Friday, January 30, 2015

Political Correctness: It’s So Easy to be Blinded by Self-Righteousness



There’s a semi-interesting article in AEON MAGAZINE called "The Golden Quarter. Some of Our Greatest Cultural and Technological Achievements Took Place between 1945 and 1971. Why Has Progress Stalled?" Though overstated — articles such as this are exaggerated to stir up ‘controversy’ and garner attention — , it does make for provocative reading because we’ve all been living under the assumption that progress is happening faster than ever. But maybe the pace of change/progress has been overrated because we’re swept up in the online world where new apps dazzle us, lending the impression that everything about the world is changing when, in fact, what may be really changing is only our perception of the world through zippy gadgets that hook up all of humanity in a ‘global village’.

Personally, I believe tremendous innovations are being made and humanity, at least in the West, is on the cusp of mega-breakthroughs in biotechnology and artificial intelligence. If history teaches us anything, it is never to predict the future. Hell or heaven may be waiting for us, or combination thereof. But we won’t know until we get there. Also, despite the phenomenon of globalism, different parts of the world will likely progress or regress in their own manner, and what may be a golden age for one part of the world could be the dark ages for another part. Today, Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to be doing great while rest of the Arab/Muslim world is being torn apart and burned to cinders. Russian economy is in free fall whereas the American economy seems to be on the rebound. Who knows what the future holds for EU, a very unstable entity, or for China, a nation of great potential and massive problems.

Nevertheless, Michael Hanlon, the author of the article, makes some startling arguments that remind us of how little progress there has been in real terms in the last 30 or even 40 yrs. I was surprised to hear that chances of surviving cancer today hasn’t improved all that much since the 1970s. And of course, today’s airplanes, though computerized, are still modeled on the standard blueprint of the 1960s. In some ways, the rise of the internet and online world may have had a negative impact on innovations in many fields. After all, if so much of our communication and work can be handled via the internet, it will foster accelerated innovation in software but depress innovation in hardware since we’d only need a few gadgets to access what we want. What need for new stereo systems if we can get all our music via the computer? What need for better reading materials if we can get all our reading material via downloads? What need for electronic devices like dvd players if we can watch all our movies by internet streaming? It’s like if we were to invent a teleporter — like the one in STAR TREK — , there would be no need for cars, airplanes, trains, and etc. We could all just enter a booth and be teleported back and forth around the world.

But science and technology aside, Hanlon is so blinded by self-righteous Political Correctness that he fails to see the hole in his very argument. For any innovation to be possible, there has to be a free exchange of ideas, opinions, and speculations. Genuine innovation must be founded on truth, but then, of course, truth is a double-edged sword. As every person or group has its own agenda, myths, values, self-image, and/or interests, certain truths are preferable to others. Indeed, when truth undermines one’s world-view or paradigm, there’s a tendency to suppress the truth through taboos and ‘correctness’. This is as true of ideology as of religion. The most famous case in history of a truth-teller’s ordeal under the powers-that-be is probably the story of Galileo’s persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church that couldn’t abide by the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun than vice versa. Though wrong on facts, the Catholic Church insisted on its rightness on the basis of moral/spiritual correctness. If indeed God is the source of all truth and if He created man with a special duty and destiny in the universe, why wouldn’t He have created Earth in the center of everything? And if the Bible, as the Word of God, is infallible, then what it says about the Creation of the World must be true. Genesis says God created the Sun(as an object in the sky) after He created the Earth. Thus, Catholic Church doctrine wasn’t merely academic or theoretical. If it were, Church authorities could have accepted Galileo’s findings. The problem was Galileo’s observations went against the moral and spiritual — the righteous — world-view of the Catholic Church. It undermined the entire paradigm of the special relationship between God and man.
Usually when the ruling order has problems with new ideas or theories, it has less to do with fear of new ideas per se than with the nature of the taboos and sacredness that defines the social order. So, an idea that might seem scandalous to one social order might not seem to strange to another one. For example, the theory of evolution is likely to be less threatening to Hindus than to Muslims. Hindus, after all, have a very weird view of how life was created and re-creates itself. In contrast, Muslims cling, more or less, to the Creation story as told in the Bible. Allah created man in his image. So, the idea that man evolved from apes or lower beings would seem offensive to a traditional Muslim. In contrast, Hindus believe souls are reincarnated from man to animal back to man to animal, therefore something like evolution is likely to be less threatening to their world-view and their view of human life and its place in the cosmos.
The West is now post-religious, but religious mind-set is part of human psyche. We are by nature spiritual and we fixate on certain things as either sacred or wicked. And even as the West is now in post-Christian mode, the Christian mind-set steeped in the notions of ‘sin’, ‘guilt’, and ‘redemption’ are still very much with us. However, those passions and sentiments have been transferred to our ideological fixations. Thus, slavery in America is said to be the "America’s Original Sin". And MLK isn’t mere admired as a political leader but worshiped as someone bigger than the Founding Fathers and Jesus Christ combined. Indeed, one’s career in America can survive badmouthing God, Jesus, Founding Fathers, and Lincoln, but anyone who dares to utter the mildest criticism of MLK will be shut out from all elite positions. And certain groups, especially Jews, Negroes, and homos, are seen as Holy Peoples. Their narratives are elevated above those of others. Their tragedies are favored over those of others. Thus, a handful of dead blacks in the South during the Civil Rights Movement count for more than millions of Slavs killed by Stalinists and Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. A dead Jew counts for more than thousands of dead Palestinians in the Middle East. A Holocaust Survivor counts for more than a Cambodian Killing Fields survivor, Ukrainian Great Famine survivor, or Nakba refugee.
Nobody cares about the Nakba. Michael Hanlon probably doesn't.
Progress in the modern sense ideally means the favoring of rational, factual, logical, open, and honest truth-seeking over irrational, sacrosanct, taboo-ridden, self-righteous, and repressive dogmatism. And there was a time when liberalism used to stand for genuine modern principles. But over time, the meaning of ‘progress’ came to be associated with certain specific ideological agendas that, though wrapped in the rhetoric of reason and science, were defined and driven by neo-spiritual ideological certitudes. The most famous example is, of course, Marxism that claimed to be entirely materialist, rational, empiricist, logical, factual, and scientific but was really a new form of religion centered around the cult worship of a German Jew who thought he knew everything. So, even though communism became a burden and drag on intellectual and even scientific freedom in Soviet Union and Maoist China, the official narrative held out that True Progress or Salvation could only come from adherence to Marxism and its elaborations via Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

Though the world we live in isn’t totalitarian like the Soviet Union or Red China, a similar kind of mind-set prevails in Political Correctness. Instead of progress being associated with free inquiry, free debate, open discussion, encouragement of controversy, and rejection of taboos, the prevailing Liberalism(that dominates the academia and media) identifies ‘progressivism’ in close association to certain social, political, and/or cultural agendas favored by the Power Elites that are mostly dominated by Jews and homos in the West.

But Michael Hanlon is blind to this because he is so sure that ‘progress’ is all about ‘anti-racism’ and homomania. Sure, if ‘racism’ is something peddled by the KKK, the Nation of Islam, or the Nazis, genuine progressive would entail that we reject and denounce such ideas. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves if we are rejecting certain ideas and views because they are factually wrong or ‘morally wrong’. I would argue that the ideologies of KKK, Nazis, and Nation of Islam should be rejected because they are factually wrong. The Nation of Islam’s racial theories are ludicrous. Nazis were factually wrong about ‘Aryans’ being some mythical superior race. And KKK members were mostly ignoramus bigots who didn’t know much about anything. I would argue that Nazism, KKK-ideology, and Nation of Islam’s world-view are morally wrong because they are factually wrong. (Nevertheless, one can argue for the moral rightness of something that is factually wrong and the moral wrongness of something that is factually true. The existence of God is factually wrong, but a moral or at least moralistic view of life can be built upon the idea of a special relationship between God and man. In contrast, even if evolution is factually correct — one would have to be an idiot in this day and age to go on rejecting the basic tenets of Darwin — , one could argue that it ultimately makes for an amoral view of life that renders even morality into just a game of struggle and survival, i.e. there is no higher morality in evolution.) But, the radical racist idiocies of the Nazis, KKK, and the Nation of Islam does NOT mean that all theories of race and racial differences are false. The recent book by Nicholas Wade, TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE, details how races are real and racial group differences exist. But we don’t need a book to tell us that. We know from statistics in street crime, school bullying, and sports that blacks are stronger and more aggressive than other races. We know from Jewish power and success that Jews, as a group, have higher IQ than other groups. We know that some races tend to have certain facial and hair features while other groups have different features. Even among black Africans, there are marked differences among Ethiopians, Nigerians, and Xhosa peoples. Indeed, they may be seen as different races, just like white Europeans and yellow East Asians are seen as members of different races even though both peoples have light skin and straight hair.

Even if the bigotries of old-style ‘racists’ should be rejected, we are still confronted with racial problems stemming from the facts of racial differences. Maybe these problems can be overcome, maybe they cannot be. But they are here to stay, and in order to understand them, we need a culture of free inquiry, free debate, and open discussion. But what goes by today’s ‘progressivism’ doesn’t allow freedom of discussion and debate. Instead, all people working in the media and academia must bow down to the Politically Correct Lie that ‘race is just a social construct’ or ‘race is just a myth’. This isn’t science. It’s not truth. It’s the dogma of the neo-religion of Political Correctness peddled by Jewish elites. Because Jews got burned by white radical racism of the Nazis in the 20th century, they’ve concocted a new ideology that discourages and punishes any kind of ‘racialist’ thinking among whites. If anything, ‘racism’ or race-ism should only mean ‘belief in races and racial differences’. After all, ‘ism’ simply means belief, therefore ‘race’ and ‘ism’ should mean belief in races, racial consciousness, and racial differences. It shouldn’t automatically mean ‘racial surpremacism’, ‘racial hatred’, ‘racial arrogance’, and ‘racial chauvinism’. ‘Ism’ must means belief. Why should a race-ist be conflated automatically with a radical racist? It’d be like conflating a socialist or social-democrat with a Stalinist or Pol-Pot-ist. Most people who call themselves ‘socialists’, after all, are not hardcore Stalinists or Maoists. So, why should it be assumed that a race-ist is a Hitlerite or someone who wants to join the KKK? Furthermore, if all forms of radical racism is evil, how come Jewish groups are allowed to hold extreme views in Israel?
I wonder what Michael Hanlon has to say about Zionist radical racism. I wonder how a ‘progressive’ like him feels about the plight of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. My guess he is mum on the matter because the only way to succeed in the media is to suck up to the all-powerful Jewish oligarchs who control most of the media and academic institutions. Of course, even most gentiles in high positions either slavishly serve their Jewish masters. Or their minds have been rotted by Jewish theories of Political Correctness. So, what is not acceptable among white gentiles is perfectly acceptable among Jews. What would be condemned as ‘racist’ in America and Europe is, if anything, encouraged in Israel. And despite the ongoing destruction of Palestinians, US and UK continue to shower Israel with endless praise and support. So, if Hanlon really believes in Politically Correct version of ‘progress’, why is he so silent about the plight of Palestinians? Are Palestinians less than human because they are not on the bandwagon with ‘gay marriage’? (Since Israel doesn’t have ‘gay marriage’, shouldn’t it be condemned along with Russia? But I doubt if Hanlon will pressure Israel to adopt ‘gay marriage’. Jews can do as they please, but all the other nations better do as Jews order them to.) Why does he care so much more about rich privileged homos working in cahoots with Wall Street sharks than about Palestinians in Gaza who are freezing to death in winter? Indeed, even by the rules of PC, people like Hanlon miserably fail the test.
Child in Gaza facing freezing weather. But does Michael Hanlon care?
Also, Hanlon seems blind to the fact that Western homomania is, in effect, a new kind of ‘racism’ and ‘cultural imperialism’. If white folks in the West consider themselves to be morally, culturally, and spiritually superior to non-Westerners and Eastern Europeans because they believe in ‘gay marriage’ — and in the illiberal suppression of all voices that stand counter to the racial homo agenda — , then it is merely a new kind of Western arrogance and Culture War on the entire world through the financial and media muscle of Jewish globalist power. White Man’s Burden has gone from spreading-the-light-of-civilization-to-the-rest-of-the-world to enforcing-the-notion-that-a-homo-guy’s-bunghole-is-the-sexual-equivalent-of-a-woman’s-vagina. Homomania is really an attack on women. Any agenda that says the smelly fecal-stained anus of Barney Frank is the biological equivalent of your mother’s vagina is sick and demented. It’s one thing to say that homosexuality is a natural abnormality and that some men and women are born with weird sexual predilections. It also makes sense to acknowledge that homosexual mind-set in certain creative endeavors have contributed something noteworthy to civilization. But to say that, on the biological and moral level, homosexuality has equal value as real sexuality is ludicrous and downright offensive. It’s like saying incest-sexuality has the same value as normal sexuality. But what’s truly sickening about the homo agenda is that homosexuality has been elevated as something even better and holier than real sexuality. Today, if a prominent figure were to opine that real sexuality is superior to homosexuality, he or she will be attacked, censured, shunned, and fired. But if someone argues that homosexuality and homosexuals are better than real sexuality or real sexuals, he or she will be given an interested hearing and even be applauded. Same goes for Jews. If anyone says Christianity or gentiles are better than Judaism or Jews, he or she will be destroyed on the spot. If anyone says that Jews are so special and indeed superior to other peoples in just about anything, he or she will be praised and admired as being so wonderfully sympathetic toward Jews. So, issues around homos and Jews are not even about equality. They are about Jewish supremacism and homo supremacism.

What we’ve had since the advent of the secular quasi-religion of Political Correctness is agenda over truth, faith over facts, ‘ideality’ over reality, (self)righteousness over rightness, and the Narrative(that tells a favored story) over Noticing(of what’s really happening). In non-political areas such as science, math, and technology, there’s a great deal of progress being made — regardless of Hanlon’s arguments — because people are free to pursue the truths of hard facts and see what works and what does not.
But in the field of ‘social science’, true progress can only be measured in terms of what is true and what isn’t true. To be sure, discovering what is true may not solve social problems. In some cases, they may make matters worse. After all, Detroit is so far gone that I doubt if spelling out the problem — that crazy blacks caused its downfall — will do much good. Detroit will rise again only if entire areas are bought by whites who move in en masse to gentrify the city block by block. Though people are loathe to admit that blacks ruined Detroit, even mentioning the truth won’t do much good at this point since blacks are blacks and will continue to act like blacks. In some cases, speaking the truth may make things worse. For example, for the sake of political priorities or social peace, the lie or myth can be more productive and useful than the truth. The Soviet mass killing of Polish officers in Katyn is one such example. For the sake of the US-Soviet alliance, the Allies just made believe that the Nazis did it. During the war, it was more important to save the alliance with a lie than threaten it with the truth.
Jackie Robinson as a 'credit to his race'.
Also, one might say the myth of racial equality did some good for America prior to the rise of black rage and riots. When America upheld the myth of racial equality, many blacks were expected to be a ‘credit to their race’ and try to be like respectable white folks. And white folks were pressured to drop their racial hostility and accept Negroes as essentially white folks with black skin. But as the 60s heated up, the myth of racial equality that had pressured blacks to act more respectable and pressured whites to be less bigoted began to break down. Of course, with the Civil Rights on the march, there was ever greater pressure to promote the notion of racial equality and the idea that all races were the same except for skin color. But as blacks won more freedom, they weren’t content to be a ‘credit to their race’. They began to feel stifled when holding hands with white liberals and singing "We Shall Overcome". Blacks preferred to go wild and over-cum. Muhammad Ali didn’t want to be like Joe Louis. Louis beat up lots of white guys but in interviews acted like he didn’t mean to hit anybody and white guys just accidentally bumped into his Nice Negro fists. In contrast, Muhammad Ali was very brash and aggressive in hollering about how he was the baddest black puncher in the world. And with more freedom, black musical culture got ever funkier and wilder. And black fashions, styles, and attitudes began to take on a life of their own. They were no longer modeled on whiteness. So, despite the official myth of racial equality, the new black identity emphasized black pride, black beauty(or at least booty), and black power. As for white folks, it soon began to dawn that Negroes were no longer trying to win the approval and respect of mainstream society. Blacks were no longer acting like the family in RAISIN IN THE SUN. They were acting like Chitlins on the Stove. So, white families began to run from blackening cities and even from certain blackening suburbs. It was the era of black blight and white flight. But even though whites were scared to death of Negro rage and aggression, many whites were also turned on by black prowess in funky music and sports. Even as whites ran to the suburbs, their TV sets were flashing with Negro domination in football-basketball-boxing, Negroes acting funny in TV sitcoms(how can anyone not like SANFORD AND SON?), dance shows, and etc. And whites were turned on Negroes in pop culture and sports not for their sameness with whites but for their differences as tough athletes, funny clowns, booty-shakers, and singers. And of course, PBS ran countless sacro-sanct documentaries about the Civil Rights Movement and MLK. And ROOTS had a huge impact on the American psyche when it aired in the 1970s.

Anyway, in the long run, the myth of racial equality couldn’t hold. Eventually, lies cannot be the foundation of a stable order. Only harsh repression, social tyranny, and isolation from the rest of the world can sustain a system of lies. It’s like the old feudal system of Japan could last as long as Japan was shut off from the world. But once modernity and freedom flowed into Japan, the old ways began to fade fast. Likewise, even though the myth of racial equality seemed to be doing wonders in gradually bringing whites and blacks together through moral pressure(on whites to be nicer to Negroes) and social pressure(on blacks to be more respectable so as to be worthy of being accepted by white middle class society), it was bound to fail because, in truth, whites and blacks are NOT equal on the biological level. For the myth of racial equality to work, it is necessary to maintain a repressive system like the one in Cuba where blacks are prohibited from running wild and acting like crazed rappers and looters. If Cuban blacks acted like that, there would be police clubs cracking their nappy-ass heads, and there would be nothing they can do about it as Cuba has no ACLU or ‘free media’ to bring attention to ‘police brutality’.
Sly and the Family Stone. Negroes doing what comes to them naturally.
But in a free nation like the US, the myth of racial equality was bound to break down because blacks, once guaranteed total freedom and equality, would revert to their original boogie-woogie, ugabuga, jigger-jiver, and funky-ass savage nature. Inside every Negro is a spear-chucker trying to get out. As for whites, Conservatives and Liberals alike, they would try to find ways to flee to safer areas with no or fewer Negroes.
Of course, the official ideology of racial equality is still enforced in America, at least in rhetoric. But in practice and in what people do(as opposed to what they say), no one much pays attention to the myth. In both black/white animosity and amorousness, the operative dynamics is fueled by racial differences/inequality than racial equality. Many whites flee from black areas because blacks are correctly seen as more aggressive and stronger(and even physically bigger). And many blacks fail in school and fall behind because of their lower intelligence(which is why so many depend on ‘affirmative action’ to go to good schools) and unrulier nature. But, it’s also true that interracist relationships between blacks and whites — overwhelmingly black male and white female — have to do with the predominant perception that black men are more sexually domineering and white women are more attractive. And if white guys in the past possessed sufficient racial pride to get riled up about the interracist threat and pushed back in the name of white male pride and white racial survival, today’s white boys are more accepting of black sexual domination but because they, like white women, have surrendered to the ideal and image of the Negro as the superior racial male. White men have been pussified into a bunch of Ken Burns who probably would love to see his wife be humped by Jack Johnson. As he is so wussy and ‘faggoty’, he might even get off with some Negro pumping him in the ass. Even straight white males seem to be turning ‘gayish’ in the presence of Negroes. They act like beta-dogs groveling and whimpering before the bigger alpha dog.
Ken Burns. Totally disgusting white boy Liberal pansy who bends over to Negro supremacism.
Anyway, progress in ‘social science’ cannot be measured like progress in technology. Technology is about what works better, what is more effective, what is more productive, etc. In contrast, the sciences are, above all, about what is true and what isn’t true. There are many discoveries in physics that have no practical application — and never will — , but scientists study them anyway because the point of science is to pursue the truth-for-truth’s-sake. So, even if truth-seeking in physics leads to discoveries of no practical value, it’s part of scientific progress because it had led to attainment of more exacting truth.

Same goes for social science. Though what we learn from social science may or may not help us to solve social problems, the first order of business of ‘social science’ is to study and discover what is true and what isn’t. Whether or not practical lessons can be derived from such studies and applied to the socio-politico-economic realm, social scientists need to aim for the truth since only the truth can serve as a sound basis for social policy. Why did communism fail in the end? Despite all the propaganda, campaigns, hysterias, rallies, social engineering, and etc., it failed to deliver enough bread for the people. It was economically inefficient, socially repressive, ideologically dogmatic, intellectually stifling, and at odds with certain basic aspects of human nature. Soviet Union was one of the most spectacular of all social experiments, but it collapsed almost overnight in the late 80s and early 90s.
Likewise, why is the Western Civilization beginning to crumble and risking collapse? Because it is now based on ‘false truths’ of multiculturalism, diversity-mongering, myths of racial equality, wonderfulness of Jews, homomania, radical narcissism, anti-race-ism, Negrophilia, and etc.
Of course, the Nazi experiment also failed because it was premised on the ‘false truths’ of ‘Aryan supremacism’ and other nutjob racial theories that over-estimated the invincibility of the Germans while woefully underestimating the resolve, ability, and power of Russian Slavs. Indeed, even if Nazis had won World War II, their ideology would have failed in the long run because it was founded on too many lies. In the end, lies get in the way of the truth that is the only surefire foundation for long-lasting stability.

Whether ideas and observations in ‘social sciences’ are useful/applicable or not, the first priority is to dig for the truth. Of course, truth alone isn’t enough. After all, there is nothing that can be done about South Africa now. Even if everyone in South Africa — even Negroes — and the West could be convinced of the racial differences between whites and blacks, South Africa will remain black-ruled, and its problems will keep multiplying as blacks mismanage many sectors of the economy and government. So, truth is never enough to save a social order.
Sweden. More Immigration from the Third World a good idea?
However, if a social order is to be prevented from making or exacerbating mistakes, it must face the truth. Sweden can still be saved from the horrors of ‘diversity-mongering’, and the ONLY way is for Swedes to wake up to the truth that diversity often leads to division, Muslim values are contrary to Western values, and too many black Africans mean more crime, violence, rape, and mayhem in Sweden. Also, how can any civilization survive if its men are pussified and made to sexually surrender their women to the men of another race that are worshiped as superior — as is the case with white American males who’ve surrendered and submitted to Negroes in the Cuckold War?

Michael Hanlon writes:

"Risk played its part, too, in the massive postwar shift in social attitudes. People, often the young, were prepared to take huge, physical risks to right the wrongs of the pre-war world. The early civil rights and anti-war protestors faced tear gas or worse. In the 1960s, feminists faced social ridicule, media approbation and violent hostility. Now, mirroring the incremental changes seen in technology, social progress all too often finds itself down the blind alleyways of political correctness. Student bodies used to be hotbeds of dissent, even revolution; today’s hyper-conformist youth is more interested in the policing of language and stifling debate when it counters the prevailing wisdom. Forty years ago a burgeoning media allowed dissent to flower. Today’s very different social media seems, despite democratic appearances, to be enforcing a climate of timidity and encouraging groupthink.

And then he writes:

"Does any of this really matter? So what if the white heat of technological progress is cooling off a bit? The world is, in general, far safer, healthier, wealthier and nicer than it has ever been. The recent past was grim; the distant past disgusting. As Steven Pinker and others have argued, levels of violence in most human societies had been declining since well before the Golden Quarter and have continued to decline since. We are living longer. Civil rights have become so entrenched that gay marriage is being legalised across the world and any old-style racist thinking is met with widespread revulsion. The world is better in 2014 than it was in 1971."

Doesn’t he see any contradiction between his gripe(that today’s young are conformist unlike the 60s generation) and his praise(that we are so much better off today because certain ideas and outlooks are forbidden)? Incidentally, were the Counterculture radicals of the 60s really all that freedom-loving and risk-taking? Or were many of them merely driven by power-lust and looking to the future when they would wield the power to enforce their version of ‘correctness’ on everyone in quasi-Maoist style? In that case, the so-called ‘risk-taking’ of the 60s gave birth to the ‘new conformism’ since the principal animating force wasn’t love of freedom and liberty but lust for power and control when radicals would finally get to take over the institutions and decide what should be approved in thought and expression.

Hanlon argues that even if technological innovation has slowed down, we should congratulate ourselves for having created a much better and peaceful place for everyone. But is what he calls ‘progress’ in human affairs really progress? True, we are living longer, but whites and some other peoples are not having kids. They are dying demographically. In nations like Germany and Japan, people may be living longer, but there are far fewer young Germans and Japanese, and they are not reproducing in sufficient numbers. As Germany has high levels of immigration, it could lead to the abolishment of Germany, a social/racial cultural entity that has lasted for thousands of years.
And what does ‘gay marriage’ have to do with ‘civil rights’? Hasn’t this emphasis on the ‘gay agenda’ effectively drained leftism and political activism of any real concern for the underclass, working class, and the middle class in favor of the vain narcissism of homo elites who are favored by and allied with Jewish oligarchs who run entire parts of the world as their financial fiefdoms? What does ‘gay marriage’ have to do with civil rights when bakeries are driven out of business for refusing to bake ‘gay wedding cakes’? Should NYT be fined or driven out of business if it refuses to run advertising for dildos? Dildos may be perfectly legal, but doesn’t NYT have the freedom to choose what kinds of ads to run in its paper? Then, why shouldn’t bakeries have the freedom/right to decide what kinds of cake they wish to bake? It’d be one thing if a bakery said "We won’t serve homos", but where is the problem with a bakery that refuses to bake a ‘gay wedding cake’? Also, businesses are not allowed to open in certain cities if their owners support true marriage. Besides, if Hanlon really believes in ‘marriage equality’ as a ‘civil right’, where is he on ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy? Why is ‘gay marriage’ a civil rights issues, but ‘incest marriage’ isn’t promoted as a civil right for ‘incest-sexuals’? So much for equality. Some perversions and forms of sexual deviance get special treatment while others are still treated as anathema. So, it all depends on whether your group has the support of and alliance with the all-powerful Jewish globalist oligarchs, with whom Michael Hanlon seems to be in cahoots.

More importantly, if social science should be about truth, where is the truth in conflating homo fecal penetration — what goes by the name of ‘anal sex’ — with the ‘rainbow’? What does the beauty of the rainbow have to do with a homo guy’s penis stained with fecal matter or with an anus bleeding from being pummeled by homo penises? And on what biological basis are we to assume that a homo man’s fecal hole is the sexual equivalent of a woman’s vagina(that was properly designed by nature to a sexual/reproductive organ)? Isn’t it a form of radical relativism to say that a homo guy’s fecal hole is the ‘sexual’ equivalent of a woman’s vagina? Isn’t it an affront to womanhood to say that Barney Frank’s crusty smelly bunghole has the same ‘sexual’ value as a woman’s vagina? Considering what women go through in childbirth to produce new human beings, how can any sane person say a homo man’s stinky fecal hole should be elevated the same status as a ‘sex’ organ as a vagina? It’s as biologically absurd as saying storks bring babies or that there’s any veracity to Creationism. Homomania is not about civil rights. It’s about elitist privilege of the globalist elites who’ve gained total control of Western banks, media, government, advertising, academia, and entertainment. The ‘gay’ agenda has been the favorite of billionaire oligarchs all around the world. They love it because rich elites are minorities everywhere — especially Jews — , and so, they want accustom the masses to the ‘new normal’ idea that they should bend over to the biases and predilections of the ruling minority elites. Therefore, we are to believe that 2% of the male population that is homo and practices ‘sex’ by sticking penises into fecal holes are just as sexually legitimate to human survival as all the women in the world. But can anyone name a single human life that was born through the fecal hole of a homo anus? Maybe Barney Frank, but even he was born of a woman from what I heard.

As for ‘old-style racism’ being ‘met with widespread revulsion’, I do see progress in that. What person in his or her right mind would say the views of the KKK or the Nazis had much validity. Also, even ordinary white Americans in good ole democratic USA had certain racial and ethnic prejudices(of nasty and petty nature) that thankfully passed from history. But Hanlon isn’t seeing the big picture because his form of PC favors certain groups and focuses only evils of certain groups.
It’s true that whites, usually condemned for ‘past racism’, have become more tolerant and open-minded. But then, toward which groups? In the current US, whites are much less likely to badmouth Jews and blacks. But are whites equally ‘anti-racist’ against all groups? What about white American animosity toward Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians? If anything, the Jew-run media often encourage white American hostility toward nations and peoples who are perceived to enemies of Israel. And what of Jewish animosity toward Russia? This Jewish animus isn’t targeted only at Putin but at all Russians and Russian culture itself. The vile Jewess Anne Applebaum even goes so far as to say that Russians can never be like ‘us’, i.e. Cold War should go on forever between the (Jew-dominated)West and Russia. Now, suppose if someone said that "Jews can never be like us." That would be grounds for his/her dismissal and destruction, but Jews can say horribly stereotypical things about other groups without repercussions. Where is Hanlon on this? Jennifer Rubin played an instrumental role in having Jason Richwine fired from the Heritage Foundation, but it seems she can get away with having extreme friends and espousing hateful opinions against Palestinians. The likes of Sheldon Adelson can urge US government to nuke Iran, but they suffer no negative consequences. If anything, they are allowed to play a prominent role in American elections. There was a huge brouhaha over Donald Sterling’s request to his mistress to stop bringing black dates to basketball games, but the likes of Adelson get a total pass for suggesting that US nuke a nation that poses no threat to the US or even to Israel. (Iran has no nukes while Israel has 300 illegal nukes.) And considering the ongoing oppression of Palestinians and zero sympathy among US politicians for the victims of Israelis, it seems ‘old style racism’ is very much with us against certain groups. How is that the likes of Hanlon congratulate themselves over the end of white rule in South Africa but have nothing to say about the ongoing radical racist rule of Israel/Palestine by Zionist supremacists? I guess he puts food on the table by sucking up to Jewish oligarchs who own and run most of the media in the Western world.

Furthermore, even though ‘old style racism’ was sometimes ugly and even deranged, the problem of PC is it attacks even rational and factual race-ism — ‘race-ism’ simply meaning belief in the existence of races, possibility of racial differences, and the need for racial consciousness. Of course, such attacks are always selective. For example, Liberals have piled on Charles Murray for suggesting that whites have higher IQ than blacks. But the same Liberals have no problem with Steven Pinker saying that Ashkenazi Jews may indeed have higher IQs than gentiles. Also, though Jimmy the Greek was attacked for saying that blacks make better athletes, David Epstein the Jewish sports writer has been left alone and even praised for detailing the many ways in which some races are better at certain sports than other races. By now, surely we’ve all noticed that West Africans are better at sprinting and East Africans are better at long distance running. Epstein the Jew is allowed to notice such things, but white gentiles better shut up about them. So, there’s clearly a case of ‘who, whom’ in the rules of who gets to say what and who doesn’t. If the subject is ‘controversial’, Jews can discuss it in their own manner, but no one else better touch it and should just stick to the standard PC line of how ‘race is just a myth’ or ‘race is just a social construct’.

But most damaging of all is that the failure to address issues of racial differences and HBD(human bio-diversity) may lead to the downfall of the great achievements of modernity. Steven Pinker and Michael Hanlon are right to acknowledge that there’s been great social and moral progress around the world. But in which part of the world? Even within the US, why is Portland so much better off than Detroit? Why is Singapore what it is while Haiti is a cesspool? How come black Africa has lagged behind much of the world? Why is even progress in black Africa driven by investment by Chinese and Indians? How come Israel has done so much better than Arab nations? Would Israel do better if it practiced open doors policy with its Arab neighbors in the name of ‘diversity’? Suppose all Arabs sincerely abandoned their hatred of Zionists and wanted to come to Israel to find work and marry Jews. Should Jews then openly embrace Arabs and let Arabs come and go freely in Israel? Will Israel really be well-served by the arrival of countless Egyptians and Yemenis? Based on all available facts, Israel’s success owes mainly to Ashkenazi Jews who are known for their higher IQ and European cultural influences. Indeed, even non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are, for the most part, nothing special. So, HBD — human bio-diversity — does matter, and Israel would do better to be racially conscious in promoting higher birthrates among Ashkenazi Jews of European origin. After all, Israel has stringent rules against African immigration and has even taken measures to discourage birthrates of Ethiopian Jews whose IQs are low and whose performances lag way behind that of other Jews.
How does Michael Hanlon feel about such race-ist measures taken by Israelis?

While ‘old style racism’ that indulged in nasty name-calling and stereotyping was indeed ugly, the new-style PC ‘anti-racism’ could very well destroy Western Civilization as we know it. With current birthrates, European demography will shrink by 35% every generation. If, in tandem with such demographic collapse, countless millions of angry Muslims and aggressive/savage black Africans arrive in Europe and have lots of babies who grow up with no respect for Western values, what will happen to Western Civilization? The West will become like the Middle East and, worse, like Sub-Saharan Africa. And then all the gains and achievements that Pinker praises in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE will be lost. Seriously, would Singapore be served well by importing 2 million black Africans on the premise of ‘anti-racism’ that all races are equal and that ‘race is just a social construct or myth’? Seriously? Such idiocy will destroy any well-governed society. Such is NOT progress but regress into barbarism, even into savagery, like what’s happened to Detroit, Newark, black areas of St. Louis, and etc.
But because of PC, any mindless ‘anti-racist’ agenda is conflated as ‘progress’ when its effects are anything but. Look at Malmo, Sweden today as the result of increased immigration from Muslim and African nations. Parts of the city are regressing toward barbarism, but because ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ are automatically conflated with ‘progress’, the charade goes on that the West is making progress with open immigration. But Hanlon is blind to all that because PC had turned him into a silly mind-slave of globalist Jewish oligarchs who are surely petting his head for being such a good little boy spouting PC nonsense.
Does anyone really think Western Civilization will be enriched with the influx of these hordes who've demonstrated that they can't even manage their own societies? Politically Correct 'progress' ensures it will be so. Surely, even 'old-style racism' is preferable to willfully naive suicide of a once great civilization and culture. But the likes of Hanlon are privileged whites who can afford to shield themselves from demographic threats to the well-being of the West. As long as they act as shills of globalist Jewish oligarchs, they will have plush jobs as PC scribes pushing 'gay marriage' as the greatest 'civil rights' issue for the entire world. 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

From White Pride to White Guilt. White Americans as a Conquered People under Jewish Globo-Elites.



Every nation/civilization is founded on a myth. By myth, I don’t mean the dungeons and dragons of fantasy fiction but how a collective nostalgia and romanticization commemorate the past and preserve the prestige of a nation/civilization’s founding, triumphs, tragedies, and achievements. Without such sense of pride, legitimacy, righteous grievances, and appreciation of forebears, what rationale would a social order or civilization have to defend itself from others? What reason would it have to project its own power against and protect its own interests from others? Whether it’s a nation-as-a-whole or a particular governing regime, it needs a sense of rightness and righteousness. After all, what happens to rulers whose power is no longer regarded as justified by the people and prophetic voices among them? They face the danger of going the way of the Shah of Iran. If the ruling regime loses legitimacy in the eyes of the people, it either falls or maintains its power with increasingly desperate measures, such as the kind employed by Nicolae Ceausescu until he too was finally toppled.
The Cautionary Tale of Nicolae Ceausescu
All throughout history, few ruling regimes or dynasties has been able to maintain its grip for long. Even Ancient Egypt known for its longevity and continuity saw the rise and falls of different dynastic lines. English Monarchy has been in place for a long time, but the real power has passed to other governing institutions long ago. It’s been said that Japan has the longest surviving dynastic line, but the real power in Japan for most of its history was almost never with the Emperors.
Far more stable has been the perseverance of races-and-cultures around the world. China has seen the rises and falls of many dynasties, but it remained China regardless of who ruled. Furthermore, it remained China even when it was conquered by non-Chinese peoples. Russia has seen drastic changes in government in the 20th century, what with the Czars order giving way to the Provisional Government that gave way to the Bolsheviks. Then Stalin consolidated power, and then there was a period of de-Stalinization. In the 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev instituted drastic reforms and then came the total collapse of the Soviet ruling system. There was a time when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalists, and the Putin rose to power to restore some degree of Russian cultural and historical pride. Though Jews are immensely rich and powerful in Russia — though less than 1% of the population, they own more than 40% of the entire wealth — , the rise of Putin-ism alarms the Jews because the current Russian political-cultural trajectory is the opposite of what’s happening in America and EU. Putin and his supporters want a Russia where majority Russian identity and culture are central to Russian culture and nation. In contrast, Jews in America want the future of the West to be determined by minority-centrism around Jews and their allies homos and mulattos. Putin is a Church-builder, whereas Jews are Church-destroyers. Jews think Masha Gessen and Pussy Riot should determine the future of Russia. It’s like Jews want the likes of Lena Dunham to shape American identity and culture. America is so debased that a so-called ‘conservative’ like Jay Leno used his worthless late night program to denounce Putin as the ‘new Hitler’ because Russia doesn’t allow ‘gay pride’ parades and ‘gay marriage’. That is what passes for ‘American Conservatism’ nowadays. If Conservatism in America is like that, imagine what Liberalism is like.
Jay Leno who should be called 'Gay Leno'. What passes for 'American Conservatism'.
Though Jews eventually soured on communism in the USSR, they nevertheless appreciated some of its actions: (1) destruction of tens of thousands of Churches (2) extermination of Czar and his entire family (3) suppression of Russian nationalism in favor of internationalism that favors Jewish interests, socialist and capitalist (4) concentration of power Jewish hands.
In time, communist Russia gradually reverted to a kind of Russian nationalism and even traditionalism, but Jews were still content to see much of traditional Russia destroyed and buried seemingly forever. And after the fall of communism, the last thing Jews wanted was for Russia to revive its sense of national identity and soulful connection to the soil and the past. Jews wanted Russians to become a bunch of pimps and whores addicted to MTV culture emanating from Hollywood and Jew-run music industries that now peddle porn-pop. While Putin and his peers are modernists, they also have a profound connection to their motherland. Jews are afraid that the Russian model might affect other conservatives in the West and America. After all, even so-called ‘conservatives’ in the West and America have been weaned away from nationalism, blood-and-soil-ism, and traditionalism in favor of imbibing and ingesting abstract or mercenary positions about ‘free markets’ and ‘lower taxes for the super-rich’. What goes by the name of ‘conservatism’ in the West is mostly soulless, bloodless, and gutless. It’s all about economic theories, hedonistic individualism(via libertarianism), expanded venues for gambling, open borders immigration, singing hosannas to Israel, apologizing to thuggish blacks, promoting interracism, and sucking up to homos. Conservatism in the West must meet the stamp of approval of Jews, Negroes, and homos. Since Jews and Negroes don’t like white identity/pride, Conservatism must go nowhere near issues of white power and interests. Since homos hate the idea of True Marriage and Traditional Values based on fusion of biology and morality, American Conservatism has grown increasingly unwilling to stand up to the homo lobby. So, what is left of American Conservatism? Uh... it’s for Israel remaining a ‘Jewish State’ and for more de-regulation of Wall Street. By the way, it’s amusing that American politicians who insist that Israel must remain a ‘Jewish State’ also parrot the Jewish-approved line that says US and all other Western nations must promote more ‘diversity’ and commit white racial suicide.

American Conservatism under Jewish rule is like Russian Orthodox Church under Communist Rule or Tibetan Buddhism under Chinese Communist Rule. Under the Soviets, the Russian Orthodox Church couldn’t do or say anything that might offend the communist authorities. It had to collaborate with Stalin and his successors. Tibetan Buddhism is allowed under Chinese Communism, but Buddhist authorities must be appointed and approved by Beijing and they cannot say or do anything that smacks of Tibetan identity, independence, and national pride. They are like King Herod, the stooge of the Roman Empire than a real champion of the Jewish people and interests. Likewise, American Conservatism is allowed to survive in Jew-homo-mulatto-ruled America, but it must meet with the approval of the likes of George Soros, Abe Foxman, Sheldon Adelson, Elena Kagan, Ruth Baird Ginsburg, Hollywood Moguls, New York Times, and Jews at Goldman Sachs. And of course, Jewish elites have favored and promoted Neocons as the ‘New Normal Conservatives’. ‘Conservative’ Jews comprise, at best, 1% of American Conservatives, but they’ve been handed the levers of American Conservatism. Their ‘conservatism’ is the New Conservatism. Not surprisingly, the main agenda of Neocons is (1) serving Israel (2) serving Wall Street (3) open borders (4) interracism and (5) promoting ‘gay marriage’ among conservatives. As for men like Pat Buchanan, they’ve been effectively blacklisted by MSM as espousing ‘unacceptable’ views. And we all know what happened to men like Sam Francis and Joseph Sobran. As for pigs like Rush Limbaugh, they’d rather go out of their way to win approval of the likes of Elton John than champion of values of real-life conservatives who made him rich by listening to his worthless radio program.
Rush Limbaugh the fat worthless pig who bends over to Elton John to impress his hussy trophy wife whore.
Mythic thinking comes naturally to all of us. It can be personal, social, or national. We don’t just live with the real but with the dream. The past is like a dream since most of its forgotten and what is remembered unreels in our minds like a strange movie. An object can mean different things to different people. The French film AMELIE illustrated how a box of toys can mean so much to a man who’d once owned it as a child. To anyone else, it would have been just a box full of trinkets of no special value. A place one has visited in one’s youth has a special meaning beyond that for those visiting for the first time. There’s an element of nostalgia to some that is unknown to others. For most Americans, Israel is a Jewish state. For old Palestinians who’d grown up there before they were ethnically cleansed by brutal Zionists, it’s a mythic place of fond memories from which they’d been torn from forever. They will dream of their lost homeland as they lay on their deathbeds in West Bank and Gaza. Our minds have a way of weaving the good and the bad of the past into a mythic narrative that redeems both as justification for our survival and continuation. Thus, victories are made to fill us with pride, and defeats are made to remind us of tragedy and suffering. Greeks are proud of their ancient victory against the invading Persians, but even the shame of conquest and humiliation under the Turks have been made into the stuff of myth about Greek resilience, tenacity, survival, and finally liberation.
Old Palestinian Woman. Displaced from her homeland by nasty Zionists. If there's any poetic justice to 'white genocide' in the US, it's payback for what white Americans did to Palestinians who never caused any harm to White America. While US, under Zionist pressure, aided and abetted in the erasure of Palestine and glibly mocked the suffering of Palestinians, Jews have been working overtime to 'diversify' the West and turn white people into minorities in their own homelands. Though Israel uses legal and extra-legal means to discourage Jews intermarrying with other groups, Jews in the US and EU use their media and financial power to promote interracism, especially between black men and white women. And even with outbreaks of Muslim/African/Arab violence against Jews in Europe, the Jew-dominated media blame 'white Europeans' for 'increasing antisemitism'. All white people need to wake up, look in the mirror, and say, WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS. Jews are the enemy.
The past can be read, interpreted, and shaped in many ways. As every history of every people or civilization has been bloody and violent, it can made out to be especially noble or especially evil. For example, if we focus on the evil of slavery, we can make a case that every civilization was very evil because it practiced slavery for as long as anyone can remember. Every people conquered and oppressed other peoples. Every people committed genocide at some point in history. Every society has been ‘homophobic’. Every society has been ‘sexist’. Every people have practiced class/caste exploitation. Every society has been whatever-is-said-to-be-evil-in-our-day. The new mantra of America is "opposition to ‘gay marriage’ is evil". By that yardstick, the majority of Americans are still evil(for opposing ‘gay marriage’), most of the world is very evil(because the idea of ‘gay marriage’ is anathema to them), and indeed all of America and all of Europe were evil before ‘gay marriage’ laws were finally enacted.

Of course, according to the current rules of PC, some societies were evil for having practiced slavery, but other societies were not even though it practiced slavery on a bigger scale. According to Jewish-dominated American foreign policy, some nations are evil for denying Western-style human rights to its people. So, we are told that Iran is a terrible place because it’s not a ‘liberal democracy’ — though it must be said that the West is more a Liberal Oligarchy than any kind of true democracy where the voices of the majority matter; after all, politicians depend far more on the elites who control political donations, the media, and bureaucracy than on the masses who are often confused, lazy, unmotivated, or resigned to powerlessness. While US, at the behest of Israel and Zionists, is always berating Iran for its failures, it overlooks most of the ‘human rights abuses’ in Saudi Arabia. So, the issue of national or historical evil is more a matter of controlling the narrative than any objective assessment of good or evil. Why is it that even though Russia is more socially liberal and politically free than China, there’s much more anti-Russian animus than anti-Chinese animus among the power elites in America? Because Jews have a special hatred of Russians and believe that they can maneuver to take over Russia whereas such is near-impossible with Chinese who are more hardworking, numerous, and united than the Russians are.
Indeed, this kind of hypocrisy goes back to the early 1970s when Nixon forged ties with China against the Soviet Union when, in fact, the USSR under Brezhnev was a liberal democratic paradise compared to hellish Maoist China. Much of Political Morality is really about the Game of Power than a sincere commitment to truth and justice. Indeed, as many have pointed out, we only need to see the different ways by which the Jewish-controlled West dealt with white-ruled South Africa and Zionist-ruled Israel/Palestine. So, before there’s any discussion of right-vs-wrong, first ask who has control of the ‘megaphone’. We need to ask why there’s so much bitching about ‘white privilege’ when much of so-called ‘white privilege’ in places like Hollywood is Jewish and homo.

Because mythic remembrance of history matters, the conquering elites of any society seek to topple the existing myths with new ones. This was obvious enough when US invaded Iraq and went about destroying and defacing any mythic symbol or icon associated with Hussein’s rule. And when the Nazis lost World War II, the victorious allies went about erasing all signs of Nazi power from public places. After Japan lost the Pacific War, certain passages deemed ‘unacceptable’ in school textbooks were marked with black ink — that is before new textbooks were made available. When communism collapsed all over Eastern Europe, statues of Marx and Lenin were toppled and destroyed. New textbooks were offered to students. So, were they examples of truth finally replacing lies? To some extent, yes. But to some extent, no. After all, every system/order perpetuates its own legitimizing myths, and no myth can ever be the whole truth. Some old lies are replaced with new truths, but some old truths are replaced with new lies. Also, the ‘narrative’ is less about facts than about the use of facts to paint a certain portrait. It’s like two painters can draw a picture of a man walking the street with the same materials, but one picture can be sunny and positive whereas the other painting can be paranoid and negative. Facts are materials that can be used differently by choice of words and images to ‘paint’ different narratives. So, both pro-bomb and anti-bomb arguments may be agreed on what happened in Hiroshima, but both sides select and use the facts to paint wholly different narratives. There’s also the issue of context. If the bombing of Hiroshima is seen in the context of US killing a lot of Japanese civilians to scare the Soviets, it seems sinister and cynical. If the bombing is seen in the context of having saved lives by preventing a full-scale invasion of the island by US troops, it seems understandable if not exactly justifiable. In any case, no narrative can ever be the entire truth. It’s like what the couple say at the end of EYES WIDE SHUT.

Alice Harford: Am I sure? Only as sure as I am that the reality of one night, let alone that of a whole lifetime, can ever be the whole truth.

Dr. Bill Harford: And no dream is ever just a dream.

What is true of personal life is even truer of history/society made up of millions of lives. There is no single truth, and no ‘truth’ is ever the entire truth. And even lies may contain some truth, psychologically if not factually. Or even if lies themselves are fabrications, there may hold valuable truth as we question why the lies were told in the first place, why there were believed, and why are such lies being perpetuated. It should be obvious to all sane people that the UVA rape case was one big hoax. Therefore, the lie itself says nothing valuable about what really happened since Jackie’s claims and Sabrina Rubin Erdely reporting were little more than willful lies. Nevertheless, there’s much truth to be found in how and why our society has become so conducive and defenseless against such hysterical accusations. The nature of the lie and its preponderance do illuminate certain truths about the governing elites of America, the weakness of white males(who led no protest march against Rolling Stone magazine or UVA administration for libel and defamation), female sexual hysteria, and the Jewish-feminist agenda that targets ‘blonde white males’ at ‘conservative’ universities.
"Hi, I am Haven Monahan the Nazi Rapist Extraordinaire at UVA. I like to rape as many freshman college girls as possible. By the way, the latest one I raped has a special liking for you the reader whom she considered a 'scaredy cat'. Don't be scared. Love and comfort her, especially after the rape blitzkrieg she'd been through at the hands of me and my gang." 
Anyway, whenever an old order is replaced by a new one, there’s going to be new truths to replace old lies but also new lies to replace old truths. As every order maintains its legitimacy via a mythic remembrance of its past, no order is entirely truthful in a perfectly objective sense. As no order is entirely right or entirely wrong, the ‘final verdict’ of any ruling order is less an issue of absolutes than of essences. An order is said to be essentially good or essentially bad than absolutely good or absolutely bad. During the Deng era, the new regime admitted that Mao had made ‘mistakes’. Deng said Mao was 80% correct and 20% incorrect. Note that he didn’t say Mao was 100% good. Still, the idea was that the rightness tipped the scale against wrongness, thereby legitimizing the continuation of Chinese Communist Party rule.

When a new order comes into power, it may try to denounce the earlier order as evil in absolute terms. Or, it may argue that the past, as defined by the old order, was more wrong than right though not entirely wrong. Indeed, one doesn’t need to say someone or something is or has been entirely wrong to discredit him. After all, getting 50% correct on an exam is grounds for an ‘F’ in school exams. Likewise, Jews don’t have to say white Americans who founded and built this country were entirely wrong/evil to give them a flunking grade. According to the Jewish view, white Americans got 60% right, but then 60% score on any school exam only gets you a ‘D’. Of course, Jews grade themselves to be A or even A+, with the + as an added bonus for having suffered the indignity of the golfocaust — their grandfathers and great-grandfathers weren’t admitted to some lily white golf clubs. Oh poor poor Jews!

In some cases, the new rulers seek to totally demolish the old order. Such was Hitler’s plan for Moscow. He planned to raze it to the ground, just as the Romans had laid total waste to Carthage. All of Russian history and culture were to be wiped out, and Russians would be either exterminated in huge numbers or reduced to helot status with no cultural-racial-historical memory. But most conquerors had different plans. Some conquerors would recruit willing collaborators among the native populations and exert influence through indirect rule. Some conquerors would argue that their rule would help revive the true glory of the conquered people that had been lost, forgotten, or betrayed by the native peoples themselves. There is some of this in how the ruling Jewish elites claim that they are working to fulfill the True Proposition of the Founding of the American Republic, the proposition that had been betrayed by white Americans who were too hypocritical to fully practice what they preached.
And when America defeated Japan, US authorities enacted new laws and new systems in the name of fulfilling the true hope of Japan as a modern, civilized, and progressive nation. Americans claimed they were working for the good of Japan than to gain oppressive control over it. And the woman who worked on the Japanese Constitution was an American Jewess.

When the ruling elites of America had been Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Americanized whites, the biggest heroes/giants were the Founding Fathers and other Great White Folks. But we now live in a very different world. Though America was never conquered by outside forces, it was conquered by inside forces. Jews entered the bloodstream of American power in a viral manner, infected the brain centers of America, and eventually took control of all the elite levers of power. Because it happened on the invisible micro-level(especially as Jews can pass for ‘white’) than on the obvious macro-level, most white Americans never realized that they are indeed a conquered people. Suppose China doesn’t invade US militarily, but Chinese-Americans gain control of all the crucial institutions of power — government, media, law firms, courts, Hollywood, high-tech, pharmaceuticals, universities, vice industries(that are addictive to customers and lucrative to owners), etc. — and suppose the Chinese-American elites change American narratives and myths so that all white Americans are made to denigrate their own history and heritage while hailing Chinese power and Chinese-ness to high heaven. Wouldn’t it effectively constitute a conquest?
Jewish power acts like the HIV virus. It breaks down the immune system of White Power and Pride. Instead of committing Nazi-style genocide against whites, the Jewish virus makes whites commit self-genocide by happily embracing every agenda and policy that undermines and destroys white survival.
Because of the dramatic fall of White American power and the overwhelming power of Jews in elite institutions, we must see White America as a conquered nation. Indeed, the conquerors and their allies are giggling and cackling about the prospect of America becoming a white-minority nation. Newsweek ran a cover gloating about how Obama is the conquering hero-puppet of Jews. (This is how Jews feel about White America, but GOP’s priority is inviting Netanhayu to Congress to defacto declare war on Iran, a nation that is no threat to US or even Israel.)
And of course, Obama is the product of a black man sexually conquering a white woman, one that was especially raised to be a leftist race-traitor to her own kind. Obama is all about African aggression and white surrender. If Ann Dunham was committed passionately to anything, it was to undermine white American power. She came under the influence of the combination of American neo-puritanism and Jewish radicalism. White America has been conquered historically, culturally, politically, financially, legally(as federal courts now mandate ‘gay marriage’ in all states), sexually, and even aesthetically, as stupid white Americans(along with their Anglo brethren in the UK) have been led to believe that mixed-race people look better than pure-blooded people. (But if indeed Jews and Negroes think mixed-blood people look so good, why do they hanker after pure-blooded white women, especially those with blonde hair?) Indeed, Jewish power is so overwhelming that New York Times runs editorials arguing that it’s time to END all debate on ‘gay marriage’. All Americans should just shut up and put up with what’s been shoved up their ass by the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Power Elites.

The TIME magazine didn’t merely present MLK as a great man or someone who furthered the American moral cause. Instead, he was featured as THE Founding Father, the real one. Presumably, the Founding Fathers who declared Independence in 1776 were really just Faux Fathers or Floundering Fathers. Thus, MLK is to be seen not as a continuation of America but as the true Founding of a New America(to be ruled by Jewish elites) since the 1960s.
Jesse Jackson calls NY 'hymietown'. Jews ran with this story, but funny how Jews wanna suppress the FBI files on MLK who said much nastier things than Jesse ever did. Jews love to shame Jesse and Richard Nixon over what they said about Jews, but Jews pull the strings to keep secret all the nasty things MLK said about who-knows-what.
Of course, the relationship between Jews and blacks haven’t been too good. Though Jews and blacks cooperated in many industries, Jews usually owned and managed things while blacks provided the lungs and muscles in music and sports. Oftentimes, blacks got fleeced by clever Jews who knew a thing about cooking laws and the accounting books. But there were also problems of black unruliness, rage, childishness, and stupidity. And of course, intellectual-minded Jews and angry black mobs(who burned down cities) had little in common. And yet, Jews needed blacks as the conquering army in their takeover of elite power from white elites, especially the Wasps. Without blacks, Jewish power would have been just about brains and money. Oftentimes in history, an ambitious people need to recruit other peoples to conquer a socio-political domain. Both Poles and Russians recruited Cossacks in their wars against one another. In the Cossack uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Empire, the leadership recruited Tatar tribes. When Manchus conquered China, they recruited Mongol archers(who comprised 80% of the Manchu fighting force). The British Empire recruited Sikh armies to ‘pacify’ other parts of the empire. The French used black African soldiers in Vietnam. Jews had the brains and money, but they simply didn’t have the manpower to shake American society to its roots. In Russia, Jewish Bolsheviks could recruit the masses since social conditions got so bad; masses of desperate Russians were willing to overthrow the Czarist order in favor of ‘land, bread, and peace’. But most of White America even up to the 1950s was suspicious of Jews. And even during the Great Depression, most White Americans didn’t want radical transformation of society, at least not anything envisioned by nasty Jews. So, where were Jews to find the manpower to shake America to its foundations. In the 1950s/1960s, Negroes constituted the only aggrieved minority population of any size. Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, and other non-black minorities together comprised something like 2% of the whole. But there were lots of blacks, and there was racial discrimination against blacks that made for a compelling moral crusade. If Negroes could be roused up as a marching army, Jews could bring about a conquest. Of course, Jews used the Trojan Horse tactic. If Jews ordered blacks to get guns and kill whites(in John Brown style), the backlash would have been swift and white America would have united against blacks and even against Jews who would have been perceived as the instigators of black violence. Instead, blacks initially marched ‘peacefully’ behind MLK and acted like they only wanted ‘equality’ and ‘justice’. But, this was just a means to butter up white America with sappy, drippy cream about the ‘milk of human kindness’ bulljive. When white America, in the name of ‘justice’, put down its guard and allowed Negro demands to overturn legal institutions, it wasn’t long before angry and deranged Negroes came rushing out of the Trojan or Brojan Horse and began to mess things up royally. Of course, many Jews suffered as a result of this. Jewish businesses got burned and looted. As black crime skyrocketed in big cities — where many Jews tended to congregate — , many Jews got beaten up and robbed. Even so, while individual Jews did pay the price due to increasing black violence, Jews got themselves a much bigger prize by defeating and conquering White America. Jews lost some battles with blacks but won the larger war with white gentiles, especially the Wasps. Jews lost some nice parts of cities but won the entire nation. Though blacks couldn’t totally take over America, they took over many cities — though, lately, with gentrification and Section 8 Vouchers, Jews have regained control of big cities by uprooting out dangerous urban blacks and relocating them in powerless and voiceless white small towns and white suburbs that dare not protest the demographic changes out of fear of being called ‘racist’.
With the Moral Narrative — as concocted and disseminated by Jews and naive do-goody liberal whites — on their side, Jewish elites dismantled white moral pride and replaced it with the new god of MLK cult worship. And people like Muhammad Ali were used to dismantle white male pride/prowess and promote black maleness as the new standard of American Manhood. In a way, one could argue this was all about meritocracy. After all, if indeed blacks are better athletes, wasn’t Old America unjust in having favored inferior white athletes over superior black ones? Surely, Jews could identify with this since Wasps had used their social-power-networks to favor less intelligent and capable Wasps over more intelligent and capable Jews. Alan Dershowitz in CHUTZPAH writes that he graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Law School, yet many ‘white shoe’ law firms preferred Wasp graduates whose grades weren’t so good. And yet, the struggle wasn’t only about meritocracy. After all, if blacks and Jews are indeed all about meritocracy in every field and endeavor, why do blacks insist on ‘affirmative action’ and ‘disparate impact’ laws to favor clearly inferior blacks over non-blacks who are demonstrably smarter and more capable? What honest person could say with a straight face that Michelle Obama deserved to attend Princeton or Harvard Law School? And if Ron Unz is right, elite universities now discriminate against white gentiles and yellows in favor of Jews even when gentiles outperform Jews academically. So, in the end, it’s not about meritocracy but about tribal/racial power. While blacks were correct that better black athletes had been discriminated against in the past, they have no problem with clearly inferior blacks being favored in many fields of life. Silicon Valley, for instance, is a very Liberal industry. It would be the last person to willfully discriminate against blacks. It has lots of whites, Jews, and Asians because they are better at tech-work. But blacks bitch and whine about ‘not enough blacks’ because they just want the power and money. When it comes to school discipline, we know that more black students get suspended because they are rougher, tougher, and more aggressive, but blacks bitch and complain that ‘too many black students’ are being ‘unfairly’ disciplined. As for the Ferguson case involving the death of Michael Brown, it’s clear that the white officer shot the ‘gentle giant’(who wasn’t gentle at all but deranged and angry) in self-defense. But blacks ignored all the facts of the case and perpetuated the myth that a white ‘racist’ police officer shot down a hapless Negro who said "hands up, don’t shoot."

Indeed, this is the hypocritical nature of what happens in a conquest. Would-be-conquerors may invoke certain clear cases of injustice perpetrated by the ruling elites, but their main goal isn’t justice-for-all but power-for-themselves. After all, justice is a double-edged sword. It may be invoked to bring down the existing rulers, but it can later be invoked to bring down the new ruling class. Every accusation used against the old Wasp elites can be used against the new Jewish elites. If indeed Jews are really for justice, they should welcome criticism of Jewish power in the manner that they’d once encouraged criticism of Wasp power. But notice that the very Jews who were so impassioned about calling attention to Wasp hypocrisies and abuses are now so adamant that everyone SHUT UP about Jewish hypocrisies and abuses. In the end, it’s all about power than justice. "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac", as Henry Kissinger tells Mao in Oliver Stone’s NIXON. Jews love power, and it was power and not justice that was the main animating factor that drove Jews to conquer the US.
Dirty Jew Tim Wise who bleats about 'white privilege' but is mum about Jewish Power and Privilege.
When Founding Fathers were the main icons, America was about White Pride. With MLK as the main New Founding Father, America is now really about White Guilt or White Shame. Jews are also working full-time to do away with Confederate Flags in the South. Granted, one can see how Stars and Bars could be offensive to some folks since it could be said to symbolize defense of slavery. But the meanings of symbols change. Once a symbol of Southern secession to preserve the institution of slavery, it now symbolizes white southern unity, solidarity, and resistance since the Reconstruction Era. Such racial mind-set was necessary as blacks are naturally stronger, more aggressive, and nastier. Black men can whup and wussify white men; black men also lust after white women. And if white men lose their pride and unity, white women will come to racially-sexually despise white men and run off with Negroes... just like French women ran off with Nazi soldiers when France surrendered to Germany and just like Japanese women went with US G.I.s when Japan was conquered and its men were wussified before American military power and authority. (The core nature of women, especially alpha women, is to put out to victorious alpha males and despise the beta losers. Consider the Alpha girl Teresa in THE WILD BUNCH. Even though her village had been pillaged and looted, she goes off with the ‘federal troops’ because she is so impressed with Mapache the top honcho general in the area. When her former beau Angel reminds her of the village, she feels pity for him, but the pity soon turns into mocking contempt and laughter. And she runs to Mapache. White women are now acting like this, running off to Negro men while mocking and laughing at white boys who may have won the Cold War but lost the Racial Cuckold War to Negroes. Jews are, of course, giddily celebrating this because no defeat for any race or nation is as total as sexual defeat. When the men of a race lose the respect of their women, it’s almost Game Over. Race is all about sexual unity and respect that women of the race have for the men of the race. If white women choose to have babies with men of other races, white race is over as the white vagina seeded with white sperm is the produce of white babies.) Though Japan has made great economic progress since the end of WWII, it’s still a political vassal-geisha-whore of the US. But then, White America is now the vassal-whore-puppet of Jews, mulattos, and homos. At the very least, Japan is still mostly Japanese, whereas White America is getting smaller and smaller due to both low birthrates, interracism, and tide of color as immigration is totally out of control(and will be even more out-of-control with amnesty).

The fact that Jews have replaced MLK as the Founding Father over ‘dead white males’ is par for the course given the nature of what took place. Any conquering force tries to legitimize its rule by denigrating the power that had once been. When Western Imperialists conquered and colonized other lands, they legitimized their rule by contrasting the glory of the new civilized order with the backward barbarism of the defeated (dis)order. So, white folks would promote images of how the indigenous people had been dirty savage heathens but were transformed, thanks to Western Imperialism, into decent clean-cut Christians.
Inside every _____ , there is an American trying to get out.
In books, journals, newspapers, and posters, there were images promoting how the new order was far superior and preferable to the old one. Photos would be widely disseminated to show how the native peoples had once been so dirty, diseased, and ignorant, but then, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the "white man’s burden", the natives had been raised up to a fuller potential. Of course, even as the New Order promised some degree of elevation and ‘equality’ to the native peoples, they could never hope to be completely equal with the conquering elites. After all, if the native folks could reach such an exulted position equal to that of the white man, might they not gain the right to rule their own domains? So, there was a certain paradox in the imperialist enterprise. Like Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles vs the Tortoise, there was the assumption that no matter how much the natives try to elevate themselves to become civilized like the White Imperialist overlords, they would never quite make it and remain a few notches below the fully civilized whites. So, Western Imperialism offered both the hope of becoming as ‘good as whites’ and the glass ceiling that ascertained permanent separation. Initially, Hindus elites who studied in Britain lived with the hope that they could be as good a the white man and be accepted as such, but they eventually realized that British Imperialists could never really accept them as total equals. It was true enough that the British Imperialists did a lot of positive things in India. Many of their British criticism of Indian society were valid. And much progress was made under British rule/guidance by the Indians who found inspiration from Western ideas and methods. Nevertheless, the goal of British Imperialism was to indefinitely hold onto the Jewel in the Crown that was India, and continuation of British rule could only be justified with the conceit that Asian-Indians could never be quite as good as whites in running a society as complex as India. (Nevertheless, Indians should forever try to be ‘as good as whites’, and of course, this was possible only if Indians had British Imperialists to preside over them as an ideal and inspiration. So, Indians could never be ‘as good as whites’, but they should keep striving to be so under the rule of whites with whom they could never be equal.) There is a similar logic in Political Correctness. It offers white folks the hope of redemption and soul-cleansing by having their hearts and minds purged of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘transphobia’, and whatever other ‘-ism’ or ‘phobia’ has been slated to come down the pipeline. Though PC doesn’t say whites are racially inferior — after all, the official line of PC is that ‘race is just social construct or myth’ — , it says that white souls have been so utterly poisoned by its historical sins that wickedness has simply become part of white psyche. So, whites as a group are morally-spiritually inferior(at least in relation to Jews, blacks, and homos, because, after all, it’s still fair game — and useful for Jews — for American whites to hate and beat up on Iranians, Palestinians, Muslims, Chinese, Russians[seen as a kind of barbarian race], and, to some extent, even Hispanics). But through PC, there is the hope that white folks can become better and better through MLK cult worship, diversity training, sensitivity training, academic brainwashing, ‘teachable moments’, interracism, worship of Jews, Holocaustianity, support for Israel as a ‘Jewish state’, showing commie-rally-style enthusiasm at ‘gay pride’ parades, and etc. But, can white gentiles can ever be equal with Jews, Negroes, homos, and etc? NO! They can try to get nearer and nearer toward better-ness, but their ‘historical sins’ shall forever make them morally and spiritually inferior to the holy trinity of Jews, Negroes, and homos. Therefore, white subservience to Jews, Negroes, and homos is to last forever and ever and ever.

The political implication of such absurd ‘moral logic’ is obvious. In the end, the only way Asian-Indians could be independent was to overthrow the British Imperialists who, though having promised the hope of Asian-Indians becoming more equal with whites, would never accept Asian-Indians as their equals. After all, if British Imperialists chose to acknowledge Asian-Indians as their equals, Asian-Indians could demand the reins of power since they would be just as good as whites to run the affairs of their own domain. It was only by pointing out the deficiencies and shortcomings of Asian Indians that British Imperialists could justify their own rule over India. Likewise, it’s only by perpetuating the cult of White Evil that the various forces of Political Correctness can go on insisting that they must rule the top institutions in order to bleed out the evil that is still flowing in white veins and embedded in the white heart. After all, what justification would a doctor or psychiatrist have to keep treating a patient if the patient is declared to be disease-free? It’s only by diagnosing further complications that the medical expert can keep calling the patient back to his office for further checkups, prescriptions, and treatments. Of course, if this goes on for long enough, the patient might become a hypochondriac even though he is indeed disease-free. There is a kind of moral hypochondria among many white folks who, having been drummed with so many narratives of their evil nature, think they are infected with some ‘evil racism’ in their hearts when they are perfectly normal and when their only real disease is the hypochondria itself. Many repressed emotions and ideas that white folks have about Jews, Negroes, and homos are perfectly natural, normal, healthy, and rational. White folks have a right to fear the Negro because the Negro is naturally stronger, more aggressive, and more dangerous. White folks have a right to be critical of Jews since Jews are smart, aggressive, energetic, ambitious, nasty, venal, and hideous. Straight white folks have a right to be annoyed by homos since many fruiters are naturally narcissistic, snotty, bitchy, hissy, nasty, and arrogant. But because PC has sanctified those groups as saintly, holy, tragic, and/or perfect, many white folks are afraid of having any negative thoughts or feelings about them. So, when they see negative behavior among Jews, Negroes, or homos, they feel as hypochondriacs infected with some dreaded awful disease-of-the-soul when, in fact, their reactions are perfectly natural responses to bad behavior of other groups. When it comes to less favored or disfavored groups, white folks don’t have this problem. As Muslims, Iranians, Arabs, and Palestinians are disfavored by the Jewish-run media, when white Americans see or hear bad things about such groups, they get angry or hostile, and they don’t feel guilty or apologetic for feeling the way they do. Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, and Arabs haven’t been ‘sacralized’ in America by PC. Though some people yammer about ‘Islamophobia’, it has no traction, and Jews don’t want it to gain traction since it will compete with the Holy Israel Narrative that has wonderful Zionists surrounded by ‘evil Muzzies’.

Anyway, PC is rigged so that whites, especially white gentile males, can never be the moral-spiritual equal of non-whites. The exceptions are, of course, Jewish whites and homo whites. As Jews have Holocaustianity on their side, they can not only accuse white gentiles but non-whites of ‘antisemitism’. And white homos can accuse non-whites of ‘homophobia’. But straight white gentiles, especially the males, can never ever be equal with others according to PC. Liberal white male gentiles may turn up their noses on Conservative white male gentiles — who are deemed somewhat more ‘racist’, ‘homophobic’, and ‘sexist’ — , but the cult of ‘white privilege’ requires Liberal white gentiles to always ‘check their privilege’ and comb their brains for the latest manifestations of ‘micro-aggressions’. Sometimes, the spectacle of this gets pretty hilarious.

But no matter how much white gentiles prostrate themselves before PC, they will be never be fully purged and cleansed of their soul-disease because PC has been engineered specifically to shame and paralyze the white Will-to-Power forever and ever. It’s like the Myth of Sisyphus. Of course, some masochistic white males get a kick of it, just like some white guys get a kick out of being cuckolded or homo-rammed in the ass by a Negro. It appears some white male gentiles have a fetish for PC not so much because they sincerely want to be cleansed of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’ but because they get some jolly in wallowing in ‘white guilt’. It’s like some Christians developed a fetish for feeling guilty about everything and apologizing to God and begging forgiveness 24/7. Maybe over 1500 yrs of Christianity in the West favored people with that kind of personality.

It is time for white Americans to wake up and see what all this PC is all about. It’s not about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, or some other abstract notion of ‘higher good’. It is about power. Smart and cunning Jews smelled blood as they rose higher and higher up the ranks in American society. Though Wasp America was very powerful in the 1950s, already the nasty and pushy Jews were sensing that the existing system could be overthrown and they themselves could take over. After all, why not? During the Weimar Republic Era, German Jews took over many of the institutions. Jewish communists took power in the first era of Bolshevik Rule. Both proved that small number of Jews could best and outperform any number of gentiles, even ones as intelligent, hardworking, and well-educated as the Germans. Already by mid-century, Jews had taken over key industries and institutions in big cities in America. Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. New York media and intellectual life had been taken over by Jews by the end of World War II. Jews had a huge stake in banking and retail. Jews felt so energized and feisty; they sensed that Wasps were too complacent or too ‘nice’ to hold onto power for long, especially when their hold of elite institutions were being aggressively challenged by the power of Jewish wit, brilliance, cunning, and aggressiveness.

Along the way, Jews used a bunch of nice-sounding moral arguments and social movements to justify their agenda for power, but it was power that they were really after. Just think about it. If Jews are indeed into ‘equality’, why do they have no problem with the fact that Jews, who are only 2% of the population, controlling so many elite institutions and industries? While Jews bitch about the problem of ‘white privilege’ and ‘white over-representation’, they are never troubled by Jewish power, privilege, and over-representation EVEN THOUGH Jews are the most powerful, privileged, and wealthy white group in America. Jews bitch about ‘too many whites’ all the time, but if anyone says ‘too many Jews’, Jews use all their power and might to crush the heretic for good. Even when whites are forced to concede and make way for non-whites, it’s white gentiles who get the axe. It’s never Jews who are sacrificed for ‘diversity’. Consider how elite colleges have reduced white enrollment to increase ‘diversity’ but at the cost of white gentile students; the proportion of Jewish enrollment at elite colleges have either remained the same or increased! So, we live in a society where Jews bitch and whine about ‘white privilege’ all the time, but no one dares to mention that it’s Jewish privilege that is the greatest form of white privilege in America. So, where’s the ‘justice’? Where’s the ‘equality’? Indeed, when it comes to Silicon Valley, one can mention there are too many whites, too many men, too many yellows, too many browns(of Asian-Indian kind), but you better not say ‘too many Jews’ even though many of the richest guys in the tech industries are Jews. So, it was really about POWER all along.
Jewish behavior in Israel and American Jewry’s full support of the Zionist imperialism well illustrate that it was always about power with the Jews. Indeed, any people who hope to win in the long run must think more in terms of Our Power than ‘justice for all’. If Jews are indeed ‘justice for all’, why did they invade Palestine and reduce an innocent people to ‘subhuman’ status? And if Martin L. King or MLK was really all about peace, love, and brotherhood, why did he totally support the Zionist enterprise in Israel? Why didn’t he speak up for Palestinians? Why didn’t he denounce Zionist terror and tyranny as much as racial discrimination and repression in the United States? He was really all about black power, and he was willing to work with Jews since they both had the common enemy in the White Race. It’s true enough that blacks didn’t have equal rights in the United States, especially in the South. Though American Jews had it very good — indeed, most Jews by mid-century were better off than most gentile whites — , they nevertheless felt ‘oppressed’ because their eyes on the prize was nothing less than elite control of America. If the big gripe among Negroes was they couldn’t use the same water fountain in the South, the big gripe among Jews was they couldn’t join Wasp country clubs and get into the panties of blonde daughters of Wasps — the cream-dream of the horny Jew feels in THE HEARTBREAK KID. Now, if blacks only wanted equal rights, the Civil Rights Movement would indeed have been about principles of equality for all. But given all the black gripes, corruption, and rowdiness in demanding more and more despite their lack of talent in so many areas, it should be clear to all honest observers that blacks just want more power and more freebies for themselves. It all comes down to tribalism. And despite idiotic Conservative argument to the contrary, MLK was all about using Big Government to take more stuff from whites to hand over to blacks. Kingonomics was essentially a form of welfare-transfer communism, and it had less to do with fairness and justice than taking from whitey to give to blacky.
FBI are now required to pay tribute to MLK statue(Bouncer of the Mall).
North Korean sheeple must bow before the Kim statue.
Given his plagiarism, embezzlement of funds for whores and alcohol, dirty tricks and tactics(as dirty as ones employed by J. Edgar Hoover), and treatment of women, it’s time for all honest people to see MLK for what he was. He was a vile beast whose was motivated by black power and black self-interest. Of course, he had every right to be pro-black as every group should look out for its own interest. What is pernicious is the notion that MLK stood for anything other than black tribal interests. Sure, he sometimes made some rosy and nice-sounding statements about reconciliation, but talk is cheap. Anyone can make a lot of noises. Ever listen to politicians? Oprah is a greedy self-centered black bitch, but she sometimes makes dopey noises about how much she cares about humanity. Stalin, Mao, and Castro all made big speeches about global justice and human rights, but they were all into their own power and their national interests. Talk is the cheapest commodity, and MLK was nothing but a word-hustler. Arafat, Mandela, and Netanhayu have all made big speeches about human dignity and international justice, but each was really looking out for themselves and their own tribal interests. After all, even Hitler at times made speeches that were all about world peace and reconciliation. And he sure fooled Stalin with talk of everlasting friendship between Germany and the Soviet Union. Again, talk is so very cheap. Never listen to what people say. Always look at what they do. Always focus on the true nature and direction of their agenda. If we go by what Jews say, we’d think Jews are all about ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, and etc. And yet, Jews have no problem with themselves growing ever richer and more powerful in the dominant institutions and industries. I mean has anyone raised any fuss about why the Fed Chairmanship always goes to some Jew? And if Jews are really into ‘diversity’, why do they urge it on Germany, UK, France, Japan, Austria, South Korea, Denmark, France, Italy, Greece, and etc. but never ever on Israel? If anything, Jews use AIPAC to force all American politicians to support Israel’s right to thrive and grow stronger as a ‘Jewish State’.

White Americans are a conquered people. And their symbols and icons of White Pride & Power are being stripped, toppled, and buried in favor of new symbols and icons that signify White Guilt & Shame. The cult of MLK has brainwashed white children to worship the Negro. The cult of Mandingo makes white boys indulge in cuckold fantasies and white girls to worship the Negro pud and have mulatto babies. TV advertising controlled by Jews often present interracial couples with mulatto children. These are symbols of white male sexual defeat and conquest at the hands of the black man. White boys are just expected to shut up, put up, and suck it up. Of course, if white boys ask, "If race is just a myth and racial differences don’t exist, how come the media promote the image of the superior black stud who is deserving of winning white women as trophy while white guys are shunted aside as dorks and dweebs?", they will be denounced as ‘racist’. PC is bogus because it says ‘race is just a myth’ but then promotes racial stereotypes that favor interracism. Interracism says white women should go with black men because white men are inferior racially-sexually. Indeed, look at sports culture, rap culture, and porn culture, especially as porn culture and mainstream culture have become fused. In dance clubs, white women ‘twerk’ and stick their butts out to be pumped by Negroes. Though white women act like this to shame white boys as a bunch of dorky losers, white boys just suck it up since they’ve been raised since cradle to worship MLK and worship black muscle as being superior and deserving of white women. So, PC pushes racial equality but promotes worship of Negroes on the basis that blacks are better than whites in cool stuff like sports, sex, funky music, and etc.

And there’s the iconography of Jews as the Holocaust people. No matter how badly Jews act in Israel, let’s pray for Jews and send Israel more money and weapons so that it can beat up on Palestinians some more. And even though Jews say ‘race is just a myth’ and that there are no group differences in I.Q., they also say Jews are deserving of more power and wealth because, being naturally more talented, they deserve to win the game of meritocracy. So, PC says all groups are equal in IQ, and yet, Jews are more deserving to win because they are smarter. What kind of logic is that? It’s the logic of power, and it is power(and not equal justice) that Jews are really obsessed about.

And why do Jews promote homomania? How come the ‘rainbow’-riddled ‘gay pride’ parade has become the biggest celebration in American cities? How come homo stuff has become the new ‘red, white, and blue’? It’s because homos are elite minority whose globo-urban lifestyle is at odds with the practices and values of most Americans. If the great majority of Americans are browbeaten and cowed to worship and serve such minority deviancy, it effectively means that white majority power is dead in this country. And indeed, White America is so over. After Obama appointed the likes of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, came out for ‘gay marriage’, allowed Eric Holder to abuse the law so many times, expanded Section 8 policies, let Jewish Wall Street hoodlums loot the country some more, what did white America do? It still voted for Obama in sufficient numbers to have him re-elected.
In some ways, the conquest of White America by Jews is more total and frightening than the conquest of other peoples. It’s true that Palestinians are a tragic people, but at the very least they know they are a conquered and oppressed people. At least they still find ways to unite and resist. And while Greeks suffered under Turks for centuries and the Vietnamese toiled under French imperialist exploitation, they too understood that they were conquered peoples. As such, they knew something had to be done in order to regain independence and national pride. And when China was being torn to pieces by the ‘foreign devils’ in the 19th century, the Chinese were well-aware of the problems they faced. Even after defeat after defeat and humiliation after humiliation, they knew they had to find ways to push back the foreign tide and regain control of their nation. But white Americans and Europeans? The conquests over them by Jews happened so quietly and stealthily that many of them don’t even know that they are conquered peoples. If anything, dumb white Americans swallow the Jewish-centric line pushed by English Jewish historian Simon Schama that what is best about America is it’s power to ‘change’ and ‘remake itself’. Of course, Schama is happy with this ‘remade’ America since Jews own it. I wonder if Jews would embrace ‘change’ and ‘America remaking itself’ if the new elites of America were to be Palestinian-Americans hostile to Israel and Jewish interests.

How are white Americans not a conquered people? A nation where white guys invite black men to fuc* their white wives? A nation where Jewish advertising companies run anti-white and pro-interracist ads on TV 24/7? A nation that hardly remembers the great white heroes but goes on endlessly about MLK and Oprah? (And surely Jews will promote Obama as one of the greatest presidents of all time in yrs to come.) A nation where popular culture amounts to ‘twerking’ like black whores and watching Lena Dunham’s foulness on TV? A nation where Jews on Wall Street can fleece the entire nation but get even richer while everyone else get it in the neck? A nation where bakers are fined and even imprisoned because they won’t bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. A nation where a restaurant chain cannot open in certain cities because the owners have committed the grave sin of supporting the sanctity of true marriage. A nation where 80% of young people have been brain-rotted into thinking ‘gay marriage’ is the defining moral issue of their time. (Brainwashed by PC and addled with trashy celebrity culture, the generation of ‘millennials’ are the biggest bunch of sheeple in the history of mankind.) A nation where white politicians do nothing for the white race but insists that MORE must be done for Israel? It’s funny how the Democratic Party accuses the GOP of ‘racism’, yet the GOP goes out of its way to prove it is ‘anti-racist’ by promoting the ‘racist’ policies of Israel against Palestinians. How surreal is that? US is now part of the global Jewish Empire, and Jews are looking to end the First Amendment as well so that even private individuals won’t be able to speak truth to Jewish power.

And yet, there’s a kind of paradox of power in the current situation. If a people are enslaved but have been made to feel morally ecstatic about their enslavement, are they enslaved or empowered? Of course, the surreal situation in America is nothing new. Under Stalinism, entire generations were made to believe that embracing communist slavery was the greatest form of liberation and freedom. During the Cultural Revolution in China, tens of millions of Red Guards were led to believe that their mental slavery to Mao was the greatest blessing ever bestowed on mankind. During the Nazi era, so many Germans were so happy to surrender their liberties and rights to Hitler as ‘Hitler ist Deutschland, Deutschland ist Hitler’. If people feel empowered through enslavement, what are they really?
So, when it comes to 80% of young people whose stupid minds have been conquered and molded to accept something as retarded as ‘gay marriage’, what is to be said? On the one hand, they can argue that they really believe in that stuff, and therefore, the triumph of ‘gay marriage’ is victory of their convictions. It’s empowerment for their values. But did they really think about the issue or did they suck it up because it’s been pushed on them since childhood by PC education and trashy celebrity culture dished out by industries run by billionaire Jewish moguls and neo-aristocratic homo snobs? It’s really mental enslavement fooled into seeing itself as empowerment. And of course, some women have been persuaded that prostitution and porny behavior constitute ‘female empowerment’. Whore-dom is the New Normal in female liberation.
Slaves under Stalinist Communism who are convinced of their freedom and empowerment. Sure, they are empowered insofar as they're free to agree 100% with Stalin. End of Debate! 
There are two kinds of slavery. The honest kind where you know you are a slave because you’re reminded you’re a slave. The Nazis were brutal, but they let their slaves know that they were slaves. In contrast, communism was also a kind of slavery, but it brainwashed its slaves into thinking that they were ‘liberated’ by ‘class struggle’ and ‘revolution’. In truth, the state had all the power, individuals had no rights, and the elites could order the populace around like sheep. But because of the disingenuous ideology of communism, a lot of people were fooled into thinking they’d been liberated when, in fact, all their individual liberties and properties had been taken from them.

US is a globalist-Jewish-oligarchy, and Jewish control of government, media, finance, entertainment, courts, law firms, vice industries, and etc. have turned us into their mental slaves. We are made to feel free by wallowing in vices of gambling, drugs, porn, pop music, celebrity junk culture, and all the trivial nonsense on the internet, but when it comes to the true dynamics of power, Jews have most of the power and most people have very little. And if people use what little power they have to speak truth to Jewish power and awaken white consciousness, they will be destroyed in a heartbeat. Indeed, just consider what happened to Richard Spencer in Hungary when he tried to organize a pan-white conference. He got arrested in a nation ruled by a government that’s been condemned as ‘fascist’ by World Jewry. So, if even a ‘fascist’ regime in Hungary is afraid of displeasing the power of World Jewry, what power do white people really have in forging a new movement centered around white power and white interest?
Indeed, consider all the foul things Jews have done to alienate and undermine the Russian economy, but Putin himself is afraid to point out the obvious fact that what is happening is a Jewish War on Russia. Russia is relatively freer of Jewish domination, but it too is deathly afraid of falling in bad graces with World Jewry even though globalist Jews in US and EU have engineered crisis in Ukraine and in energy sectors to subvert the Russian economy.

As US and EU are the two biggest power blocs in the world and as both are totally beholden to World Jewry, it’s about time we admit the obvious: We are all living under Jewish Imperialist Conquest. We are all slaves. We may have some rights and have some liberties. We may own some property. But if Jews don’t like us, they can ruin any one of us. They can send us to prison in UK and France for saying negative things about Jews. Any politician can be destroyed almost immediately for criticizing Israel or Jews on Wall Street. Anyone can lose his or her job by badmouthing MLK or ‘gay marriage’. Thus, all our freedoms, rights, liberties, and properties are at the mercy of the Jewish Agenda. We can only succeed as collaborators of the Jew World Order. Just like Jewish-dominated US gets to pick and choose which nations to destroy through sanctions or war, Jewish elites get to decide who gets hired and who gets fired in the media, academia, finance, government, and etc. Just as you can enjoy free speech as long as you don’t offend Jews, you can have property as long as you don’t offend Jews, as long as you sing praises to Jews. But if Jews suspect you or hate you, Jews can ruin your reputation, and you will fail in business because everyone will be afraid to be associated with you. We live under Jewish tyranny. It doesn’t seem like tyranny since many of us can still succeed and do well AS LONG AS we suck up to Jews, homos, and mulattos. But if we dare think and act differently — if we choose not to collaborate — , we will be shut out of all the effective halls of power and wealth. Without access to elite institutions, how can people be effective in getting the message across and creating a new movement? For slaves there is only one solution. Revolution. The Jewish-dominated Order must be overthrown completely.
If you COLLABORATE, you can do very well for yourself in America. But then, French Collaborators did very well under Nazi rule. And Asian-Indian collaborators did very well under British Imperialism.