Notes on THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST 'RACE' by Edward Dutton — Species Cannot Exist without Race — Globalism pushed Ideology of Equality but Idolatry of Black Supremacy — Jewish Perfidy in the Discourse on Race

https://www.unz.com/article/the-arguments-against-race/

--Is “race” an outmoded, morally dubious idea that was deservedly cast into the dustbin of history, along with Stalinism, astrology, and blood-letting? Many say so.--

A hysterical(and tiresome) argument used by the Thought Police so many times. Of course, the problem with such line of argument is everything has a dark side. After all, capitalism did much harm as well as good. Nuclear science led to wonders but also destruction of cities. Socialism can mean anything from radical communism of the Khmer Rouge to the welfare state(a fact of life in all modern societies). So, if critics of race argue that racial ideas may lead to great harm, most of us would concur. But this is true of anything. Without fire, there is no civilization. But fire has also burned down entire cities. Same with water. Without rain we are dead, but floods are dangerous.

So, we need to be cautious with ideas. The problem isn't so much the concept of race per se as the radicalization of racial science into hardline ideology, as with National Socialism. (Indeed, if Adolf Hitler and his followers were more like Benito Mussolini, who was less into racial ideology than the 'democratic' Anglos were, the horrors of Nazism could have been avoided.) Socialism need not be khmer-rouge-ism, and racial knowledge need not lead us to something like National Socialism(or the more extreme forms of Zionism). The real danger is not socialism or racialism(or race-ism) but radicalization of any idea. This even goes for democracy. Radical Democratism has led to 21st century wars that destroyed millions of lives, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The US, by invoking 'muh democracy' at every turn, has justified its despicable and murderous acts of neo-imperialism. Radicalism is extremism, moral narcissism, and moral puritanism. "I am so very right, you are so very wrong" or "If you're not with us, you're against us."
So, the problem isn't race-ism per se but radical racism. (By race-ism, I mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. To emphasize the -ism element of the term, the dash[-] is used: Race-ism. It is not to be confused with 'racism' that is usually meant to mean racial hatred and supremacism, esp of the white kind.) When we consider most ideas, we don't automatically obsess over the most extreme manifestation. So, 'socialism' doesn't mean Stalinism or Maoism. Those are forms of radical socialism, but most forms of socialism haven't been extreme. Likewise, when we say 'capitalism', we don't mean the most extreme kind of libertarian plutocracy with no protections for workers and the poor.
And yet, when it comes to the matter of race, people automatically jump to conclusions and assume it's about extreme hatred, mass repression, and mass murder. Of course, it has a lot to do with Jewish control of media and narrative. Indeed, the discussion of race is not unlike the discussion of Jewish Power. For example, even the slightest noticing and criticism of Jewish Power is denounced as 'antisemitism'. So, if you notice Jewish Power and its abuses, you are automatically a 'Nazi'. You are to be denounced, that is unless you get on your knees and roll over like a dog. On some issues, taboos dominate the discourse in the West. This is where Reason and Enlightenment Values break down. While we can be rational and honest on most things, we must suspend our reason, skepticism, and critical faculties on certain matters, especially if they're 'triggering' to Jews, blacks, and homos. Their FEELINGS count for more than demonstrable facts. Blacks are the most violent and murderous, but the Taboo says we must get on our knees and bawl about BLM.

--(Anti-racists insist) there is no clear way to divide different races. They merge into each other, with great variation in-between. A version of this argument is that there is no specific gene that is found only in one specific race. It can be countered that races are, of course, not entirely discrete categories because, if they were, they would be more like species, or perhaps genera, families, or orders on up the taxonomic scale.--

It is so obvious but PC follows its own twisted logic. We all know race is not species. Races are differences within a single species. Also, different species exist only because different races evolved into different species. If races don't exist, species cannot exist. For example, take the common ancestors of (1) the apes that became the chimps and (2) the apes that became humans. At one time, there were no separate species of humans and chimps. Their deep ancestors belonged to the same species of ape. But within that species, groups went separate ways and they began to diverge gradually. For a long time, there were merely different races of the same ape species. But little by little, the differences accumulated, and something resembling separate species arose. One branch became the chimpanzee and the other branch became the ape that eventually evolved into humanhood. In other words, a species cannot suddenly split into new separate species. Rather, groups within it can gradually diverge and change. This process is race-ization. For a long time, the emerging races still belong within the same species. But over prolonged periods, especially in extreme geological separation from one another, they can evolve into separate species.
This is true of mankind as well. If human races were to remain separate for another million years, they could evolve into different species. Evolution has proven this to be the case. For now, all human races belong to one species. But they have developed different characteristics, and there is a chance that they could evolve into separate species in the next 100,000 or million years. At any rate, if race isn't real, then species isn't real. Any organism, in order to evolve into a new species, must first evolve into different races(within the species). Consider tigers and lions. At one time, they had a common ancestor. It's not like this common ancestor suddenly split into species tiger and species lion. Instead, it began to diverge into different races of itself. One race eventually became the tiger, and the other race eventually became the lion. They began as different races but eventually became different species.

Also, mixed-race people can exist ONLY BECAUSE there are different races. After all, there can't be mulattos in a world that is all-white or all-black. There can't be mestizos in a world that is all white or all brown. Those mixed-breeds came into existence ONLY BECAUSE different races interbred. If we mix apple juice with grape juice, the mixture exists only because apple juice and grape juice existed in the first place. It would be stupid to deny the reality of apple juice and grape juice because a mixture exists. If anything, the mixture proves the existence of the other two.

--Even if it were true that no unambiguous line can be drawn between races, this does not undermine the utility of race. The line between Grizzly bears and Brown bears is blurry, too—but you still know one when you see one and making distinctions between these subspecies is meaningful.--

Brown Bears and Grizzlies are not a good example. They are nearly indistinguishable. Generally, grizzlies are a bit smaller than brown bears, but they are almost the same. A better example is brown bears and polar bears. Though considered as separate species, they are actually different races of bears if we use the Rule of Fertility. Horses and donkeys are separate species because their offspring, the mule, is infertile. Likewise, a lion and leopard can mate and produce offspring but it is infertile. In contrast, the offspring of a polar bear and brown bear, like the offspring of members of different human races, is fertile. Therefore, polar bear and brown bear are really separate races within the same species. But who can deny the differences between the brown bear and polar bear? Just because hybrid bears exist doesn't mean that the differences between brown bears and polar bears are meaningless, insignificant, or negligible. Also, contact between those races of bears usually means more danger to the polar bears. Though polar bears are equal in size and weight, brown bears are built more sturdily and are more aggressive. So, in most encounters, polar bears lose out and take 'white flight' from the brown bears. (For a long time, scientists believed Neanderthals to be a different species of humans, but recent DNA studies show that 5% of European DNA is Neanderthal. That means the offspring of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were fertile, and that means Neanderthals were another race of humans. But, the differences between Neanderthals and other humans were significant.) Another useful example comprise wolves, coyotes, and dogs. Like human races and polar/brown bears, wolves, coyotes, and dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring. That means, from a scientific viewpoint, they all belong to the same species. But should we ignore the very real differences among wolves, coyotes, and many breeds of dogs simply because various mutts and mongrels exist among them? Only a fool would say so. The fact is coyotes are no match for wolves in combat, and wolves can demolish any dog, just like a pitbull can demolish a beagle(just like a Nigerian can demolish any Briton or Japanese). A coyote that ignores the threat posed by wolves because a weasel tells it, "Hey, don't be racist as if wolves are different and pose a danger" is a dead coyote.

--Some say that race is illegitimate or immoral because it is steeped in Western history (and thus things like slavery and oppression), as well as the supposedly myopic and suffocating outlook of “Western science.” But this same argument could be made about almost any concept—including the ones that supposedly undermine or overcome Western hegemony... If race is “problematic” because it’s Western, then, presumably, we cannot use Western concepts at all to analyze anything non-Western.--

Very true. Chemistry and physics are also Western Concepts. So, does that mean the world should reject medicine resulting from Western chemistry? Should people deny the laws of physics discovered by Western Scientists? Is atomic power just an illusion steeped in 'western bias'? The West developed the scientific method, and that meant it was applied to just about everything. As humans are part of biological reality, a scientific view led to categorizations of race.
Now, were all ideas associated with race valid? No, but that could be said of any scientific field. So many medical ideas once accepted as true turned out to be false. Physicists once speculated outer space was filled with ether. Science improves with more observation, testing, trials, and experiments. But in order for it to improve, there must be more truth, integrity, and honesty. There is no question that National Socialists misconceived and misapplied racial theories. Indeed, they were less interested in the science of race than in the ideology of race. Hitler and his cohorts(and the favored partisan hack scientists) insisted on the Correct Theory of Race that put 'Aryans' at the center. If they were truly interested in racial science, they would have allowed debate, but they didn't. Aryanism became the national mythos of Germany. It was not unlike the concept of Chosen-ness among Jews except that it was explained in scientistic terms. Likewise, Marxism was less a rational economic theory than a prophecy. While claiming to be 'materialist' and 'scientific', it had more in common with Judeo-Christian vision of apocalypse and redemption. Communism was secular-christianity, and fascism was neo-paganism. Marxism was a form of scientism than real science. But as science gained prestige, all sides claimed to have 'science' on their side. Indeed, even Creationists play that game. They are allied with Intelligent-Design people who argue that one can 'scientifically' prove the existence of the supreme being behind the cosmos. Even more crude forms of Creationism pretend to 'scientifically' explain how mankind once lived alongside dinosaurs by pointing to 'archaeological' evidence. And Sigmund Freud insisted that his theory of sexuality was purely scientific when it had more to do with speculation, personal hang-ups, and resentment toward goy society.

Sir Isaac Newton

At any rate, the fake/flawed radical racial 'science' of the National Socialists wasn't supplanted by true, rational, and improved science but by the fake/flawed radical anti-racial 'science' of Jewish Deracinators. It was out of the frying pan into the fire. The world went from false racial science to false anti-racial science. It went from one radical certainty to another. It was like going from a crazy pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat ONLY meat to another pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat NO meat. How about a truly scientific dietary plan that argues for meat, grains, and vegetables?

Now, given World War II and the Shoah, there is no doubt that the radical racism of the National Socialists did great harm. And we can understand why people became freaked out about race. But the radical anti-racism since World War II(which especially accelerated in the 1960s)has also done great harm. Mass migration of non-whites into the West will surely lead to the fall of Western Civilization. And lack of white defenses against blacks will lead to racial doom for white folks. Europeans Europeanize, Africans Africanize. If Europe fills up with Africans, it will be Africanized like the Dark Continent(or Detroit).

Consider the Jesse Owens and Joe Louis Narratives. They are often invoked to discredit the notion of 'Aryan Supremacy'. You see, blacks beat the 'Aryans', and that means Nazi 'racism' was all nonsense. But that is only one side of the coin. Did Owens and Louis' achievements prove that races are equal? They would have IF Louis fought Schmeling to a draw and if Owens finished in a tie with the 'Aryan' sprinters. But in fact, Louis destroyed Schmeling, and Owens beat the white runners by a considerable margin. So, even if their achievements blew 'Aryan supremacism'(in athleticism) out of the water, they demonstrated the fact of black athletic superiority.
What is the social implication of this? Tougher blacks can beat up whites. And in Europe, the racial violence is usually black on white, just like in the US and Brazil. That means blacks end up feeling contempt for white wussy weaklings. That means white males are robbed of manhood. It means white women become infected with jungle fever. BAMMAMA(blacks are more more muscular and more aggressive) leads to ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). It means total sexual triumph of blacks over whites. White males turn into pathetic cucks who watch their women go over to blacks who not only have tougher muscles but bigger dongs. (But then, the very people who say race is false and that 'we all bleed red' are also saying whites should import more blacks because blacks are so awesome in song, strong, and dong. So many Jewish-funded movies, TV shows, and advertising are predicated on Jungle Fever that says white women should reject white men and go with black men because the latter are superior in manhood. Go figure. They say one thing but show another. They say 'race is not real' but show 'look at the big muscular Negro with the big dong compared to that flabby wussy maggoty white boy'. The ideology is 'anti-racist' but the idolatry is totally 'racist' in favor of blacks uber whites.)

It's also been said that German science suffered due to the exile of Jewish scientists during the National Socialist era. But if all races and human groups are the same, why was it a loss for Germany and a gain for the US when Jewish scientists went from one nation to the other? It was a loss for Germany and gain for the US only if Jews are smarter and superior at scientific research. That would imply group differences are true, or at least true enough.

Now, there is a kernel of truth in the denunciation of Western bias in the science of 'race'. While it's true that virtually everything related to modern science, math, medicine, and technology emerged from the West, the non-human endeavors surely got a more objective treatment than human-related ones. Even today, hard sciences are more scientific than social sciences(that are never fully devoid of tribal or ideological bias). Now, there were examples of ideological bias in hard science as well, e.g. National Socialist science that denied the physics theories of Jewish physicists and Lysenko-ism in the USSR.
Still, generally speaking, when it comes to hard science, the West transcends the West, i.e. the objective is to arrive at the truth, not to trump the specialness of any people, nation, or civilization. When a German chemist or physicist works on a project, he is seeking the truth, not waving the banner of German pride. Thus, even though modern science developed in the West, it goes beyond culture and race. The scientific method can be used by any nation or people.
But the topic of race, even under scientific scrutiny, was never entirely empirical or objective. Rather, many racial scientists had ideological agenda or something to prove. And this has been the case in other nations as well. Chinese, for example, long insisted that they evolved from Peking Man than some group that emerged from Africa. Japanese racial 'scientists' insisted there is something 'unique' about the Japanese. Much of this is closer to mysticism than science. Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond has argued against race but says DNA studies can identify who is really Jewish and who isn't. Humans can be objective about lots of things but not themselves. They are too vain, too proud, too anxious, and/or too much at competition with, dominant over, or servile to other races to be totally objective. Take the controversy of "Were Ancient Egyptians black?" By the American one-drop rule, many Ancient Egyptians could be said to have been black. But as they were more Caucasian than Negroid, one could argue they were more 'white'. Or, are Jews more 'Semitic' or 'European'? Even Jews are confused about this.

Still, if there was a Western Bias in racial science in the past, the proper way forward is to be rid of those biases and approach race more scientifically than to throw the baby out with the bathwater and pretend the very concept of race is untrue. But then, was anti-racism really sincere? I don't think so. Deep down inside, many Jews surely believed in race and only pretended it didn't exist because racial thinking might probe into differences among whites, blacks, Jews, and others that might prove to be inconvenient for Jewish Power. After all, even as Jews took pride in having higher IQ over goyim, their fear was that goyim might realize this and begin to resent Jews for their superior intelligence that leads to more wealth and power, which could be used by Jews to boost Jewish Power at the expense of white interests. The fact that Jews insist on the abolishment of white identity all the while insisting that whites revere, support, and lionize Jewish Identity & Power gives the game away. But white cuckery has become so ingrained in the white psyche that whites are in habitual denial of what is really going on. Take the recent election debacle. Jews are most responsible for the Crazy 2020, but most conservatives are blaming China, China, China, a secondary player if that in the fall of White America. Denial of racial differences in IQ is also useful to Jews in perpetuating 'white guilt' & white submission and in directing black rage at whites. If it were known that black failure in education and economic achievement owes to genetic factors, whites would feel less guilty about their history. Fading of white guilt would mean it'd be harder for Jews to guilt-bait whites into seeking redemption by sucking up to Jews(and blacks and homos). Also, if blacks realized they're on the bottom due to lower IQ while Jews are on top due to higher IQ, blacks would be most envious and resentful of Jews. So, it is advantageous to Jews to blame black failure on white 'racism' and to keep blacks hating whites above all.

--While the history of words is interesting, the fact that the meaning of words change over time is simply irrelevant to our purposes here. We are clear that by “race” we mean breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments.--

True enough as 'gay' can mean happy or homosexual, but still, maybe it's useful to come up with a new term. As races developed through genetic changes over geographical distances, maybe racial science should be called geo-netics or geonetics. And maybe 'geon' should be used for 'race'.

--Another supposed problem with race is that developing the concept leads to bad consequences.--

How about we denounce Zionism because it led to bad consequences for Palestinians? Also, if race is a relatively recent idea(and a toxic one at that), could it be said human history was more pleasant in the pre-race eras? Bantus didn't have a concept of race, but they sure butchered a lot of people all across Africa. Maybe the Mongols didn't think in terms of race, but they sure could conquer, pillage, and kill. Maybe the Conquistadors lacked the scientific notion of race, but they should committed many horrors in the Americas. And before them, the Aztecs could be cruel as hell.
In contrast, the Anglos were profoundly mindful of race and racial differences, but one could make a strong case that they did most to advance mankind as a whole. Didn't Anglos do more for their colonies than the less race-minded Spanish and the French for their colonies? And didn't Anglo enslavement of blacks lead to more advancement for blacks than enslavements under Arabs and other Africans who presumably didn't think in terms of race? So, one fallacy could be countered with another. If Political Correctness says, "The concept of race is evil because of all the bad things done in its name", it could be countered, "The concept of race is good because Anglos, the most racial-minded of all imperialists, did most to advance and lift up mankind." Was it better for blacks to come under Arab rule or Anglo rule? Who did better in the Americas? Blacks who lived under Anglo-American power or blacks who under less-racially minded Spanish/Portuguese power? Anglos were more 'racist' toward the Chinese than the Mongols were. It's doubtful the Mongols called the Chinese 'chinks' since they were also a slanty-eyed people, but China achieved more under Anglo intrusion than under Mongol rule. Of course, such line of argument is fallacious but no more than the anti-racist school of thought that seeks to discredit all notions of race because some radical racists did bad things.

Another thing. Anti-racism can be used to justify imperialism. After all, if races are all the same, it wouldn't make a difference if People A invade and rape People B. After all, they are all the same. Chinese are taking over Tibet and push 'anti-racism'. They say Chinese and Tibetans are all brothers under the skin, and Tibetans should just mate with Chinese and become fellow Chinese. On the surface, this sounds humanitarian and 'inclusive', but it also means doom for Tibetans as the Han Chinese outnumber them by a huge margin. Latin American elites justify the history of conquest, rape, and domination on the premise that there is only ONE people in Mexico and South America. Supposedly, people don't see 'race' because they are all equal and all mixed. But it totally ignores the fact that the indigenous brown peoples were invaded, raped, and dominated by another people. 'Inclusion' is often a justification for invasion.

Another thing. Some anti-racists argue that race-mixing is beneficial. But if all races are the same, why would race-mixing be beneficial when all groups are the same under the skin? Either the PC-pushers are stupid and ignorant of their contradictions or they are mendacious and push for race-mixing with full knowledge that it will favor certain races over others. Interracism between whites and blacks, for example, favor blacks. Not only do mixed-race people identify as black, but it's usually black male and white female. Black men sexually conquer white women while white men are relegated to cucky-wuck dork-hood.

--Beyond that, it can be convincingly argued that suppressing the concept of race leads to very bad consequences. If a South Asian person has a kidney transplant and is given the kidney of a White person, then his body will likely reject it, elevating the possibility that the patient will die of kidney failure.--

All very true, but that is a petty example. It's about individuals and illness. No civilization ever went under because people died of disease. After all, Europe survived the Bubonic Plague and Spanish Flu. So, the medical argument for race is weak. The real danger of overlooking the issue of race is that the white race might not wake up to the black threat and Jewish threat. Blacks are superior in brawn, and Jews are superior in brain. So, when whites allow Jews and blacks to run wild and free, Jews will take over elite institutions/industries and use their power to weaken white identity and unity. And blacks will dominate sports and take over as the new idols of national prowess. Black athletes who destroy white British ones are hailed as National Champions, and that means white girls will grow up with jungle fever and white boys will be instilled with cuckitis. As whites come to celebrate blackness as 'badass' and 'cool', it will be deemed especially evil to have any doubts about blacks. And that means whites won't be able to say NO to further black immigration-invasion. And this will mean more black crime and black violence against whites in the streets and schools. And that will mean the end of Europe. THAT is the real evil of anti-racism.
However, the real danger of the Current West isn't ideological anti-racism but idolatrous pro-racism in favor of blacks. Today, many whites welcome more black immigration not on the basis of equality of the races but superiority of blacks. Whites in UK and France revere blacks as sports champions, rappers, twerking mamas, and big-donged studs. And this idolatrous supremacy of blacks is disseminated all around the world. There are tons of black-centric advertising in Germany and Poland, even in Russia. Even Japan, so distant from Europe and Africa, is falling into the Jungaru Trap. Japanese women are whores who mate with blacks, and their kids are taking over Japanese sports, and Japanese elites, ever so servile to the West, are pushing for 'Japan That Can Say Ho'.

--“There are more differences within races than there are between them.” This is wheeled out with great profundity by biased scientists when interviewed in biased newspapers, without any references. It has come to be known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy,”--

It's a fallacy alright. Besides, how can there be differences within the race when race doesn't exist in the first place? If race doesn't exist, then the differences within and outside the 'race' would be the same.

My take on Lewontin's BS is simply this. Most people within any group are average and part of the norm. So, even if it may well be that the genetic difference between a retarded Japanese giant and a genius Japanese midget is greater than between an average Japanese and an average Nigerian, the fact is most Japanese are not genius midgets or retarded giants. If we were to randomly pick two Japanese, they would most likely be average. Same if we randomly pick two Nigerians. Most Japanese belong to the average norm, and same goes for Nigerians. Now, would two average Japanese be more different from one another than either of them is to an average Nigerian? No way. That'd be like saying there's more difference between Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz than between either of them and Mike Tyson or George Foreman. That's total BS.

--Another argument—and there are many versions of it—amounts to an appeal to emotion, in which a person essentially argues that “race” makes him feel unhappy.--

This is, of course, BS and very selective. 'Race' is supposed to make people uncomfortable IF it is about the validity of white race-hood. It's NOT OKAY to be white. But blacks feel most comfortable when they are going on and on about their blackness and black identity and blackity blackness. So, when black people claim to find 'race' problematic, they really mean not enough (positive)attention is being showered on them. How dare any time be spent discussing other races when it should be about blacks 24/7, sheeeeiiiiiit.
And Jews are the same way. It's Jewish this, Jewish that. And it's not just about culture and history. After all, Jewishness isn't just about religion or historical consciousness. Even atheist Jews are considered as fellow Jews. A Jew can be a Buddhist or even Christian, but he's still a Jew and can live in Israel. Jews seem to have no problem with Zionism's blood-based identity of what constitutes Jewishness. Indeed, Zionism will accept an atheist person of Jewish lineage while rejecting an African, Chinese, or Arab who is eager to convert to Jewishness.

Also, the Holocaust has gone from an Anti-Racist Narrative — "We Jews were victims of German racial supremacism" — to a Neo-Racist Narrative: "Jewish Lives Matter More". After all, the 20th century has seen tons of deaths, and Jews did their share of killing. But it seems 80% of all moral outrage has been devoted to the Shoah. Why? Do Jewish lives matter more? Are Jewish lives more precious? Are Jewish Lives so precious that it doesn't matter when Jews kill millions of goyim, as in the communist horrors of the USSR? Anne Frank matters more than the millions of Ukrainian kids who died in the Great Famine? A Jewish life matters more than the 100,000s killed by AIPAC-driven US Wars for Israel and crippling sanctions? Jewish life is so precious that it's okay for Jews to kill others, but one mustn't harm a hair on a Jew. Madeleine Albright can say it's worth killing 500,000 Arab kids, but damnation to anyone who hurts Jewish feelings.
Thus, Holocaust Narrative has come to mean that Jewish Lives are more precious and matter more. Anything is justified to save Jewish lives, protect Jewish lives, and to favor Jewish lives. It's like the insane logic of BLM. Nothing is spoken about black violence on non-blacks. Blacks commit tons of crimes. Black soldiers in US bases around the world are the top rapists. Black athletes in colleges commit most crime and rape. Blacks are top thugs. But the moral outrage is only about the rare black who dies at the hands of whites. Same dynamics operates in US and UK. Also, this moral burden is placed on white shoulders. So, even though blacks kill blacks by the bushel in Africa, it's no big deal because blacks, being special, can do as they please among themselves. Blacks can be amoral and nihilistic, but that's okay because they are blackity-black wonderful. So, the burden of caring about black well-being falls on whites, even when blacks make other black lives miserable. (If non-whites mess up their own nations, they can't be expected to bear the burden of fixing their own problems. Rather, whites must bear the burden of providing sanctuary for them in white nations.) But then, when white cops do their job and try to minimize crime and violence in black areas, blacks howl about 'racism' and riot(often with encouragement from Jews). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So, when Jews and blacks say 'race' makes them feel uncomfortable, they really mean all the talk should be about the Jewish race or black race, all favorable. After all, if race is real and if all races matter, then Jews and blacks must share the moral space with other groups. But Jews and blacks want to hog all the space for the Jewish race and black race.

Now, there are whites who feel uncomfortable about 'race', but why? Because their minds have been molded by Jews who control media, academia, and whore politicians/officials who spout PC nonsense 24/7. This discomfort isn't natural but ideological. It's been inculcated in their minds by nonstop anti-white propaganda and education. If Jews and blacks feel angry when the discussion veers into anything other than their own noble/soulful identities, whites have been made to feel disgust about any positive expression of white identity. But then, the very PC whites who can't abide white racial identity have no problem babbling endlessly about how great the black race or Jewish people are. So, the question must be asked, "Why is racial supremacism great for Jews and blacks but mere racial identity is evil for whites?"

--On a deeper level, we should understand that science is fundamentally amoral. It is about the relentless search for the objective truth.--

But let's be honest here. Racial science is never meant to be merely scientific, objective, or amoral. When we study the differences among wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, birds, and etc., we can be detached and neutral(though some people may favor certain animals over others while others may be alarmed about invasive species that may upset existing eco-systems in the interest of preserving bio-diversity). No one in the HBD movement has been merely scientifically interested. They are usually white identitarians who root for their own kind. Even as they acknowledge certain genetic advantages among non-whites, they use those facts to argue for white well-being. Richard Spencer, for example, says it's not good for US to take in high-IQ Indians and Chinese as they might become the over-class over whites. Others admit that blacks are athletically superior, and THAT is the reason against 'inclusion' of blacks in white spaces. Tougher blacks will terrorize and wussify the whites, just like Mongol Wrestlers made a mockery of Japan's sacred fatty sport of Sumo.
So, while science itself is amoral, its uses and purpose is always moral or tribal or political. The physics behind the nuclear bomb is amoral, but the Bomb was used for reasons that biased one group against another. The dynamics of evolution is amoral, but every organism works to maximize its own survival and dominance. Indeed, why do we look into the science of race? After all, science can be used to look into just about anything. But we ignore most things and focus mostly on those that matter most to our survival, well-being, happiness, and power. The science of race is all-important because there are obvious problems in the West, and the most serious ones cannot be understood apart from race. Jewish brain power and black brawn power can only be understood in terms of racial differences. Power decides history, and racial differences profoundly affect power dynamics among various groups.

--This is why the kind of scientists who tend to make really important discoveries—so-called “geniuses”— seem to combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness (altruism and empathy) and moderately low Conscientiousness (impulse control, rule following). This means that they can “think outside the box,” not bound by conventional rules—maybe they even take pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows.--

But then, why is the scientific community so PC and craven? While certain scientists may be like William Shockley or James Watson, most are smart enough to know that they must play the game. Also, even though they think outside the box, they work within the box of specialization. Thus narrowly focused, they outsource their social diplomacy to others. Take Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Maybe deep down inside, they know more than they let on, but as super-geeks, they are savvy enough to hire public relations and parrot the party line. Or take Craig Venter, the guy involved with DNA studies. He surely knows about race but pushed the PC line to keep his position.

Now, there may be people who are so aspergish that they can't help spouting off inconvenient views. Even with public relations department all around them, they can't help muttering things that are bound to offend people(especially in a time when people are conditioned to feel 'offended' or 'triggered' by just about anything, now known as 'micro-aggressions'). But such people are hardly inspirational, and their views are narrowly focused on one thing or another. They don't offer the big vision. This was the case with James Watson. He narrowly focused on black IQ and despaired of the future of Africa. But he failed to construct and deliver a larger message about what black failure means to the West, especially with massive black migration to Europe. He also failed to address the Jewish Question at the heart of PC and anti-whiteness. After all, Jewish Intelligence may be even more fatal to the West because, despite being smart and genuinely capable, Jews use their amassed power and privilege to subvert and destroy the pillars of white power. Blacks degrade society because they are underachievers, but Jews degrade society by over-achieving and using their vast fortunes/power to subvert goy civilizations out of revenge, resentment, paranoia, or just plain nastiness that they revel in. Now, had James Watson gone further in his critique, he would have gotten into more trouble, but it would have been inspirational and earth-shaking. He would have spoken like a prophet. But he talked about race only as a geek, and just like a geek, he cowered under pressure. Aspergy types may say inconvenient stuff but lack the balls to see it through when pushed back. (Bobby Fischer was an exception though, to be sure, he went off the deep end.)

Also, high IQ types don't make good leaders for the people. They live in a world of their own. They don't feel much camaraderie with the dummies and morons who make us most of humanity. When they go on and on about IQ, they favor the meritocracy of the best and brightest regardless of race. They are for the natural aristocracy. Take the lunatic Michio Kaku. He feels nothing for the Japanese. He feels nothing for most Americans. He just thinks the dummy masses should work and consume and pay taxes so that geniuses like him can advance science to the point where humanity can merge with artificial intelligence and become 'gods'. So, even though aspergy types may sometimes go off-script, they offer nothing to inspire the masses or the volk. They are too narrowly focused than broadly aligned with 'my people'.

--In the wake of World War II, “racist” gradually came to mean what “racialist” had once meant.[21] However, the term “racist” has been extended far beyond this, to refer to anybody who is seen to deviate from ideological orthodoxy with regard to the issue of race. Terming such a person the “racist” associates him with that which is accepted as somehow evil and immoral.--

No, following WWII, 'racist' came to mean 'bigot', 'white supremacist', 'hater', or some loon. It was never meant to be synonymous with 'racialist'. The problem with the term 'racist' is it makes a mockery of the meaning of -ism. As -ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. So, how did race + ism come to automatically mean racial hatred, racial supremacism, racial bigotry, and etc? Imagine if 'socialism' automatically means Stalinism or Maoism. It would be toxic. Socialism at its radical extremes can mean Stalinism or Maoism, but the generic meaning of socialism means some degree of statist role for collective interests. Thus, even social-democracy can be deemed socialist. And fascism too.

But precisely because generic race + ism has been defined as racial extremism(especially of white variety), it's difficult for people to honestly discuss matters of race. Genericism on race has been made synonymous with extremism. But same goes for the concept of whiteness. Once a neutral term — quality of European descent — , now it's treated like some evil phantom of history. So, 'whiteness studies' doesn't mean an objective study of white people and culture but an alarmist diagnosis of white people, history, culture, and whatever as the source of all the evils of the world. Whiteness isn't a subject but a disease. It isn't something to really study but to search and destroy or burn at the stake. It's like Jewishness was never a neutral matter in National Socialist Germany. When Nazis studied Jewishness, they weren't detached scholars but doctors studying a pathogen that must be wiped out.

This is why the ONLY WAY to dig out of the hole is to embrace the term 'race-ism'. The dash(-) emphasizes the true meaning of 'ism'. Race-ism can become radical racism but need not be.

But what's most outrageous about all this is the Jews(as pathological semites) are playing a truly dirty game. If Jews, in their naive idealism, were waging war on 'racism' in an earnest effort to stamp out all manifestations of bigotry and hatred, it would at least be understandable. But the real reason why Jews bull-whip and terrorize white identity and interests is because they want to keep white people servile to Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews don't say, "You whites give up your identity and interests, and we Jews will do the same." No, Jews say, "You surrender your banner and carry ours." It's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." Jews denounce whites as 'nazis' because they want to be Judeo-Nazis over the world. Jewish message to Hungarians is as follows: "Give up your 'racist' Hungarian identity and borders but then be sure to support Israel uber alles." Jewish message to white Americans is as follows: "Feel white guilt over the Holocaust and Slavery and always remind yourselves that you whites totally suck as the mass murderers of history, but then be sure to suit up with military gear to smash and kill any number of Arabs and Muslims for the benefit of Israel." Pathological-Semites or Patho-Semites are truly sick in the head. But they rule the West because Anglos have weaker and more yielding personalities. Jews even joke about the lack of will among Anglos:

Notes on "THE GREATEST JEWISH JOKE EVER TOLD" by Spencer Quinn
https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/the-greatest-jewish-joke-ever-told/

Now, some might say that I'm trying to 'blackpill' people with all the doom-and-gloom talk. But we must speak honestly, just like a doctor must tell a cancer patient about his ailment. Unless the truth is outed, there can't be any real treatment. The current West is like treating cancer with ALL MEANS except those meant to deal with cancer cells. Imagine a cancer patient who is given the most elaborate and expensive treatment for EVERYTHING but the cancer. His eyes, ears, throat, stomach, liver, pancreas, arms, legs, groins, buttocks, and etc are given special treatment with all the tools and medicine. Millions and millions are spent on the treatment... except his cancer is ignored. He will surely die. The black problem is handled that way in the West. Why do blacks fail in school? Lower IQ and rowdy behavior, but no one addresses the problem of natural lower IQ and natural higher aggression among blacks. Instead, money is poured into everything without addressing the crucial fact.
And same goes for Jewish Power. So much of financial, cultural, and foreign policy failures can be traced back to Jewish supremacist abuse of power, but people blame Everyone and Everything but the Jews. Take the recent election. Jews were most responsible for the fiasco that was 2020. With control of medicine, media, deep state, Wall Street, and whore politicians, Jews were hellbent on doing EVERYTHING to topple Trump, but these Trumpists are blaming everything but the Jews. So, nothing will change, nothing will be fixed.

Also, what the West needs is to study the Portnoid Style in Jewish Politics, just like a famous Jewish historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote of the Paranoid Style in American Politics. 'Portnoia' is necessary if we are to spill the beans on what is really happening. There must be no more inhibitions. In a way, Jews gained over Wasps because Jews were vulgar and portnoid in spilling the beans on the Real Wasp, i.e. while Wasps put on a respectable Country Club image, they were really a bunch of a--holes like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Well, it's about time whites did the same to Jews and went totally portnoid on Jewish Power. To be sure, this is harder to do as Jews immunized themselves with shamelessness. It's easier to expose the phoniness of Wasps with their air of respectability and dignity than to expose the Jew who inoculated himself with the pride of vulgarity. One can shame William F. Buckley but not Howard Stern. Still, there is such a huge gap between the tragic and noble image of Jews as a long-suffering people full of wisdom and the obnoxious image of Jews as two-faced a--holes who've turned the Holocaust into License to Steal and Kill for the sake of stuffing their own pockets and securing their own supremacism.

Being portnoid isn't to blackpill but to see truth for what it is. Then and only then can people embark on the right and righteous path. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. I got the following email complaining that my views have a blackpilling effect:

"If your goal is to encourage cucky-wuckery and Jungle Fever then you're doing a great job. Constantly hearing about BAMMAMA, ACOWW, the pussification of the white boy and big black dongs along with your convincing but pessimistic predictions regarding the future of white manhood is extremely de-moralizing. Reading your vivid, primal descriptions of black thugs smashing wussy white boys and humping white girls to mind-blowing orgasms is going to give your white male readers an uncomfortable number of masochistic boners and your white female readers plenty of tingles. The only way then to comfort yourself in your racial-sexual loserdom as a white boy is by whanking to videos of muscular Negro studs pumping beautiful Aryan women into cascades of convulsive ecstasy. You can only repeat this humiliating ritual so many times before you accept the inevitability of white racial defeat and even the desirability of bigger, stronger, more dominant black men conquering the women of your tribe and blotting-out the genes of the degenerate males too credulous, perverted and weak to prevent it. Do you really write for White National Liberation/National Humanism as you claim? Because I can assure you that the effect you are having is very different. Enough nationalists have a white genocide fetish already without any need to encourage it. I had already arrived at these basic conclusions a couple of years ago but your writings certainly added fuel to the fire. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on these subjects."

So, the writer assumes that facing the truth and speaking of the dangers is demoralizing, therefore fatal. But the ONLY way to change course is to speak the truth as things really are. I maintain American History could have been very different IF, in the time of Jack Johnson, white people spoke of the black threat in portnoid ways. But they didn't, so here we are. Truth may not save a people, but it's the only chance they have in a world of lies.

WHY WAS THE 1960S THE PEAK OF HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (AND PRO-SOCIALITY)? by DR EDWARD DUTTON: THE JOLLY HERETIC

Is a Nation(such as America) Just-an-Idea? Is a Person Just-an-Idea?

It’s a common practice(even habit) among politicians and thinkers(mostly official scribes) to reiterate that America is an Idea or even ‘just an idea’. But is a nation just an idea? Can a nation be just an idea? And if a nation is just an idea, is it no longer a nation if those ideas fade and are replaced by new ones?

Let’s compare a nation with a person. Just like nations have an official ideology, identity, and/or narrative, every person has set of values and beliefs. So, the person is shaped by those ideas. Therefore, does it follow that the person is those ideas? Of course not. Rather, isn’t he a holder of those ideas or ideals? Isn’t he a believer in certain tenets and principles than the very embodiment of those ideas? If he is those ideas, is he not himself when sleeping and not thinking of those ideas? Even in waking state, is he himself only when he espouses those ideas?

While ideas and beliefs are very important, a person is primarily his core biological and biographical being. He was himself even before he espoused those ideas, he is himself with those ideas, and he will still be himself even after he has rejected those ideas and moved onto a different creed. Suppose a person claims to be a libertarian or communist. That makes him a person who espouses libertarian principles or communist dogma. So, is he the person = set of ideas? No, he is a person who follows or upholds those ideas. To conflate him-as-core-being with him-as-believer-of-ideas is utterly foolish. If we define people that way, a person is nothing unless he comes into belief in a set of ideas. And he must remain faithful to those ideas because failing to do so will unperson him. Idiotic, right?

Then, why do we apply such fallacy to the nation of America? If America is an idea(as opposed to a nation that upholds certain ideas, which have changed over the course of its history), then America was not America until those ideas came to fruition & dominance. And America would no longer be America if those ideas were compromised or rejected for new ones. In fact, however, America will always be America no matter what ideas it espouses since America is essentially the land mass between Canada and Mexico(and Alaska and Hawaii) constituting the continuity of a particular civilization that originated and developed from the mass arrival of Europeans.

Also, using the current PC logic of ideocentrism, America was not America for most if its history. If indeed America is the current set of globalist PC ideas, then it couldn’t have been America since it held onto different ideas, attitudes, and values in the past. Until the mid-1860s, America had slavery, and until the Civil War, the Northern Free States tolerated slavery in the South. Since America then had slavery — ideas at odds with freedom — , America must not have been America. We are told that America cannot be ‘racist’. But America wouldn’t exist if not for ‘racism’. White Europeans conquered America and drove out the native peoples who came to be called ‘Indians’. And there were race wars between whites and reds where the former prevailed. Also, until 1965, American immigration policy favored Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, over other peoples. Since the ideas back then were very much at odds with current Ideas(that are said to define True America), America must not have been America in the past, at least prior to 1965 when the Immigration Policy was changed by Jews.

Some have said America is a Christian nation. Some revised it to Judeo-Christian nation. It is true enough that America, as founded, was an overwhelmingly Christian Protestant nation. There’s no doubt that Christianity has been culturally and historically important to America. But is America = Christianity? But the Founding Fathers were Deists who were skeptical of Biblical claims. And they thought Jesus was a great man than a Son of God. If America = Christianity, it was founded by remarkable men who were not the most committed Christians. Also, many Americans of prominence were agnostics or atheists.

While ideas and values matter a great deal, a nation is much more than that. Nations are like people in this sense. If Bob and John are both libertarians, are they the same? After all, they believe in the same ideas. If nations are ideas, why shouldn’t we say humans are ideas too? So, Bob and John would be interchangeable since they are both ideas of libertarianism. But we know this is not true. Even if Bob and John believe in a certain ideology, they are more than what they believe. Also, even when people espouse the same ideology, they interpret and practice it differently. There are no two same Christians. Each person responds to Jesus in his or her own way. And each person came to libertarianism in his own way. And he practices libertarianism in his own way due to factors of intelligence, integrity, character, personality, happenstance, and circumstances. So, a person has a being and story beyond any set of beliefs.
Furthermore, an idea changes over time and can evolve to the point where it has little semblance of its original self. It’s like meanings of words change over time, even to the point of meaning something profoundly different from its original usage. Consider how the Greek term ‘tyrant’ didn’t necessarily have negative connotations but came to mean an evil oppressive ruler. Indeed, even Liberal Americans of the past would not recognize today’s so-called ‘liberalism’. And Progressives 100 yrs ago, or even 50 yrs ago, would be appalled at much of what passes for ‘progressivism’ today. And Conservatives from 50 yrs ago would find nothing conservative about current Conservatism Inc. that’s mostly about "Democrats are the real racists" and "Muh Israel".

Just like every person is more than the ideas he believes, a nation is more than the ideas it upholds and practices. If America is an idea, then it would follow that any other nation that shares those ideas are also ‘America’. If America is about democracy and tolerance, then isn’t Mexico also ‘America’ since it is also a tolerant democracy? Isn’t Germany also ‘America’ since it is democratic? Isn’t Brazil also America because of its democracy?
As for ‘diversity’, it can be an ideal or a condition. A nation can be diverse in actuality but not see diversity as a good thing. A nation can be homogeneous but see diversity as a desired ideal. Many diverse nations are not happy with their diversity and plagued with tensions. Some nations have traditionally been homogeneous but came under Jewish PC influence and feel inadequate because they are not ‘diverse’ enough. So, they welcome Africans and Muslims to increase diversity. Current Sweden believes Sweden = Ideal of Diversity. Since the new mandatory Idea = Diversity, many Swedes don’t believe Sweden was True Sweden in the past. True Sweden can only be created via adherence to the idea of Diversity. See how utterly stupid this line of thinking is? If indeed Sweden = Diversity, are Peru and Morocco ‘Sweden’ since they have Diversity?

Furthermore, if we claim that America is America ONLY IF it commits to the current PC of ‘anti-racism’, then even the America of either political party is not that True America. After all, both parties support Zionist-imperialist-supremacist repression of Palestinians. If True America must not play favorites among racial, ethnic, or national groups, why does the current US favor Zionists over Palestinians? Why does it favor Israel(that has 200 nuclear weapons) to Iran(that adheres to international nuclear agreements and has no nukes)? And why do the national Media favor Jews, blacks, and homos over other groups IF INDEED America is all about ‘equality’ and not about ‘playing favorites’? And if all peoples and groups are equally valuable, why must all peoples be made to support Jews/Zionism and Homomania BUT Jews and Homos are not required to support, praise, or celebrate Mormons, Palestinian-Americans? Or Chinese-Americans, Russian-Americans, German-Americans, or Incest-Sexuals? And if America is about using its might to remind us of past injustices, why is there no Nakba Remembrance Day? And if America is about waging war on its ‘racist’ past, why is the South attacked for Confederate monuments but the North isn’t condemned for its ‘genocidal’ wars against Indians? And if America is all about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, why does it honor the memory of Emma Lazarus who fully endorsed Manifest Destiny and called on more Europeans and Jews to come to America and grab remaining Indian territories by killing Indians or reducing them to wretched huddled masses in barren reservations?

If America is an idea, it is not America whenever it violates those principles. So, America could not have been America during WWII since its media called Japanese ‘Japs’ — how ‘racist’!! — and since the government rounded up Japanese-in-America for ‘internment’. Some German-Americans, tens of thousands of them, were also ‘interned’. Since the US violated its ideals, it must not have been America back then.

Now, certain ideas and values have become so ingrained or instituted into a nation or civilization that there is a tendency to conclude: Identity + Place = Ideas + Values. But the core identity of a people in a place is always more than any set of ideas and values. China was a Confucian Civilization for a long long time. But was it no longer China because Chinese Communists waged war on Confucianism? No, China was China even under the ideology of Maoists. Current China dearly loves businessmen who get rich. But Confucianism despised the merchant class. If China = Confucian Ideas, then current China is not China since the current ideas and values are so much at odds with traditional Confucian moralism.
Now, take the Turks. For the longest time, Turks were defined by Islam. But Kemal Ataturk came along and created modern secular Turkey where religion was banished from much of public life and state affairs. So, were modern Turks no longer Turks since Turkishness = Islam? Atarturkism proved that there is more to Turkishness than what Turks believe as credo.
Same goes for Greeks. Ancient Greeks were pagans. Then, they became Christians. Since their ideas and credos changed, were they no longer Greeks? Or did Greek become True Greeks only as Christians? But, if Greekness = Christian Credo, are Greeks no longer Greek if they become atheist or secular?

Ideas matter but they are not the core of an identity. Under communism, the Soviet authorities insisted that Russia and its Soviet Republics were all defined by an Idea. Soviet Union was a Proposition Empire of Marxism-Leninism. But if that is True Russia, was Russia not Russia prior to the Revolution when it had espoused different ideas and values? And did Russia cease to be Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was no longer the Propositional Idea of Russians?

The fact is cradle matters more than credo. Each person exists because he was born and develops a biography. That existence is the core essential self. Now, ideas and values are very important because humans live with beliefs and principles. But a person is a person, he is himself, regardless of what he believes. John is John as a libertarian. If he chooses to reject libertarianism and adopt communtarianism, he is still John. And even if he changes his name to ‘Muhammad’, he is still his biological self who was born of his parents. Even as ‘Muhammad’, he is the person who was born to such and such parents and was named John, experienced a unique personal history that led him to current set of beliefs that led him to change his name to ‘Muhammad’.

This much is true. Bad ideas or attitudes lead to degradation and demise of a person or nation. Hedonism will destroy a person. Fanaticism can destroy him too. And radical ideologies can bring about hell on earth to nations. Also, crude impulses can ruin a person like crazed personalities can destroy a nation. Take National Socialism. It had good ideas and bad ideas. Its good idea was nationalism and German revival, its bad idea was imperialism and racial chauvinism. What really destroyed Germany wasn’t so much the ideas but the crazed personalities who impulsively acted on the worst ideas of National Socialism. (Even systems with bad ideas can be steered safely by sane personalities. Gorbachev and Deng took over systems founded on radical ideas but steered them to moderation and world peace. If someone like Albert Speer had gained control of National Socialist Germany, wars would have been avoided.) Personalities of a nation are like impulses in a person. If a person’s neurons go haywire and go for short-term impulses than long-term sobriety, a man or woman can be lost to drugs or debauchery. Likewise, if a nation indulges the most radical, fanatical, or crazed personalities to to pursue their egotistical or tribal lusts without restraint, the result is something like US embroilment in Wars for Israel that laid waste to the Arab/Muslim world and destroyed millions of lives, resulting in the massive flood of Europe with 'refugees' as well. Another result is the ‘new cold war’ with Russia on the premise that the entire world exists mainly to serve the megalomania of Jewish supremacists who hypocritically mask their ultra-tribalism and egotism with platitudes about ‘spreading democracy’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘human rights’.

One of the worst and most dangerous ideas is to put credo before cradle or to conflate cradle with credo. Such assumption says a person’s ideas are more important that the person. Indeed, we are believe he is the idea. Using such logic, he is no longer a person unless he espouses certain ideas. He is unpersoned if he were to question or reject those ideas. Likewise, globalists threaten to un-nation America unless it commits to the ideas of Emma Lazarus.
But then, even if we play by rules of PC, are Lazarusean ideas really in line with Current PC that claims to be the True America? Wasn’t Emma Lazarus an imperialist and ethno-supremacist? After all, more European and Jewish immigration to America meant the expulsion of American Indians from their ancestral lands. If America is about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, didn’t Lazarusean ethos violate those principles since continued mass arrival of Europeans and white Jews made America less ‘red’(Indian) and more white? Jews say their ancestors ran from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but wasn't America created by 'pogroms' against Indians, just like Israel was created later with massive pogroms against Palestinians in the Nakba?
Furthermore, if Americanism is about atonement for its ‘racist’ past, why does the current America support Israel that was created by imperialism, pogromic ethnic cleansing, & destruction of Palestine and, furthermore, occupies West Bank & practices Apartheid there? If America is an Ideal that requires feeling guilty over Jim Crow and once-alliance with apartheid-practicing South Africa, why is it so un-repenting of its historical ‘sins’ against Palestinians? And if America is about equality, why is there more ‘white guilt’ for what was done to blacks than what was done to American Indians? Surely, ‘genocide’ is a bigger crime than slavery.

When we look at Current America, it’s less about an idea than an agenda(driven by the zealous ego of an ethnic tribe). If America is really an idea as this ethnic tribe claims, why don’t the members of this tribe practice these ideas themselves? If whites must forgo their racial identity and interests to serve the higher idea of True America, why don’t Jews forgo their identity and tribal interests to just merge with all other Americans? Why do Jews tell European-Americans that it’s wrong to preserve and serve European identity but insist that not only Jews but all gentile groups must support, praise, and serve Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionist Israel, and Wars for Israel? Why do Jews insist that all non-Jews must worship Jews-as-Jews. Worse, why do they insist that all non-Jews must hate peoples and nations hated by Jews? So, if Jews hate Russians, all gentiles(even Russians) must hate Russians. If Jews hate Iranians, all gentiles(even Iranians) must hate Iranians. So much for America being an Idea. That ‘idea’ in Current America is just a ruse used by the Agenda serving the Ego of a rabid, virulent, and fanatical ethnic tribe.

Finally, if indeed America is an Idea, there is no need for people to come to America. Ideas are portable and transferable. If American Ideas are the best, then the rest of the world can adopt and use those ideas. It's like, if a people learn how to make fire, that idea can be borrowed by other peoples who can make their own fires in their own lands. They don't have to come to the people with the fire to have the fire.
It's like one doesn't have to go to Mecca to be a Muslim or go to the Vatican to become a Catholic. Islam and Catholicism are ideas or creed. They can be adopted by any people in any part of the world.
So, even if we argue America = Idea, the world can just adopt Americanism-as-Idea in their own nations. There is no need for them to flood into America. Also, if democracy was a precious commodity in the 19th century, it is dime-a-dozen all over the world. Most nations are democracies around the world. Besides, much of the world has been 'Americanized' with McDonalds, Hollywood, Evangelicalism, and even Homomania. They can have their 'America' in their own nations.

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.