dandy-ish and gay-ish nature makes them partial to old Hollywood glamour and neatly tailored music like that of Cole Porter’s. The Broadway Musical, as ‘art’ and fandom, is largely homosexual(or homo-and-Jewish).
Boomers who grew up with the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, and new cinema never much looked back to America prior to the 60s. It’s like the final scene in BABY IT’S YOU where 60s college kids are like ‘huh?’ when Frank Sinatra’s "Strangers in the Night" is played(though it too was recorded in the 60s). And generations following the 60s had little interest in or taste for popular culture prior to the 60s. Youngsters who were into The Who or Led Zeppelin had no use for anything other than Rock. And with the end of movie censorship and proliferation of violence and rough language in new American cinema, most old movies seemed boring and dull: b/w, lacking in blood & gore, scored with stuffy ‘classical-style’ music, and static. Many young people’s attitude toward b/w films is hardly more tolerable than toward Silent Cinema.
Anyway, even as many of the 60s generation rejected the culture and values of the pre-60s world, they still had contacts with earlier historical periods through family members, teachers, and entertainment. While they might be into Beatles or Stones, their uncles might be into Sinatra and grandfathers could be into even earlier music. And even though John Wayne was past him prime in the 60s and 70s, his movies were still shown regularly on TV. The Duke also won the Best Actor award in 1969, the year of THE WILD BUNCH, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, and EASY RIDER. In the 1970s, I watched a lot of WWII documentaries on TV made back in the 1940s that referred to the Japanese as ‘Japs’. And, neo-Stalinist censoring of children’s comics hadn’t yet taken place. So, I watched plenty of Tom and Jerry cartoons with the fat black lady going around screaming ‘THOMAS!!’ Also, as the 60s generation struggled for free speech, it wasn’t until the late 80s that this monster called Political Correctness reared its fearsome head in the institutions. Much of the initial 60s spirit was libertine than correctoid. The word ‘nigger’ could sometimes be heard on THE JEFFERSONS,
SANFORD AND SON,
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, and etc. And it was a time when many people in Hollywood, media, and academia — even liberals as liberals had always dominated those fields — held what might today be considered as ‘old-fashioned’, ‘reactionary’, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘patriarchal’, and/or ‘homophobic’ views. Especially funny was the running jokes about Japanese eating raw fish in sitcoms like BARNEY MILLER, a joke that no longer carries any punch since sushi has become a mainstay of American diet, found even in small towns. Even though the Civil Rights Movement had already put a damper on free discussion on racial matters and even though the feminist movement put men on the defensive on the issue of ‘sexism’, the fact remained that many older and middle-aged people working in the academia, news media, and entertainment in the 60s, 70s, and 80s were of another era. Though Pat Buchanan and Hunter Thompson had nothing in common in terms of politics, they could tolerate one another because they shared roots in a tougher/rougher America less given to the cult of Niceness. The division wasn’t merely left vs left but old vs young, and in cultural attitudes, the old right and old left often had more in common than with the young right or the young left who, in turn, might have more in common with each other. It’s like Ann Coulter would rather listen to Grateful Dead than to the Andrew Sisters or Kate Smith. It’s like even young Conservatives who loved Allan Bloom’s THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND vehemently disagreed with his views on the Rolling Stones.
It’s like old-time liberal Jews sometimes couldn’t see eye-to-eye on lots of matters with younger radical Jews who came of age in the 60s and 70s. On cultural matters, many older Jews were closet-Bunkers. Bunkerism was alive and well into the 70s and even remained to some extent in the 80s. By ‘Bunkerism’, I don’t necessarily mean the kind of small-minded world-view of Archie Bunker per se of ALL IN THE FAMILY. Rather, I mean a gritty grounding in reality, a hard-nosed skepticism about highfalutin ideals, being thick-skinned and expecting the same from others, and being suspicious of fashions and trends(especially as marketing or propagandistic tools). Bunkerites are not virgins about reality and human nature.
Of course, Archie Bunker the character of the TV sitcom is hardly an admirable character. He is a knee-jerk bigot about lots of things and peoples, and, in his own way, he is thin-skinned and censorious. He’s overly sensitive about people criticizing or attacking what he values, and we could see him supporting censorship for those accused of sedition. Back in the early 70s, the people at the ACLU were, without a doubt, more on the side of absolute freedom of speech whereas people like Archie Bunker(lower class right) and William F. Buckley(higher class right) were more likely to support controls on speech that might be deemed offensive. In the famous or notorious
debate between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley during the 1968 Democratic Campaign, it was Vidal who championed free speech and right to organize whereas Buckley argued that such unpatriotic activities should be quashed. Ironically, Buckley the Republican agreed with the Richard J. Daley, a Irish-American Democrat who was culturally conservative(a real Bunkerite) and would have been appalled by what his son has done to Chicago by handing it over to yuppie Jews and homos. And people like Patrick Buchanan grew up supporting the likes of Joseph McCarthy in their violation of civil liberties and the Catholic organizations in their suppression of free expression in arts and culture. So, it’s not simply true that there is any kind of natural link between the Right and Free Speech. Historically, liberals — though not radical leftists — have been on the side of free speech. If there was any group on the ‘right’ that was more for free speech than liberals were, they were libertarians, but libertarianism was always at odds with the real right. Libertarians found themselves on the ‘right’ because their absolute commitment to property rights made them hostile to New Liberalism’s tax-and-spend policies. Also, as Liberals gained dominance in the media and academia, most of the censoriousness began to come from the left and newer ‘left’. While many groups may be repressive in character, only the groups with power have the power-of-repression, and in America, people of the newer ‘left’ have control of most institutions, therefore they have the power-of-repression: Not necessarily because they are more repressive in character but because they have more means of repression in their hands. If the Catholic League of old dominated institutions today, repression would essentially be a Catholic/Conservative matter. Indeed, consider how
Mark Hackard the Christo-Conservative bitches and whines about violation of free speech in the West(now under PC) but idealizes a society that is anti-liberal-democratic, a society where his ilk would have the power of veto over free speech and free expression. He supported the counter-desecration against the ‘art work’ Piss Christ.
Though some libertarians joined the right and some rightists joined libertarianism, true libertarians and true rightists never saw eye to eye on much of anything. Liberterians-who-became-rights sought to use the right for libertarian purposes, and rightists-who-became-libertarians sought to use libertarianism for rightist purposes. As some libertarians saw the right as being for ‘small government’, they figured their natural home was on the political right. As some rightists saw libertarianism as being for local control and individual rights(and as long as local control and individual rights favored white/right interests), they figured that the natural political philosophy of rightists is libertarianism. But the ultimate goal of true libertarians was unfettered individualism(above nationalism and white interests) whereas the ultimate goal of true rightists was racial survival and power. The issue of libertarianism has been even thornier in cases where libertarians have been Jews. Such individuals claim to be True Libertarians working to root out ‘white racists’(who support libertarianism for cynical, opportunistic, and/or pragmatic reasons)from their camp. But then, many Jewish libertarians are also Jewish power-ites first and libertarians second. Take Ayn Rand who said she supports Israel because it’s a modern advanced democratic state defending civilization and freedom from barbaric and savage Arabs. It’s possible she was being sincere in principle.
But suppose Arabs were more technologically advanced and more democratic than Jews in the Middle East. Suppose modernized Arabs were crushing and oppressing culturally backward Jews(especially white Jews)in Israel like Zionist Jews are crushing the Palestinians. Would she have endorsed Arab political behavior because Arabs happened to be more ‘advanced’ and ‘civilized’? Using her logic, more advanced nations have the right to do ANYTHING to less advanced nations. So, would she say the Romans were right to crush Jerusalem in ancient times since it was more advanced? If there’s a community of traditionalist Jews that rejects modernity in the West, would Rand argue that the more advanced gentiles have the right to treat Jews like Zionist Jews have treated Palestinians? Following her logic, we should do as we please to the Amish community since it is, by modern standards, ‘primitive’ and backward.
I can’t help feeling that, deep down inside, there was a side to Rand that remained resolutely Jewish and tribal, and that was the main reason why she stuck up for Israel. After all, using her logic, since most Jewish immigrants arriving from Eastern Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th century were less advanced and more backward than Wasp-Americans, the latter should have treated the newcomers like Zionist-Jews have treated Palestinians: as second-class citizens or worse. But if a more advanced people have the right to treat a less advanced people that way, how could the latter ever advance and rise to a higher status? But then, do Jews really want Palestinians and Arabs to rise to a higher level? For all the yammering about ‘spreading democracy’ and modernizing the Middle East, Jews have been more worried about secular regimes than religious/traditionalist ones. After all, Jews get on just fine with the ultra-traditionalist Saudis while they’ve pulled every dirty trick in the book to undermine the secular regimes in places like Syria. In the end, the issue isn’t this -ism or that -ism. It’s about "Is it good for the Jews?" So, if the secular regime in Egypt got along with Israel, Jews were okay with secularism in Egypt while supporting Egypt’s harsh policies against the Muslim Brotherhood. But in the case of Syria, Jews in America and Israel work to fund and arm Muslim radicals to undermine the secular Assad regime. We must never forget that most Jews are always Jews first and whatever-else second. There are exceptions, just like there are black exceptions like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and Ben Carson. But just as it’d be foolish to hope that most blacks could ever be different — be more like Uncle Thomas — , it’s delusional to assume that most Jews would rise above Jewish supremacism.
 |
| Ben Carson may be a genuine man of character but it's a pipe dream for Conservatives to hope that most 'Jafros' could be like him. |
Besides, even Jews who genuinely rise above tribal mind-sets are as committed — if anything, even more so — to white democide as Jewish supremacists are. ‘Self-loathing Jews’ believe that Jews should JOIN with the white community in racial suicide. At any rate, most Jews are very proudly Jewish, and such pride can never be truly liberal. If Jews had been true liberals all along, Jewishness would have vanished from the earth eons ago. While liberalism is valuable as an outlook and a world-view, it is utterly useless as a form of identity since it lacks spine, sinew, and blood. Recall that American liberalism during WWII was very nationalistic, patriotic, and white-centric. It won the war and made it possible for US to become a super-power. Back then, even most white liberal Americans were Americans first and liberals second. But once white Americans began to embrace liberalism as their core identity, they began to lose their pride, power, and identity in a few generations. Liberalism should be about how one sees the world, not about how one sees onself. If Jews have been internally liberalized long ago, they would vanished from the earth as a powerful sense of tribal identity would have been absent to maintain a cohesive mind-set among Jews, especially as Jews were dispersed around the world. Survival of a people depends on continuity and connectedness. Continuity connects generations through the thread of time. The Old Testament isn’t just a collection of ideas, world-views, spiritual concepts, poetry, and musings. If it were only such, it would have been nothing more than an anthology. The thematic link in the Old Testament from beginning to end is about the continuity and connectivity among Jews through shared blood and shared dream of the Promised Land: Land and Pussy. Thus, there’s a deep cultural-and-tribal connection from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Job. It is from that rooted materiality in blood-and-soil that lends the Old Testament its power. And this is true of any national narrative. Some say that America is just a proposition, a bundle of ideas. But using this logic, suppose whites had never conquered, settled, and built America but just held this ‘proposition’ of America in their minds. What good would it be? If ‘America’ is just a proposition about ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘democracy’, then anyone walking around with such ideas is an ‘American’ — even if the actual America was never founded or created. It is to reduce America to a abstract utopianism as anyone can dream of his abstract ideal utopia. While there was a political idea behind America, what really made America was the fact that a certain people with certain racial characteristics, cultural heritage, and philosophical outlook conquered and settled the New Land and made it into their America. Furthermore, Jewish supremacists are not really trying to make a create an abstract America of the Proposition but a Jewish-controlled America by subverting the earlier Anglo-American Narrative of America in order to supplant it with a new vision of America that favors Jewish power: ‘diversity’ means Jewish elites get to play divide-and-rule among various dumb goyim. If indeed Jews really believe in the America of the Proposition where everyone just becomes a free individual, why are they so adamant about Jewish power and interests, and why do they stoke the flames of ‘people of color’ rage and homo-bitchiness against white Americans, especially when white gentile Americans are the most tolerant people in America. I mean the Wasp-American surrender of power to Jews and others is unprecedented in the history of the world. Whoever hands over that much power to another group of power without being militarily conquered? (By the way, if ‘America’ is just a proposition, then why do we refer to the land before Europeans arrived as ‘Pre-Columbian America’ or the Land of ‘Native Americans’? If ‘America’ is only a proposition, then everything outside the proposition — indigenous peoples were hardly ‘liberal democrats’ — shouldn’t be referred to as ‘early America’. After all, we don’t refer to Russians prior to the founding of USSR as ‘early Soviets’. The Soviet Proposition only took hold in 1917.)
Nothing has any value as a mere abstract proposition, and even the most abstract proposition, when put into practice, takes on particular characteristics. It’s like every nation developed its own brand of Christianity or Islam. It’s like liberal democracy in Germany isn’t what it is Turkey or Mexico. It’s like communism in Hungary wasn’t what it was in Russia.
Indeed, what good would Zionism be merely as a proposition? For it to have real value, it has to be practiced, and for Israel to truly be a Jewish state, it has to be run by Jews. It would be absurd to recruit Palestinians are ‘propositional Zionists’. Though America was founded with expansive universal ideas, there was no question that it could only have been founded by people grounded in the European tradition and Anglo temperament, and there’s no doubt that Europeans were likelier than other peoples given birth to such traditions.
But then, this is problematic because it implies that there is something unique among Europeans that tends toward radical universalism that will it undermine its own uniqueness. It suggests a crazy paradox: Only white people possess unique genetic traits that makes possible the development of liberal democracy, but the triumph of liberal democracy leads to radical universalism that attacks the very genetic uniqueness of whites that gives birth to universalism. It would imply that whites are being most white when they are working hardest to undermine their whiteness because, after all, they’re genetically predisposed to be more ‘altruistic’ and ‘objective’ than other peoples. But then, is it true that only European whites possess those qualities? After all, Jesus and St. Paul were Semites who grew out of the Jewish community. Might this New form of Judaism — what Christianity was in the beginning — have prevailed among Jews if St. Paul hadn’t, in an act of impatience, decided to give up on Jews and throw his lot with the gentiles, whereupon Jews came to associate the worship of Jesus with gentile hostility toward Jews than with hope of reform among their own kind? But then, those Jews who did become Christians melded with the gentile community, and those who refused to convert to the New Faith were likely more hardcore Jews by nature. As a result, it’s possible that the remaining Jewish community became even more hardcore because the more ‘liberal’ elements of the Jewish community had been lost to the Christian/gentile community. Likewise, there are liberal whites who want to merge with other races and hardcore whites who reject ‘conversion’ to the faith in ‘diversity’. So, liberal whites will likely meld and fade into rest of humanity(in effect lose their whiteness), and the remaining whites will be more hardcore in their race consciousness as the more liberal white elements will have vanished via race-mixing into the rest of humanity.
(Suppose a white community is 50% race-ist and 50% anti-race-ist. So, the white community is half-and-half ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. Suppose whites who are ‘liberal’ mix with other races. Their children will no longer be white. But suppose most whites who are ‘conservative’ retain their whiteness. Then, the white community will be almost 100% race-ist since the half of white community that was ‘liberal’ will have disappeared via mixing with other races.)
At any rate, the white rightist position that only whites are into ‘diversity’ is simply not true. If so, how did universalist Islam spread throughout Middle East as well as parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe? And why did so many non-white primitives welcome white explorers and travelers and even offer their women to whites for mating? After all, the indigenous Indian tribes of the Americas were less opposed to mating with other races than North American whites were. And Eskimos in the popular mythology — like in the movie with Anthony Quinn — even offered their wives to outsiders. In the movie SAVAGE INNOCENTS, Quinn’s character kills a white man for NOT sleeping with his Eskimo wife. Though non-white folks were tribal and warrior-like, they thought it was an honor to offer up their women to another tribe that was mightier. Though Conquistadores raped a bunch of indigenous women in the New World, it’s also true that native elites came to respect white invaders and wanted their daughters to marry with the conquerors as an offering of peace. So, whites are not unique in ‘racial suicide’ tendencies. Most peoples throughout history lived with the rule of "hump the women of the people we defeat OR let the people who defeat us hump our women". And indeed, one reason why the West was able to gain easy control over so much of the world during the Age of Empire was that most non-white peoples lived with such mind-sets. They respected power and were all-too-willing to surrender and submit to the greater power. And even though non-white peoples were tribally or clannishly organized, most of them lacked a powerful sense of ‘identity politics’. What trumped ideology and even tribalism was show of might, the show of power. If your people could prove to another people that your people were stronger, the other people would deliver their women up to your people. Even their elites would offer their daughters to marry your people if your people were seen as mightier. (Furthermore, as most societies were led by elites and elders, most people just went along with elite dictates. If the elites said, "we should surrender to the conquering power", everyone complied, and this is why Europeans were able to rule over much of the world with such ease. Once the elites were toppled or won over by the imperialist invaders, most people just followed. It was only much later that the people-in-general began to gain a sense of ‘identity politics’ independent of the dictates of their elites who were subservient to the foreign conquerors. For example, initially the masses of Vietnamese and Algerians just went along with the indigenous elites who submitted to the French Colonialists. But the spread of Western nationalist ideology came to affect the educated folks among the non-whites, and it was these individuals who began to defy and rebel against their own collaborationist elites and then against the imperialists themselves.) Look how the tribal men in THE BOUNTY — the Roger Donaldson movie with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson — offer up their women to white men who arrive in a big ship that awes that natives. Indeed, the local chieftain offers one of his wives as sexual playmate to the Captain played by Hopkins. It was only in the modern age that non-white folks developed a powerful sense of racial and national consciousness as a form of collective ideology. In earlier times, their rule was "if we beat them, we hump their women, but if they beat us, they hump our women". It was power-ism over tribalism. But once Third World peoples were infected with European-style racial consciousness and nationalist identity, it was no longer a matter of
‘winner takes it all, loser standing small’. Instead, even if your people were losers, the new ideal called for banding together, fighting together, and using whatever means to drive out the foreign enemy. Prior to such mind-set, the Vietnamese elites made peace with the French imperialists and offered their women to French men. They didn’t think to rouse up their own peoples and lead a massive rebellion. But with the rise of the Viet Minh, it became a matter of "us vs them". It didn’t matter to the modern Vietnamese patriots that the French and Americans were mightier and had more weapons. They were going to fight to the last man for the glory and ‘liberation’ of Vietnam. Though Viet Minh was communist and nominally committed to the ‘brotherhood of man’ and etc., their real sentiments were race-ist and nationalist.
And it was the rise of such mentality in the Third World(concomitant with the rise of ‘anti-racism’ and anti-nationalist ideologies in the West) that gave the false impression that whites are uniquely possessed of traits that favor altruism, tolerance, communal/collective suicide, and etc., whereas non-whites are naturally hostile to foreign rule and domination.
In truth, whites currently think and behave the way they do because they’re the pussy-whipped colonialist-imperialist subjects of the Jewish globo-imperialist elites. Most white folks fail to see Jews as imperialist overlords because Jewish power developed from inside the West than was imposed from the outside world. European imperialists nakedly invaded and conquered other peoples. In contrast, Jews entered into the very body of white nations and wormed themselves to the very top. Because Jewish power grew from within the West, white folks don’t see it as the influence of an alien elite. To be sure, whites once were suspicious of Jewish power, but the Holocaust cult has made it virtually impossible for white folks to call out on the Real Jew. So, even as Jews go all out to destroy the white race/identity/culture, white people are obliged to perceive and praise Jews as the very heart-and-soul of the West.
But then, Jews know and feel differently when it comes to their own identity and interests. Jews are like elephants that ‘never forget’. Jews are not falling for the neo-rightist crap about how Jews and white conservatives are natural allies and eternal friends. Jews know their own history. The sleazy likes of William F. Buckley, through their cynical support of Zionism and Jewish privilege, hoped to convince Jews that conservatives(at least American conservatives as opposed to nasty European ones) love Jews so very much, whereas liberals, non-whites, and others hate Jews. After all, isn’t the GOP more supportive of Israel than certain factions within the Democratic Party? Aren’t Jews and Christians bound together by ‘Judeo-Christian’ values? (Though it’s true enough that Christianity grew out of Judaism, it’s also true that Christianity has been as much a departure from and an opposition to Judaism as its outgrowth. It’s like Maoism was both an outgrowth of and a rebellion against Soviet Communism. Has anyone heard of Christo-Islamic values? While Islam owes a great deal to Christianity, it was also a decisive break from the Christian tradition and values.) I know many gentile conservatives ask, "Aren’t Jews, in having preserved their own culture for thousands of years, essentially a conservative people?" Such simple logic fails to address the fact that Jews, tribal or modern, have done better under liberal democracies that have guaranteed rights to minorities than under conservative gentile socio-political orders that either, at best, tolerated Jews without offering them legal equality or persecuted them as an alien people. White Conservative appeal to Jews essentially goes like this: "We are privileged, rich, and powerful people, and you Jews are a privileged, rich, and powerful people. So, how about we work together for our mutual interests and the hell with the rest of them?" But Jews aren’t biting because they still see whites as their main rivals and because their moral righteousness is premised on their tragic victim-hood at the hands of white rightists. Of course, white conservatives assure Jews that they are now completely de-toxed of wicked ‘antisemitism’ and now love, love, and love Jews, indeed so much so that they will happily support Israel’s massive oppression of Palestinians. While Jews are appreciative of white conservative support of Israel, they also think, "Didn’t these same people once see us as they see Palestinians today?" So, even though white conservatives now suck up to Jews, the Tribe feels that white conservatives still have a tendency to degrade the suffering of non-white people. In the past, white conservatives supported the repression of Jews as Jews weren’t considered as ‘one of us’. Today, white conservative claim to have reformed themselves, but only the rules have changed whereas the game remains the same. As white conservatives value Jews as heart-and-soul of the West, whatever Jews, as ersatz-whites, do to oppress and tyrannize Palestinians is okay since Palestinians are not considered ‘one of us’ but as one of ‘them’. Of course, wicked, vicious, devious, and venal Jews have manipulated this aspect of white conservatism to fool white conservatives into seeing blacks and Jews(and even homos) as part of ‘one of us’ — Rand Paul now wants to bring blacks to the GOP — while seeing Russians(a white people) as part of ‘them’. It is truly surreal when we hear American Conservatives vilify Russia because....uh... it doesn’t allow ‘gay marriage’ and won’t let the Pussy Riot to run riot in Russian Churches.
 |
| Victor Davis Hanson the pitiful punk 'conservative' who supports the Jew-endorsed Pussy Riot against the Russian nation, church, and people. |
Anyway, even though Archie Bunker is no hero or saint, there is something true about him that cannot be said for Meathead who, for all his ideals, has poor grounding in reality. If Bunker is too knee-jerk in his prejudices, Meathhead is too soft-hearted in his ‘progressivism’. While Bunker’s prejudices can be excessive and idiotic, Meathead’s automatic anti-prejudice can be utterly naive and fantastic. Bunker is overly prone to seeing the negatives of outside groups whereas Meathead is overly prone to seeing the positives(while seeing nothing but negatives about whites).
To the extent that Bunker, for all his patriotism and ethnic solidarity, is pretty cynical about his own people makes him more realistic about life. The thrust of the show is about how Bunker becomes a better man by losing some of his prejudices — at least in degree — and about how Meathead becomes wiser by losing some of his ideals. The truth lies not in mindless bigotry or in eyeless idealism. And despite being main rivals/enemies, Bunker has something valuable to learn from Meathead, and Meathead has something valuable to learn from Bunker. We should try to rise above knee-jerk prejudices, but our good-willed fantasies also need to be checked by reality, which will always be a rough than a rosy thing. Though ALL IN THE FAMILY was written, directed, and performed by Jewish liberals — Carroll O’Connor himself was a liberal Democrat — , most of them were middle-aged and were all-too-aware of the cocky naivete of boomer radicals who seem to think all they needed was love, grass, and anti-war slogans. Though politically sympathetic with the Left and hostile to American conservatism — especially as Hollywood and TV were then, as now, controlled by Jews — , they were irritated by the mindless idiocies and impatience of the New Left and Counterculture.
Indeed, the ‘conservative’ archetype became a fixture in popular culture because many people wanted some voice that was grounded in reality during a time of social upheaval fueled by ideological fantasies. It’s like almost every state went with Nixon in 1972. It’s like many people loved Vito Corleone in THE GODFATHER. It’s like SANFORD AND SON had a Bunker-like figure in Fred G. Sanford. It’s like both the characters of THE ODD COUPLE were politically incorrect in their own way — though some might it might say it was like proto-homo-propaganda with two guys living together as a ‘couple’. Felix was an elitist snob, and Oscar had no use for niceties of any kind. And there was Lou Grant on THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW.
So, there was a balance of Bunkerism and Meatheadism in the culture-at-large, something that is wholly missing in the culture of the so-called millennials who know nothing but PC and more PC.
Also, prior to the rise of Political Correctness, there was a division between personal life and political consciousness. It wasn’t the case that the Personal is Political and the Political is Personal. So, figures like Lou Grant could be a ‘male chauvinist patriarch’ in his personal life but a political liberal in his public life. One could have and share politically incorrect views outside the purview of politics. It’s like Donald Sterling was one thing publicly, another thing personally. And there was a time when the media and academia mainly respected the division. It’s like people were upset over the revelations of Elvis Presley’s ‘racism’ in private life, but they still admired his public persona as the King of Rock n Roll.
But with the rise of PC, the political permeated into the personal. The private life is dead in America. So, if some guy enters his house, hides in a closet, and mutters ‘fag’ under his breath, and if it gets out that he hid in the closet in his house and said ‘fag’ all alone, he will be attacked, reviled, and destroyed. This is why Liberals support all these new rules and regulations about where people can smoke, what people can eat, and etc. It’s a way to get all of us used to the notion that people-who-know-better have the right not only to control the public sphere but our private spheres and personal behaviors as well. In times past, there were a host of spheres that weren’t political. To be sure, one can argue that everything is implicitly political because even our cultural and personal activities reflect the political-economic order we live in. After all, try to act like Cyndi Lauper in communist Cuba or Islamic Saudi Arabia. Even if you don’t have a political bone in your body and only wanna have fun, you will be arrested and charged by the system that finds that kind of behavior aberrant and offensive.
Even so, most spheres in America were not blatantly political or ideological prior to PC.
But today, even a Girl Scouts instruction manual is filled with PC gibberish. Even highschool and college yearbooks are filled with PC slogans and yammerings. Jewish Liberals once called for the removal of Christian and Patriotic symbols and displays from the public sphere because such violated neutrality and objectivity, but the very same Jews work tirelessly to fill the vacuum with their own secular cults of the new sacred, like worship of homos whose idea of ‘sex’ is fecal penetration. It’s difficult to walk anywhere without being stalked by the ‘gay rainbow’.
In some ways, the Liberals are the New Conservatives because they are the enforcers of the New Normal. In a way, the totalitarian mind-set has roots in religion, especially in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. While Jewish, Christian, and even Islamic values could be credited for the progress, liberation, and enlightenment of mankind — after all, there have been many terrifying and ghastly tyrannies outside socio-political orders steeped in Judeo-Christo-Islam-ism — , their conception of the all-pervasive God meant that there was no place to hide and not only for the body but for the soul. In Greek mythology, gods could be out to harm a mortal, but he might flee from the wrath of the gods, especially with the aid of other gods who look upon him with sympathy. So, no god has total control over anyone in body and especially in soul. Gods are powerful and to be respected, but a private sphere of body and soul was thought to exist apart from the gods. And most gods didn’t have the power to peer into the souls of man.
But according to the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition, there is not only one God but He is all-powerful, all pervasive, & all-present and has the absolute power to peer into every corner of your soul at all times. There is no place to hide from the one and only God. It’s like after Cain kills Abel, he cannot hide his evil deed from God. God not only saw what he did but can ‘see’ how he thinks and feels. In pagan myths, men often fools the gods — as Odysseus did time and time again — , but God can never be fooled. Indeed, even the thought of fooling God is sinful. Orwell’s 1984 is about communism as a spiritual system where Big Brother tries to be the all-pervasive eye and mind of the State as the new god. It is rooted in the Judeo-Christian spiritual tradition.
In some ways, the Jewish spiritual concept was a moral advancement because it implied that justice isn’t simply a matter of what you do in front of other people’s eyes but what you think and feel within the depth of your soul, especially as God is always watching and cannot be fooled. So, it doesn’t matter that Cain could have killed his brother and hid the truth from other people. The fact remains that God knows Cain did it, and that means Cain is condemned in the eyes of God. And as there is only one God, there are no other gods that might offer sanctuary to Cain in return for offerings. And God Himself cannot be bribed.
Even so, Jewish law emphasized laws and behavior over inner thought. Though one had to be sincerely reverential and obedient before God, one’s relation to other people was judged mainly according to behavior as prescribed the laws in the Old Testament. So, it was enough that one didn’t commit adultery and murder. Though it wasn’t good to fantasize about adultery and murder, one was innocent as long as one didn’t act out one’s urges. Of course, the moral issue could be tricky at times. It’s like King David had adultery on his mind when he took Bathesheba. Though he didn’t technically murder her husband, he sent him to sure death so that he could have the man’s wife. It was a kind of indirect murder. He did it ‘legally’, but he abused his power of kingship and toyed with the law for his own gain — as Jewish supremacists do today by sending white gentiles to die in Wars for Israel while Jews reap all the benefits. (But if King David had a courageous Prophet to set him straight, we only have cowards in America who are eager to serve Jews even more by sacrificing more of their gentile brethren to the Jewish supremacist grinder of gentile souls and bodies.) Anyway, if David had only felt the lust but hadn’t acted on it the way he did, he would have been innocent.
In contrast, within the moral realm of Christianity even wrongful thoughts are as wicked as actions taken in their service. It’s like Lancelot frets about his desire for Guinevere in EXCALIBUR as he mutters "We are innocent but not in our hearts". If Jewish morality is a matter of laws and behavior, Christian morality is a matter of the innermost depths of the heart.
In some ways, one could say this makes Christianity softer, deeper, and more sincere in its values, but in other ways, it makes Christianity more totalitarian and puritanical in its obsessive will to stamp out all wickedness. (Also, if Jewish morality is a matter of goodness toward God and other Jews, Christian morality is a matter of goodness toward all people around the world. That explains why Jews never feel guilt over what they’ve done to goyim whereas Christians feel much guilt about whatever wrong they may have committed against non-Christians.) According to Judaism, one’s bad behavior brings curse upon one’s children for a few generations, but according to Christianity, one’s bad behavior that isn’t forgiven by God and Jesus can lead to prolonged or endless pain in Hell. In some ways, Christianity seemed like a liberation from all the strictures of Judaism with so many burdensome rules and archaic customs. A Christian need not be burdened with all the cultural baggage of the Jews. For one thing, a Christian man didn’t have to be circumcised. He could eat fried shrimp and baby back ribs(though given the tragic grandeur of pigs, a most noble animal, that was never a good thing). And yet, the spiritual burden within the soul was greater in Christianity because not only were the teachings of Jesus impossibly idealistic but because one’s thoughts and feelings mattered as much as one’s actions and deeds. A Jew could have wicked thoughts, but as long he controlled them and obeyed the laws, he was safe. A Christian with wicked thoughts wasn’t so safe. (Indeed, Christianity even went so far as to say a man could do all the good deeds in the world and never harm anyone but shall still burn in Hell for all eternity if he failed to secure the blessing of God and Jesus. On the other hand, man can commit all the horrible sins but still be forgiven if he sincerely repents and gives his life to God and Jesus.) Especially as Christians separated themselves from the legalistic control mechanism of the Old Testament(that minutely spelled out what was okay and what was not okay), they needed a new control mechanism, and this called for a powerful inner-sense of shame, doubt, and guilt. It led to a kind of auto-totalitarian mind-set. (And Islam got even crazier because it combined the legalistic totalism of Judaism with the soul-totalism of Christianity.) Marxism was an outgrowth of Judeo-Christian mind-set even as Karl Marx claimed to be a rationalist-materialist-scientist. And its totalitarianism is partly rooted in the mind-set of Judeo-Christian system. And the same applies to Political Correctness, especially as it isn’t only committed to changing our behaviors but also changing our minds and then ultimately our souls. It’s like PC initially said we should tolerate homos. And then it said we should be mindful not to say things that might offend homos. And then it said we must praise homos. Today, it wants us to worship homos with the deepest sincerity within our hearts. And finally, it will check to see if our devotion to homo-worship is sincere or just a put-on.
Today, when someone is caught saying something un-PC in private, the issue isn’t about his right to privacy but the need to tar-and-feather and roast him at the stake of ‘public opinion’ controlled by Jewish supremacists who control the academia, media, courts, and government. Thus, personal honesty has been closeted, and all of us must not only kneel before the holy altar of homo worship but we must beat our breasts until we feel love homos with the sincerest devotion.
Though we shouldn’t discount the good things Christianity has done for humanity, we also need probe the damage it has done. Ironically in our PC world, those who are most anti-Christian in social politics also tend to be most Christian-ish in their soul-totalism. PC is neo-puritanism, and it is now the main supplier of the burden of guilt for the white race. It’s as if white folks, having been conditioned by Christianity for so long, crave for something to feel guilty about. Though white Liberal folks support the Narrative that says once-repressed-and-joyless white Christians have been liberated by Jewish secularism and Negro funky rhythms, their lives still feel empty unless they can fixate on something to feel guilty and shameful about. Liberals may no longer believe in the General Will of politics but they crave for the General Pill of white self-loathing. They can feel truly good only by having something to feel bad about(mostly about their own race). Consider white folks’ feelings about their racial beauty. In the religiously puritanical past, white folks were made to feel ashamed about their beauty on spiritual grounds. Beauty was thought to lead to paganistic vanity, narcissism, and lusty sinfulness. How dare people feel proud of their beauty when selfless Jesus was physically mauled and died agonizingly on the Cross? If most white folks were naturally ugly, maybe it wouldn’t have mattered much. But because many white folks were good-looking, the devotion to morality and allure of physical beauty became problematic. Beauty led to vanity, but Christianity was about the purity of the soul and rejection of fleshly desires. And in the far north regions, the ‘cleanness’ of appearance(light skins, angular features, blonde hair, and blue eyes) seem to compete with cleanliness of the soul. But no matter how clean one looked in appearance, it was a devilish deception since true cleanliness is a matter of the soul, not of the skin or flesh. It’s like the clean-looking ‘angel’ fools ‘Jesus’ in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Looks can easily deceive the soul.
As only the soul can be pure by rejecting the temptations of the flesh, clean beauty was an affront to the notion of spiritual purity. Flesh could never be pure or clean since it was about sensual pleasures that distracted one’s soul from spiritual truth. A well-groomed beautiful woman might look like the cleanest thing, but her ‘cleanliness’ only made men feel horny. So, Puritans wore ‘drab’ black clothes that suppressed beauty and vanity. The most light-skinned folks wore some of the blackest clothes in the world. And the women often covered their hairs with funny hats and stuff.
 |
| DAY OF WRATH by Carl Dreyer |
But the modern world did away with such feelings of guilt and shame. Nordics could take off their clothes and run around like sex-crazed modern Swedes. But the craving for the cult of shame and guilt remained. And this new guilt came to be associated with racial purity. During religious times, the guilt was about the vanity of beauty posing a challenge to the purity of the spirit. Clean-looking beauty, especially among the Nordics, created an impression of purity, but what did beauty really lead to? As Beavis would say, ‘boing’ and pleasures of the flesh. So, beauty had to be suppressed or hidden though ‘drab’ black clothes that made women look sexless and made men look like that guy on the can of Quaker Oates.
 |
| No Wild Oates Here. |
With secular liberalism, all repressive attitudes could be tossed off and people could enjoy their sexuality. But the postwar ideology that equated clean-looking white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes with the horrors of the Holocaust — as if all white folks with such traits were guilty of closet-Nazism — revived neo-puritanism in the form of PC. Light-skinned Northern Europeans were made to feel morally impure because of their purer genetics. As PC morality favored diversity, equality, and universality, the more genetically pure a group of whites were, a bigger affront they were to the cult of ‘diversity’.
If clean physical beauty was an affront to clean spiritual purity during religious times(thus requiring good folks to suppress and hide their beauty under ‘drabness’), the clean racial qualities of Northern Europeans came to be seen as neo-sinful as an affront to the PC ‘spiritual’ purity that called on all of humanity to open all borders and mix and turn into mulattos and mestizos in the faith that race-mixing will turn all of us wiser, smarter, and more beautiful. (If that is so, I wonder why so many Jewish, mestizo, mulatto, and black men prefer pure white women to mixed-race women? If Tiger Woods is so proud of his mixed-race-ness, why doesn’t he find himself a woman who is black, Asian, white, and American Indian? Why is he so horny for blonde Nordic types?) If in old days, Northern Europeans put on black clothing, today they try to blacken their DNA by race-mixing with jigger-jivers from Africa, and of course, Jews push this agenda as they are a ‘jealous people’ like their God is a jealous God. Jews can’t stand other peoples being better than they are in any department, and in beauty, they know they’re far behind the Nordics. So, Jews see Nordics as a false idol race that must be smashed and destroyed until the last Nordic woman has a baby with some Jafro-jiver from Africa. If you look like Anthony Weiner or Elena Sotomayor, of course you’re going to hate people who look better than your kind. In some ways, PC is more puritanical than old time religion. If religion made Nordics put on black clothes, today PC makes them take on black skin through race-mixing. Ironically, Northern Europeans are made to feel less pure because they have purer European genes. But then, this has roots in how Christianity made Northern Europeans feel shameful of their beauty. In the post-religious age, it was okay for Northern Europeans to flaunt physical beauty, but because their light white skin came to be associated with the Holocaust(and because a neo-religion grew up around it), they became ashamed and guilt-ridden of their own racial-physical attributes; therefore, many try to find redemption through darkening their racial genetics, especially by mixing with ghastly Negroes from Africa. It’s really messed up.
Anyway, the rise of PC has as much to do with the decline of Bunkerism that had existed in all communities. And this bunkerism had once existed on the ‘left’ as well as on the ‘right’. And oddly enough, you were more likely to find it in communist Eastern Europe than in the capitalist West during the Cold War. Though communism was ideologically more committed to stuff like feminism, much of the heart-and-soul of traditionalism or naturalism remained more intact because of poorer economies, lack of lawyers, lack of comparable consumer/popular culture, media control by the state that favored social order over endless new crusades, and because the East had always lagged the West in economic development and social trends. In the West, feminists could hire lawyers to sue any business that discriminated against women. The media could promote feminist complaints. Feminist academics could make a big fuss about women’s studies and women’s rights. And popular culture could get youngsters all riled up with feminist slogans and cliches. Though communism was nominally ‘feminist’, all women had to trust the state that claimed to have the best interests of all women in mind. There were no lawyers that feminists could hire to sue the state. Female academics had to be mainly devoted to communism that was about the interests of all workers, regardless of sex. And as the state was careful to maintain the image of an orderly and healthy society, the media were used by the state to send a message that men and women were both well off in socialist paradise. Of course, reality didn’t jibe with reality, but since there wasn’t much that the people could do about it, they grew cynical and came to rely on things that made immediate sense: family, community, tradition(however closeted), and whatever-was-pragmatic-and-worked. And since the economy barely eked by, the main concern was having enough to eat, enough to wear, and etc. In such a world, it was difficult to be too idealistic. Consider the world depicted in
Emir Kusturica’s WHEN FATHER WAS AWAY ON BUSINESS. None of this is meant as an endorsement of communism as it was a miserable ideology. But the advantage of the failure of communist ideology was that it made Archie Bunkers of everyone, indeed even of communists who said one thing but did something quite another.
The West, in contrast, was far more successful in producing goods and services, and many people became quite affluent. Even working class folks could send their kids to colleges, an undreamed-of-thing in generations past. As there was so much wealth and freedom, there were ways by which various groups could get more through lawsuits and government policies based on newly minted ideological crusades about how to make a better world. As communism was the only game in town in communist nations, its failure made everyone more wary of idealism and more realistic about things of daily survival. In the West, as no single ideology held sway, the failure of one bunch of ideologies could tirelessly be replaced by newly formulated ones that promised new hopes. Ideologies thrived like fashions, indeed as fashions. Though every fashion goes out of fashion, there’s new fashion to engage and entice the people-as-suckers. The failures of so many utopianisms is what keeps utopianism alive in the West. If there’s only one form of utopianism(macrotopianism or monotopianism), its failure would awaken people to reality. But if there are only mini-utopianisms(or minitopianisms), their failures can always be replaced by new ones, even if the newly minted ones are really recycling of old discredited ones. It’s no wonder that hipsterism feels so neo-retro, a kind of same ‘new’, same ‘new’. Also, the West perfected the ‘art’ of ‘creativizing’ things so that they can be made into something entirely other while maintaining the cachet of continuity.
If there was a core body of orthodoxy attached to Marxism, there are no fixed truths to Western Liberalism or Conservatism. Today, Liberals are trying to ‘creativize’ Christianity into a homo-friendly religion, which is like associating Las Vegas with Christmas. But then, in a nation where Christmas festivities matter more than the real meaning of Christmas(as reiterated by Linus in MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN), ‘creativization’ of stuff shouldn’t be too surprising. Just look at what’s happened of Christmas in the Black Friday events at Walmart. It is disgusting. Consider how the GOP and Democratic Party has been re-branded ‘creatively’. GOP, the party of Lincoln, is now the Neo-Confederate(or NeoCon-federate)Party, and the Democratic Party, once the party of Big Labor, is now the party of super-rich urban gentry that promote stuff like ‘gay marriage’ that has no meaning and worth to the masses of working class white folks, blacks, browns, or masses of Third World immigrants. Western ideologies are more a matter of clever advertising and realignment/reconfiguration than any commitment to a set of values or principles. As such, they do make cynics of all of us, but because they keep us deluded with ever-changing ‘minitopian’ hopes, we keep getting suckered over and over again. Such smoke-and-mirrors are very useful to Jewish supremacist elites because, if we were to see through the smoke, it would be obvious that most of the ideological wrangling is about gentile masses being taken for suckers by Jews who seek to divide-and-rule over goyim.
Crucially, the rise of higher education and mass media favored meatheadism to bunkerism. When most young people couldn’t go to college, they had to find work early in life. Though membership in the working class could turn a person to the left economically, it also made him more hard-nosed about life. It made him skeptical about people with higher learning and fancy ideas. Also, prole resentment of the rich could turn anti-liberal because rich educated folks tended to put on fancy liberal-ish airs. Though liberal rich professed to help the workers and the poor, the workers and poor might associate liberal attitudes with privilege. Also, as the pride of the working class relied on its distinction from the underclass of the poor and unemployed, it was hostile toward elite liberal policies that favored those below the working class. The working class, especially white ethnic ones, resented policies that favored poor blacks, newly arrived non-white immigrants, and ‘poor white trash’. The working class had a stronger sense of survivalism because they could easily slide into poor status themselves. Rich white liberals could afford to be compassionate and sanctimonious since they were several leagues above the poor, but the working class was struggling not only to climb higher to be remain above the poor below them. So, whenever rich white liberals favored policies that favored blacks and the poor, the white working class turned more Archie-Bunker-ish. In some ways, it was petty, but in other ways, it was understandable since the white working class really had to work very hard all their lives just to make ends meet. It’s like Archie Bunker took decades to finally pay all the mortgage on his house and call it his own. It’s like the Clint Eastwood character in GRAN TORINO slaved away in the auto factory all his life to buy his house and raise a family. Nothing came easy to them. This is certainly true of Archie Bunker... and probably of Meathead’s father as well.
In PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, the young Jewish character is angry every time his father uses the term ‘nigger’. It may well be that both father and son are Democrats and political liberals, but his father, in having to sell insurance to black people door-to-door, sees them for what they be: a bunch of Negroes with a poor sense of priority. He doesn’t hate them, but he’s sometimes driven crazy by them; and this was during a time when most blacks grew up in two-parent families and lived in more stable communities with less crime. In contrast to his father, Portnoy got more proper education, so he’s bound to be more idealistic but also more naive as well. The influence of education made him more sensitive to epithets like ‘niggers’, and that’s a good thing to some extent because it just isn’t very dignified to refer to black folks as ‘niggers’ because ‘niggers’ is not a good word, so we should all be mindful not to say stuff like ‘niggers’ because there are other terms like ‘Negroes’ that sound far more dignified than ‘niggers’ that has become a taboo word for good reasons, though it must be said that black people call each other ‘niggers’ for reasons that only blacks as ‘niggers’ understand about other blacks whom they address as ‘niggers’. But Portnoy’s father grew up among less educated and sensitive folks, so it was normal for them to talk amongst one another and refer to blacks as ‘niggers’. Indeed, even when I was growing up, it was generally okay to use the word ‘niggers’ as long as you were among friends and blacks were not around. Obviously, it would have been stupid to talk about ‘niggers’ in front of strangers, but if you knew the person and if the person knew where you were coming from, you could talk about ‘niggers’ even if you were both liberals. In reading class in 8th grade in my Middle School class filled with Jewish kids, one girl misread the word ‘Niger’(the nation) as ‘nigger’, and even though the Jewish teacher was in the mode of ‘shame, naughty, naughty’, we thought it was a riot. (The school also had Slave Day where students volunteered to be sold as a slave-for-a-day to raise money for programs. The students were sold off auction style of the Old South. The Jewish reading teacher bought a big tall Jewish kid and dressed him up as a mammy. Personally, I thought that was pretty offensive then — not least because I’d arrived from a city public school with blacks, some of whom were my friends, and because I was deeply moved by ROOTS the novel and the TV series, which I watched almost religiously over and over[THE PLANET OF THE APES being the only other movie I watched more often in my youth], which goes to show that despite one’s view of reality[I didn’t care for most blacks in my city school and was glad to move away from the darkening neighborhood], one could be profoundly be affected by media and think & feel in direct contrast to reality all around — and still think so now, but contrary to the Jewish Narrative, that sort of thing wasn’t restricted to some ‘racist’ fraternity or the Deep South.) I personally disliked most blacks in reality but sympathized more with blacks-in-the-abstract than with any other people(more than for my own people), so I guess it was only a matter of time before I had to choose reality or the fantasy. It’s possible that if I could have avoided most blacks since the time my family moved to the suburbs, I might remained a ‘progressive’ all my life. A part of me found blacks loathsome but another part of me that had been conditioned and shaped by the prevailing ideology assumed that blacks were made crazy by ‘racist’ whites, and I spent a good part of my highschool calling out on ‘racism’ on gentiles and Jews alike whenever they made some negative remark about Negroes. I figured who are these privileged whites, Jews, and yellows to put down the Negroes when it was I who’d spent some time with them and knew them. I didn’t like the Negroes generally, but I felt a certain camaraderie with the ‘brothas and sistaz’ because these white/Jewish/yellow kids seemed to be so smug and glib in their easy suburban upbringing. They seemed to lack any sense of reality. In the city, you had to know reality because it was a matter of ‘survival’. So, even though blacks were causing most of the violence, the whole black stuff about ‘survival’ made life seem so real because you couldn’t take anything for granted. In contrast, the Jewish/white/yellow kids in the suburbs seemed to have it so good. They were mostly lower-middle class to upper-middle-class, but to someone from a working class family from the city(and before that from small towns), that was rich enough. Jewish/white/yellow kids had an expression for everything they held in disdain: ‘gay’. They’d say ‘this is so gay’, ‘that is so gay’. In the city, no one talked like that. It was you kicked ass or got your ass kicked. And black girls were as crazy as black boys, and the biggest fight I recall was between some tough black kid and a black bitch behemoth who was twice the size of most boys. It was more violent that the Hearns-Hagler fight, with the black guy just barely eking out a victory with a combination of punches to the beastly dreadlock-headed bitch. A lot of blacks made me sick, but their world was real in the way that white/Jewish/yellow suburb was not. You took nothing for granted in the city. You couldn’t dismiss something as simply ‘gay’. You stood your ground and whupped ass or you ran like a mothafuc*a. It was like watching a wildlife program on PBS. So, even as I was glad to get out of there, I felt a certain kind of pride that veterans of wars feel: "I’ve been there". But these white/Jewish/yellow suburban kids who grew up in safety, ease, and relative privilege seemed not to know shit. And when they said some ‘ignorant’ stuff about Negroes, I got pissed. But then I also got pissed when some of them were proto-PC and said good kindly things about Negroes. Because their view of Negroes was naive and patronizing when, in fact, their asses would have been eaten alive by the fearsome and ghastly Negroes in the city school I’d attended. It’s one thing to see Negroes for what they be — baboonish humans — and feel something for them because of America’s history of racial discrimination, but it was another thing to see blacks as just helpless saints who were just begging for white pity. That was bull.
That said, most of our parents in the suburbs were not fancy folks. Even the Jewish kids mostly didn’t have doctors or lawyers for parents. Most yellow kids had immigrant parents, and white kids were, at best, middle class. So, their parents and grandparents knew nothing of Political Correctness mind-set, and their un-PC-ness rubbed off on us. And it was a time when newspaper columnists tended to be guys like Jimmy Breslin and Mike Royko — political liberals with bunkerite tendencies — who today would be fired from the media in a second. My dad’s politics ranged from far left to solid liberalism — depending on his mood — , but he was never one to hesitate from racial slurs about every group on earth. To be sure, in most cases it was just a way of saying of putting the cards on the table and saying we should discuss things honestly, and my house was like the biggest free-speech zone as I could say just about anything as long as I really meant it. It’s like if you wanna break the ice and speak candidly about things, it’s good to use foul words like ‘a**hole’ and ‘fuc*er’ and etc. In doing so, you aren’t intending hostility or anger but signaling that you want a no-holds-barred discussion on things without the inhibition of manners and niceties. Of course, you can’t talk in this mode with just anyone. It has to be among friends or family members you really trust. In such a setting, using a word like ‘nigger’, ‘Polack’, ‘kike’, ‘chink’, ‘dothead’, ‘honkey’, ‘spick’, ‘faggot’, ‘bitch’, ‘drunken Irish’, ‘kraut’, ‘greaseball’, ‘dyke’, ‘fatso’, and etc. isn’t meant hatefully. It’s just a way of saying let’s not hold anything back and speak what we really feel. And this is the honest side of Bunkerism, Fred G. Sanfordism, and George Jeffersonism. And maybe Ralph Krameden-ism(for fans of THE HONEYMOONERS). That was the whole appeal of Don Rickles. Sure, he overplayed the bigot card, but despite all the exaggerations and crazy, he was likely to say some things that were true about whites, Jews, blacks, homos, yellows, Latinos, and etc. that respectable people were afraid to say.
And this is the way I’ve talked with my close friends — liberal or conservative — when we wanted a truly honest conversation. And surely, there are kids who talk like this today as well, but I get the impression that what you say, even with your friends, is a much more sensitive issue today than in the past. Years ago, my sister, who settled in some bogus ‘blue city’ used to find the fruitkin scene in MEAN STREETS funny as hell. And it didn’t bother her what I said about homos though she was far more sympathetic toward them for as long as I can remember. But in recent yrs, she gets upset if I mention the nature of homosexuality, with all that fecal penetration and stuff. She thinks what I say is gross but the act itself isn’t. That’s Liberal logic for you. Homos do weird-ass shit, but I get called out for noticing it’s weird-ass.
Though figures like Pauline Kael, Mike Royko, Jimmy Breslin, Nat Hentoff, and Norman Mailer were political or social liberals, they were still molded by a world that inclined them toward bunkerism to some extent.
Rokyo’s defense of
John Wayne was typical.
"I never went to a John Wayne movie to find a philosophy to live by or to absorb a profound message. I went for the simple pleasure of spending a couple of hours seeing the bad guys lose." Sometimes, their bunkerist impulses could be childish or stupid, but at other times, it could be candid, refreshing, and honest. Also, women and working class men who rose up the ranks under the old system had really struggled to make it, so they felt nothing was owed them and vice versa, and they expected others to carry their own slack. Pauline Kael didn’t make it as a film critic because she felt deserving of such favor. She scraped by and worked hard at it despite several firings and dismissals. Today, certain ‘victim groups’ — feminism tells all women to see themselves as victims — feel that they’re owed some kind of success simply on the basis that they are women, and if they don’t get it, they bitch that the world is keeping them down. That is what is so infuriating about the woman in David Mamet’s OLEANNA. It’s not that she’s not-very-smart as there are plenty of unsmart people around the world, and most of them are good decent folks who accept their own limitations. It’s that she feels oppressed because higher education has no use for a dummy like her. If she can’t cut it academically, the fault is with the system than with herself. So, she joins some radical organization on campus that pseudo-intellectually makes her feel smart by spouting slogans and jargons — or slargons — about how oppressed she is. She can’t win in the competition/game by using her mind and wits, so she uses PC orthodoxy as an institutional crutch and bludgeon. If she is ‘oppressed’ by anything, it is her own genetics, but according to orthodox leftism, biological explanation is ‘unacceptable’ for anything. So, if you don’t have the brains to make it in the academia, make yourself out to be a victim of ‘white males who are keeping you down’.
In a way, OLEANNA is about the danger of what happens when smart Jewish ideas filled with esoteric nuance are taken up by dimwit goyim or dumb Jews(they exist too) who swallow them literally without the hint of subtlety. It takes a smart person to come up with a new set of ideas(regardless of whether they’re true or false), but even the dimmest can embrace them as iron-clad dogma and use them as tyrannical tools(though in the name of fighting tyranny).
The smart person who came up with the ideas in the first place may abhor or welcome the rise of dogmatism around his ideas. If he is a genuinely serious thinker seeking the truth or a devious thinker seeking a certain unstated goal, he may be disappointed when his followers either simplify or misinterpret the message into dogmatic drivel. It’s like smart Jews pushed their brand of leftism to undermine white power in order to boost Jewish power, but when people(especially dumb or earnest Jews) swallow such a deviously clever form of leftism whole hog and simplemindedly think it should apply to Jews as well, it’s a major headache for the smart Jews. Smart Jews are surely rolling their eyes over Naomi Wolf, the bimbo Jewess who takes the principles of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ rather too earnestly and now expends most of her energy on bashing Jewish hypocrisy and Israel. Smart Jews probably want to tell her, "It’s for THEM(white goyim), you idiot, not for us!" Anyway, many original thinkers are surely disappointed by the simplification and distortion of their ideas into dogma. Jesus would have been offended by all the things done in His name. And Nietzsche would have been appalled by National Socialism. Even Martin Heidegger didn’t much care for Nazism.
But then, there are smart people with original ideas who find great satisfaction in the rise of orthodoxy because power is what they wanted all along. Power is impossible unless the smart elites are supported by the mindless dummies. Smart people know that most people will never understand anything, therefore the most that can be expected of them is to swallow slogans, carry banners, and march like cattle. Karl Marx would have intellectually disagreed with later deviations from Marxism, but he might have supported Lenin and Stalin just out of the thrill of communists coming to power and crushing the bourgeoisie.
If not for the support of dimwit sheeple like the girl in OLEANNA, PC wouldn’t have amounted to much. It’s like Muhammad wouldn’t have gotten far if not for the masses of illiterate minions who barely understood his ideas but understood them just enough to want to ride camels across vast deserts to conquer and convert the Infidels. As pain in the ass as dimwits can be, they are the dependable mules for smart/clever/devious people seeking great power. They are the sort of fools who fall for the War on Terror, Obama-mania, homomania, and other such nonsense. Have you seen an high IQ privileged Jew faint and foam at the mouth over Obama? No, only idiots do that, and idiots run off to vote for the likes of Obama or George W. Bush. Idiots can be made to ‘think’ anything and do anything. And some of them are even allowed to join the elites as populist window dressing. If not for her good looks and folksy charm, the GOP elites would have left Sarah Palin alone to hunt moose. They thought she would win over the dummies who watch FOX News, and so, they made a fuss over her. NeoCons used her as a prop to dupe the dummies among American Conservatives to keep supporting Wall Street and Israel. Despite all the favors Obama has done for Wall Street and Israel, the idiot likes of Palin can only bitch that Obama the ‘socialist’ is hurting the honest ‘free enterprise’ capitalists on Wall Street and those poor beleaguered Jews of Israel who, in Palin’s pathetic imagination, are on the verge of being driven into the Dead Sea by neo-Nazi Palestinians.
OLEANNA-mentality is alive and well everywhere, and of course, as much as David Mamet loathes it in the female character in his play/movie, he is all for it when dimwits in the GOP are manipulated and brainwashed into running dogs supporting Israel in the ridiculous conviction that Jews are the best friends of conservatives and Christians. Of course, Mamet the fierce Jewish nationalist, has nothing but loathing for white nationalism. In SPARTAN, he has a white warrior fighting them evil ‘Mooslims’ to save the daughter of the American President. And you thought THE SEARCHERS was pretty crazy. Mamet fears white nationalism but wants to brainwash it to serve Jewish nationalism against all those ‘Mooslims’. He’s for Oleannizing white conservatives, which is why he pretends to be a ‘conservative’.
To be sure, being a Mamet film, SPARTAN is intelligent and interesting(and not without nuance and shadings), but if HOMICIDE(Mamet’s masterpiece) is self-reflective of Mamet’s own obsessions, SPARTAN eventually boils down to bang-bang-shoot-shoot finale where we are supposed to believe that the great mystery of the missing daughter was a case of Muslim kidnapping. What makes HOMICIDE fascinating is the suspicion of the narrative unreliability on so many levels — witnesses, accusers, policemen, criminals, secular Jew, religious Jew, nationalist Jew, white, black, writer and director(as if the two modes of Mamet as teller and shower were at odds) — whereas the similar sense of unreliability goes up in smoke in SPARTAN as the narrative really wants us to swallow its impossible scenario which is too ludicrous for satire or allegory.
 |
| SPARTAN by David Mamet |
In a way, many Jews have conflicted feelings about PC. On the one hand, they see it as the triumph of Jewish power and the silencing of people that Jews loathe most. But because some Jews, especially in the arts and intellectual fields, want to speak the truth as they see it and don’t want to compromise their vision or expression, they feel stifled by PC that is really dumb. But then, even as people like Mamet and Philip Roth don’t want PC to come after them, they are all for PC going after people like Patrick Buchanan or Jason Richwine. Did any prominent Jew come to the defense of Jason Richwine when he was hounded by Jennifer Rubin? It’s a case of "no PC for me but PC for you." Mamet’s real reason for his bogus conversion to ‘conservatism’ is that Liberals are not sufficiently PC against Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians and not sufficiently anti-PC when it comes to Zionists. In Mamet’s ideal world, Jews should have the freedom to say and do anything, whereas non-Jews should be hunted and silenced for their ‘rabid and virulent antisemitism’.
 |
| Camille Pugnacious Paglia |
There’s an element of Bunkerism in Camille Paglia as well, and her case reminds us of Michael Novak’s argument in THE RISE OF THE UNMELTABLE ETHNICS. Novak identified something like proto-PC in overly reformist-and-hygiene-centered Wasp culture. His ethnic stance against Wasp-ness had a rightist tint as well as leftist slant. As Wasps were identified with elite power, privilege, and control, they were seen as insufferable moral-as-well-as-material snobs who turned up their noses at the stinking white ethnics. So, it was sort-of-revolutionary for white ethnics to assert their right not to melt into the bland tasteless stew cooked up by Wasps. Ethnics should reject the cultural soap handed to them by the Wasp masters of America who thought themselves so special and clean, culturally and morally. Wasps were identified with the progressive and reformist impulse in American that tirelessly and relentlessly nagged on other groups to improve themselves. Wasps founded a nation that would be defined by constant moral and social reforms, and so, the white ethnics had come under the scrutiny of Wasp crusaders for their tribalism, backwardness, ethnocentrism, corruption, bigotry, and lack of scruples the minute they got off the boat. Of course, Wasps — sympathetic reformers as well as cultural snobs — had a valid point as plenty of drunken Irish were into wife-beating, fighting, corruption, gangsterism, and talking-like-James-Cagney. And Italians were even worse with their mafia-style culture on display in GOODFELLAS that makes your stomach turn. Still, there was something like hot blood, soulfulness, color, spice, and drama to the ethnics that was missing among Wasps who were more about ideas, bland food, and clean living. (On the other hand, because many ethnic immigrants settled in urban areas, many became more sophisticated and urbane than many Anglo-Americans who remained in rural communities and small towns. So, even though white ethnics often came from rural regions in their own nations that were many leagues behind the Anglo-American world, their rapid rise in American cities made them urban and even urbane, thus making them feel culturally superior to all those Anglo-American ‘rubes’ in small towns and rural areas. There was some of this in the Prohibition crusade. In one respect, it was a case of small town/rural Anglo-America vs white ethnics in big cities. Though Anglo-America preached morality from high above, it increasingly seemed outdated and simpleminded to white ethnics who consolidated their power in the cities.) To be sure, white ethnics sometimes rightly sensed that cynical Wasp elites supported and funded Wasp moral crusaders to make white ethnics feel inferior. If Wasp social reformers believed in the need to improve the lot of white ethnics, it implied that white ethnics should follow the cultural and moral lead of a more advanced and superior people. Though Wasp reformist ‘save-the-world-ism’ did much good for America, it was also stuffy and stifling — as with kids fidgeting at Sunday School, not least because they’d be promised a chance to win a turtle or a baby alligator if they signed to come onboard.
Also, as with PC in the UK, Wasp reformism could be preening and self-righteous, and not only in ideas/values but in manner/demeanor. I think maybe this was one reason why Pauline Kael had a special dislike for Bosley Crowther, the save-the-world reform liberal Wasp film critic of NEW YORK TIMES until 1968, when he was finally ousted as an old hat for not getting BONNIE AND CLYDE. But then, the next critic, the Jewish but elitist Renata Adler wrote an even harsher review of THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.
Kael’s antics coincided with Novak’s theory of THE RISE OF THE UNMELTABLE ETHNICS. In the case of Jews, it wasn’t just a culture war against Wasps but against ‘respectable Jews’ who modeled themselves on the Wasp establishment. It was like how some blacks came to see respectable Negroes as ‘house niggers’ or ‘uncle toms’ in the 60s and early 70s. Upstart Jews who made the climb from the bottom to the top in America felt a certain disdain for ‘house Jews’ who’d Anglo-ized themselves to a remarkable degree. It’s like how Allen Klein mocked the Eastman family when both vied for the chance to manage the Beatles. Eastmans were Jews who remade themselves into virtual respectable Wasps, and Klein couldn’t get enough of playing the pushy Jew to drive the Eastmans to exasperation.
 |
| Allen Klein, the viciously nasty Jew who drove the Eastmans crazy. |
Of course, Jews love doing this to gentiles as well — Bob Dylan being nasty with the Time reporter in
DON’T LOOK BACK and Howard Stern driving
Tom Snyder crazy — , but Real Jews especially love to bait Wasp-wanna-be Jews. It’s like bagel with cream cheese & lox vs white bread with cream cheese. But if Waspy Jews are pushed to far, they can lose it and blow up, a spectacle that may humor the Real Jew as the sign of his/her victory in having forced the hidden Jew out of the closet. It’s like what the rich widow’s son does to the Ryan O’Neal character in BARRY LYNDON. Lyndon the resourceful Irish rogue has done everything to pass himself as a worthy member of respectable society, but when the woman’s son slyly mocks him, he loses his composure and attacks the kid like a vulgar ruffian. The kid gets whupped, but Lyndon is out of society forever as his true Irish hothead nature has been exposed. Even so, there are times when the outburst of the angry Waspy Jews is such that even pushy Jews gasp in frightened terror. And Kael met her match when
Renata Adler tore into her with the fury of a mad heroine in a Greek Tragedy. Adler’s attack was so vicious, venomous, relentless, and deranged that even crazy Kael was sobered into terror-struck silence... at least for awhile.
Anyway, women like Pauline Kael and Camille Paglia had much fight in them. They enjoyed the pugilism of cultural discourse and debate, and they figured they gotta roll with the punches. Kael didn’t expect to be favored because she was a woman, and neither did Paglia. Though very much an early feminist, Paglia wanted to be admired for her achievement, drive, and courage than for any consideration of her as a ‘victim’ — Italian, female, or lesbian. And because they saw life as one of struggle and competition — regardless of the social or political system — , they took the hard knocks of life with bunkerist toughness and expected the same kind of hardness in others. They never thought life promised anyone a rose garden. They figured women should be more like Barbara Stanwyck or Barbra Streisand(on screen as the real one is a PC-drama queen)than simpering ‘victim’-mongers of the kind seen in OLEANNA. As intellectuals and liberals, they too had been influenced by and supportive of Meatheadism, the dream of a better society. But having memories and contacts with an older America — especially ethnic ones with their strong flavors and passions — , they also had a deep and rich contact with a world outside abstract ideals. While they believed in working for a better world, they also knew that the world was made of sin, and sin had its charms too. It’s like Michael Corleone tries to be a good Waspy American but then reconnects with his Sicilian-American-ness that is grounded in tradition, family, culture, community, and the real nature of power. Kael wasn’t interested in Jewishness as a political or cultural identity but she valued it as a cultural and personal style. It explains why she was partial to THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and YENTL(which my friends called ‘mentl’). In her review of FIDDLER, she noted how even Jews who sought Wasp respectability responded to the rowdy, uninhibited, and pungent Jewishness of the folks in the story. And YENTL may reek of Jewishness and some may be offended by the stink, but it has an element of authenticity, a shameless kitschy pride in Jewish tradition and a self-regarding promotion of Jewish radicalism. When white Liberals find something wrong with Old America, they tear at the whole thing and feel nothing but disgust. In contrast, even though YENTL is about a Jewish society that is patriarchal and repressive, it is full of love of Jewishness.
