Friday, November 23, 2012

Trolls and ConTrolls, the Pathetic Saga of the Internet.

Worthless Troll 'Violentacrez'
Worthless ConTroll Chen

Until a few days, I never heard of the internet troll who went by the name of 'Violentacrez' nor did I know anything about the internet site Reddit until I read an article referring to the controversy. Having checked out Reddit since, I've no desire to revisit what amounts to just another forum where users trade mostly images and gossip.
What really interests me is the media hounding and shaming of this 'notorious troll', especially following his outing by Adrian Chen in this Gawker article.

There's also an interview with Michael Brutsch(the man behind 'Violentacrez') in the CNN video below:


What interests me is not Brutsch himself. He is your typical 'loser', but I suspect there are many such people all over the world. In a way, he's Walter Mitty on steroids. Paradoxically, he'd been revealing his 'real side' over the years precisely because he was able to conceal his true identity. It's a kind of hidden exhibitionism. This sort of thing is, of course, nothing new. Sometimes, a person can say or express his or her true feelings only behind a mask. Joe Klein did this with his novel PRIMARY COLORS and eventually got in hot water when outed. As a Jewish liberal Democrat hanging with other liberal Democrats, he didn't want to come across as being too harsh on Bill Clinton. So, he wrote his novel under a pseudonym. Some scholars even argue that the real Shakespeare was actually someone else, most likely a nobleman who hid his identity lest his plays undermine his position among his peers—it’s not uncommon for the social peers of an artist to suspect that the works are really about them(and often at the expense of their reputations). And in the Soviet Union, many dissenters had to use pseudonyms to avoid being arrested by authorities.
But if some people hide their identities due to political oppression and/for a worthy or noble cause/endeavor, people like Brutsch just hanker for attention. Personally, I agree with most sane people that he's a jerk, dork, and loser. What is truly pathetic is not the nasty things he posted but the fact that he needed this kind of attention to feel alive. What a waste of life. There are so many things to do in life, and he spent his spare time posting garbage on the internet for morons to gawk at. Though I believe in the freedom of speech, what a waste of freedom of speech. According to the article by Chen, Brutsch's wife not only knew about his ‘hobby’ but was a fellow reddit addict or reddict. And his son seems to have known about his father's clown act too. Let us hope this is not the typical American family for it sounds almost like the SIMPSONS or FAMILY GUY come true. If Brutsch were in his teens, his clown act would be somewhat more understandable. If he were a total loser, he would have some kind of an excuse. But he's had a steady job over the years. He also claims to be part Jewish, so he must not be a total dummy. So, why waste his life this way?

Perhaps, all of us have wasted time on the internet one way or another. And before there was the internet, most Americans probably watched too much TV. And before there was the TV, Americans probably listened to too much radio. In highschool, I should have done more homework and reading instead of listening to pop music. (In my defense, I probably had better musical taste than most people.)
What we call 'wasting time' is probably normal. Lions hunt and eat 3 hrs a day and sleep 21 hours a day. It would be nice if we spent our spare time doing worthier stuff—like reading literary classics, developing an skilled hobby, gaining greater knowledge, getting involved in local politics, and etc.—, but most of us would rather relax or 'have fun', and 'fun' means not taking things too seriously. So, even college students stare at the TV set or facebook page for hours on end instead of doing their reading assignments. Kids get together and 'party', drinking and saying stupid things all through the night.

But not everyone is socially successful or popular, especially if one happens to be ugly, fat, and gross. Brutsch is ugly, fat, and gross. Such people probably feel resentment at the world, and a kind of 'revenge of the nerd' mindset develops within them. They are timid nerds in the social sphere, mice among men. But even beta-males have some repressed alpha male fantasies inside them, and their dynamics aren’t much different from the repression of sexual feelings. A timid beta male who cannot assert himself sexually in the social sphere may write fantasy porn stories. Or he might become a fan of Horror, and indeed, most horror film fanboys, writers, and directors are, as personality types, not much different from Brutsch.
It helps if you have talent whether it's visual, literary, dramatic, comedic, or whatever. Indeed, a lot of artists and 'critics'—it's hard to tell what is a real critic these days—tend to be (social)'losers' who happen to possess talent. Matt Groenig, Stephen King, David Cronenberg, George Romero, and Larry David are as gross a character as Brutsch, but they had the talent to make entertainment with great mass and even intellectual appeal. If they were without talent, they could very well be pathetic figures like Brutsch.
For the untalented like Brutsch, the only outlet for their frustrated resentment is the cult of outrage. And so, Brutsch went for the most obviously outrageous topics like 'underaged girls', Hitler, Jew-baiting, misogyny, and etc. He was a genuine troll in having no real interest in these topics—except for maybe scantily clad underaged girls—except to use them just to win plaudits(mostly from other dorks) and opprobrium(from the politically correct). As they say, "Don't feed the troll". Trolls are sado-masochistic. They not only bask in praise but gorge on attacks... at least until they're outed. In a way, the psychology of the troll is like Snoopy's in "The Mad Punter Strikes Again", albeit with far less innocence--though I suppose there are lots of G-rated trolls too, though I don’t see any point to that.
It's not always easy to say where honest criticism/expression ends and trolling begins. Armond White, the black film critic, has his champions but also detractors who insist he's just a mean-spirited troll. Roger Ebert, once a defender of White, concurred that White just loves to push buttons on people. To an extent, there's an element of troll-ism in much of journalism. If the essence of trollism is exaggeration, outrageous-ness, and/or sensationalism, most news headlines have an element of trollism for their main objective is to grab your attention. Headlines are often highly misleading on purpose. The news coverage of Amy Chua's book THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER was trollish in hyping her semi-satirical memoir into something like “Lady Fu Manchu Plans to Conquer the World.” And most accusations of 'racism', 'sexism', and 'homophobia' are no better than trolling. Indeed, they may even qualify as just another form of trolling even if the politically correct are to dim to realize it. If one of the hallmarks of trolling is to ignore the real subject at hand and turn the debate into a 'flame war', then some of the biggest trolls are on the so-called left. Accusing defenders of traditional marriage of suffering from a clinical ailment called 'homophobia' is hardly better than trolling. Indeed, most of political correctness is waging endless flame wars by telling people to shut up for their ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘antisemitic’, and ‘homophobic’ views. And people like Violentacrez are useful because their expression of political incorrectness is purely nonsensical. If Chen had real courage, he wouldn’t bother with goofy clowns like Violentacrez and challenge/argue with people with sincere politically incorrect views like Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, Robert Weissberg, and Paul Gottfried. But then, he would be confronted with politically incorrect views with real facts and logic behind them. Much easier go after a clown like Violentacrez and pretend that all ‘racist’ views are of such silly ilk as found on grungy forums on Reddit.
People like Chen should be called ConTrolls. Controlls are dorky closed-minded fussbudgets uninterested in the true meanings and implications of the serious issues. Though they fashion themselves to be open-minded and curious ‘liberal progressives’, they are actually pathologically intolerant of any views at odds with the politically correct lessons they soaked up in classrooms as teachers’ pets and from the Jewish-controlled mass media. (Of course, if one points out that the media are indeed controlled by Jews, one is summarily dismissed as an ‘anti-Semite’ though it is a irrefutable fact that the media are indeed owned by Jews. What an easy way to end and ban all debate with certain words used as witch-hunting cudgels. Political correctness is not an invitation to individual thought and free criticism but a set of rules that some people can attack others but not vice versa. So, Jews can piss on white gentiles but not the other way around. Jews can dump on Palestinians, but Jews tell us it’s ‘antisemitic’ for Americans to sympathize with Palestinians and take up their cause for freedom from Zionist oppression. While all Nazis and neo-Nazis are anti-Jewish, not all anti-Jewish people are Nazi or neo-Nazi. To say otherwise would be fallacious. But little pricks like Chen would rather draw public attention on someone like Violentacrez to imply that anyone with hostile views toward Jews are crazy Nazis. This is all the more amusing when Violentacrez’s political views weren’t even in earnest and he’s part Jewish himself.)
When conTrolls come upon certain politically incorrect thoughts or views, their simple-minded robotic programming kicks into gear and they go into panic mode and start spewing invectives to silence what they don’t want to hear as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or whatever.
They think they are always right, and they claim to really hate trolls. But their simple-minded outbursts and reduction of moral and social issues into flame-and-shame wars of hysterically accusing people of this-evil-ism or that-evil-ism makes them hardly different from trolls. In some ways, controlls are worse than trolls for trolls are at least honest about their need for ‘notoriety’. In contrast, controlls are no less hungry for attention and topical sensationalism but pretend to be heroic crusaders against all cosmic evil. But seriously, what true lover of truth and justice would waste his time stalking losers like Brutsch? Aren't there nobler and more urgent objectives in a world filled with so much misery and injustice?
Adrian Chen, a controll, is hardly better the troll he outed. In a way, his gleefully geeky bragging over his pathetic trophy betrays his pitifully dorky self. No real man would waste his time stalking and hunting trolls; no real man’s claim to fame would be having outed a loser posting garbage onto the internet; there are so many ‘notorious trolls’ on the internet that catching one is like catching a fly around a manure pile. Chen is surely no lady's man or any kind of dude that commands the respect and admiration of other dudes. So, the only way he could feel big about himself was to out the identity of some loser who wastes his time on Reddit. Unwittingly, all Chen really did was to out himself as an attention-hungry dork. Though it’s a case of a politically correct loser geek bagging a politically incorrect loser geek, Chen would have us believe he’s George Smiley or something. His pathetically exaggerated bragging rights suggests he think he accomplished something on the order of Adolf Eichmann’s capture. You can just imagine dorky Chen sitting in a restaurant acting big and important—mostly around guys even geekier than him—because he outed the identity of a totally useless dime-a-dozen internet troll.

It's all the more ironic considering that Gawker, the online rag that Chen writes for, is nothing but a source of trash news and trollish gossip, but hey, at least most of the garbage it serves up is of the 'liberal' and 'progressive' variety.
I suspect that the real problem that guys like Chen and other politically correct dorks have with Violentacrez was not so much the trolling as the 'rightist' aspect of some of his forums. In other words, had Violentacrez set up forums praising Stalin, New Black Panthers, Mao, Chomsky, and such ilk, there would have been little fuss about his trolllish behavior. (Consider the affection that the liberal community has for Roman Polanski, an anal-rapist of a twelve year old girl who escaped justice by fleeing to Europe. Chen and his ilk want to ruin the lives of losers like Violentacrez—though most of them never broke the law—but they heap praises on guys like Polanski who ran from the law. A politically correct liberal is someone who would take away the right of free speech from trolls but demands that Polanski be pardoned, protected from American laws, and be allowed to keep working.) Violentacrez’s real sin was that he created forums that attracted Jew-haters and the like. That and not the other filth he posted was the reason why he became the special target of Jewish-controlled MSM and politically correct drones like Chen. After all, the internet is filled with extreme Zionists—sincere ones or mere trolls—who post horrible stuff about Palestinians and Muslims—some even call for mass killing of all Arabs—, but what is the chance that Gawker or CNN going after them? And surely, there are Zionist trolls who not only spew anti-Palestinian invective but dabble in racy pictures of underaged girls, but again, what is the chance that Chen and his ilk will try to expose them? Surely, consciously or subconsciously, Chen understands that it’s a poor career choice to be critical of Jewish abuses and Jewish power, and so he went for the easy game of outing some ‘Nazi troll’.

Now, I'm not defending Violentacrez and his forums. I haven't checked them and don't want to, and based on what I've read about him, he seems to be a worthless idiot. Also, even though I loathe Hitler-admirers, I can at least acknowledge the sincerity and conviction of their views. But, guys like Violentacrez who post stuff just to draw attention simply aren’t worth anyone's time. He’s like the kid in school who pulls out his boogers and eats them. The sensible thing is to ignore booger-eating losers and not give them the time of day, and that is precisely most winners do. But some losers can only feel superior and good about themselves by putting down even bigger losers, and Chen seems to be that kind of loser. He’s life is so empty and devoid of reason to live that he elevates himself by picking on a loser who picks his nose on the internet.

So, Adrian Chen is equally pathetic. Violentacrez may have been something of a sensation in the trashy world of Reddit, but MOST people with better things to do with their lives never knew or cared about the likes of Violentacrez who infest the sewage areas of the internet. For all I know, the internet could be filled with videos of fat bald-headed Mexican dwarfs having food sex with grossly obese ugly women. I don’t know and I don’t want to know, and I’ll leave it to Chen and his ilk to hunt down freaks who upload such videos and out their identities. If that’s the sort of thing that makes Chen and other geeks feel like ‘real men’, what can I say?

What attention Violentacrez may have garnered among losers at Reddit, the fact is most Americans knew nothing about him or his existence. If anything, it was CNN that turned him into a household name. Just consider the sheer number of forums, blogs, comment sites, and etc. are on the internet. There must be tens of millions of blogs, and among them, there must be lots of garbage. To illustrate my point, simply by Googling, “Nazi Jew fuc*er suck my dick”, I got , I got over 6 million links. In other words, losers like Violentacrez are dime-a-dozen and all-too-easy to find. I’ll leave it to Chen to check each of the 6 million links to smoke out more ‘notorious trolls’. He can be the great hero as most Americans have better things to do.

On the internet, there are all sorts of sites run by communists, neo-Nazis, homosexuals, pedophiles, religious nuts, and just about every other creature under the sun. There are who-knows-how-many porn sites featuring everything from hardcore videos to salacious stories. But why should they bother anyone since we can all choose to ignore them? Whatever Violentacrez did or didn’t do, he had no power to force others to read or share in his stuff, any more than Marilyn Manson can force us to listen to his trashy music. I loathe shows like FAMILY GUY, and I just choose not to watch them. Would our world be a better place without people like Violentacrez and the obscene creators of FAMILY GUY? Yes, but in a free society, people are freely allowed to create content and people are freely allowed to consume them.
Most TV shows, most movies, most pop music, most gossip, and most of everything are pretty awful, and most of us, having good sense, ignore most of them. Who cares who's a troll? The only people who care are controlls like Adrian Chen who desperately search for excuses to justify their empty lives. For Chen, the great meaning of his life derives from troll-hunting, which is like someone devoting his life to going down into the sewer to catch rats.
Judging by the tone of Chen's article, it's obvious that he's rubbing his hands with the gleeful prospect of being patted on the back by the cooler and hipper members of society. In this age of political correctness, there is no greater sin than 'racism' and 'antisemitism', and Chen bagged a 'racist and antisemitic' troll, and wow, that means he’s a very good boy.

Indeed, what is most off-putting about the whole affair is the utter blindness of Chen and his ilk to their own hypocrisies. Chen mocks defenders of free speech for rallying around Brutsch, but isn't it free speech that allows Chen to write whatever he wants? Politically correct goons like Chen almost certainly agree with the likes of Elena Kagan who invoke 'hate speech' to control who gets to say what, but then, who is to determine what is 'hate'? And why should 'hate' be outlawed when it's a natural emotion? The whole noting of repressing ‘hate’ is the new Victorianism. If people in the Victorian age couldn’t discuss sex—there was the fear that any frank discussion of sex would lead to social chaos and mass rape—, today’s politically correct gang wants to stamp out ‘hate’ lest a ‘noxious’ and ‘odious’ thought lead to WWIII and another Holocaust!
But if Chen is really angry with what he calls 'racism'--defined as racial hostility or hatred toward other groups--, should he be wasting his time on losers like Brutsch who have no power or influence? Chen makes Brutsch out to be some grand conspirator/conqueror of the internet, but Reddit was just one site among millions of others. And even if Brutsch had lots of fans on what happened to be a popular site, whoever took his ‘shock jock’ antics seriously as politics or ideology? And was he ever showered with millions rewarded to the likes of Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, and David Chapelle whose stardom came with full mainstream institutional backing? The only reward Brutsch ever got from Reddit was a little toy.

If Chen is really outraged by 'racism', why doesn't he write something about the power of Zionism? About how Zionism dispossessed and ethnically cleansed Palestinians from their ancestral land. Why doesn't he write about Zionists control both American parties and our foreign policy? Why doesn't he write about Israel, a nation with 300 illegal nukes and violator of every international nuclear treaty, keeps receiving American foreign aid--indeed more than any other nation though Israel is the richest nation in the Middle East--while Iran, a nation that possesses not even a single nuke and is a signer of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty--is being economically strangulated to death by Zionist-controlled America? Why doesn't Chen mention that the mass media in America is 95% owned and/or controlled by Jews, and Zionist lies have spread the false rumor that the Iranian president said he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' when he never said anything of the kind. Who has the real power in the media? Are the likes of Michael Brutsch really that important? Did anyone take anything he posted seriously? Did he have any influence on Wall Street, education, American military, American foreign policy, Hollywood, media policy, and etc? Did he have the power to elect presidents, start wars and invade other countries, and open American borders to hordes of illegal immigrants who drag down our economy? No, he’s some loser who played king among losers on some internet forum most people knew nothing about. At least Roman Polanski has tons of defenders who say he should remain free and continue to make movies and live high on the hog. And, Howard Stern gets to say whatever he likes—no matter how offensive—and rake in over a hundred million dollars. What power did Brutsch ever have?

If Brutsch has caused harm to anyone, it is to the champions of free speech. Through his ridiculous antics, he’s given controlls like Chen an opportunity to smear the principle of free speech with filth and garbage on the internet. (Though to be sure, Chen seems to be selectively allergic to filth spewed by ‘white conservative males’ while having no problems with the endless barrage of filth that comes from the movie, TV, music, and porn industry controlled mostly by liberal Jews. Yay for Larry David, Ron Jeremy, and Sarah Silverman but boo to ‘angry white males’ filled with ‘hate’. Yay to fans of Che Guevara—the man who wanted to nuke the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis—but shame on those with critical views of Jewish power. Shame on you if you’re offended by ‘progressives’ like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, but do join the cause of shutting down ‘hate speech’ of people on the Right—though, to be sure, it could very well be Brutsch isn’t any kind of ideologue but someone like Silverman and Stern who just loves to push the buttons to stir up as much as trollish controversy as possible. When Stern wrote his first book and ragged on Filipinos, that was supposed to be FUNNY—and made Stern even richer than he already was. But if someone like Brutsch creates a forum on the internet where people trade gay jokes, why that is ‘homophobic’ and must be shut down and the man must be fired from work!) As far as I can tell, MSM's main objective in outing and shaming Brutsch was to associate free speech with losers and 'haters', thereby suggesting that we need some kind of regulation of speech--especially on the internet--in order to end the 'hate'. (This is rather ironic considering that liberals praise the closet-communists of the 40s and 50s who took the fifth and refused to come out of the closet and admit their ties to the Communist Party. The very liberals who say it was wrong to ‘out’ communists via McCarthyite ‘witch hunts’ now say that America must root out and destroy people on the internet whose views are ‘intolerable’ to the politically correct ‘progressive’ community.) Of course, the politically correct jerks like Chen are utterly blind to or even approving of all the hate spewed against whites--especially white males--by Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and the like. La Raza, which means 'the race', is an all-out Chicano nationalist group. Obama was a member of Wright's crazed church for 20 yrs, but the mainstream media--that shows so much interest in utterly powerless losers like Brutsch--tried to suppress the truth about Obama’s connections to Wright as long as possible(even though it pertained to a man who might be president one day). And following the 2012 election, just look at the vitriol expressed by Jewish pundits and commentators on TV and MSM. Few yrs ago, Tim Wise hailed the death of old white people, especially the Greatest Generation, but he's still invited to TV shows and high schools to give speeches. At Harvard, a woman named Stephanie Grace sent a PRIVATE email explaining her belief in IQ differences among races, but she was not only 'outed' by the girl who received the email but hounded by the university president and MSM for her thought crimes. And if the likes of Elena Kagan--and surely Adrian Chen--can help it, certain views would be outlawed, and people who express them would be destroyed by being fired and shunned. These are the very people who condemn Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade in the 1950s. According to their logic, an American communist admirer of Stalin the mass-killer should have had the full protection of rights guaranteed by the Constitution—and shouldn’t even have been blacklisted from government positions with access to state secrets—, but if anyone today says anything that smacks of 'controversy' about race, sexuality, or nationality, that person should be fired from his or her job and tarred-and-feathered by MSM.
Personally, I don't much care what happened to Brutsch. In a way, he was asking for it by playing this cat-and-mouse game in the internet community, indeed even daring people to out him. Nor do I care if idiot clowns like him are mocked and derided for they are really nothing but attention hogs.

But there are many people on the internet who do harbor and express controversial, contrarian, unpopular, unorthodox, and 'dangerous' views. They are sincere about their beliefs or creeds, and they should never lose the freedom to express and share their views. The real outrage is when a teacher gets fired from his or her school because he or she posted a comment that is critical of the gay agenda. When such things happen, so-called 'progressives' and 'liberals' never come to the defense of the person who freely expressed his or her views. If anything, they celebrate the fact that someone was punished or had his life destroyed simply for having certain views. This is deeply disturbing because most of the media and academia, which are supposed to be on the side of freedom and liberty, are controlled by liberals and 'progressives'. If liberals won't defend free speech, who will? Conservatives don't have a good record on free speech as they've tended to favor social pressure and even censorship in the name of patriotism, Christian values, community values, and anti-obscenity laws. Traditionally, it was the liberals who argued for more freedom of expression, for the airing of views that might upset community standards—as during the Scopes-Monkey Trial. But a sea-change took place in liberalism since the 1960s. The very radicals who fought for and championed more free speech in the 50s and 60s, having gained power in the 80s and 90s, now want to control what others can say. And this radical generation indoctrinated entire generations of children to submit to the politically correct orthodoxy than think their own thoughts and ask their own questions. Chen is clearly of the generation that grew up under the influence of the radical boomers. Just as the Bolshevik communists, when they didn’t have power, championed free speech against the the Russian Tsar and the provisional government but then banned free speech once they got the power, many American leftists adopted free speech in the 1960s as a strategy to challenge the powers-that-be and gain power. They wanted free speech for themselves to overthrow the Establishment--and therefore pretended to be for the principle of free speech for all--, but once they gained control of the Establishment with their 'long march through the institutions', they've used their power and influence to suppress this thing called 'hate speech'--as if they themselves are without this thing called ‘hate’ that supposedly exists only among white heterosexual conservative males.
As it stands, the new Establishment doesn't even need 'hate speech' laws to control and suppress speech. They can just have people fired left and right or exert pressure on businesses and institutions to not hire or promote people of certain ideological views. Fire people for what? For personal views EVEN OUTSIDE the job or institution. So, if a teacher on her personal facebook page condemns 'gay marriage', that is grounds for dismissal, and liberals approve of it. Now, imagine if a teacher were fired for praising Lenin or Mao on facebook. The liberal community would foam at the mouth and scream 'McCarthyism'. It would say a person's Constitutional rights have been violated, a person's life has been destroyed by 'paranoid' character assassination and the like. Imagine if a librarian had been fired for comparing George W. Bush with Hitler or Jack D. Ripper. Liberals would tear out their hair in fury and scream 'fascism!' So, Bill Ayers can step on the American flag and still be a professor at a college. But if student at Harvard sends a PRIVATE email expounding her personal views on racial differences, she must be outed and shamed by the entire community, beginning with the powerful president of the university. It’s not sufficient for so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ to express their own views to challenging the views of people they disagree with. Instead, the ‘hater’ must be hounded and warned not to even express his or her views because they are simply INTOLERABLE in a university, which is rather odd since the academic institution is supposed to promote free and open exchange of ideas.

As I recall Gawker and similar sites all piled on Stephanie Grace for those private emails. Though Grace was no troll and sincere in her views--right or wrong--, the only message from the liberal community was 'You better shut up because we will destroy you.' It is this kind of neo-Orwellianism that is the real danger to America, but dorks like Chen obsess about some loser like Brutsch who posted trash for other idiots at some forum site called Reddit.

We live in a country where the corrupt MSM colluded with the administration in pushing the American public toward supporting an illegal war against Iraq. Why? Because the media happen to be overwhelmingly controlled by Zionist interests, and both liberal and neocon Zionists saw an invasion of Iraq as a useful ‘War for Israel’. And more disturbing than any amount of trolling by losers on sites like Reddit has been the cult of personality around Obama promoted and disseminated by none other than the so-called free media that are supposed to serve as a check on political power. The media are supposed to be the Fourth Estate working to scrutinize the powers-that-be, but what is to be said of the MSM that function essentially as the propaganda wing of the White House and the Jewish oligarchy?
And if the media are really interested in going after destructive and evil people, what about all those Wall Street banksters who played a key role in bringing down the economy but got rewarded with huge so-called 'bailouts' from both political parties(controlled largely by global Zionist money)? A truly independent media would have gone after Wall Street tooth and nail, but it just so happens that the oligarchs who own the big media have the same tribal loyalties as the guys who run Wall Street. In other words, the globalist Jewish elites get to do just about anything and get away with it, but fools like Chen think the greatest threat to truth, beauty, and civilization comes from the likes of Brutsch whose only reward for trolling on Reddit was a little doll given to him as an award.
Perhaps, deep down inside, Chen and his ilk know what cowards and phonies they really are. They are status seekers, and to make the social climb, they know they must show off their politically correct 'anti-racist', 'anti-homophobic' and 'anti-whatever' credentials, and what easier way than to expose some 'notorious troll'? I mean there is no shortage of 'notorious trolls' on the internet. Just google "I love Hitler" or "I wanna fuc* grandma", and you get tons of searches. Yes, there are lots of losers all over the internet who'll say anything just to grab attention, but that's like looking for degenerate gamblers in Las Vegas or drunken bums on Skid Row. It's too easy!

Chen, being Asian, is likely a drone. If Jewish radicals in the 50s and 60s at least had the chutzpah and individuality to challenge their professors and other establishment figures, most of these Asian-American 'liberals' and 'progressives' sound like they’ve been programmed by their white or Jewish 'progressive' teachers and professors. The boomer generation went against their professors, but today's generation of kids, especially the Asian-Americans, think and do as their professors tell them. In the 60s, campus protests were against the university. Today, the protests are initiated by the professotariat that claims to be 'radical' when, in fact, it is peddling stale politically correct orthodoxy. And there are no better drones than Asian-Americans. They lack chutzpah, and their rage and anger are totally in tune with politically correct dogma fed to them by white/Jewish 'progressive' instructors. They have about as independence of mind as the Red Guards under Mao. Basically, Chen the geek is saying in his article that he's a very good boy--very politically correct in outing an 'evil white male'--and is therefore deserving of higher status in the social hierarchy. He acts like an independent journalist, but he really wants to impress his social superiors in the PC class order. He's a silly little running dog. Though he makes himself out to be a maverick, the fact is he would never ever challenge the real power in American politics, economics, academics, and media. Indeed, I dare him to question his Jewish friends why Israel is allowed to get away with so much abuse against Palestinians. I dare him to write an article about the new American elite dominated by the Jewish overclass that uses its privileges and advantages for narrow tribal interests at the expense of everyone else.
I dare him to expose how the MSM willfully distorted the facts of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case to spread anti-white lies. Yes, this is the true nature of the Jewish-controlled media, but the cowardly Asian drone Chen only wants to 'do the correct thing' so as to win plaudits and be favored for promotion in the world of politically correct 'creative' class.

People like Chen have no interest in truth. They prefer to see the world through insta-formulas of political correctness. Everything is mindlessly and summarily judged, dismissed, and condemned as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘antisemitic’, or whatever. These are used as one-word-arguments that are no arguments at all. It’s no different from Christian fanatics in the Medieval Ages condemning someone as a ‘heretic’ or ‘witch’. It’s no different from some Christian Fundamentalists today who say stuff like ‘God hates fags’. It’s no different from certain cynical anti-communists in the 50s who attacked anyone or anything they didn’t like as ‘communist’. Ironically, the very people who condemn the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’—which was actually too short-lived to call an ‘era’—are using the same tricks.

Do people like Chen have any real curiosity as to why some people disagree with him and feel and think the way they do? If Chen had a genuine journalistic mind, he would show curiosity and empathy, but he’s just another Asian-American drone who thinks and acts according to the programming of liberal Jewish political correctness. If Chen were genuinely curious, he would realize that issues of race and sex aren’t as simple as dreary and ideologically conformist political correctness would have us all believe. You cannot understand the depth and complexity of the world with the silly habit of yelling ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘homophobic’, or etc. at the drop of the hat. That is not thinking. It is following the program.
This isn’t to suggest that anyone should take Violentacrez forums on Nazism, Jews, blacks, and etc, seriously. They were clearly NOT intended for meaningful discourse but meant to wallow in what might be called ‘ironic’ or ‘hipster’ ‘racism’. As far as I can tell, Brutsch has no particular interest in the subjects he toyed with. He simply knew that certain topics were more likely to stir ‘controversy’ than others. As Hitler and the so-called N-word are easy magnets of ‘controversy’, it certainly helps to set up a forum about Nazis and ‘niggers’ than about Stalin or Pol Pot—whom most Americans don’t even know. So, even as Brutsch was keeping his identity secret, he was playing by the rules of popularity, and notoriety is a grubby form of popularity. He wasn’t as talented at it as Don Rickles or Eddie Murphy was, but it was the same logic.

So, only a disingenuous weasel would claim that politically correct speech on race, sex, and other matters shouldn’t be tolerated because of the kind of filth found on Violentacrez’s forums. The fact is Brutsch was never serious about the views and ‘ideas’ that he shared.
Americans need to understand that there are many valuable lessons to learn from ‘politically incorrect’ but genuinely serious views on race, sex, national borders, Jewish power, and revisionist history. Also, even people who are loathsome and despicable in certain respects may have something important to say, and therefore their views shouldn’t be entirely discounted—never throw the baby out with the bathwater—, and they certainly shouldn’t be denied the freedom of speech.
Brutsch is really a red herring in the debate on free speech. He willfully played with fire by playing the ‘bad boy’ and then got caught. Though Chen could have spent his time more constructively, it’s difficult to feel sorry for Brutsch who kept on pouring gasoline to the fire of his notoriety. All I can say is in Brutsch’s defense is that if he didn’t do anything illegal, he should NOT have been fired from his job since a man’s personal views and actions OUTSIDE WORK should have no bearing on his employment. If it’s wrong to fire someone for having communist, pro-gay views, atheist views, religious views, pro-Zionist views, pro-Muslim views, pro-porn views, and etc, then it is also wrong to fire someone for having pro-Nazi, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-black, or whatever views. A person at work should only be judged by his or her professionalism. What he or she does outside work is his or her own business and shouldn’t be a determinant in whether he or she remains employed or not. Suppose Adrian Chen personally likes to read incest pornography laced with sadism in his own time; suppose he even likes to write such stories and post them online under an alias. Now, I’m not saying he’s into that sort of thing, but suppose he is. Should he be fired from his work? No, not in a free society, not under the Constitution that says no one should be discriminated on the basis of RACE, COLOR, OR CREED. Creed means belief, convictions, views, opinions, values, faiths, ideology, and etc. Everyone is entitled to his own personal views on politics, values, philosophy, lifestyles, society, and etc. A person should be fired for messing up at work, not acting professional at work, and so on. But outside work, a person is in his personal environment, and what he or she feels, thinks, or says shouldn’t decide whether one gets to work or not.
Imagine a overwhelmingly Fundamentalist Christian community saying a teacher should be fired because he or she believes in evolution and is an atheist to boot. Imagine a neighborhood that is heavily Muslim-American and the community demands the local librarian be fired for posting ‘hateful’ pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim views on her pro-Israeli blog. Imagine a conservative community arguing that anyone suspected of Marxist sympathies should be dismissed from work. Liberals and ‘progressives’ would argue that all such would amount to violation of Constitutional rights. But if a liberal community were to say a person should be fired for opposing ‘gay marriage’ on his or her personal facebook page, liberals seem to have no problem with that. Or, if Jewish liberals say a librarian should be fired for running a blog that is sympathetic to Hitler, ‘progressives’ would likely come down on the side of community pressure. And I’ll bet so would Adrian Chen. Of course, ‘progressives’ will disingenuously say not all freedom of speech is the same since certain speech isn’t merely controversial but hateful and therefore should be banned. But isn’t communism hateful of certain classes, religion, traditional cultures, and national identities? Aren’t all religions hateful of something? Aren’t many atheists—especially radical ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens—hysterical in their radical hatred of anything that is even faintly religious? And from the viewpoint of Palestinians, couldn’t Zionism—a Jewish nationalist ideology that justifies the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the right of Israel to use whatever means to maintain the second-class citizenship of Arabs—be construed as a form of ‘hate’? So, who decides what is hate, what is not? If Chen had an independent mind, he would ask such questions, but being a typical Asian-American drone, he barks like dog, sounding off cliches like ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘sexist’.

As long as we’re on the subject of sensitivity, why is Brutsch’s kind of ugliness worse than what we find in popular culture? At least Brutsch’s filth—and it is mindless trash—was shared only in some corner of the internet and ignored by most people who have better thing to do. (Apparently, there are too many people like Chen with too much time on their hands.) But what about the open filth of rap music promoted by the major music companies? How are all those songs about ‘skanky bitchass hos’, ‘mothafackin niggaz’, ‘punkass faggoty ass white boys’, and etc. any less obscene and filthy? And what about stuff like ‘Girls Gone Wild’ videos? What about TV shows like ‘Flava of the Month’ where women are reduced to sex animals? What about all the dirty filthy porn that uses white women as cumbuckets in a sex industry controlled by liberal Jews? What about shows like FAMILY GUY and THE SIMPSONS where degeneracy of all kind rules the day? What about the pathological, disturbed, and sadistic movies of Quentin Tarantino who encourages millions of people to laugh at mayhem and bloodbath? What about children’s entertainment that encourage young girls to use makeup and dress like hookers? What about Hollywood movies that have depicted Muslims as nothing but subhuman terrorists whose only purpose in life is to be blown away by American bombs and weaponry? What about the constant filth that pours out of the mouths of stand-up comics? What about the stuff like VAGINA MONOLOGUES that would have idiot women—as well as some idiot guys—believe that telling pussy jokes is ‘empowering’? What about all those horror movies by Eli Roth and his ilk that wallow in torture, gore, and cruelty? What about the films of Sacha Cohen that mock Muslims, Central Asians, and Christian Americans? (Cohen, who is so sensitive about ‘anti-Semites’, seem to be fully supportive of the ongoing Zionist oppression and dispossession of Palestinians.) What about the state of black churches in America where little else happens them but wild dancing, screaming and shouting, and anti-white invective? What about Jewish-controlled MSM that rigs the news so that Zionists can do as they please to the long-suffering Palestinians whose oppression and deaths are cheered by most dumb Americans brainwashed by the Zionist media? And the list goes on and on. So many celebrities involved in the creation of such filth have been hyped, praised, rewarded, awarded, and elevated to near-god-status. But Chen is blind to all that. Instead, he targets some loser whose only claim to fame is playing shock-troll on Reddit. Chen isn’t bothered by Bill Maher spouting his filth on TV. He’s not disturbed the movies of Tarantino that are becoming sicker with every new installment. No, he acts as though the source of all evil is some loser on reddit who posts stupid filth for other losers.

In a way, today’s Nazi-Scare is many times more pathetic than the Red Scare of the 50s. In a way, Chen’s hysteria like an Asian geek version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO that fantasizes some grand neo-Nazi conspiracy taking place in Sweden, a nation that is totally controlled by politically correct liberals and globalist Jews and is filling up with tons of unskilled and criminal elements from the Middle East and Africa. But never mind reality, just fan the fears of Nazi Scare and make all those goody-good ‘progressives’ believe that Nazis are about to take over the entire world. Some loser like Brutsch creates some dumb ‘Nazi’ forum on Reddit, and Chen the dummy goes into ‘They Saved Hitler’s Brains’ mode.

While men like McCarthy did overplay the communist threat, the post-war era was indeed a scary time. Stalin, the mass killer of perhaps 20 million people, had swallowed all of Eastern Europe. China fell to the murderous Mao regime in 1949, and communists pushed for war in Korea in 1950. There was the danger of communism spreading in the Third World, and there were many radical leftists in all levels of government, arts and culture, media, and entertainment. For proof, consider that the most carefully guarded secret in the United States—the formula for the atomic bomb—was stolen by Jewish agents like Rosenberg and handed over to Stalin, the mass-murderer of so many innocents. Leftist Jews in American government gave a communist tyrant the secret to building a bomb that could murder hundreds of millions of people in Europe and America. If that wasn’t scary, what is? And in the early 60s, Khrushchev decided to install nukes in Cuba. But according to liberals, it was all just ‘hysteria’ and mindless ‘paranoia’. No, there was nothing to worry about in regards to Stalin, Mao, and Jewish spies working in the US government. No, the real danger comes from guys like Brutsch who post ‘hate’ in some corner of the internet! Of course, this is absurd, but Chen, being a typical Asian-American drone, just goes along with the grand narrative fed to him by his Jewish teachers, controllers, and bosses.

It made sense to be scared of communism during the Cold War. It must also be said that the anti-communist ‘hysteria’ was no more extreme than anti-Nazi, anti-Japanese, and anti-Fascist ‘hysteria’ during WWII. If anything, it was far less so. When US was at war with Germany and Japan(and Italy), powerful institutions in America did everything to scare the American public as much as possible. So, even though the American elite knew that Japan had no intention of invading the US—Pearl Harbor attack was to keep US out of Asia, not to conquer the US—, it used the media power to spread the ridiculous notion that the Japanese were planning to attack the American heartland. This hysteria even led to the rounding up of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans, dispossessing them, and herding them into ‘internment camps’. And even though Germany declared war on US following the attack on Pearl Harbor, American elites knew full well that Hitler had no plan to attack or invade the US. Hitler declared war on US to send a message that America should stay out of the European war. It was an attempt to scare Americans than to fight them. And American elites knew this, but they still spread the hysteria that German spies were all over America and that the American coastlines were teeming with Nazi subs.
(Of course, the main hysteria today is the notion that Iran is about to develop the nuclear weapon in order to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. According to Jews, it made no sense for Americans to be worried about a communist tyrant like Stalin conquering all of Eastern Europe and stealing American atomic secrets with the help of Jewish agents. It made no sense for Americans to be worried about the fall of China to Mao and the spread of communist wildfire all throughout the Third World, culminating in nuclear weapons planted on Cuban soil and aimed right at America. HOWEVER, we must all be shaking in our boots about Iran using the nuke to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, even though Iran has complied with everything in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nukes while the rogue state of Israel has over 300 illegal nukes. Both political parties are totally committed to destroying the entire economy of Iran just to prevent it from ‘wiping Israel off the map’ though Iran has no nukes and its president NEVER SAID he intends to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. If liberal Jews really hate the culture of political hysteria, why do they either fan the flames of anti-Iranian hysteria or ignore it despite all the damage it’s causing to the United States in foreign affairs? Because for most Jews, liberal or neocon, what always comes first is Jewish Power and Jewish Interests. Doesn’t Chen find something strange about all this? Of course not. Since he’s just an Asian drone, he’s happy to play a nice running dog to his Jewish bosses in the media. The stupid idiot doesn’t even know that liberal Jews in Hollywood, when they not ragging on Muslims, often use the Evil China card to make Americans hate his yellow kind.) So, FDR and liberals spread all sorts of hysteria—as well as crude racial stereotypes of Teutonic Germans and slanty-eyed Japs—during WWII, and this sort of thing served as the template for the Red Scare in the first round of the Cold War, but liberals have conveniently suppressed all memory of their Nazi-and-Jap-Scare during WWII and convinced so many gullible Americans that the politics of scare-mongering was begun by the American Right and anti-communist McCarthy. And Jews have been especially invested in pushing such a view since many people who came under suspicion during the Red Scare were Jewish communists and Jewish communist-sympathizers. Since Jews control the academia and media, they get to decide what we remember and what we don’t. Similarly, because of the Jewish control of the media, American sheeple root for Israel that oppresses Palestinians while sneering at the suffering of the latter. Because of Jewish control of the media, we hear so much about how China is mistreating Tibetans, but we hear nothing about how Israelis are oppressing Palestinians—and indeed how Israel was founded by massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Because of the Jewish control of the media, we think some Jewish communist screenwriters had a harder time during the ‘McCarthy Era’ than over 100,000 Japanese-Americans targeted, dispossessed, and imprisoned by FDR and his liberal regime. They say the winners get to write history, and in America, liberal Jews are the winners and controllers of the media, and so they get to frame the terms of the debate and indeed the terminologies themselves. Since drones like Chen have been raised with the politically correct regimen, they never bothers to ask, “what is ‘antisemitism’?”, “what does it really mean to be a ‘racist’?” “What exactly is ‘homophobia’?” Instead, the likes of him just see the world in terms of good and evil, black and white, us vs them, and etc. So, anyone who criticizes Jewish power is an ‘anti-Semite’. Anyone who dares to speak the truth about blacks is simply this monster called ‘racist’. Anyone who questions the biological and moral worth of two men sticking their sexual organs into each other’s fecal holes—fecal penetration—is denigrated as clinically suffering from ‘homophobia’. So, if you believe that the anus is for defecating and not for sex, YOU are the mentally sick one. And if you believe that the homosexuality is unworthy of moral recognition for marriage, you are some kind of ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’ ‘hater’. Never mind that the very notion of ‘gay marriage’ is hateful to the normal definition of real marriage. Saying that ‘gay marriage’ is the bio-moral equivalent of real marriage is like saying Creationism is the scientific equivalent of the true biological theory of evolution. ‘Gay marriage’ and Creationist advocates may invoke the cult of tolerance and ‘inclusiveness’, but when something of genuine value is forced to accept something of no value as an equal, it is a form of contempt against truth. But the likes of Chen, having been drummed since childhood that gays are angels and that rainbow is a gay color, simply cannot think outside the box. They cannot think beyond one-word-argument-judgmental cliches that goes something like “gay good, homophobia bad”, “blacks good, racists bad”, “Jews good, anti-Semites bad.” It’s all black and white, this vs that, ‘us’ vs ‘them’.
What can we say about a generation that learned about racial reality from trash like GREEN MILE, which in its lies and manipulation, is actually far more evil than Violentacrez’s crap? What can we say about generation—such as Chen’s—that seems to equate the miraculous color of the rainbow with two guys sticking their sexual organs into holes designed by nature to serve as fecal organs? People are so easily manipulated, and Chen is prime example of this. I’ll bet he’s actually a fan of lots of snarky, filthy, obscene, and violent videogames, movies, TV shows, and etc. And he must know that almost all of popular culture are dominated and controlled by liberals, and that Jews control the media. He must know that our culture often depicts women as skankyass ho’s, blacks are cool badass ape-like thugs, Mexicans as short and tubby clowns, Asians are geeky nerds who can’t get a girl, Muslims as terrorist scum who should be blown away, southern white males as dimwit numbskulls, and etc. And yet, Chen is blind to the racial stereotyping perpetuated by liberals and Jews 24/7. Instead, he finds the culprit and the source of all evil in some internet geek loser whose only claim to fame was posting stupid trash in some site called Reddit. Was it Brutsch or David Geffen who offered all those million dollar contracts to black thug rappers whose idea of music is to spew anti-human nursery rhymes from morning to night? Was it the Weinstein brothers or Brutsch who signed Tarantino to make a series of movies where 90% of what happens is filth and sadistic violence? Was it Brutsch or Tarantino who wrote the scene in PULP FICTION where the running joke is that some “nigger’s brains splattered all over the car window”? But of course, Tarantino is a ‘hipster racist’ like Howard Stern and Sarah Silverman, and so that sort of thing is okay.

Like so many of his generation, Chen surely indulges in all this filth and garbage in his choice of popular culture. So, why is he so offended by the antics of Violentacrez? What Brutsch did was essentially a third-rate imitation of mainstream culture. So, Brutsch used some racial epithets like so many pop culture personalities. Why attack him having the sensibility of ‘hipster racists’, horror genre fanboys, and other vulgarians who are celebrated all year round in shows like FAMILY GUY?
Who made TAKEN and TAKEN II where Muslims are depicted as white-slaver-scum who should be killed like cockroaches? Who made all those movies that depict religious people—especially Christians—as a bunch of cartoonish mental retards? And if American sports is so ‘progressive’, how come it confirms just about every racial stereotype? Many of the teams are owned by Jews, confirming the stereotype that Jews are smart, cunning, rich, and clever. Many of the power positions are dominated by blacks, confirming the stereotype that blacks are stronger and more aggressive than other races. And where are the Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans in NFL and NBA? Their virtual absence confirms the stereotype that Asians are geeks—like whiny and dorky Chen—and that Mexicans are mostly too stubby and short to win in sports. And if liberals are into ‘diversity’, how come so much of popular culture—especially the now mainstream-ized industry of porn—is governed by racial stereotyping? I thought liberals were supposed to disdain all such stereotypes as ‘social constructs’ created by ‘evil patriarchal white males’.

According to many feminists, sex—what they often refer to as ‘gender’—is really just a ‘social construct’, but homosexuality is not. So, the differences between men and women are mostly based on social and cultural factors—and can be altered or ‘corrected’ through sensitivity training and politically correct indoctrination—, but the differences between straight men and homosexual men are so profound that nothing can turn homosexual men into straight men—though it must be said it’s rather easy to turn lots of straight men into a bunch of pansy ‘metrosexuals’ like Adrian Chen. In a nutshell, the so-called ‘Left’—‘so-called’ because what goes by the label of ‘leftism’ today really caters to SWPL hipster snobbery than serves the economic interests of the working masses—has no use for principles, logic, or truth. All it cares for is power as it sees the world in terms of ‘will to power’, a notion that ‘progressives’ lifted from Nietzsche. Why did ‘progressives’ come to forgo principles? Because principles, rooted in theory and logic, often don’t turn out the way you want them to. Marx predicted the first communist revolutions to take place in advanced capitalist societies like the UK, Germany, and the US, but communists came to power in the most backward great European power, Russia. Since Marxist theoretical prophecy proved to be wrong, Marxists had to play loose with its rules. Even so, Russian communists tried to remain faithful to communist ideology to the best of their ability, but communism didn’t turn out as predicted. In the end, it was not a sound economic system. As for the liberal principles of individual liberty and free enterprise, they led to rise of powerful groups who came to exert tremendous influence on government and other institutions, which is true to this day—perhaps even more, as the Jewish elite that rules America is untouchable: If the Wasp elites of yesteryear openly displayed their power/influence and exposed themselves to criticism, today’s Jewish elites still carry on like they are victims of the Forever Holocaust while the rest of us are too scared to call out on Jewish power and its abuses and hypocrisies lest we be accused of ‘antisemitism’ and lose our jobs. Just as Israel gets to break every international law and still be rewarded by the international community—largely dominated by the US and EU that are essentially controlled by globalist Zionists—, Iran is punished with endless rounds of sanctions and embargos even though it has obeyed every international law on nuclear energy. American Jews not only get to do as they please and get away with it, but they’re praised night and day by both sides of the political aisle as it’s impossible for any politician to get anywhere without Jewish approval and support. Jews can destroy you through the media, government, laws and courts, and scare-tactic hysteria cooked up groups like ADL and SPLC. Abe Foxman is the new-and-Jew McCarthy, but unlike the anti-communist Joe of old, Foxman is well-protected by his fellow Jewish goons in high places.

Liberalism was supposed to lead to greater freedom and equality, but it didn’t happen that way.
Since neither communism nor liberalism worked according to their principles, promises, and theories, the New Left beginning in the 60s adopted Nietzschean ideas and came to regard everything in terms of Power. So, whatever gained more power for your side was good and whatever gained more power to the other side was bad. Even if your side violated principles, it was okay as long as your side got more power. As Malcolm X said, ‘by any means necessary’, a kind of crude version of ‘will to power’ or ‘ends justify means’. The New Left argued—with some validity—that their enemies had exploited principles to justify and conceal their power-lust all along. So, Christian Europe used God and Salvation as justification to rule over the sheeplike masses and then later as a cover for imperialism and colonialism. And Founding Fathers invoked freedom and liberty to take control of the colonies away from the King of England. It had less to do with principles than the desire for power. Since Founding Fathers needed some moral justification to wage war on Imperial Britain, they cooked up high-minded -sounding rhetoric about the ‘rights of man’, but they were slave-owners and waged wars on the Indians. The New Left saw even the American Civil War as a conflict of economic interests than a morally Manichean clash between freedom and slavery. So, everything was really a matter of power, and so, the thing is to win more power for your side.
Of course, using the logic of the New Left, we can argue that even liberal Jews and so-called ‘progressives’ are just a bunch of cynical operators who will play fast and loose with rhetoric, rules, principles, and values to maximize their own power. Why else would Jews be for tight selective immigration for Israel but open immigration in the US? In both cases, it’s about increasing Jewish security and power. And why would blacks call for equal rights in the 50s but then later call for racial favoritism for blacks? It serves black interests. And why would even white Hispanics—whose ancestors conquered and ‘raped’ South America—wear the mask of ‘people of color’ and gain favors as an ‘oppressed minority group’? Why would liberals who invoked the US Constitution to condemn the policies of George W. Bush remain silent when Obama not only extended but strengthened those policies? Of course, there’s hypocrisy galore on the Right as well.

So, principles be damned. Principles no longer stand above or as a corrective to narrow tribal/special interests but are merely just another bag of tricks in the struggle for power. In a way, one could argue that White America lost so much ground because, at least more than any other group, it tried to live by high-minded principles since the 1950s. Even American conservatism came around to adopting the high-minded principles of ‘equality’ and ‘color-blindness’, but as it turned out, their rivals didn’t play by the same rules. Led by the feisty and devious Jews, the ‘progressive’ strategy became ‘Principles for whites but Power for us’. And this hypocrisy was defended on the basis that ‘whites have ALL the power’ and ‘people of color have NO power’. Thus, only white people can be ‘racist’ since only white people have the power. ‘Racism’ has no bite unless it’s backed with power. So, if a Nazi German in a death camp hates a Jew and the Jew hates the German, the only hate that really matters is that of the German since he has the power of life-and-death over the Jew. If one wolf has fangs while the other wolf is toothless, the rage of the toothy wolf matters more than the rage of the toothless wolf.
The logic of “Only white people can be ‘racist’ since white people have all the power” has translated in a political reality where white people must serve as a ‘model majority’ that sticks to the principles of ‘color-blindness’ whereas non-whites can so whatever they want to gain power.
You’d think that non-whites would have gained some power by now—especially with the likes of Bill Maher popping champagne bottles over how White America is over and the GOP is finished forever and the Old White Guy is history(as the Newsweek cover declared)—, but old habits die hard. Even if white power is dead, Jews and their allies must prop up the Frankenstein monster of ‘evil white power’ in order to justify their hunger for more power at the expense of the diminishing power of whites. As long as Jews can steal from the white middle class to ‘bail’ themselves out or to shower blacks and browns with bread-and-circuses, Jews will keep alive the trope of ‘evil white power’. (Jews also welcome increased Asian immigration since Asians tend to work hard and will likely pay the disproportionate amount of taxes—as the white tax base grows ever smaller—, and so, Jewish in high places will look to milking the growing Asian-American community to take care of browns and blacks, many of whom remain pathologically dependent on government handouts seemingly forever. Jews also know that Asians make nice drones, nice running dogs. So, even as Jews will exploit the Asian-American community, most yellows will just be nice little politically correct toyboys of Jewish power, just like Chen is.)

The notion that ‘only white people can be racist’ is predicated on the notion that power relations remain fixed forever. So, we are to believe that whites will always be the powerful and privileged groups forever itching to oppress the peoples-of-color. So, even though Jews are now the most powerful elites in America, we must pretend that Jews are still powerless and white gentiles have great power over Jews—when in fact, most white gentiles now grovel before Jews. We are supposed to pretend that something like ‘gay marriage’ is about equal justice when it means changing the core meaning of marriage just to satiate an extremely privileged bunch of gays in high places. The notion of ‘only white people can racist because they have all the power’ also misses the true nature of power. There is no monolithic power bloc called ‘white folks’, especially when the white elite in America have such contempt for their less fortunate brethren. Since when do rich white elites care about poor whites being raped, robbed, beaten, or murdered by black thugs. Since when do white elites care about the white working class losing their jobs and wages to cheaper illegal and foreign labor? Also, there are all kinds of power. There is economic power wielded by Wall Street—which is Jewish-dominated by the way—, but there is also public power wielded by black thugs on buses, schools, parks, and etc. Why is it that so many places in big cities have become no-go areas? Because tough black thugs act like it’s their private fiefdoms and routinely attack anyone who enters their turf.

Anyway, given the nature of today’s politics, what the White Right must do is go into Corleone or Corleonist mode in THE GODFATHER. Jews and the so-called ‘people of color’ are now acting like gangsters. So are the devious neocons who’ve manipulated the GOP for narrow Zionist purposes. It’s time to say farewell to principles and fight for white power, especially as the demographic, economic, and sexual future of the white race appears grim due to the manipulations of the Jewish elites.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

How Biology Trumps Sociology and How Fascism Wins in the End.


The following is a response to Ken MacLeod's article "The ends of humanity
Socialism is dead, and the transhuman future looms. Is there any way to recover a sense of global purpose?" in the online journal AEON.


The future belongs to what might be called the 'genotopians' because the deep secrets of man are coded in the genes. Socialism failed because its understanding of mankind was cosmetic and plastic. Suppose there is an ugly woman, and we want to rid her of her ugliness. There is the cosmetic way of putting make-up on her face, but all that does is mask her ugliness. It's like spraying perfume on a dirty and smelly person. A more radical way is to put her under the knife and use plastic surgery to improve her looks. Her looks may improve--dramatically or modestly--, but her genes will still coded with ugliness, and so she'll give birth to ugly kids. The only real and permanent way to rid her of her ugliness is to work at the genetic level and change her DNA.
Or consider intelligence. How could we make a dumb person intelligent? IQ is essentially genetic though it depends on how it is developed in each individual. Similarly, though athleticism is genetic, athletes cannot rely on genes alone. Had Michael Jordan spent his entire youth in front of TV and never worked out, he wouldn't have become a great star. Had Einstein never read a book and spent his entire youth lazing around a pool, he never would have made his discoveries. Even so, it's undeniable that Michael Jordan and Einstein had natural or genetic advantages in their respective fields.

Now, some people are born dumb, so how could we make them smart? On the social level, the most we can do is train and exercise their minds with lots of lessons. But the result, in the end, will be cosmetic or plastic. A dumb person may memorize intelligent things to say or conform to the values and assumptions of 'what intelligent people are supposed to think', but he or she will still remain fundamentally dumb, incapable of genuine individual thought and critical inquiry. To turn a dumb person into a truly intelligent person, his genes must be altered. No matter how much were we to educate someone like George W. Bush, he's not going to be Einstein. At most, he can learn to spout intelligent-sounding cliches. But if we could somehow tweak Bush's genes and made them smart, there's no telling what he may be capable of.

The problem of Marxism and socialism was this notion that the essence of humanity is determined by material conditions and consciousness, i.e. material conditions shape one's consciousness, and consciousness, once awakened to the 'scientific truth' of class struggle as the main mechanism of history, would embrace revolution, and then, a new age would dawn.
Problem is the level of consciousness varies from person to person. The consciousness of someone with very high IQ is likely going to be different from those with with low IQ regardless of the social milieu. Also, depending on the temperament, some people might be more content while others are more discontent despite the similarity of social conditions. Consider that Betty Friedan lived in a nice house in the nice suburbs, but she felt miserable and compared her lot to the victims of the Holocaust. But there are women like Anne Romney who love being a wife and mother. There are lots of housewives in Japan who never feel the kind of resentment felt by Friedan even though they have less choice. And there are lots of Mexican women who are economically far less fortunate--in both Mexico and America--than Betty Friedan was in the 1950s, but they are a lot happier and in love with their men. So, the so-called 'consciousness' is never universal. Jews especially seem to be overly sensitive to everything, and so whenever Jews talk about 'consciousness', they are projecting their own especially charged neurosis on the rest of humanity. Marx claimed to express the rage of the working class, but he was really projecting his frustrated rage as an unappreciated intellectual onto the working class as a moral cover. And Freud often projected his own sexual neurosis onto the rest of humanity. He claimed to be studying us, but in fact, he was using us as a screen for his own hangups. So, we should always beware when intellectuals pretend to speak of our 'consciousness'--or 'subconsciousness'.

At any rate, some people are capable of understanding complex ideas and thinking their own ideas; others are only capable of learning the ideas of other people; and some people are beyond understanding complex ideas altogether. This is true in the arts, math, science, philosophy, and etc. The notion that all of humanity could be liberated and advanced though material transformation and 'consciousness-raising' has been naive, to put it mildly. Of course, material conditions and education/media/indoctrination do have profound impact on mankind, but one constant is that most people, regardless of the system they live in, are followers, sheep, puppets, mental children, the duped. Most people are not intellectuals, and even most so-called intellectuals tend to be followers, doctrinaire ideologues than free thinkers, politically conformist commissars than critical individualists. Indeed, for every leading communist, socialist, or Marxist thinker or theorist, there were thousands of hacks, fanatics, and dogmatists who were incapable of thinking for themselves; indeed, that was precisely the appeal of Marxism that supposedly had unified history, science, philosophy, economics, ethics, politics, and everything under the sun. Though there were some vigorous Marxist thinkers, Marxism was really a lazy short-cut to Truth. The appeal was that the great Marx had figured it all out--the formula, mechanism, and destiny of mankind and history--, and all one had to do was study, learn, obey, and spread the gospel.

But in the end, here was the problem. It wasn't only that communism and socialism were less efficient and productive than capitalism. It was that communism/socialism failed to change the nature of man and the fact of man's limitations--especially that most people were mediocre and untalented. No amount of economic experimentation and consciousness-raising fundamentally could ever change the nature of man, and so communism died a slow death.
Though capitalism also failed to change the nature of man, it understood that nature much better and tapped into its potential through incentives and rewards that energized the most skilled and talented members of society. We all know that innovation and progress in all fields are realized by the most intelligent and talented individuals. If communism tended to suppress such talents, capitalism incentive-ized success, and so people with fresh ideas build up businesses, and investors provided the capital. A Steve Jobs would not have been possible in the USSR. Not only would such a person been denounced as a 'greedy capitalist', but his ilk could pose a challenge to the ideocrats--ideological theocrats--who ran the state. Economic freedom could eventually lead to independent forces that may challenge of state monopoly over everything.
If some people are 'greedy' for money, others are 'greedy' for power. And communist intellectuals were greedy for power. Che Guevara and Stalin may not have cared much about material wealth, but they wanted the power to decide who gets to live, who gets to be sent to the gulag, who gets to run the state, who gets to work on the fields and factories, and who gets shot in the back of the head. (Indeed, the main attraction of communism to the Third World was not justice but power. Third World nations felt weak in relation to the West, and many came to regard communism as a kind of Instant Hammer with which to drive out the imperialists and build a powerful economy. In most cases, communists didn't care how many people they killed in the process. What they prized in communism was not compassion but ruthlessness. They knew Stalin killed a lot of people, but the fact is Stalin built a superpower, and Third World leaders hoped to the same. Anything was worth it--even a mountain of bones--as long as their nations gained greater power.)
And contrary to what MacLeod says, there was an element of greed among ordinary people in socialist/communist states as well. Their greed may have been modest but greed is greed. Greed isn't necessarily want of great wealth or great power but want of something for nothing at somebody else's expense. Thus, if I choose to drop out of school, get pregnant in my teens, sit in front of a TV all day, and expect the tax payers to provide me with welfare, I'm being greedy. I may not demand great wealth , but I want something for nothing. And if society were to become filled with too many such people, its economy will eventually go under--as is the case in Greece, Italy, and Spain. Indeed, that was why the USSR finally unraveled. Stalin was murderous, but he understood the true nature of communism: As there were hardly any material incentives for working hard under communism, people had to be forced to work hard with the bully whip. So, Stalin killed millions but he built a superpower. But after the death of Stalin, the USSR sought to practice a more humane communism that was less coercive. In time, Soviets worked less and less but expected more from the state. Even if they didn't expect much, they were still expecting more than what the Soviet economy was able to produce, i.e. what they worked to produce. Since Soviet communism became more 'humane', it was easier for workers to slack off, do very little, get drunk on the job, and so forth. They were no longer being accused of sabotage and sent to the Gulag(all of which were closed in the late 50s), so why should anyone work hard at anything? So, it was the accumulation of modest greed among the masses that undermined the Soviet economy. Everyone was slacking off and producing less and less but everyone wanted higher living standards. For awhile the Soviet economy could sustain the illusion of economic stability with petrodollars--earned from selling Soviet oil to capitalist economies!--, but when the price of oil plummeted, the Soviet economy had no legs to stand on.

And so, capitalism won. But capitalism has its own delusions and problems. Many Americans like to believe in the power of the individual. They say that freedom and liberty combined with ambition and hard work produce great success, and this is indeed true... if you have natural smarts. But the problem is most people don't have natural smarts, and different groups have different levels of general ability. While American freedom can produce men like Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, and many others, the fact is your average man or woman has no chance in hell in becoming very successful. Now, one can argue that great innovators and entrepreneur, even as they get richer, make the pie bigger for everyone. And this is true enough to a large extent. Henry Ford didn't just make himself rich but paid good wages and enabled Americans to own cars. Cars meant faster travel and more trade and thus affected all other industries. And the advent of the telephone also had a great impact on communication and business. And all these enterprises created lots of new jobs, and that meant more spending power for everyone. And indeed, even poor people in the West are materially better off than most people around the world.

But we cannot escape the problem of inequality around the world, not least in the West, and this has serious implications for the future, especially as income levels tend to correlate with race and ethnicity. It's one thing to be a poor white person in a white nation. You may feel economic resentment but not racial resentment. But in a nation where income and race/ethnicity go together, there's likely to be both income and racial resentment, and that could be especially dangerous. Leftists like to believe that all races are equal in talent, but this is not so. The reason why Jews are only 2% of the US population but own up to 40% of the wealth is due to higher Jewish intelligence. Average Jewish IQ in the US is 110-115. White gentile IQ is, on average, 100. And black IQ ranges from 85 to 90.
So, unsurprisingly, Jews are the most successful people in America. 50% of Jews earn more than $100,000 a year. As Jews get richer and richer, many other groups get poorer and poorer. The idea that blacks and increasing numbers of Mexican-Americans will eventually reach the income level of whites, let alone Jews, through more education and training is becoming ever more delusional. Though white, Jewish, and Asian liberals may officially spout all the politically correct nonsense about IQ being nothing more than a social construct, the facts speak for themselves. Jews arrived as dirt poor immigrants in America, but within several decades, they've ousted the Wasp elite and become the ruling elites of America. Jews now control Wall Street, law firms, elite universities, media, courts, US government, etc. Would this have been possible if not for higher Jewish IQ? Though it's true that Jews have a culture that prizes intelligence, it's partly because they are intelligent enough to appreciate the worth of culture.

In sports and physicality, blacks have a decisive advantage. Evolution made blacks stronger and more aggressive. That's why blacks dominate basketball, football, and many top professional sports. That's why so much of the racial violence is black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on Arab, and etc. Even most liberal whites prefer not to live in areas with too many blacks. Thus, there's a lot of anti-black sentiment among non-blacks even if it happens to be repressed as our society deems no sin as graver than 'racism'. Though white liberals will claim to love the Negro, most of them prefer to gentrify neighborhoods by jacking up real estate prices that drives out blacks.

Just as many non-blacks fear blacks, many blacks resent being avoided by non-blacks. While we can understand the frustration of law-abiding blacks, there's no denying that the high rates of black crime and violence owes to (1) blacks knowing that they are tougher than non-blacks who make easy prey (2) higher levels of black aggression due to bio-chemical factors (3) lower black intelligence that prevents many blacks from making the economic climb. Especially with whites--both liberals and conservatives--favoring the more docile and less uppity Hispanic labor over the more troublesome black labor, there's bound to be ever more racial problems in times ahead.

Another problem is the rise of globalism. While international trade is nothing new in capitalism, the main mode of capitalism used to be national capitalism, i.e. "What is good for General Motors is good for American workers." Not anymore. With the expansion of trade treaties, networks, and communication, America-based companies can easily contract and hire much cheaper labor around the world. Thus, while the profits of globalist corporations go through the roof, the middle class and working class in America feel more pinched than ever. If you're of high intelligence and creative/innovative potential, you can prosper in the New Economy, but if you're average or mediocre, there's only the service or servant industry. And it just so happens that most people are naturally mediocre. We keep hearing that Americans must be more 'creative', and while that's true, the problem is most people are never gonna be creative since they are of limited intelligence and talent. Even among trained writers, few are very good. Even among trained artists, few are really talented. Even among trained scientists, few really come up with new discoveries and ideas.

But the myth of American individualism that says anyone can 'make it' with work ethic and dedication continues to fill a lot of people with false hope. And it is increasingly becoming a dwindling hope as more Americans realize that the new global economy is really a boon only for the smart and 'creative' than for all Americans. In the past, the smart and creative Americans mostly built their factories in America and hired American workers(who were often unionized). And so, the employers and employees were one people. Today, there is no such sense of national purpose among the elite globalist class, and so the American middle class is becoming more hollowed out.
And things got really wild when Wall Street bankers played fast and loose and sank the economy, and then used their puppet-boys in government--Bush and Obama--to 'bail' them out at the expense of the already squeezed middle class. Of course, Wall Street was able to get away with such outrage since Jews control all the top institutions. Jewish oligarchs own the media, Jewish sharks own Wall Street, Jewish agents control both the Democratic and Republican parties, Jews run the top law firms, Jews run the academia, and Jews run the courts. So, all those powerful Jewish groups all watched each other's back, and so the Jewish elite banksters on Wall Street got away with the crime of the century. But we cannot speak of this truth because Jewish media will destroy anyone who dares to speak truth to Jewish power.

There is no social, material, or intellectual solution out of the current problem. No matter how much we spend on education, blacks and Mexican-Americans are not going to be the intellectual or economic equivalents of Jews and Swedish-Americans. And no amount of politically correct propaganda is going to rid non-blacks of their fear of blacks since the fear in this case is totally rational and sensible. Fear of blacks among non-blacks is the product of black thuggery, violence, crime, and bullying, and many blacks act the way they do because they very well know they are stronger/tougher than other races and also because they're naturally more prone to be aggressive and less inhibited.

The only REAL solution is genetic. All other solutions are cosmetic and/or plastic. We can pretend that Michelle Obama is a 'smart black lady', but honest people know she's a mediocrity who was generously favored by 'affirmative action' at the expense of far more talented individuals.

If we could use genetic science to boost the IQ of all people to the level of Ashikenazi Jews, there would be more equality. Notice that the most equal states in America tend to be more homogeneously white. This is so because white gentiles tend to share not only a similar set of values but similar range of abilities.

The greatest inequalities exist in places like NY city and California, and why? Because high IQ Jews in NY hog most of the wealth while blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans have a difficult time making the social climb. California is one of the most liberal and 'progressive' states, but it has huge income gaps and why? Because Jews in Hollywood and Jews/Asians in Silicon Valley with their high IQ earn huge sums while the growing number of Mexican-Americans remained mired in mediocrity. It doesn't matter how much California or NY spends on education or 'consciousness raising', or whatever. Indeed, just about everyone in Hollywood and Silicon Valley is a very politically correct liberal. Yet, despite their ideology, certain groups--especially Jews, Asians, and some whites--keep getting richer and richer while other groups keep falling through the cracks more and more. And Charles Murray noted this trend among whites as well: Richer whites with higher IQ tend to marry one another while poor whites with lower IQ tend to marry one another. It wasn't always so, but now, the white race is being more divided permanently--genetically--among income/intelligence lines.

The only solution is to work on the DNA. If everyone could genetically be given the IQ of Bill Gates or Sergey Brin, the world would be more equal. And in athletics, genetic therapy might produce greater parity among the races. China spent huge sums on track and field, yet it won medals only in the Walking competition. And China is a nation of 1.3 billion people. Tiny Jamaica produced more track stars than China and all of Asia put together.  At this point, only the most politically correct fanatic/idiot would deny the racial-genetic factor in sports. If races can be different in the field of athletics, surely they can be different in other areas as well.

We can spend tons of money on Mexican-American athletic training, but will it make Mexican-Americans the athletic equal of blacks? Though Mexican-Americans will surely improve their game with more training,  most of them simply won't have the genetic material to become NFL or NBA stars.
So, if we really want to make humanity more equal and successful, we must work on the genes. Indeed, the fastest way to build up the Arab economy would be by taking high IQ Jewish sperm(or someone like Sergey Brin) and inseminating it into 100,000s of Arab women. Then, the Arab world will almost overnight produce many geniuses in science, math, law, and etc.

And the easiest and cheapest way for China to have its own super athletes in track would be have some powerful West African guy hump a 1000 Chinese women. You can spend billions on educating mediocre children, but they are not gonna be Einsteins. If you want an Einstein, just take high IQ Jewish sperm and impregnate a woman with it. It's so much cheaper and quicker. Biology trumps sociology.

As for social-democracy, its economic system was far closer to the fascist model than to either communism or full-fledged capitalism. Like fascist economics, social-democracy accepted the role of capitalism but also upheld the role of the state in regulating the economy and/or managing certain sectors of the economy. As such, both social-democracy and fascist-economy were forms of the Third Way. Not for nothing did German National Socialism provide all Germans with universal healthcare. National Socialism also created extensive job programs, indeed on a bigger scale than attempted in the US under FDR's New Deal.

If communism saw economics as a war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, both social democracy and fascist economics believed an understanding could be reached by the two sides. Also, both social democracy and fascist economics accepted the reality of classes and economic differences. Some people, being smarter, more talented, and more industrious, were simply going to earn more. Even so, both social democracy and fascist economics believed that all people should be provided with certain basic needs.

Where social democracy and fascist economics differ is in their view of the human soul. The holistic model of fascism sees every member of the state as being spiritually linked with the sacred national family. So, the socialist aspect of fascist economics wasn't simply materialistic but deeply emotional. For a German National Socialist, eating a loaf of bread wasn't just a case of case of eating something made of flour. The bread was regarded as the product of the sacred German soil and  prepared with honest German toil. Thus, the central concept within fascist economics was that you, as a sacred member of a sacred family, must do your best to be a productive member of society. As you eat sacred German bread from the sacred German soil prepared by honest German toil, you too must do your part for the good of the sacred motherland/fatherland. In other words, there was a conditional aspect to National Socialism. The nation gave you stuff, but you must give back to the nation. The nation is not just the government but a kind of family. Since you were 'spiritually' bound with all other Germans and with your sacred nation, it was not enough for you to feel entitled and demand stuff as a self-interested individual. And German National Socialism would have worked had it remained 'national'. But instead, Hitler got greedy and aggressive and veered into international imperialism when he invaded Eastern Europe. The problem of National Socialism was not its nationalism but its violation of the nationalism of other nations. A true nationalist loves his or her nation but also respects the love that other peoples have of their nations. Hitler violated that rule of nationalism, and henceforth, National Socialism was doomed to failure.

The problem of social democracy is it tends to be unconditional and materialistic(or soulless). According to fascist economics, even the lower classes should be provided with jobs, opportunities, purpose, and basic services, BUT the lower classes should reciprocate by working hard as part of the national family. No one should slack off. No one should feel entitled to free stuff just because he or she happened to be born. You must contribute to the nation if you want something from the nation. As such, there is a sense of shame in fascist economics. You must work, want to work, and contribute to the nation as a whole. You mustn't just demand free stuff. And in this respect, fascist economics had one thing in common with communism. Communism too demanded that people had to work and contribute to the nation. Ideally, communism was only for workers, not shirkers.

But welfare socialism that developed in Europe and America sent out the soulless--and soul-destroying message--that everyone was entitled to stuff for free and without any strings attached. So, even if teenage girls in America messed up in school, dropped out, got pregnant with some moron boyfriend, and sat in front of a TV all day, she was entitled to free housing, free food, free clothes, free medicine, free everything. Even free cell phones. There is no 'spiritual' sense that she should be responsible and work hard and contribute to the system to the best of her ability. Instead of give-and-take, it creates a lazy, parasitic, and decadent mind-set that goes for take-and-take.
Today, even a chubby-faced privileged white girl(Sandra Fluke) who attends an elite university--she must be person of some means--expects free birth control pills. With educated people setting such a decadent and rotten example for the rest of America, we can see where this country is headed. In the 30s, it made sense for decent people to sympathize with Okies looking for jobs in California. It made sense to feel sympathy for people who stood in lines for jobs. It made sense to provide welfare for widows with children. But we can sympathize with the man who wants to work in the humanist film BICYCLE THIEVES. And we feel pity for the old man in UMBERTO D, another neo-realist work from the early 1950s.
But in today's America, we are to believe that not providing free birth control pills to some privileged chubby faced girl attending an Ivy League college is 'war against women'. We are supposed to believe that all those black, brown, and white trash girls who mess up in school and get pregnant with one boyfriend after another and live off welfare are 'victims' deserving of sympathy and more freebies.
This is socialism without a soul, without a sense of mutuality and reciprocity. Under fascist economics, people got some 'free stuff' from the nation, but everyone was reminded that he or she was part of the national family, and as such, owed something in return. One should feel gratitude to the national family for what it provides for you. Since the national family provided you with bread, education, and universal healthcare, you should try to be a good person, work hard, contribute, and etc. (And had National Socialism operated within Germany, it would have worked. But the radical racial-imperialist ideology of Hitlerism led to insane murderous ventures in the East.) But there is no soul in social democracy and welfare socialism. Even a bratty, soulless, and lazy slob in America or Sweden can lay back and say, 'gimme free stuff'. And do such people feel even an ounce of gratitude for the 'free stuff' made possible by tax payers? No, they just bitch and whine and demand more. They complain that it's unfair that other people have more; never mind that other people worked for what they got. Complainers and moochers will keep complaining and mooching.

Even so, Sweden has fared rather well because of the built-in quasi-fascist cultural character of Germanic/Nordic peoples. Having been tempered and hardened over the centuries by the work ethic, discipline, thriftiness, social order, and dedication inherent in their culture, Germans and other Germanic peoples became more orderly, efficient, thorough, clean, and committed to work and craftsmanship than most other peoples.
Culture does matter in human achievement and social stability, and this is something fascism very well understands. Marxism and socialism tend to focus on material factors, but culture always played an important role in the relative achievements of peoples. Though IQ has been a decisive factor in Jewish success, Jewish culture of intellectualism and scholarship cannot be ignored either. And the Confucian ethos of East Asia played a key role in the success of East Asians over there and here.  Confucian ethos emphasizing education and social harmony has given East Asians an edge over other Asians. East Asians have a better sense of priorities on what it takes to succeed in life.
Similarly, the reason for the differences between Northern Europe and Southern Europe is due to the different cultural values. Northern Europeans, especially of the Germanic and Protestant stock, developed a more sober temperament, seriousness of purpose, greater bonds of trust and civic duty, a deeper sense of personal responsibility, and mutual reciprocity. In contrast, the Latins and the Greeks are known for their pettiness, self-interest, clannish distrust of others, culture of corruption, and mutual recrimination. So, even if Sweden has been politically liberal/leftist through most of the 20th century, the Swedish character that had formed over many centuries tended to be 'fascist'--orderly, disciplined, responsible, dedicated, etc. And this can be said for the Dutch as well. Paradoxically, the most successful liberal and libertarian nation-states tend to be homogeneous ones with a deep culturally 'quasi-fascist' heritage. They were better able to handle their freedom and freebies because their cultural character was rooted in work ethic and responsibility. Germans especially have been known for their orderliness, thoroughness, and discipline. Indeed, even German greens are more orderly and sober than Greek or Southern Italian conservatives.

Fascists understand and value the power of culture, but socialists do not, and so the very cultural character/qualities that made Northern European success possible are being chipped and eroded away. Eventually, even an hardy people will become soft if corrupted with soulless materialism--and social-democracy and welfare socialism, along with consumerist-capitalism, are forms of soulless materialism. Worse, modern Germanics have swallowed whole hog the false god of 'diversity'. They fail to understand that Sweden has worked as well as it did because it was mostly populated by Swedes of shared culture, more or less equal talents, and common values. Swedes, in embracing 'multi-culturalism' and 'diversity', have opened their nation to hordes of low-IQ immigrants with high birthrates, criminality, backwardness, laziness, and parasitism. As such, whole areas of Sweden is now beginning to look more like Detroit. And Netherlands isn't looking any better.

Thus far, Swedes and the Dutch have done well for themselves in the modern liberal order because their national character had been forged and hardened through centuries of Protestant work ethic, culture of sobriety, culture of self-restraint, and culture of mutual responsibility. Even as the politics got more and more decadent, the core culture and its habits still remained in sufficient number of people to keep the economy working. But as those nations fill up with ever more low IQ people from backward nations, they will turn into cesspools of mediocrity, and no amount of preening politically correct propaganda can refute this dire truth.

Culture matters. All white ethnic groups arrived in America under the same conditions, but some groups rose faster than others. Despite the problems of discrimination, Jews achieved more and faster success than all other groups. And Swedish-Americans are more successful than Italian-Americans who, due to their cultural background, were more likely to be involved with organized crime. Fascism understood the nature of culture, but the soulless materialist ideology of socialism sought to understand everything in terms of economic data. Leftists often say that some kids score higher on the SAT  because their parents are richer and because they attended better schools. But then, why is it that Japanese-Americans, who were dispossessed and 'interned' and had to start from scratch after WWII, became among the most successful groups in America? Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans weren't dispossessed during WWII. Shouldn't they be making more money than Japanese-Americans? Again, we cannot understand such social phenomenon without addressing the issue of culture(and values associated with particular cultures). And many kids from poor Jewish immigrants, though having nothing like the advantages of the WASP elite, did extremely well academically. And even Jews who were denied entry into Harvard and other elite schools achieved remarkable things at CUNY. The advantage of higher Jewish IQ notwithstanding, we cannot understand Jewish success without understanding the culture and values of the Jewish community.
In a way, this lack of understanding of culture accounts for the decline of socialism. After all, ideologically the most 'leftist' and 'socialist' group in America are the Jews. Yet, they are also the richest and most privileged. When a Jewish leftist like George Soros is infinitely richer than a white conservative who believes in Austrian school of economic theory, it's obvious that the world conforms to the reality of the power of culture and biology than to any set of ideological principles. Jews may be overwhelmingly liberal and leftist--ideologically egalitarian--and vote Democratic, but the fact is Jews are getting richer and richer while non-Jews aren't so lucky. And to understand this, we need to look at the real causes of social inequality. They are culture and IQ. Jews have a culture of sobriety and intellectualism and discipline; they also have higher IQs. While non-Jews can learn from Jewish culture and values, they cannot adopt Jewish IQ. .. unless there is a method of genetic therapy in the future that can boost the IQ of all groups at the genetic level. But then, would Jews--even leftist Jews--really want that to happen if it means the erosion of the Jewish advantage over non-Jews?
One of the reason for the demise of socialism is that Jews had long been the ideological leaders of socialism, but the power of Jewish IQ and culture made Jews too rich and successful--even leftist ones--for them to really take stuff like Marxism, communism, or socialism seriously anymore. If anything, Jews are secret neo-fascists who want to gain greater control of the government in order to manipulate us into the kind of people who will readily obey them.

It's long been a truism that in the contest of ideologies, fascism died an ignoble death in 1945, and then, the grand conflict had been between capitalism vs communism, with the former finally triumphing in the 1980s. But seen in another way, fascism didn't die 1945. Instead, the fanatical strain of radical racial fascism as defined by Hitler crashed and burned--and along with it Mussolini's Italian Fascism because Mussolini, unlike Franco, didn't have enough sense to stay out of the war.

To understand the true history of fascism, consider the post-war era when the East and West offered their respective solutions to the problems of the Third World. What was the victor in this game of power? Communism? Capitalism? Or Fascism? It certainly wasn't communism. Anyone who knows anything should know what communism did to China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and African nations. It was one big story of oppression, mass murder, and deprivation. So, did capitalism win in the Third World? Not quite. The most successful Third World nations in the Cold War were fascist Asian nations like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. Of course, they dared not use the term 'fascist' since it was associated with the much loathed Axis powers, but their system of governance, ideology, and economics were essentially fascist. It was capitalism but heavily under state control and guidance. And they were very nationalistic and ethnocentric and promoted patriotism. But like Franco, they were non-aggressive and had no plans to conquer other nations. (Had Hitler followed the same path, National Socialism would have thrived within Germany.) Also, the fascist East Asian states emphasized the importance of tradition while, at the same time, adopting and promoting modernity. The original ideal of fascism was to balance the various elements instead of seeing history and society in terms of constant conflict where one side had to totally demolish the other. The problem of Marxism was its Manichean tendency to see everything outside its ideological construct as an enemy to destroy. So, communists destroyed entire churches, entire populations, entire cultures, entire classes, etc. In contrast, fascism saw no reason to destroy all traditional institutions. Instead, tradition was to be honored as a part of national and cultural heritage. At the same time, fascism rejected reactionary-ism and was open to modernity and technological progress. Communists insisted that the bourgeoisie class must be exterminated. Fascists said classes were natural and would always exist, and so, what was ideal was finding a way to arrive at some kind of compromise among the classes--and in this sense, FDR's New Deal was a kind of liberal fascism.
Communism preached World Revolution and dreamed of smashing national walls to create an ideologically homogeneous community singing the same anthem and worshiping the same god of Marx. In contrast, the fascist ideal was for each nation to have the right to rule itself and maintain its national identity and pride. Of course, Mussolini couldn't resist invading Africa since the price of admission of being a 'great power' back then was to have imperial possessions. Since France and UK had so much, Mussolini figured Italy should have some imperial spoils too. But fascist imperialism was never as extensive as democratic-capitalist or communist imperialism. After all, most of Africa was owned by democratic France and democratic UK. And it was democratic UK and US that encouraged Japan to become an Imperial power long before Japan joined with the Axis powers. And US was created by Anglo-imperialism against the American Indians. Russians had long been expanding their empire over the centuries, and communists took it even further in creating the massive Soviet Union. In a way, WWII was a conflict between the established-giant-imperialist powers--UK, France, US, and USSR--versus the up-and-coming imperialists who felt that they'd been cheated out of the international spoils system.

Anyway, after WWII, a much smarter and more sober form of fascism--though never called 'fascism'--developed in parts of the Third World, especially in East Asia. Though most progressives and liberals in the West thought the future belonged to communist nations(at least in the Third World), history turned out very differently. The fascist East Asian nations made the greatest social and economic progress. They were the first to produce the educated middle class that would eventually push for democratic reforms. In contrast, communist East Asian nations remained not only mired in poverty but committed mass murder and created vast prison states of drabness. It was the success of East Asian fascist nations and overseas Chinese that finally convinced many Chinese Communist leaders that they had to change course. And since then, China has essentially become a fascist state, which again proves the rule that fascism is many times more useful than communism--and even democratic capitalism AT LEAST IN BUILDING UP THE ECONOMY for the rise of the middle class that may eventually push for democratization. As Samuel Huntington realized, a truly working democracy needs a firm foundation, and that happens to be the educated middle class. Thus, having democracy before economic development may be like putting the cart before the horse. While economic growth doesn't necessarily guarantee democratization, a democracy without a solid well-educated and well-informed middle class is like a horse with broken legs. Indeed in Europe itself, economic development preceded the expansion of liberties and the eventual rise of mass democracy. With more economic growth came more political reforms.
At least from the example of the Third World, fascism was more effective in bringing about economic growth and building up the middle class than communism and capitalism(without state intervention)were. The Chinese Communist Party will never admit to being 'fascist' and still continues to use that word as an epithet, but when we look closely at China since the 1980s, it can only be called a fascist state.  In the economic sphere, instead of communism, it goes for state capitalism. Instead of radical universalist rhetoric, it goes for Chinese nationalism; its message is, "We are proud to be Chinese, so leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. Respect our national sovereignty, and we'll respect your national sovereignty." Ironically, the new fascist China has fought no wars while democratic America has been engaged in a series of wars since the 90s, beginning with the Gulf War. Democratic United States even invaded Iraq, a nation that had done nothing to provoke it. And Obama and other democratic leaders decided to use NATO to attack Libya and bring down Gaddafi. Democratic nations like to boast that democratic nations believe in peace and don't wage wars on one another, but they sure love to wage wars on non-democratic nations(even while being very close to other non-democratic nations).
Instead of smashing old culture(as under Mao), the new fascist China reveres the idea of Chinese culture, Chinese heritage, and Chinese history. And unlike communism that banned all religions and made itself the sole faith for all Chinese, new China allows all sorts of religions and a degree of cultural pluralism. If China under Maoist communism remained mired in utter poverty and oppressive paranoia, China since the 1980s has made great progress in leaps and bounds in many fields. Fascism has been a great success. In the end, the new China learned more from tiny fascist Singapore than vice versa. China seeks to become a giant Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea than revert to the old communist ways. But Chinese fascism is smart. It's not Hitlerian; it has no ambition to conquer neighboring nations. It balances internationalism with nationalism. It earns and learns from the world but maintains the sovereignty and national integrity of China.

Another fascist power of the post-cold war is Putin's Russia. Russia's 70 yrs of communism/imperialism has been a failure. Communism in the end brought much ruin to Russian heritage and culture. And Soviet imperialism brought much devastation to Eastern Europe and Central Asia. After the fall of communism, Russia opted for fast-paced liberalization managed by international Zionists, but all it did was hand Russia over to a cabal of cutthroat Jewish oligarchs working in tandem with their tribesmen in NY and Israel. And Russia became one big whorehouse for the West. It was Putin who used a form of Russian fascism to restrain the oligarchs, to promote Russian pride, to restore a degree of discipline. Putin understood that communism was a failure, but he didn't want to hand over Russia to a bunch of international laissez faire neo-liberal capitalists. He insisted on the primacy of Russian sovereignty, solidarity, culture, heritage, identity, and tradition. He encouraged nationalism and higher birthrates among Russian women. Even as the new Russian state rejected communism, Putin encouraged pride of the achievements during the Soviet Era. There was no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Of course, Putin will insist that there's nothing 'fascist' about Putin's Russia. This is par for the course since Russia fought a horrifying war against German fascism, and the word 'fascism' has become synonymous with Eeeeeeevil. But an objective look at Putin's Russia reveals that it isn't communist, it is not democratic capitalist. It is fascist. It balances capitalism with socialism as a kind of Third Way. It promotes Russian pride and nationalism. It defends traditional institutions like the Church. But it also embraces modernity and learning from the rest of the world. It is like early Italian Fascism that was unencumbered with nutty racial theories.

Now, it may well be that while fascism has been effective in building up economies in the East Asia, the eventual thrust of all modern nations is toward liberal democracy. This may be true, but even with the arrival of political democracy, one can argue that the continual success of a nation depends on a degree of cultural fascism. Take Japan for example, one of the biggest economies in the world. After WWII, it was transformed into a democracy by the Americans, and it remains a democracy to this day. But one can argue that Japan's success cannot simply be attributed to democracy. After all, there are many democracies in the world that remains mired in poverty. If democracy is the key to success, all democratic nations ought to be richer than non-democratic nations. But fascist China has done a lot more than democratic India. Chile under the fascist Pinochet achieved more than many democratic Latin-American nations. Taiwan under military rule achieved a lot more than many democratic African nations.

So, we cannot attribute the success of a nation to its political system alone.

Japanese through the centuries have developed a culture of order, discipline, unity, trust, shame, and obligation. While there's been a dark side to Japan's value system--and it continues to plague Japan--, it is indisputable that the Japanese national character played a significant role in the rise of Japan from the ashes of WWII. Democracy allows open debate, criticism, and will of the people, but economy grows from hard work, diligence, industriousness, dedication, and the culture of sobriety & responsibility, and those qualities cannot be achieved through democracy alone. If anything, democracy can make things worse. Blacks always had the shorter end of the stick in American history, but blacks used to believe in the dignity of work. And out-of-wedlock births among blacks were relatively low even in the early 60s. In the 50s, many blacks aspired to become middle class and respectable. But the combination of cultural libertarianism  and the massive welfare dependency ushered in a new era of blacks acting wild, crazy,and lazy, and now 80% of blacks are born out of wedlock and a massive black underclass dependent on handouts has developed. Democracy offers more freedom, but freedom is only as good as the people using it. If used stupidly, it can do more harm than good. Democracy can make people more free, but it cannot guide people on how to use that freedom. Such guidance comes from family, tradition, social pressures and values, from the church, from education, and etc. But the family is in decline, kids are addicted to trashy pop cultures, schools impart the politics of resentment and blame than the culture of learning and responsibility, and many churches--especially black ones--are more like discoteques or rock concerts than spiritual institutions. When freedom becomes rotten and decadent, things will fall apart, and people will look for new solutions.
There are two kinds of social order: order-from-within and order-from-without. The self-regulating and self-shaming order-from-within operates among citizenry that is responsible, sober, and serious; people have an inner sense of right and wrong, of how to function in society. Such sense of inner order comes from family upbringing, schooling, communal life, a sense of sacred belonging to the community--a sense of give-and-take--, and cultural heritage. People with order-from-within will not steal even if they can steal because their inner compass shames them if they were to even entertain the idea of stealing. Successful societies are populated mostly with citizens with order-from-within. If everyone is committed to stealing as much as he can, there isn't much the system can do to stop it. This is why so many shopping malls have closed down in the black community. Even with all the security guards and surveillance cameras, it's impossible to stop and catch all the thieves. It's made considerably worse by the fact that many black employees feel no sense of inner shame or order-from-within and will themselves steal as much as possible. And in most black African nations, everyone treats stealing like a national pastime, from the ruler on the top to the beggar on the ground.

Where the culture of order-from-within is weak and too many people cannot control themselves, it becomes necessary for the system to impose order-from-without. Imagine a population that is wild, rowdy, disruptive, irreverent, irresponsible, selfish--take-and-take instead of give-and-take--, and obnoxious. Since they have no self-control, they must be controlled from the outside. The problem of democracy is it cannot instill rotten lunatics with proper values. As democratic freedom permits people to be stupid, nothing can be done about women who choose to be single mothers, parents who neglect their kids, kids who watch trashy TV and listen to ugly music all day, etc.  When that kind of attitude and culture spreads--and there are no cultural or social counter-forces to check them--, liberal democracy is headed for decadence and decline. And it will continue to decline until things gets so bad that massive civil unrest erupts from which a new authoritarian order arises and uses its iron boot discipline to instill people with the values of order-from-within.

One way to control and restrain the idiots and lunatics is by shaming and shunning, and this may still be effective in parts of democratic Asia where the culture remains pretty conservatives and people--especially the young--still respect older people and feel ashamed of being regarded as morons. But in culturally libertarian America, even shaming people is seen as 'oppressive' and 'repressive'. And so, America has become a shameless nation of ever growing number of slobs and lunatics. The one thing that American society shames is 'racism', but this is as damaging as helpful. If attacking 'racism' meant shaming blind bigots who just like to hurt people of a different race, it would indeed be a good thing. But anti-racists throw the baby out with the bathwater. They even shame honest critics and observers of racial problems, and so, a courageous discussion of America's racial problems has become nearly impossible. And if we can't address the real problems of race, we cannot arrive at any solution. Can a doctor treat cancer if he's not allowed to diagnose the true nature of the disease?  Since blacks are the most irresponsible and destructive people in America, shaming 'racism'--especially among whites--will do nothing to fix the problems of black pathology. Even if all whites were to stop saying 'nigger' and look up to Obama, the problems of black crime, violence, and pathology would still remain. The cult of Tolerance tells people how to treat others, but it doesn't do anything to address a person's individual integrity. Can a person be said to be good if he or she's lazy, dishonest, irresponsible, corrupt, obnoxious, and deceitful BUT doesn't say 'nigger' and adores MLK? This is why liberalism has failed as a value system. It preaches the correctness of outer attitudes but it fails to address the inner virtues that make a person a constructive and productive citizen in life. There's shame for a hardworking white guy who mutters 'nigger' but absolutely no shame for blacks who attack people, beat up teachers, burn down neighborhoods, rob stores, and act like animals in public. The 'hate crime' of saying 'nigger' is more serious than the real crime of actually robbing, raping, and murdering people according to modern liberalism. Liberalism also fails to understand that much of anti-black hate is justifiable since blacks act in hateful ways that incite hate in others.

If more and more Americans turn into lunatics incapable of control-from-within, US will have to turn more and more into an Orwellian state that manages the populace through control-from-without. And we are already seeing that in the UK. As the people have become more vulgar and trashy, the British state has installed many more cameras and other surveillance systems to monitor people at all times. Also, increasing diversity means more racial and social strife. The sensible thing for UK would be to end immigration and expel criminal elements among the immigrants, but political correctness bans anyone from speaking out against the cult of diversity, and so more immigrants arrive each year, and there's bound to be more problems. And since things will fall apart even worse with more people being incapable of order-from-within, there will be more efforts and means to control them from without.
Ironically, the return to political fascism is being enabled by the politically correct ideology and policy of 'diversity' and 'progressivism'. Indeed, the supreme irony of the current era is that liberals are becoming more politically fascist in their efforts to control society. Liberals who once championed free speech are now clamoring to shut down 'hate speech'. Liberals who once disdained fascist iconography are elevating people like Obama into a kind of Nietzschean godman to be worshiped and obeyed by little children. Leftists who used to disdain and rebel against the Establishment and the powerful institutions are now firmly entrenched in those very institutions and cooking up ever new laws and regulations to control what we say, what we eat, what we smoke, and etc. And Hollywood, though owned and controlled by liberals, have appropriated fascist imagery and iconography. But many people are blind to this because they equate fascism only with 'Aryanism', when anything and anyone can be presented via fascist aesthetics.
But political fascism as an armor for cultural Marxism will only be an empty shell. For there to be genuine moral regeneration, what the West now needs is cultural fascism that restores the 'spiritual' link between man/woman and his/her sacred realm.