Response to James Lawrence's Nonsensical Piece of Misdirection on the Real Problems of Jewish Power: "AN ANTIDOTE TO THE JEWPILL (PART 2: ANTICHRISTIANITY)"

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/12/an-antidote-to-jewpill-part-2.html

Why would anyone bother to argue with E. Michael Jones' political theology? It is absurd because Jones conflates spirituality with rationalism, i.e. Jesus represents objective truths of the universe. The looniness is right there. If people want to accept religion as faith, prophecy, or imagination, that's fine. But anyone who claims religion = reason has no understanding of either.

Jones is useful to our side because, in his shotgun approach to Jewish Power, he sometimes hits the right targets. Same with Rick Wiles of TruNews. Even Neo-Nazis are useful in this regard. It's like radical leftists got so much of history wrong, but their anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism sometimes hit the right targets, the rottenness of the US empire and globalist-capitalism that needs to be exposed.
Otherwise however, there's no point in addressing E. Michael Jones' worldview. He's essentially a Paleo-Catholic crank who can't tell logos apart from bogus. But then, this 'James Lawrence' sounds rather too much like Nathan Cofnas larping as a 'Christian'. But whereas E. Michael Jones is clearly and sincerely nutty, there's something weasely and disingenuous about Lawrence's piece. It reads like misdirection that boils down to "Don't blame the Jews. Goyim started it, and Jews just followed, rather haplessly."

In Europe, it was the French revolution that emancipated the Jews, not the Jews who unleashed the revolution. In America, it was the Progressive and New Deal movements that raised them into the governing elite, and set the stage for everything that MacDonald describes in The Culture of Critique. Even Zionism, contrary to popular belief on the Dissident Right, was a 19th-century Protestant religious obsession (called ‘restorationism’) before it was taken up by Jewish nationalists like Emma Lazarus and Theodore Herzl.

First of all, only a moron rightist believes that everything revolutionary is bad and caused by Jews. Only a moron rightist thinks that everything leftist is wrong and that everything right is somehow noble. True, there are moron-rightists who still dream of monarchs & aristocracy and feel triggered by anything that hints of 'revolution'. In a way, such position has more to do with the likes of Bill Buckley — National Review ran countless articles on how the French Revolution was a dress rehearsal for 20th century radicalism, not only communism but Fascism — than with Alt-Right or the New Right, many of whom see the value of socialism and the positive role that revolution and social reforms played in the development of the Modern West. After all, what distinguished the West from the Rest? West accepted and even accelerated changes, revolutions in so many areas. This dichotomy also applies to the Christian West and Christian East, especially Byzantium. While the former grew and grew, the latter declined and fell under the Ottoman Muslims. If Christian logos is a sure formula of truth and power, why did Byzantium fail? It was far more 'theocratic' than the Christian West that broke free of Medievalism and gained much from neo-paganism of the Renaissance. What really made the Modern West was the fusion of neo-paganism(that sparked creativity in the arts and Hellenistic approach to logic and science) and Christian prophecy. The 'problem'(if it is a problem) with paganism is it lacks a unified vision of the universe and the future. According to paganism, there are many gods, therefore there is no single direction to history but a contest of competing forces, like with the gods in THE ILIAD. In contrast, Christian monotheism says there is one force, God, that leads history to fulfill a certain prophecy. Thus, the Christian mindset is more committed to a linear theory of progress. Now, Christianity alone could mean Byzantine enervation or Medieval ascetism that hardly moves history forward. But when fused with neo-pagan creativity and spark, the combination could open new horizons.

Anyway, only a fool would argue that the revolutionary spirit was necessarily bad for the West. If anything, it is what made the West, relative to the far more conservative Rest(and Byzantium). Pro-Western people don't have a problem with revolution per se. Rather, the problem has been with impatient radicalism rooted in the cult of rationalism. (Radicalism isn't content with organic pace of change and seeks to bring about utopia in single leaps. Granted, change and progress aren't necessarily organic. Rather, they must be encouraged and pushed. It's like plants need sun and nutrients to grow. Children need to be pressured by parents to study. Coaches must drive athletes hard. Inertia is often the natural state of things. Leftism in sane doses can prod society to move a bit faster, hastening the pace of change. There are limits, of course. A child can learn only so much in a week, and an athlete can improve his ability only so much in a season. Leftism sometimes pushes good ideas too fast, but it is truly fatal when it blindly pushes bad ideas as the answer, like with communism.) While the emergence of rationalism was a great thing for the West(especially in science, technology, medicine, etc), it also led to the hubris that mankind could figure everything out and know, based on 'science', what must be done. The result was Marxism(with its supposed 'scientific materialism') and, more recently, Covid Nuttery.
Science is of immense value, but it also spawned 'scientism', the conceit that one's worldview or ideology is foolproof for being based on 'science'. Such Iron Rationalism actually undermines real rationalism. This usually applies to the human sciences. At one time, the 'scientistic' element favored the 'scientific racists' who were so sure of their theories of race. Today, the 'scientistic' element favors the 'scientific anti-racists' who, based on incomplete evidence or willful self-delusion, insist that race is just a social construct. In both cases, true science is clouded by 'scientism' that really amounts to misuse of science for what are ideological purposes. ('Scientific Anti-Racism' will be far more harmful to the West as it will argue that 500 million black African immigrants won't make any difference to Europe because people are just people. 'Scientific Racism' led Europeans to mistreat or murder some peoples or groups, but 'Scientific Anti-Racism' can only lead to wholesale murder of Europe.)

Maybe some extreme Anti-Jewite or ultra-rightist believes every revolutionary movement was bad(and that we should be living in the Middle Ages) or that Jews were the key players in all these events. But that's mostly a red herring because it misses the essence of the current criticism of Jewish Power among today's white nationalists or white-centrists, most of whom don't care what happened 500 yrs ago, let alone 1000 or 2000 yrs.
Of utmost importance is what is happening NOW, and who can deny that Jewish Supremacism rules the West? Furthermore, who can deny that, what Jews push onto white goyim doesn't apply to Jews themselves. If indeed ideology controls the Jews, they would judge themselves by the same yardstick with which they judge whites. But they don't. A case in point. If the ideology of 'anti-racism' is indeed dominant in the West, Jews would not only be bashing whites for past discrimination against blacks but for white support of Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians. But the very Jews who decry white treatment of blacks insist and demand that whites support whatever Israel does to Palestinians(and Arabs in outlying territories). But 'James Lawrence' is rather like Nathan Cofnas on this issue. He'd rather sweep it under the rug while yammering about some Christian theological controversy from 1000 yrs ago. Like who cares about that crap? Maybe E. Michael Jones cares, but even most people who value Jones' criticism of Jewish Power don't care to read his books or lend any credence to his notion that Logos = Worshiping Jesus. I'd argue that most white nationalists or white-centrists are, at heart, neo-pagan, and good for them!

Also, what do we mean by Jews in the historical sense? Your average Jew throughout history didn't amount to much. The real movers and shakers were elite Jews, often the bankers and others with close ties with European elites. These individuals were most certainly manipulating events for Jewish interests. FDR, for example, had the overwhelming support of Elite Jewry. It's true that Jews were absorbing lots of ideas and attitudes from Anglo-Protestants and even following their lead, but it's also true that Jews were playing a prominent role in steering Anglos toward certain goals, like war with Germany. Sometimes, Anglo and Jewish interests overlapped, but more than any other group, Jews steered events in the interests of their tribal interest. Who can deny this? Jews were pro-Soviet at one time because Jews played a key role in the Russian Revolution and because Soviet Union fought Hitler's Germany. After the war, many Jews spied for the Soviet Union. But as the Soviet Union turned more pro-Arab and anti-Israel, even so-called 'leftist' Jews grew hostile to communism, and Neocons joined and even came to lead the anti-communist crusade in the 1980s. Who doesn't see a tribal angle to this?
And if ideology matters so much to Jews, how come all those 'liberal Jews' don't condemn ultra-rightist Israel? Why are they silent about Jewish oligarchs allied with Naziesque forces in Ukraine? If they're such good 'secular liberals', why do they turn a blind eye to Israel's support of ultra-religious ISIS and other crazy Jihadists working against secular Assad of Syria? Never mind what happened 500 or 1000 yrs ago. Why can't 'James Lawrence' address the world today? Why is he misdirecting our focus from the obvious truths in the here-and-now to some mumbo jumbo theological debates centuries ago?

Alas, this theory contradicts the central dogma of white nationalism: that racial self-interest is primary, and truths, doctrines and ideas are secondary. WNs want to live in a dark fever-dream, where every race except the white one is strategising for its self-interest under a cynical veil of ideals – and we need only become paranoid enough to perceive the hidden strategies, and deceptive enough to conceal our own self-interest in the same way. They do not want to live in the light of consciousness, where ideals really motivate individuals, and solidify the cohesion of groups – because in this reality, their own dream is reduced to a narrow and paltry ideal, a cult of biological race.

What a lying piece of turd. White Nationalists don't say racial self-interest IS primary. They know it from White Decline all around. If racial self-interest were primary, whites wouldn't be in this mess. What they say is that racial self-interest MUST BE primary. In other words, it can't be taken for granted and must be embraced as a consciousness. They say identity must dictate ideology, not vice versa. Why? History shows time and again that identity has greater resilience and longevity than ideas or ideology or whatever. Any people who forget this are fated to fade away and die.
Also, white-centrists don't believe in some 'dark fever dream' where whites must conceal their own self-interests. No, they are for exposing the Jewish self-interest and for OPENLY and HONESTLY exhorting and exercising white self-interest.

Being pro-identity doesn't mean one is anti-ideological. Rather, it means ideology must complement identity. History bears this out. Every religion came to be a tool of power, of a people or an order. Thus, Catholic kingdoms fought other Catholic kingdoms. One Arab tribe, though Muslim, fought another Arab tribe, also Muslim. Russia and China were both communist, but Russian communism served Russia, Chinese communism served China. Russian history is a clear case of identity outlasting ideology, i.e. Russia was Russia before communism, during communism, and after communism. Any people, culture, or civilization can weather the rise and fall of ideologies or political systems AS LONG AS the people remain intact. It is when the people are replaced that it's really game over. The fall of Imperial Tsarist system wasn't the end of Russia. The fall of communism wasn't the end of Russia either. But if Russians were to be replaced by another people, it'd be the end of Russia regardless of ideology. This is why 'muh democracy' is so dumb. "Gee, I don't care if white nations become 90% non-white as long as it still has free markets and elections."

 
The course of current Western History goes to show that racial self-interest doesn't come naturally or first-and-foremost among a people. A people can be brainwashed to welcome their own destruction in the name of false gods of ideology. Or a people can be conditioned to believe their purpose is to serve another people. The lower castes in India were made to feel this way about members of higher caste. In the past, blacks in the South were made to believe their lot was to serve whites because, on their own, they'd just be crazy dumb ni**ers. It's like dogs can be trained to favor the interests of the master over their own dog-hood.
But any people that wants to survive into the future better put race/identity before ideology or make ideology bend to identity. China adopted universal communism but molded it to serve the Chinese people. Iran practices universal Islam, but this doesn't mean it rejects Iranian national interest. Nicaragua practices democracy, but it's a national democracy than one that bends to the US globalist world order.

According to 'James Lawrence', the cult of biological race is a 'paltry ideal'. The white race, or any race, is the product of 100,000s or at least 10,000s of yrs of evolution. White race was forged by survival through all sorts of climates and terrains. It came into existence even before white civilization. Before there was white culture/society, there was the white race. In other words, race came before all else. What we call 'history' is maybe 5,000 yrs, or at most 6,000 yrs. 'History' and high civilization came to Northern Europe much later. Perhaps, Northern European history is 1,500 or 1,200 yrs, much shorter than Egypt's, Persia's, India's, and China's. Long before the rise of European civilization, there was the European race forged by struggle in ice and fire over many eons. This is a rich biological heritage that has value regardless of ideology. After all, a European's primary value is his European being, not whether he's a 'Christian', 'atheist', 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'capitalist', 'libertarian', and etc. This isn't to discount the importance of ideas but to state the obvious: being precedes believing. So, the most valuable ideology is one that places Being before Believing. European race came into existence long before Christianity or any other idea-system. And yet, for 'James Lawrence'(a larping version of Nathan Cofnas?), white consciousness of rich and deep racial history is a 'paltry ideal'. Maybe 'Lawrence' feels this way because he happens to be a paltry specimen of the white race: an ugly stupid dork idiot.

Now, it's true that one can read too much into the supposed Jewish Plan. It can get rather silly, like with Adam Green's theory that Jews cooked up Christianity and spread it to goyim to gain power over them. Green, like E. Michael Jones, is useful as a critic of Jewish Power because he sometimes hits the right targets. But the grand conspiracy theory of Christianity is just ludicrous.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hbt65YdfHwSi/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bAsucAXXFbZM/

According to Green, Jews turned goyim into Christian Anti-Semites who oppressed Jews so that Jews could, 2000 yrs later, guilt-bait goyim into serving Jews. ROTFL and LOL rolled into one. It'd be like saying blacks cooked up the slave trade so that blacks could one day guilt-bait whites into kissing black ass. And maybe Japan actually planned to lose WWII to become an ally of the US and gain access to US markets.

This is where grand-theorizing can easily jump the shark. Now, there is a kernel of truth to Adam Green's view. Jews are big thinkers and tend to be more strategic than other races. Jewish personality can be glimpsed in Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series where some Big Mind prophesies future events and sees what the normal mind doesn't see. Stanley Kubrick's films were also conceived on the Big Think principle. Jews have been obsessed with chess, a game of strategy where the winner is usually the one who computes more moves ahead. Now, some might argue this is merely the result of higher intelligence, but intelligence isn't necessarily interested in Big Ideas or grand concepts. Anglos have been an intelligent people but their mental skills were focused on empiricism, things that could be observed, collected, and studied. Plenty of very smart people are narrowly focused on a single topic or task. Intelligence per se doesn't strive for the grand theory of everything or the grand prophecy of what will be(or what must be). In other words, most intelligent economists weren't like Karl Marx with a grand theory of history, one who tried to tie together all the past with all the future, the science with the theory of justice. So, the Jewish mindset isn't merely the product of high intelligence. Rather, it's part of the Jewish prophetic tradition(which is more accurate than the 'revolutionary spirit'). Now, what came first in a chicken-or-egg way? Jewish personality or Jewish prophecy? Was there something in Jewish personality that favored propheticism? Or did the culture of propheticism favor those Jews who claimed to be farther-seeing and more profounder in reach? I don't know.

Now, does this mean that Jews long ago looked into the future and brought about events that led to the 20th century? No. While Jews are more strategic and farther-seeing than most peoples, no people(however intelligent or strong-willed) can look into the future and plan events that happen centuries, let alone millennia, later. Kubrick's films are about 'perfect plans' that always fail due to some unforeseen X-factor. There are lots of X-factors and/or black swans in history. Karl Marx based his prophecy on economic trends in his time. He failed to see how those trends would change with new developments in science and technology. Also, he underestimated the element of individual will and the power of the irrational. Furthermore, prophecies tend to undermine themselves because they not only serve as vision of the future but alarm that wakes the enemy. Marxist prophecy forced capitalists to wake up and amend their ways and make compromises with moderate socialists lest growing unrest and radicalism lead to real revolution. Thus, most prophecies are self-defeating by alerting the enemy to what's up ahead unless something is done(to suppress the movement or to win over the moderate voices within it).

Jewish History cannot be understood apart from goy history as most of it is about Jews co-existing with the far more numerous and powerful goyim. Thus, Jews lacked the autonomy that the Persians, Hindus, and Chinese had. Persians had their dominant space. Hindus had their own cosmologically ordered society. Chinese had their own Middle Kingdom. In contrast, Jews had to exist alongside goyim, and this meant they could never practice the kind of centrism of the great goy powers.
Now, if Jews were simply aiming to assimilate and do business, this would have been no big deal. Plenty of minority cultures assimilated and became part of larger cultures. Most of the tribes mentioned in the Bible no longer exist. They became part of Persian folks, Arab folks, Turkic folks, European-Christian folks, and etc. It could have been the same with Jews but for the fact that they came up with the most powerful religious concept and the idea of the Covenant that set themselves apart from goyim. So, even as goyim were more numerous and more powerful, Jews held this conviction that, ethno-spiritually at least, they were the best because of the Covenant with the one true God.

But because Jews insisted on serving their own JEWISH interests despite lacking a secure world of their own, they had to be more esoteric, clever, shadowy, and devious in their thinking and approach. They had to latch onto goy systems, values, fashions, and trends while somehow manipulating them to favor Jewish interests. Of course, Jews themselves were profoundly impacted by these goy values and systems(though, with something like Christianity, one could debate til the cows come home as to whether it's 'semitic' or 'aryan' because it's 'semitic' as foundation but 'aryan' as edifice). But no matter how much Jews adopted goy ways and ideas, they eventually made them serve Jewish identity because the very foundation of Jewishness is the ethno-spiritual Covenant; this core concept of Jewishness is so essential that it even defines secular Jews.

In contrast, Christianity is about weakening one's tribal identity in favor of universal values. To become a better Christian, you favor fellow Christians of all color over your own kind on the basis of blood. However, to be a good Jew means to stick with the Covenant and to believe in the fusion of spirit and blood, the Jewish blood. Thus, even if Jews and white Christians adopt the same 'universal' values, they eventually go separate ways. White Christians try to make themselves less white and more universal because the core principle of Christianity is to unite all of humanity as brethren under Jesus. In contrast, given the nature of Judaism, Jews use the same 'liberal' or 'universal' ideals to serve Jewish identity and interests because the core function of Judaism is preservation of the race on account of its sacred blood.

Look at Jewish Liberals and Wasps Liberals from the New Deal era. After WWII, with each passing year, white liberals became less race-centric, less tribal, and less nationalist, whereas Jewish liberals became more race-centric, more tribal, and more nationalist(even to the point of supremacism). If the power of ideology is paramount, white liberals and Jewish liberals would have ended up the same way. But today, white liberals denounce Hungary for trying to preserve itself while Jewish 'liberals' not only support ultra-right Israel but work with neocon Jews to make sure ALL US POLITICIANS totally support Israel while kicking Palestinians into the dirt. What do Jewish 'conservatives' in the US and Jewish 'conservatives' in UK have in common? Do they care about the preservation of the white race or Christian heritage in either country? No, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jewish Power?" The fact that there is far less animus between Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' than between white 'left' and white 'right' goes to show that Jews put identity before ideology, whereas whites put ideology before identity, a fatal development. Now, one could argue that the relative tribal unity among Jews stems from the anxiety of minority status, but it's the same in Israel where Jews are the solid majority.

There are two reasons why Jewish Identity is easier to utilize as the basis of political conviction. Jewish ethnicity has been sacralized via the Covenant. So, according to Judaism, Jewish pride isn't based on tribal arrogance alone but on the very word of God. In contrast, there's nothing in Christianity that bestows specialness on the white race. Thus, while white Christians could feel the glow of sanctity as Christians(though not so much anymore because Jews associated the history of Christianity with 'antisemitism', 'racism', and cultural repression), they can feel no such merely as whites. In contrast, the mere fact of being Jewish means God is watching over you. He chose your kind. (This is why the only solution for whites is to forge their own covenant with the power of the universe. White blood must be sacralized, but this requires the emergence of white prophecy. Christianity, in contrast, means that your blood is hopelessly tainted with sin and can only be cleansed with infusion of Jesus's blood. Covenant binds. Goy way was to divide goyim into aristocrats and subjects. Elites and peons. Because white elites looked down on white peons, Jews could manipulate the division by aiding the goy elites in the exploitation of goy masses. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant says even the blood of the lowliest Jew is equal to that of the richest Jew in the eyes of God. One good thing about National Socialism was it valued every German as part of the national volk.)

The other reason why Jewish Identity is politically justified is ironically due to Christian morality and its emphasis on victimology as basis of virtue. Jews ran with the Holocaust Narrative and made themselves to be the biggest victims in history... at the hands of the Christian West no less. (Some will say the Nazis were neo-pagan, but Jews argue that the entire history of Antisemitism, beginning with the Christian kind, led to the horror in WWII.) Thus, Holocaustianity guilt-baits white Christians with a twist on Christian morality. Jews are suddenly the new jesuses crucified by White Gentiles/Christians as the New Romans.
This guilt-consciousness has been the Achilles Heel of Christianity, at least IF non-Christians were to gain control of the Narrative. In contrast, Muslims are immune to such psycho-emotional manipulation because Muhammad told his followers to do some Jihad, kick butt, never apologize, and convert infidels(or kill them if they get in the way). You don't see Muslims groveling before Jews or bending down to wash stinky Negro feet. Islam can be plenty repressive and dogmatic but it's not sanctimonious like Christianity with 'turn the other cheek' spiel. Muhammad told his followers to kick the other (ass) cheek of the enemy, not turn the other cheek for the enemy to slap. Of course, Christians hardly turned the other cheek and preferred to wage war and kill lots of people, but this could eventually be used to guilt-bait Christian conscience IF the enemy were to gain control of the Narrative. And Jews gained control over the Narrative, which is why the New Western or Schwestern Values are based on a litany of white historical sins, especially to Jews and blacks(as Jews don't want whites to feel sorry for what they did to Arabs and Palestinians).

Now, it's true that what we call Jewish Power is the result of interaction of Jews and goyim. It's like Jews in Italy were different from Jews in France were different from Jews in Britain were different from Jews in Russia were different from Jews in Brazil were different from Jews in America from Jews in Iran and so on. If the Anglo World never existed, Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were super-ambitious and highly talented as world conquerors, and Jews rode on that white horse to world power. Also, even though certain Jewish elites had considerable influence throughout Western history, it's only recently that Jews gained anything like supreme power via the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans who, at some point, decided to get on all fours and play white horsey to the Jewish rider.
So, Jewish worldview always changed and adapted in accordance to shifting historical landscapes. It's not as if a cabal of Jews in the 12th century were planning the Bolshevik revolution of the 20th century or globo-homo parades of the 21st century. Still, whatever Jews were faced with through history, there has been a running thread of bending and twisting things to serve Jewish interests, not least by suppressing criticism of Jews while amplifying criticism of their rivals or enemies.

 
Take Hollywood. One could say Jews didn't invent motion pictures. Jews weren't the first to start the movie business. But once they gained dominance in the industry, they were mindful to make it Jewish-friendly. Of course, Jews had to make compromises. In the early 20th century when Christians and moralists(and anti-Jewish elements) had lots of power, Jews had to agree to stuff like the Hayes Code and appease the Catholic Church. Jews were also mindful not to offend the American South. Still, Jews made sure Hollywood made lots of anti-German movies in the 1930s. And Jews in Hollywood did everything to blacken Joe McCarthy's name because HUAC at one time forced Jewish Hollywood to blacklist certain Jewish writers and directors. And Hollywood also made stuff like EXODUS while not making a single pro-Palestinian movie. So, while, in one way, Hollywood is just another American Capitalist success story, it's also been a Judeo-centric enterprise. Who can deny that Jewish control had a profound impact on how so many Americans(and global audiences) came to see the world? Via Hollywood movies, countless people around the world came to see Islam as synonymous with terrorism. Via Hollywood movies, countless Europeans came to regard white Americans as mindless gun-toting 'racists' who lynch blacks at the drop of a hat.

In a way, Jews are too smart for ideology or fashion trends even as they pretend to go along or get swept up for awhile. In the Sixties, Jews and goyim alike took part in the Counterculture. But whereas many simpleminded white goyim gave themselves fully to the hippie culture and the like, many Jews soon realized how silly it was. And there was too much money to be made than rolling in the hay, wearing flowers in your hair, and searching for Indians to touch. Better to organize rock concerts and rake in the profits than wear tie-dyes and waste your days as a 'deadhead'. Be like David Geffen.

Jewish intelligence can't help but seeing goyim as dumb. Suppose someone with 100 IQ found himself among those with 80 IQ. Would he want to take orders from the dummies? Would he consider them as his equal? He might pretend to because he's outnumbered. It'd sure be dumb for the 100 IQ guy to say to the 80 IQ crowd, "You guys sure are dumb. I'm smarter, I deserve to rule, so do as I say or kiss my ass!" Even dummies will take offense and kick his ass. So, what should he do? He pretends to be for 'equality' and act in interest of the common good while slyly gaining power over them. He may also guilt-bait the 80 IQ crowd by saying they are 'privileged' over the 60 IQ crowd even though he, with 100 IQ, is the most privileged among them all.

Higher IQ simply wants to rule over lower IQ. It's just human nature. It's like blacks, being tougher, want to be the alpha race over others. Blacks will not say it but feel it just the same. Indeed, blacks would be far less anti-white IF whites were equally tough. Suppose whites were just as good at fighting and sports. Suppose NBA and NFL were majority white and blacks made up only 13% of the players. Blacks would actually respect whites and have far less problem with whites having lots of good stuff. But blacks, being obsessed with fighting and sports, look upon whites as inferior wussy fa**oty race of slow white boys. Whites are inferior, so why they gots more than blacks? This infuriates blacks who believe they, as the alpha race, should rule. Jews feel the same way but on the basis of higher intelligence.

But it's not just about brawn or brains. After all, there are big tough guys who are mellow in temperament. And there are smart people who are nice and kind. So, their superiority doesn't make them especially nasty or hostile. But blacks are naturally oogity-boogity due to evolution alongside hippos, hyenas, and lions. They be nasty. And Jews are naturally pushy-wushy due to reasons of evolutions stemming from rabbinical and merchant competition. Thus, there are lots of Jews with personalities of Albert Brooks, Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Silverman, and Howard Stern. No wonder then that black brawn consciousness often leads to jive-ass thuggery, and Jewish brain consciousness often leads to sneering contempt, so evident among the likes of Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin, Rob Reiner(meathead), John Podhoretz, and etc.

This is why Jews and blacks sort of see eye to eye. Being advantaged in different areas, they often fear or resent the other, but they also take pride in having extra juice for causing havoc for the rest of us. Terms of Jew-Black Alliance goes as follows: "Jews will use all their might to browbeat and guilt-bait whites into elevating blacks as the gods and idols of the New US, and blacks in turn will dump on whites and 'white supremacism' but will not call out on Jews and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians."
But then, Jews get away with such anti-white crap because whites worship Jews as either the Chosen(Christian Zionists), Holy Holocaust People, Endearing Comedians, or High IQ Geniuses. Indeed, even HBD-sphere is worshipful of Jews. Why does Jared Taylor remain silent about the very people who've done most to de-platform him? It's because he's so enthralled with Jewish Greatness. People like Taylor and John Derbyshire are not hoping for equal partnership with Jews. Rather, they are willing to be servants and sidekicks of Jews in return for Jewish tolerance of white interests. "We white goyim will serve you superior Jews, the true master race, IF you Jews permit our white interests." But why would Jews agree to that? If Jews are the master race, it's only fitting for Jews to serve their own interests, not allow white interests. Now, what if some whites argue that Jewish interests and white interests are totally aligned... like the notion of Judeo-Christian? But Jews are not stupid. They know Christianity began as an anti-Jewish religion. Also, Jews and Europeans had a long troubled history, and all of sudden, Jews and whites are Best-Friends-Forever? No way. Besides, even if whites turned over a new leaf and are sworn to be nice to Jews henceforth, Jews know it's only a matter of time before 'antisemitism' resurfaces. Why? Because bad Jewish behavior will get out of control again. Jews know this. There are good Jews who prefer to play fair and decent, but there are also bad Jews who use every dirty trick in the book. The problem is, given the nature of Jewish Identity, if good Jews had to choose between good goyim and bad Jews, they will go with the latter. It's just a tribal thing. And so, bad Jews go unchecked and give Jews a bad name, and this leads to 'antisemitism'. Good Jews may not want bad Jews to act so badly, but they just can't make themselves side with good goyim against bad Jews. So, Jews have decided to destroy every last vestige of white identity and unity because, then, there won't be any white resistance no matter how badly the bad Jews act and how much the good Jews cover for bad Jews. (Of course, if good Jews aid bad Jews, they too become bad Jews.) Besides, good Jews figure, as nasty as bad Jews are, they(the bad ones) got bigger cojones to do what good Jews wouldn't dare do. Thus, sometimes, it's the bad Jews who really make things happen, from which even good Jews can profit... like the spread of gambling and Zionic scramble for world domination.

 
It's like good Anglos often relied on the ambition and adventurousness of bad Anglos to gain more territory and loot. But whereas whites reached a point where good ones called out on bad ones, good Jews dare not call out on bad Jews. Same with blacks. There are some good blacks, but in the name of 'brotherhood', they stick together and the good ones don't call out on bad ones... which makes black behavior worse, which can lead to more 'racism'. Even though good whites are far more likely to call out on bad whites, there's a limit to white conscience(as it lacks agency). In their worship of Jews and blacks, good whites dare not call out on bad Jews or bad blacks. Why, that'd be 'antisemitic' or 'racist'. It's a vile and vicious cycle of moral blindness and hypocrisy that the West has fallen into.

THE END OF TWITTER?, MAXWELL FIX IS IN, HANUKKAH CELEBRATION, JEWS SAY SANTA IS TOO WHITE - Know More News - Adam Green

Irrational Propaganda Is the Best Weapon of 'Rational' Liberals.

Liberals often complain that irrationality is rife on the American Right, and they are not entirely wrong. American Right has many elements that tend to disdain rational thought, empiricism, science, and intellectualism. Indeed, the cult of anti-intellectualism is one reason why the GOP has failed to attract sufficient numbers of very smart people. While American conservatism has its share of smart people, it has few intellectual giants. Worse, in the name of MLK worship and fighting 'racism', American conservatism has been more outspoken against men like Arthur Jensen and James Watson than against people on the Left. (Remember how Rich Lowry thanked Al Sharpton and Mother Jones magazine for alerting him about 'white racists' at the National Review.)  And there is no love lost between 'rightist' Darwinists and Evangelicals(and other believers in Biblical Truth).

There is the libertarian wing of the American conservative movement, but libertarians are accidental 'conservatives', i.e. they happen to be the conservative camp because they oppose Democratic big-government-ism. People who write for publications like REASON have little in common with most American social, cultural, and religious conservatives. They are even often at odds with American 'crony capitalists' of the GOP. Libertarians are such purists in their convictions that they live in their own bubble.
Though many affluent and well-educated conservatives have no time for Evangelical nonsense, they've been muted in their criticism of Fundamentalist Christian ignoramuses because they need 'social conservative' numbers to win elections. Just like the global capitalists of the BJP struck a bargain with the Hindu nationalists to form a mass voting bloc, the rich secular conservatives of the GOP have pandered to the irrational ignorance of religious conservatives in order to win votes. Of course in the South, race is the bigger factor, but then, its voting patterns are really no different from voting patterns in places like Boston, Chicago, NY, St. Louis, and etc.  Where there's a lot of racial 'diversity', tribal politics tend to rule. So, even if big cities tend to be dominated by Democrats, whites will vote for the white Democrat and blacks will vote for the black Democrat. And in NY and Chicago, whites, Jews, and gays have formed alliances to keep the power among themselves than give it up to blacks or Hispanics.  So, all this stuff about 'racist white Southern voters' is really just a case of projection on the part of 'liberal' Jews, whites, and gays. What chance of Democratic Jews voting for a Muslim-American candidate in NY even if the latter were a true blue Democrat? How many NYers really want another Dinkins? How many white Chicagoans really want to hand over the city to the likes of Luis Guiterrez or Bobby Rush? How much do white liberals in Cincinnati really love their black neighbors?

Anyway, we tend to associate Reason with liberals, not least because, especially since the French Revolution, the political debate has been seen as one between secular rational universalist egalitarians vs religious sacramental particularist hierarcheans. This was more the case in the Old World than in the New World of America as religious freedom and mass religiosity became a part of the American democratic process. As America didn't have a state religion, churches weren't seen as part of the Establishment. (Though the Catholic Church was part of the Establishment in Italy, it wasn't as reviled by the Left as in other European nations because of its extensive involvement in charity and its anti-capitalist ideology. Indeed, many leading Italian artists and intellectuals were both Catholic and Marxist. Anti-religious feelings were stronger in Spain and France because of the Church's alliance with Franco in the former and because the French Revolution had ideologically laid the foundations of anti-clericalism, a hostility that never went away.)

The Left vs Right dichotomy couldn't be easily resolved in the West because both sides were rife with all manner of inner contradictions. For example, the Left was said to stand for reason/rationalism, universalism, equality, and secularism. But reason/rationality meant the primacy of intelligence, and that meant the intelligent people would rise way above the less intelligent. It could end up creating inequalities even wider than before, something Marx understood about capitalism. Capitalism was a rationalist/materialist ideology, but it favored the ruthless, resourceful, and intelligent: the bourgeoisie, the elite class that would use its formidable skills and privileges to gain ever more wealth and power while the rest of population got poorer and poorer. Marx's main enemy wasn't the old aristocracy/monarchy. He firmly believed that the old order would be wiped away by the new order of capitalism dominated by the ruthless bourgeoisie. The real battle would be between the pauperized proletariat and the privileged bourgeoisie. Marx saw the bourgeoisie as far more dangerous than the old aristocracy. If the old elites inherited their power and privilege, the bourgeoisie rose through cunning, talent, and intelligence. Though the old aristocracy had lots of power, it didn't necessarily have much talent or intelligence. In contrast, the bourgeoisie rose to great heights with their high intelligence and ruthless ambition. It is no wonder that Marx closely associated bourgeois power with the rise of Jews and believed that the Jewish Problem could only be resolved by the extermination of capitalism. It was capitalism that allowed smart, cunning, and ruthless Jews to rise about others. Get rid of capitalism--a form of ruthless meritocracy--and, Jews will be like anyone else. And Soviet Union and Iron Curtain nations were proof of this. Though Jews played an instrumental role in the creation of communism, they were eventually sidelined by less intelligent gentiles. And without the ability to accumulate great wealth, Jewish talent and skills went untapped in communist nations. Jews were forced to be like everyone else.

This contradiction on the Left hasn't been resolved to this day; if anything, it seems to be getting more intense. As yrs go by, Jews and smart white gentiles get richer and richer while the rest get poorer and poorer. Charles Murray wrote extensively about this in COMING APART.  More freedom and mobility among Americans hasn't led to more equality but to more divisions and hierarchies. Places like NY, Chicago,and San Francisco are economically more divided than ever. Working class dwindles and middle class feels the pinch, but the affluent 'creative' globalist class gets richer and richer. Even during the 'Great Recession', there's lots of good times in the core gentrified downtown areas of big cities. We've also seen the rise of 'whitopias' in places like Portland and Seattle. White, Jewish, and gay liberals who speak for 'equality' have themselves become less and less equal and more and more privileged. American politics is funny business where the 'egalitarian' superrich liberals lecture non-rich white conservatives about the evils of 'greed'.

Or consider higher education. What are among the most exclusive educational institutions in America? Harvard and Yale. And yet, they are the ideological bastions of 'equality'. There is 'affirmative action' for blacks and Hispanics, but who are the sacrificial lamb to make room for the likes of Barack and Michelle Obama?  Middle class whites, lower middle class whites, working class whites, and poor whites. Rich and affluent Jewish and white liberals maintain their grip on higher education by sacrificing the less privileged whites in the game of 'diversity'. But even with 'affirmative action' for blacks and browns, Harvard and Yale favors the creme of the crop of the black and brown community. So, rationalism and equality have never been bosom buddies. At best, there's the ideal of equality of opportunity, but given the biological differences among individuals and groups, this only creates new hierarchies. When blacks were given equal opportunity in sports, they dominated many of them and indeed many races are defacto banned or biologically discriminated in certain sports such as basketball. When the L.A. Lakers win the championship, countless Mexican-Americans pour into the streets to celebrate, but how many Mexicans are there in the NBA? Lots of Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans love the NFL, but how many Mexicans and Asians are there in football?

The ideal of universalism hasn't worked out for the Rational Left either. Universalism means common/shared truth for all people in the world, but greater the universalist/globalist reach, greater the problems of diversity. The Soviet Union and Communist Yugoslavia, by creating multi-ethnic states, laid the foundations of all sorts of cultural and ethnic strife. Though the conflicts were suppressed under the iron heel of communism, they never went away and exploded with the end of communism. The fires still burn in many former republics of the USSR. And in the West, the leftist ideal of universalism has morphed or surrendered to the ideology of 'multi-culturalism' and the cult of 'diversity'.  The Left used to see diversity as an obstacle to the universal truth. Indeed, 'culture' was critiqued mostly as superstitions and 'atavistic' customs standing in the way of progress of universal truth. So, Soviets smashed countless churches, and in Red China, most Chinese had to wear the same blue Mao suits. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao sent Red Guards to wage a war on Old Reactionary Culture. And in the Spanish Civil War, the radical Left waged wars of destruction on all symbols of Old Spain.
But in time, the Left came to realize that culture and race don't simply don't go away. So, the new leftist politics was increasing racial and ethnic consciousness--called Identity Politics--among non-white groups and turning it into a united anti-white force. Leftism also came to disdain universalism because European Imperialism had often used the 'universalist' argument to rationalize and justify their invasive actions around the world. Europeans would claim to be spreading the universal truth of God and Jesus or the universal values of human rights that were, oddly enough, unique to the West. And communist record of cultural violence and suppression in non-European nations also disgusted the Left with radical universalism. There was also the romanticism of anthropology that romanticized non-Western cultures--more primitive the better--as Edens that shouldn't be spoiled by the 'cancer' of white rationality and modernity. (That is one reason why only whites get blamed for slavery. It is assumed that since black Africans were primitive, their lived in a kind of Eden, and therefore, even their practice of slavery was very warm and loving.) And it dawned on the white leftists in the 60s that blacks couldn't be recruited to become colorblind warriors of progress. Black Panthers and other such groups insisted on their own racial or ethnic pride. They weren't just gonna lock arms with white liberals and sing 'We Shall Overcome'. And so, the new mode became radical cult of 'diversity'-ism where cultural identities would be encouraged but as a weapon against white power and privilege. (But this has created new contradictions within the Left that is now a coalition of self-loathing white ethnophobes and non-white ethnocentrists.)

Also, rational science of the human mind and behavior hase uncovered the strong possibility that humans are irrational and 'spiritual' by nature. Some liberal scientists now say that some people are born with 'liberal' genes and some are born with 'conservative' genes. Ironically, anti-religious Reason has discovered that man--or at least most people--cannot be rid of their 'religious nature'. So, if religion is banned, mankind will merely find something else to worship. It's no wonder why people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lennon, Oprah, and Obama have been revered and worshiped as substitute gods. You will notice that their greatest devotees are 'secularists' or those who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious'.  In the absence of God or some spiritual figure to worship in their lives, they worship new 'gods'. And people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, in their refusal to worship 'new gods' simply worship their own egos with an arrogance worthy of the old gods. If Reason proves that human nature is not rational, what is to be done? Perhaps, it means that the 'progressive' elites must manipulate the masses as if they're little children or Pavlovian dogs. This is markedly different from behaviorism of B.F. Skinner who focused on human action, or outward behavior. The new manipulation seeks to manipulate the 'ghost in the shell', or the 'soul'.

Of course, communists understood this. Though the ideal of Marxism was to use rational appeals to win over the Proletariat to the 'scientific' truth of class struggle, it became  quite apparent to communist intellectuals that most of the unwashed were pretty dumb and hopeless. Lenin had no respect for the Russian masses. Trotsky had even less. Stalin saw most people as 'the horse'--like in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM. And in truth, Marx was able to pontificate about his fantasy idealism because he lived in his own intellectual bubble and refused to rub shoulders with the real members of the Proletariat. When Engelsl offered him a tour of a factory, Marx declined and refused to see reality that might undermine his theoretical view of everything.
So, how were most people won over to communism? Same way most people were won over to Christianity. Throughout Christian history, most converts were illiterates who never read the actual words in the Old and New Testaments. And even most people who could read weren't exactly thinkers or intellectuals.
Most people were won over by the pageantry, the songs and music, the rituals and ceremonies, the hype and taboos, the feeling of rapture that came with conversion. And their children were raised into Christianity as the 'one and only' True Faith.
Similarly, very few people who became communists read DAS KAPITAL or other works by Marx. A good number may have read THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, but that was communist theory boiled down to cops-n-robbers. What really won over most people were the parades, the songs, the pageantry, the marches and rallies, the iconography of the 'great prophets of progress', the endless propaganda, the slogans about 'land, peace, and bread', the feel-good easy scapegoating or demonization of the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils, and its new set of sacramental taboos that made the movement seem almost holy and 'spiritual'. Most communists never read much of the COLLECTED WORKS OF LENIN, indeed not even the much shorter COLLECTED WORKS OF STALIN.  Though communism was anti-capitalist, it was more 'sold' than told.

Same goes for Nazism. How many Germans really read MEIN KAMPF? Indeed, if more had read it, more would have opposed Nazism or would have seen it as a crazy and crashing bore. Nazism kept gaining popularity because Hitler, along with Albert Speer and Joseph Goebbels, had a keen understanding of the power of hype and 'marketing'. So, National Socialists came up with slogans, parades, pageantry, iconography, songs, rituals, and sacramentics to match those of communists. National Socialists also intentionally appropriated the color red on their flags to steal fire from the communists. This is what turned on the Germans. Faced with economic depression, national humiliation, and an uncertain future, Germans needed something to inspire them, and for a growing number of Germans, the pageantry of National Socialism was irresistible. Also, just as communism has the arch-demon-villain in the 'bourgeoisie', the National Socialists had the easy scapegoat in the International Jew. We know from the popularity of action movies--and countless legends and myths through the ages--that people love to see the world in terms of 'us versus them' and 'good vs evil'. This was equally true of Marx and Hitler. For communists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the bourgeois capitalist, the oppressor of honest working men of the world. For National Socialists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the subversive Jew, the mortal enemy of the Aryan Race. (Incidentally, National Socialism could have triumphed if it hadn't such a hostile view of Slavs. If Hitler's view had been more like that of Mussolini, he could have gotten rid of leftist Jews while winning the loyalty of patriotic German Jews. And he wouldn't have waged on the USSR, and even if he had, he would have summoned and welcomed the support of Slavic anti-communists. But the moment his invading armies convinced the Slavs that Nazis were gonna be even worse than the communists, Hitler's fate was sealed.)

Though 'intelligent' and 'rational' liberals today laugh at dumb conservative morons who believe every word in the Bible--and though liberals warn of the theocratic danger posed by the Christian Right--, the fact is America is moving towards a secular theocracy ruled by liberals. Though there are plenty of sane rational liberals, those who hunger for power don't care about telling the truth or even knowing the truth. They want to own and control the 'Truth' that is to be propped up with pageantry, hype, iconography, ritualism, sacramentalism, and taboos.The whole MLK myth is a pernicious and obnoxious means of social control. Smart liberals know the truth about MLK. They know that he was NOT a man of peace but only used the cult of peace to fool Americans. Jewish liberals who used and manipulated him know this. So, why the hype and why the taboo? Because such are effective as means of social control of the masses. If a rational argument was made for MLK, it could be countered by rational arguments against him. To forbid any such argument, King is turned into a godman, and so, it becomes taboo to even say anything negative or critical about him. As even American conservatives have succumbed to this myth, MLK is the new religion of the land. Of course, embracing irrational superstitions comes naturally to many conservatives. What is truly sad is that so many so-called secular liberals have fallen for it as well.

Liberals say they are for open debate, open discussion, and free argument, but they are lying. They are for open debate only on issues of their preference and approval. So, we can have an open debate on 'why white privilege is evil' but we cannot have an open debate on 'why physically stronger blacks are attacking whites' or 'why smarter Jews have hogged so much power and wealth in America'.  Any criticism of black evils would be counter to the spirit of MLK faith, and so, it must be taboo!  And since the bigger modern faith is Holocaustianity, Jews are never to be criticized or opposed. Though America still allows free speech, we have defacto 'hate speech' regulations against honest discussion of black problems and Jewish power because anyone who dares to do so is effectively blacklisted, shunned, disgraced, shamed, and destroyed.
The new habit among liberals is not to open up more debates and discussions but to tell conservatives what can be discussed and what cannot. Instead of Political Argument, we have the new cult of Political Silence. Of course, liberals say they're advising conservatives for the own good, i.e. liberals are the smart doctor and conservatives are the sick patient, and so, liberals should apply anesthetics to  'relax' the patient in order to draw out the toxic blood within the conservative vein. It's the new political medical treatment of 'bleeding' the patient. The last I heard, 'bleeding' killed George Washington.

The most obnoxious use of pageantry and iconography in recent times has been with Obama and 'gay marriage'. How some political pimp from Chicago got elevated to messianic status may seem outrageous to some, but it's hardly surprising. Most people are easily manipulated, and it's easier now than ever. With the erosion of traditional values and bedrock certitudes, we all live in a world of flux. Especially among white people, there is no racial identity, racial pride, national identity, national pride. Christianity as a Western tradition has faded away among many white people. Instead of  pride and identity, there's likely to be shame and anti-identity for white Americans and Europeans. Having being severed from their roots, the Western tree is wobbly and shaky. And so, it looks for new causes and commitments and mistakenly sees the very ropes pulling it down as new supports. Jews are committed to felling the Western family and cultural tree, but when Jews toss ropes at the White Tree, it thinks Jews are lending a hand to make the Tree better. The White Tree doesn't know that the ropes are being tied to the trunk and branches to be pulled down--like the Tsar statue in Sergei Eisenstein's OCTOBER.


White liberals--and even white conservatives--are easy targets for Jewish liberal manipulation because they have no core values. They only have peripheral values like Tolerance and Cult of Diversity. My point is not that we should doggedly remain rooted in a fixed set of ideas. We should be open to new ideas and listen to all sorts of arguments and discussions. And if some old  ideas or values are proven to lack real value, we should discard them and adopt new ideas and new values.
Traditionally, liberalism at its best sought to do just that: put forth new ideas and new arguments in an open-minded way. Who can deny with Clarence Darrow's fight for freedom of speech for the teacher who wanted to teach evolution? In the past, liberals were indeed on the side of progress and social improvement. For greater liberty and freedom. For more civil liberties. And as rationalists and secularists, they argued for logic and empirical proof. Of course, there were also plenty of dumb and deceitful liberals, but there was indeed a golden age of liberalism when smart and serious liberals did put forth logical and fact-based arguments for greater freedom and truth.

That ideal is gone for good. While there are genuinely scientific liberals in the media and academia, the liberals in power in all institutions have a dual attitude when it comes to truth. They now feel that there is 'elite truth' and 'mass truth'.  It's like in the Soviet Union, the elites had the freedom to discuss all sorts of topics and had access to Western media, but the Soviets masses were denied such freedom and access since they were deemed too stupid and dumb. What was okay for the elites was not okay for the masses. Elites could access and discuss certain truths but the masses had to stick to official propaganda and official news. Though  communist elites justified such restrictions on the basis that the masses are too dumb and gullible, therefore liable to fall for capitalist-bourgeois lies and propaganda, the real fact of the matter was the elites feared that the masses weren't so dumb after all and might realize that capitalism and freedom are better than communism and totalitarianism(the basis of elite communist power).

The liberal ideal used to be that the educated and intelligent elites should have faith in the masses and use reason, logic, facts, and open-minded exchange of ideas/opinions to raise the knowledge level among the people. Thus, truth--and I mean real truth--would spread out across the populace.
Today, elite liberals think entirely differently. They believe that certain truths are just too dangerous, and therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to even know about them or discuss them. Since most of the media and academia are controlled by liberals, liberals now have the power to restrict information and news they don't want the masses to know about. Also, even the so-called conservative media mostly go along with this since it will be economically destroyed by the liberal elite.
There is still freedom on the internet, but liberals are working overtime to end free debate and open discussion by pushing for 'hate speech' laws. In Europe, people can be fined or jailed for writing things on the internet that are deemed 'hateful' and 'intolerant'. Elite liberals are pushing such laws in the US on the basis of protecting minorities like blacks and gays. This is very funny since most of the 'hate crimes' in the US are actually committed by blacks. Since blacks are stronger than other races, almost no one goes up to blacks and says, "Hey nigger". Not only will the black guy beat up the offender but our cult of MLK will ostracize and condemn the 'racist'. Just look what happened to Don Imus for joking about 'nappy-headed hos'. And gays are among the most powerful people in America, and they have the power to intolerantly destroy the lives of people who don't bend over to the gay agenda. The real reason for 'hate speech' control is not to protect the powerless but to shield the powerful. Jews control America, and what Jews fear most is that there will come a day when gentiles--of all color--will call out on Jewish power, Jewish privilege, Jewish influence, Jewish abuses, Jewish oppression, Jewish history of exploitation, Jewish mendacity, and etc. This is what 'hate speech laws' are really about. It is to protect Jewish Supremacism from criticism.

Jewish intellectuals once used to call for open debate and freedom of speech. Even Jewish communists who supported all manner of tyranny and mass murder taking place in the Soviet Union wrapped themselves around the American flag and the Constitution and demanded total freedom of speech. Had liberals, leftists, and Democrats held political power all throughout the 1950s, these liberal Jews would not have called for free speech and civil liberties for all. They would have called for government and institutional clampdown and purge of all 'hateful' and 'reactionary' elements. How do I know this? Did Jewish liberals and leftists care one bit about the 100,000+ Japanese-Americans locked up by FDR? Did Jewish liberals show any disdain for the movie MISSION TO MOSCOW by Michael Curtiz(the Jew who directed CASABLANCA) that rationalized and justified every one of Stalin's crimes? No.  The Jewish support of Civil Liberties was purely accidental and tactical.
With the rise of anti-communism(and return of Republican power) in the late 40s and early 50s, many Jewish radicals came under pressure and some were blacklisted for a few yrs. This is why Jews embraced total freedom of speech. It was to serve tribal interests. Under the guise of total commitment to freedom of speech, Jews were able to outmaneuver McCarthy and pose as defenders of civil liberties of ALL Americans.
But it's been some time since anyone or any group dared to take on Jewish power. Jews have control over all the elite institutions. They can do whatever and get away with it. They no longer need the protection of civil liberties and freedom of speech since they have control over media, academia, law firms, courts, Wall Street, Hollywood, both political parties, advertising, government, and etc.  What Jews fear is the awakening of gentile consciousness against this Jewish power, and so the Jews are trying to prevent/preempt any such phenomenon by enforcing 'hate speech laws' that will prevent anyone from speaking out about Jewish Power. Such is the nature of the Jew.

So, we now live in the era of 'dual truths'. Jewish elites are good enough to access, know, and discuss the truth, but WE are not good enough. We must stick with the Official Truth. So, elite Jews in their own clubs and societies will discuss racial differences and the nature of their power--and what they must do to expand it and keep it forever--, but we are not supposed to know or think anything about it. To be sure, some Jews are just so goofy and filled with chutzpah that they accidentally spill the beans.
One of the funniest is Joel Stein's HOW JEWISH IS HOLLYWOOD?
The article starts:

"I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe 'the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,' down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood."

Though Jewish control of the media/Hollywood/Wall Street has exponentially increased since 1964, Americans today believe Jews don't control the media. It goes to show that truth is less important than the medium of truth. Those who control the flow of information, the symbols of inspiration, the dogma of official truth, and the fear of taboos control what is and isn't "truth". Though Jewish power increased since the 60s, Americans today think Jews are less powerful!!
Yes, this sort of thing can happen in a so-called democracy where information is supposed to flow freely and teach people the truth. Joel Stein, a clownish character, probably thought he was just being funny, but ever since that article has been picked up by 'anti-Semites' like Kevin MacDonald and David Duke, it appears he's been disciplined and pressured to lay low and remain silent; he's been effectively disappeared as a 'bad boy Jew'. On the other hand, maybe some Jews thought Stein's way of breaking the news in a funny matter could be beneficial to Jewish power. If Jewish power is sold as something funny and hilarious, maybe people will laugh about it than fear it--even though it has tremendous impact on all facets of their lives, from information to education to finance to foreign policy.

Anyway, the fact that Jewish power increased from 1964 to 2008 but Americans thinks Jews are less powerful today says something about the the problem of 'dual truth' in America. Jews are allowed to discuss and work to increase Jewish power in their elite inner circles, BUT we are not supposed to know about it, and even if we did know, we are not supposed to discuss it openly lest we lose our jobs.
The failure of American conservatism can be glimpsed in this too. Conservatism cannot exist without memory, yet American conservatives--most of them anyway--seem to have no knowledge of the change in Jewish behavior and strategy since the 50s.  If American conservatives had a real sense of memory, they'd know that Jews argued for government censorship during the FDR yrs but then argued for civil liberties when Jewish leftists came under attack by anti-communists--and today, they are arguing for 'hate speech' laws that would effectively silence all criticism of Jewish power. In other words, Jews have no principles, only strategies. Their own principle is tribal power.  Most elite Jews believe that most of us 'cannot handle the truth', which really means we'll handle it TOO WELL and realize that Jews have been behind white deracination, dispossession, and demise. Jews see us as stupid little children. We are to live with the 'noble lie' while Jews in their closed elite institutions get to secretly discuss issues about racial differences. It's just like ANIMAL FARM with smart pigs owning the house and us working in the fields.

Now, some of you may think that  my assessment of Jewish power is exaggerated. After all, there are lots of superrich non-Jews. But huge wealth isn't sufficient power to challenge Jewish power. After all, there are many very rich people in China, but their wealth and status can be destroyed overnight by the Communist Party. No matter how rich you are in China, the fact is the law courts, media, police, and military are dominated by Communist Party oligarchs. You don't mess with the real overlords with control over the institutions. Similarly, no matter how rich you are in America, if you cross Jews, Jews can use their institutional power to destroy you almost overnight. Jews get to decide who is okay and who is not okay. Plenty of black rappers and white rockers have said and done outrageous things, but they get millionaire dollar contracts from the Jewish-controlled entertainment industry. But when Mel Gibson got drunk one time and said, "Jews start all wars", he was effectively blacklisted from the film industry. If you're a filthy Zionist and support Israel's right to possess 300 illegal nuclear weapons, you're A-okay and given all sorts of favors. But no matter how rich you are, if you argued for Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons, you're gonna lose a lot of powerful friends and connections--and protections--right away. Jews have such a lock on the key levers of power that even the superrich who dare challenge Jewish power are toast overnight. Suppose George Lucas made a film about the oppression of Palestinians. Think of all the friends and connections in the film industry he would lose almost immediately. And Jews in government will send an army of goons to audit Lucas's tax files and prosecute him for the most minor infraction--while the grand Jewish crooks on Wall Street get to do as they please.

Returning to the matter of irrational appeals, just consider how 'gay marriage' became such a hot issue. It wasn't through rational debate, reasoned discourse, morally logical appeals, or any kind of real sense. It was through the power of pageantry, iconography, hype and sensationalism, sanctification of gays and lesbians and even cross-dressers as holy angels, the vilification of decent people as 'odious, noxious, and toxic homophobes'--yes, so-called 'tolerant' people use such strong adjectives against people they don't agree with--, parades, rallies, advertising, sacred threats, and veiled threats, and etc. I say 'veiled threats' because brazen threats give the game away that we are being pressured and brow-beaten to bend over to the Jewish-supported radical gay agenda.  People don't like to feel that they are being forced to do something. So, Jews and gays come to you with a smile and ask you to support 'gay marriage' while hinting that if you don't comply, you're gonna go down. Since you fear being shunned, shamed, and destroyed, you support 'gay marriage' and in order to convince yourself and others that you did it out of conviction than cowardice, you express an overly zealous support of the gay agenda. It's like a dog barking extra-loud while serving its master. Though being ordered by its master to attack, it makes believe that it's in control of its own emotions by barking like crazy. But no matter how much all these converts express their support for 'gay marriage', we know they acted out of cowardice. They really had no choice since if they don't support it, they'll be disgraced, shunned, and rejected from polite, hipster, and cool society. And so they hide their shame of cowardice with rabid support of 'gay marriage'.

Bullies come to you and shake their fist at you. But not all bullies are so brazen. In AGE OF INNOCENCE, we see how polite society with fine manners could use all sorts of subtle pressures to force a man to marry a woman he doesn't love and abandon the woman he really loves. Similarly, the neo-haute society of today has all sorts of ways to make you go along 'reasonably' by applying all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle pressures. Jews and gays don't want us to think that we've been forced to go along with their agenda. And so, they employ all sorts of nudges and appeals to our irrational emotions to make them go along with the 'gay agenda'. As many people are dumb and ignorant, they are pushovers for such manipulation. Even so, many people still resist the ridiculous gay agenda. What to do with such people? Since they can't be fooled, they must be pressured. One way is with money and bribery, and this is especially effective with politicians. Notice how NY Republicans were bought over to voting for 'gay marriage'. Politicians should really be called prostitucians. Even so, there are still people who refuse to fall for the bogus bullshit of 'gay marriage' that says it's healthy and wonderful for men to practice fecal penetration and insert male sexual organs into organs meant for defecation of waste material. Since Jews and gays don't want to be exposed as brazen bullies, they use all sorts of hidden bully tactics. They use all sorts of hints and send all sorts of signals that if certain people are not with the gay agenda, their reputations will be smeared, they may lose 'friends', they may not get promotion, they may be turned into the butt of jokes and mockery. And if there are still holdouts to accepting 'gay marriage', there is the looming 'hate speech' law that aims to fine or imprison anyone who speaks out against such filth.
'Gay marriage' is of course the real hate crime against real marriage. It offends the fundamental dignity of the meaning of marriage. The idea that a penis entering a fecal hole is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex is vile, hateful, and disgusting. It's like saying eating a plateful of feces is the same as eating a plate of pizza.

There never was a sane rational argument for 'gay marriage'. Indeed, all arguments made for 'gay marriage' could just as easily be used to champion polygamy, group marriage, and same-family marriage or incest marriage. If marriage should allow anything demanded by adults of consenting age, it can be just be just about anything. Indeed even 'friend marriage' between two heterosexuals who wanna get married ONLY to share benefits from work. It's ridiculous.
Jews and gays are the neo-aristocrats,  and just like the upper classes in AGE OF INNOCENCE, they are really out for their own privilege. Gays are so vain and greedy that they are willing to subvert the entire meaning of marriage just to serve their own perverse ego. And that isn't enough. Gays and Jews are working to ban any speech that is 'hateful' or 'contemptuous' of gays or the homosexual act. So, if you say 'gay sex is unnatural and gross', you should be fined, sent to sensitivity training, or locked up. Just like aristocrats used 'polite power' to get their way, Jews and gays use all sorts of subtle ways to send a message that we better not mess with their agenda or challenge them since they have the power to destroy reputations, careers, and lives.

So many Americans are such pushovers or bendovers. Think of the rainbow flag and homosexuality. Now, what does the beautiful and miraculous rainbow have to do with two men sticking their penises into fecal holes or with fat hairy guys who put on lipstick and wear dresses? NOTHING. But by hyping and advertising homosexuality as a kind of rainbow, so many Americans have been made to feel that there's nothing more heavenly and wonderful than homosexuality.  Gee whiz, gays must be angels, and that being true, who are we to deny them 'gay marriage'?

Just like most Christians were converted to the Faith through emotional appeals, many Americans have been won over to 'gay marriage' through irrational appeals that sanctified and beautified the gay world. Just like most Americans think Jews don't control Hollywood due to Jewish manipulation of truth,  many Americans associate gayness with rainbow colors, cool/hip/funny characters on TV, and all the other crap we see due to media manipulation. And of course, just like movies have good guys and bad guys, the Jewish media present opponents of 'gay marriage' in the most unflattering and demeaning manner. While the media  suppresses all the unpleasant facts of gays and show only their nice side, the media ignores all the positive side of supporting real marriage against 'gay marriage' and feature only the most deranged voices that denounce 'gay marriage'. So, the impression that Americans get is "gays are so perfect and angelic, and their enemies are so ugly, old, and vile."

But we see the same thing with Israel and Iran. Both nations have their good sides and bad sides, but Israel is featured as some perfect democracy in the Middle East whereas Iran is featured as a totally crazy nation that 'wants to wipe Israel off the map'. And we hear so often that tiny little Israel, as the outpost of Western values, is surrounded by all those barbaric and hostile Muslim nations that want to destroy it. Using that logic, why didn't the West support apartheid South Africa as the final tiny outpost of Western Civilization on a Dark Continent filled with murderous black savages out to rob, rape, and murder whites?  Well, it just so happens to be the case that Jews control the media in the West and get to decide what is what.

Unless American patriots take on Jewish power, nothing is possible.