Sunday, November 14, 2021

Ann Coulter's Flawed Logic on Diversity: The Real Problem is DAW(Diversity against Whites), which need be countered with DAZ(Diversity against Zion) — Explicit Politics uber Implicit Politics

https://anncoulter.com/2021/11/03/dems-post-election-plan-send-more-immigrants-to-virginia/

Ann Coulter says the Demmies are determined to bring in MORE IMMIGRANTS to win back Virginia because, after all, peoples from Latin America and Asia overwhelmingly lean Democratic(for reasons of immigration policies and Jewish anti-white influence in media & academia).

But she’s missing the larger point. Why is ‘diversity’ damaging to whites and conservatives? It is because Jews control the US and use nonwhites against whites. Via media and academia, Jews encourage anti-white animus among whites — even among aspiring whites anxious for status, being pro-white is an instant disqualifier, as is being anti-Zionist; no wonder then that even whites with deep southern roots do nothing to defend Confederate legacy as their priority amounts to seeking the approval of their 'betters', mostly Jews, cuck white elites, and Noble Negroes(and even homos); never mind that both political parties are totally supportive of the Jewish 'genocide' of Palestinians and the various apartheid-like policies that make life miserable for Arabs in the West Bank.

All things considered, Diversity is most problematic because Jews have weaponized it against whites. Whatever goes wrong, Jews blame whites or even the essentialism of whiteness. When blacks attack Asians, Jewish-dominated media and politics blame ‘white supremacism’, and yellows, being turdy craven dogs eager for approval from authority, go with the bogus narrative. And even most 'conservative' whites don't decry this utter nonsense. And Jews encourage browns to be anti-white. Even though Latin Conquistador-whites did more than their share in the destruction of native peoples and the Atlantic Slave Trade(often in partnership with Jewish slavers), the current Jewish Power bloc allows Latino Whites to pose as 'people of color' to keep them as allies in the anti-white side of the political aisle. Such is the nature of the Jewish Mitzvah(holy race war) against whites.

The only solution to DAW(Diversity Against Whites) is DAZ(Diversity Against Zion). It’s only natural that if Jews use Diversity against whites, whites should use Diversity against Jews. Whites should spread the message that Jews rule America, Jews control the wealth, Jews control the Deep State, Jews use US power to murder tons of non-whites Arabs & Muslims. And Jews fan black rage and violence against whites and non-blacks(or Jews allow blacks to 'roll' other peoples in pogroms while the Jewish-run media and legal system look the other way). Whites should also remind the world with historical narratives of Jews exploiting blacks.

Thus weaponized against Jews, DAZ(Diversity Against Zion) can be advantageous to whites as Jewish Power poses the gravest threat to white survival. The reason why Jews themselves don't worry about Diversity is because they weaponize it against whites but, heretofore, whites haven't dared to return the favor. But if whites weaponized it against Jews, Jews will begin to shit.

But what is the state of affairs in the US? Jews employ DAW(Diversity Against Whites), but whites vow to protect Jews from 'antisemitic' elements within Diversity. It's like Jews explicitly promote anti-white rage and violence among blacks, but whites never call out the Jews on this and, instead, thump their chests about how something must be done about festering 'antisemitism' in the black community. When blacks kick whites in the ass, Jews cheer, laugh, and call for more. When blacks beat on Jews, whites stand in between and take the blows meant for Jews while giggling Jews kicks them from behind. How pathetic.

So, Ann Coulter should worry less about Diversity than how it’s turned against whites by Jews. She should urge whites to change course and start weaponizing Diversity against Jews. Begin by supporting BDS.

But fat chance of that ever happening at least in the foreseeable future. When even race-realist Jared Taylor sucks up to Jews despite persecution at their hands, it’s utterly hopeless with milquetoast conzos. Jews kick Taylor in the ass, and what does he do? He goes into bitchy hysterics about the Muslim threat, to whites and Jews alike, in the hope that Jews won’t whip him so badly.

Jews are not about siding with whites or with Muslims. Jews are about making goy fight goy. Jews use whites to invade Muslim lands and kill bushels of Arabs. And then, Jews welcome Arabs as ‘refugees’ and allies against ‘xenophobic’ white Christo-conzos. Jews use whites to support Zionist erasure of Palestine but then reach out to Arab-Americans to denounce ‘Islamophobic’ white conzos.

It’s as simple as A-B-C. Jews use Diversity against whites. When will whites use Diversity against Jews? If whites won’t, they are finished and deserve to lose because they’re too dumb or craven to stare truth in the face and do what they must.

Jews shouldn’t be regarded as just another ethnicity. They don’t see themselves that way. Greasy Italians and Dumb Poles are generic ethnics in America. In contrast, Jews regard themselves as a Chosenicity. They are Choseniks, which puts them above mere ethnic groups and races.

The assumption among many on the ‘right’ is Diversity is necessarily bad for GOP and whites. While it’s true that Too-Many-Nonwhites will lead to the erasure of white societies, Diversity in and of itself need not be anti-white or anti-GOP in the hostile or hateful sense.

It all depends on how Diversity is used and by whom. Most nonwhite goyim are like white goyim: Sheeple, easily manipulated. In the West, they are manipulated to be anti-white by Jews... just like whites are manipulated to be pro-Jewish no matter what Jews do to them.

Iran is only 50% Persian and other ethnicities make up the rest of the population. But, despite ethnic tensions within Iran, most minority groups don’t work with Jews against Persians. Why not? Because Persian nationalists control Iran. Russia has many minority ethnic groups, but Russia’s Diversity doesn't work with Jews against Russia. Why not? Russians dominate Russia. (If any group is most willing to collaborate with World Jewry against Russia, it is the white cuck population there... just like the biggest shills of Jewish Supremacist power in US and UK are white cuckeroos.) If anything, during the Cold War when USSR backed key Arab nations against Zionism, all groups within the Soviet/Russian Empire were steered to support Arabs against Zion.

If whites hadn’t ceded power to Jews in the US(and UK and the West), they could have put forth a more appropriately pro-white or white-friendly agenda and attitude for nonwhites or Diversity. As most nonwhites won't or don’t think for themselves, they tend to go with the prevailing wind. It is precisely because whites ceded power to Jews that the latter was able to make anti-whiteness the political glue among various nonwhite groups(and white cucks), especially as ideology faded in significance as the ‘End of History’ drew near. Anti-whiteness among nonwhites was NOT inevitable, especially as many nonwhite immigrants moved to the West out of preference for whites and white ways than for their own. Diversity was made anti-white by Jewish Power. In the Age of Idolatry, Jews made themselves gods and made whites the Devil in the equation.

Something similar happened in China. As communist ideology lost its luster, CCP figured it had to rely on something else to hold the people together as one big patriotic family. And it was anti-Japanese sentiments. History was dredged up to make Japan the Big Bad Wolf. (It was probably a stupid move as it alienated Japan and drew it closer to the US.) CCP figured Anti-Japanese Remembrance would be the glue holding post-ideological China together. Jews figure Anti-Whiteness will hold Diversity together. Blame whitey for everything. Even in areas where Jews dominate, the game is to blame whites, e.g. #HollywoodSoWhite. Even though Jewish mayors of blue cities pushed for tougher policing to control black crime, the rulebook is to blame ‘white racist cops’ when racial controversies flare up, as with the case of George Floyd.

Blaming Diversity is like blaming trannies as both have been weaponized by Jewish Power. Most nonwhites are clueless sheeple, and their anti-whiteness has been fed to them by Jews. Trannies on their own would have been nothing more than a marginal community of laughing stocks. They were empowered and ‘ennobled’ by Jews.
Conzo criticism amounts to harping at the puppets but never tracing the strings to the puppet master, which is Jewish Power. Diversity and Trannies are no different from Joe Biden. All puppets of Jewish Power.

There is something to be learned from Ukraine. Jews sought to use Ukraine against Russia, and in turn, Russia decided to use Ukraine against the Jews. Jews installed a puppet government that provokes Russia, but Russia took back Crimea and supports separatist elements in eastern Ukraine.

Diversity must be used like Ukraine is used by Russia. If Jews steer Diversity to be anti-white, whites must steer it to be anti-Jewish. Just tell nonwhites that Jews hog most of the power and privilege in the West. Detail the dark chapters of Jewish History and inform every group of how it is negatively affected by Jewish Power. For example, Jews and slavery in Brazil. Jewish domination of the opium trade in China. Jewish use of Pentagon to destroy Arab nations. The role of Jewish financiers in the rape of entire economies. When Jews use Diversity to attack whiteness, whites must fight back in kind. Sadly, whites are a bunch of cucky wuck pussies.

In the US, both political parties(or patsies) are about ethno-idolatry or ‘ethnodolatry’ of Jews. Demmies look to Jews as prophets and Repubbies look to Jews as gods. Suppose both parties were to vanish into the thin air. Jewish oligarchs will just create two more political fronts to create the illusion of ‘democracy’ and vet a new batch of puppet candidates like Macauliffe or Youngkin(of Virginia).

Simple Rule of History: People who weaken their own identities will end up serving people who strengthen their own identities. It’s only a matter of time. Look at whites and Jews. Whites into deracination have come to serve Jews into racial identity.

In the end, implicit politics loses to explicit politics. At most, a figure like governor Youngkin represents implicit white politics. In contrast, the other side dominated by Jews and energized by blacks(and homos) is explicit in its pride and passion, in its diatribes and demands.

What is the difference between ‘implicity’ and ‘explicity’? Implicit politics is ashamed to express and expound on what it is really about. It must conceal its identity and interests, even to itself, i.e. so many whites who vote for white interests convince themselves that they are voting for universal principles of color-blindness. So, even though implicit politics may win a few rounds, it loses in the long run without the fuel to proudly express and defend itself and go on the war path against enemies and rivals. Implicit = Timid.

In contrast, explicit politics is all about pride, confidence, and aggression. It is fired up. Even if outnumbered and disadvantaged(at the moment), it has the wind of history on its back because it has the moral and ‘spiritual’ imperative. It can preach loudly and condemn the other side that is too afraid to express itself loudly and make effective counter-arguments. Explicit = Brash. Jews are explicitly into Jewish Power, blacks are explicitly into Black Rage, and Homos are explicitly into 'Gay Pride', but even white conservatives squirm like a toad upon being reminded, "It's Okay to be White".

Implicit politics, even when victorious, is unsure of itself and dare not convey what it’s really about. If anything, it outwardly agrees, more or less, with the moral argument of the other side and claims to practice those ‘virtues’ better in moderation and caution — but, if the 'virtues' are so correct and on the right side of history, why opt for moderation than total commitment?

The implicit side doesn’t oppose the arguments and demands of the other side but merely says it is too radical… at least for the moment. So, when it comes to fundamentals, the implicitly political side hides its real interests and claims to, more or less, agree with the premise of the other side that beams with righteous rage and makes unapologetic demands. So, craven shitters like Youngkin don’t condemn CRT or call out the lie of BLM but merely mutter, “Oh gosh, you’re pushing the stuff too far too fast, and we need some time out, that’s all”, and his voters are too craven to express real outrage over what Jews and blacks have done to this country since 2020.

Jews are 2% of US whereas white Christian goyim outnumber them many times. (White Conservatives complain about how lost California due to demographics, but if this is true, how come Jews control the state when they are many times outnumbered by goyim?) Why do Jews keep winning while whites and Christians keep losing? It’s because Jews control the gods, what is holy and unholy, and that means they can be EXPLICIT in their Jewish identity, pride, agenda, and demands(and in their anti-white hostility)… whereas whites and Christians, branded with the sins of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘white supremacism’, must tread carefully and at best be implicit in their defense of whiteness or Christianity. Jews angrily wield Jewishness like a hammer, whereas whites/Christians warily handle whiteness(and/or Christianity) like radioactive material; they are afraid of their own identity and interests, of their own shadows. Whiteness is to whites what Kryptonite is to Superman.

Consider the problems of implicit capitalism under communism. Even under Marxism-Leninism, some nations experimented with market economics and introduced elements of capitalism. But the capitalism in communist nations could only be implicit, always under the moral thumb of communism. It couldn’t loudly and proudly proclaim itself as superior to communism. Rather, all it could hope for was some degree of tolerance and permission to carry on with market practices to allow for incentives and efficiency. Because communism owned the pride and passion, it could stamp out vestiges of capitalism any time it wished. Implicit capitalism was always at the mercy of explicit communism, and if anything, capitalists under communism argued that capitalist practices were merely to hasten the arrival of communism(as Karl Marx himself said capitalism would lay the grounds for socialism that would lead to communism). Likewise, implicit white politics never expresses pride of whiteness but argues that whites should be treated a bit better because, all said and done, what white conservatives really want is a better kind of Diversity, a happier kind of Great Replacement.

Unless whiteness is made explicit in its identity, interests, expression, and demands, it will always be disadvantaged and lose out in the long run because pride and passion are with explicit politics. It’s like a handful of burning coal produces more power than a ton of cold coal. And a few men with swords are more effective than many men with shields. When a roller meets the dough, what flattens what?

GREENWALD EXPLAINS HOW AMERICA’S NEW ‘WAR ON TERROR’ TARGETS OWN CITIZENS

Thursday, November 11, 2021

Hell with Veterans Day — Defund the Military than the Police — US troops are useless minions of Globalism who do NOTHING to defend the country while invading other countries — What about Black Guilt in US Neo-Imperialism?

With such crappy things happening with Covid Hysteria, you'd think the heroic US military would step in to protect Americans from the insane institutions. But nope, the cuck soldiers are overseas destroying other nations instead. Remember 2020 and 2021? While BLM and Antifa thugs were looting, rioting, and attacking innocent people(and burning down entire parts of cities), the US military did NOTHING to protect American lives and properties — and it took a young kid named Kyle Rittenhouse to attempt to protect his town from being set aflame by deranged lunatics, but HE has been railroaded by the system, the activist lawyers and the Jewish-run media. When some over-zealous patriots, goaded by FBI informants, breached security and entered the Capitol building for a couple of hours, tens of thousands of soldiers were soon stationed in D.C. to 'protect' the whore politicians who do the bidding of Jewish Supremacists. Whatever soldiers may think and feel as individuals, they are nothing but robots on the institutional level.

THE HELL WITH VETERANS DAY. Soldiers simply do as told. They are heroes ONLY in defense of country. Most US soldiers have been involved in invading or occupying other places around the world. They are in effect mercenaries abroad, not heroes of homeland. They are no better than the German Wehrmacht or Japanese Imperial Troops who did as told without asking questions. It's the exact same mentality.

If true patriotism is about freedom and speaking truth to power, patriots need to stop hero-worshiping military men and veterans as insta-heroes. While soldiers do put their lives on the line, it's noble only in defense of motherland, not in fantastical pursuit of 'monsters' to slay around the world; besides, for every dead American 'hero', there have been many more non-American victims, many of them women and children.
It's all the worse now because, at the very least, America once used to be a sane country with something to offer to the world(besides money and technology). But what do American soldiers unquestioningly serve and spread around the world today? The sicko zio-globo-homo-afro-maniacal anti-values of the globalist elites whose hearts-and-minds have been soul-corrupted by Jewish supremacism.

The IMAGE ABOVE(promoted by Jewish-run Google) is all you need to know what the American Empire is all about under Zionist Supremacism. It's about mindless idolization of blacks(as natural heroes and saints) and mockery of whites as whiteness has value ONLY in association with homosexuality and trans-nuttery.
Also, blacks need to shut up about BLM and 'racism'. If they are so sensitive on matters of injustice, what the hell are they doing serving in the US imperialist murder machine around the world? Where is Black Guilt on what the brothas did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and etc? And what about all the black rapes, murders, and other crimes in US military bases around the world? Heroes? Gimme a break.
Because of the victim-historiography of blacks in the US and the Holocaust-cult around Jews, these two groups can fully take part in US imperialism and hegemonism(and reap tons of racial-tribal benefits, like white Christians used to) but also avoid all blame and responsibility. It's like they have the best of both worlds: Practice Western Imperialism but also pose as its eternal holy victims. So, even if black soldiers take part in raping and murdering some part of the world, they are not seen as US imperialists but icons of how far black Americans have come from slave-ship to championship.

US is a Jewish-supremacist crazy state that sanctifies the worthless thug George Floyd and scapegoats the police while idolizing US soldiers who've slaughtered countless innocents around the world at the behest of Jewish Supremacists. In US wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, blacks did their share in the Mass Murder Inc. because all they really care about is their own position/privilege in the US empire than about what their participation does to the rest of the world. As long as they get theirs in the system, blacks don't care.
If American Values were about true morality, we wouldn't be defunding the police but the US military that has truly been a murderer and destroyer of innocents. And yet, the life of George Floyd(who actually died of Fentanyl abuse under police care) is dearer than those of millions of lives destroyed by the Pentagon Murder Machine. But as long as American Morality = Racial Idolatry, it doesn't matter WHAT happened; the only thing that matters is WHO are involved. So, even if Jews and blacks do much that is bad, it must be 'good' because Jews and blacks are automatically holy. But whatever whites do is suspect because it is tainted with 'whiteness'. And if Jews send white cuck-soldiers and black thug-soldiers to murder bushels of Arabs and Muslims, what does it matter when the victims rank low on the ethno-idolatry hierarchy?

So, if patriots want to do themselves a favor, they need to drop the sick habit of lionizing the military or pretending that US soldiers 'serve the country'. If US soldiers were true heroes, they would defy the US government and guard the southern borders that are being inundated with freeloader 'migrant' invaders. They would be freeing most of the 1/6 prisoners. They would run to the side of Kyle Rittenhouse while waging war on Antifa and BLM thugs who do the bidding of anti-white Jewish Supremacism. Indeed, Kyle Rittenhouse's great sin is he dared to do what the US military won't do... as US soldiers are mostly cowards whose main priority is gaining benefits and career opportunities for their blood-money service to the empire.

But in reality, military men(and women) do NOTHING that serves true patriotism and instead obey orders to be shipped overseas to wreak havoc on other peoples and lands who pose NO threat to America. DEFUND THE MILITARY, and every US city should build a monument to all those invaded, bombed, raped, and/or murdered by the US military that has been, more often than not, the henchmen of US neo-imperialism(which is now controlled by Jews and promotes globo-homo celebration and Negro-worship as the highest values).

American 'heroes' at work in Abu Grahib even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which was really orchestrated by Jewish Supremacist Cabal.
THE CAVE OF THE 'NEGROES': A BALLAD OF RAPE & REVENGE

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

James O'Keefe is Foolish to Appeal to the Journalistic Community for Support after the FBI Raid — The Whore-nalist Community knows what happened to Him cannot happen to Them because they are such Good-Dog Propagangsters of the Deep State that only targets 'Bad Dogs'

Project Veritas' James O'Keefe Goes On Hannity To Talk About FBI Raid On Home - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gkZFUYnespxF/

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas presents a cautionary tale. He pleads with the journalist community to support him against the Deep State with the warning that what happened to him can happen to them, to ANY journalist.

Is he a fool or just naive? If principles governed institutions and industries in the US, what he says would be correct. There would be PRINCIPLED reasons for defending him as the Deep State could abuse its power and go after ANYONE who dares to a counter-narrative or dig for the deeper truth. Why would Merrick Garfinkle(aka Garland) go after the 'good dogs' who comply with deep state demands?

But principles don't govern the US. Power is what the US is all about. It is a gangstoid state, i.e. even if deep state players aren't gangsters in the literal sense, they act more like gangsters than civil servants. And if deep state players are servants to anything, it isn't to the Constitution or the People but to the oligarchic elites and the commissars, most of them Jewish at the top. Jews tend to be rather shameless, obnoxious, and paranoid in their power-mania, and as the saying goes, fish rots from the head. Jewish supremacist slime has permeated the entirety of the US system.

So, O'Keefe is foolish to appeal to the journalistic community. If anything, they are LAUGHING at him because they know what happened to him will NOT happen to them. After all, they are propagandistic minions or propagansters of the Deep State. They do as told. They please their bosses. They're focused on careerism and status/reputation(within the closed circle of 'made men'). O'Keefe's gesture is as if Donald Trump would appeal to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to support him against the Deep State that might pull the same dirty tricks on them. But why would the Deep State do such to Hillary and Biden, two complete whores of the Beltway Oligarchy? Or imagine Palestinian-Americans calling on Jewish-Americans to condemn the suppression of BDS on the supposition that the silencing of Palestinian speech might affect Jewish speech as well. Why, Jews would laugh in the Palestinian face. Why should Zionists worry when they are in the position of total power to mandate pro-Zionism and anti-Palestinianism as US policy? Jews know US is governed by power, not principles.

In a system where power prevails over principles, the only thing that matters is whether the Power approves or disapproves of you. If you're approved, you are protected and shall be untouched. Why would the Power go after you when just about everything you do has its stamp of approval? And once you've taken this path of craven careerism(and mock-self-righteous virtue based on fashion-morality of 'wokery'), you don't look back. If anything, you seek more approval from the Power and do its bidding, even if it means violating the fundamental principles of free speech and attacking the rights of other journalists(who will never be part of the 'made' community).

Of course, while craven careerism is a huge incentive, it alone might sow some doubt and pangs of conscience among the opportunists. That is why Jews are so adamant about controlling the gods, the dynamics of holy vs unholy, and insisting on a mantric mentality(where certain matters become truisms based solely on rote repetition, e.g. the mantra of 'race is just a social construct'). This way, if craven careerists feel any sense of guilt about their whoring out to Power, their sense of 'moral outrage' can always serve as reminder that they themselves are at least BETTER than the other side for being 'more evolved'(on matters like homo-worship), more committed(on stuff like BLM, a total lie that bears no resemblance to facts on the ground), and more 'progressive'(because it's ahead of the curve on social issues, no matter how ludicrous, such as men-being-'women' and silly games with pronouns). Of course, the mantric and quasi-holy characteristics of 'wokery' don't allow for critical thinking or fact-based checking; some things just simply ARE because all the 'good' people repeat the platitudes over and over in 'Manchurian Candidate' fashion.

This is why patriots and truth-seekers must stop invoking the principle of "If it happened to me, it could happen to you." That would be true enough in a principle-based order but not one dominated by gangstoid power. Imagine a captured prisoner-slave in ancient times appealing to a Roman Centurion, "please free me and oppose slavery because what happened to me could happen to you." The Centurion would be totally LOL. Why would Roman Power enslave him, a centurion, who serves to execute and expand Roman power? No, captivity and slavery were for captured 'barbarians' and foreigners in war. Likewise, why would the libby-dib and even many conzo-wonzo journalists come to the defense of people like James O'Keefe and others like him — kudos to the usually useless Sean Hannity for covering this issue — when they know they themselves shall remain untouched by the Power? If anything, they know they will be the next target of the Deep State if and only if they decide to act like James O'Keefe or the more estimable Julian Assange. But as long as they do the bidding of the Deep State or dare not venture outside the Overton Window, they got nothing to worry about. They merely need to upgrade their 'wokery' so that their sense of 'moral outrage' will be up to date with the Current Year(or Month or Week).

Now, there was a time when the journalistic community did stand behind Daniel Ellsberg, but that was a special period in US history. The WASP order was in decline and Jewish power was on the rise. Also, there was a huge generation rift, not only between boomers and the 'greatest generation' but between the latter(that proudly defined itself in relation to the New Deal and victories in WWII against the radical right) and their more brazenly(and awesomely) race-ist predecessors like Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson(who loved D.W. Griffith's masterpiece THE BIRTH OF A NATION). Indeed, on the political front, all the great changes of the 1950s and 1960s were the doing of the GG. With one social order in decline and another coming into being, there was less consolidation of power in any single institution, ethnic group, ideological faction, and etc. Thus, principles could override power for a brief period in US history as various groups and factions, unable to consolidate total power, had to invoke principles to secure their place in the system. This was when ACLU seemed most idealistic.

But since then, the end of the Cold War brought about the 'End of History', or the struggle over ideology. It was replaced by Idolatry, mainly of Jews who chose homos as main deep state partners and blacks as main symbolic allies, thereby making the Tridolatry of Jews, Homos, and Negroes the defining themes of the 21st century West. Also, Wasps have become a bunch of pathetic Anglo-cucks or Anglucks of Jewish Power. Even HBD Anglos are such saphead cucks to the Jews.

Looking back, George H.W. Bush and James Baker tried to be somewhat fair to the Palestinians, and Jews had the knives out for them. Billy Boy Clinton became president but in his second term tried to be like Jimmy Carter and make history with a peace plan for Jews and Palestinians, but the two-state solution simply couldn't work because Jews had colonized too much of West Bank and continued to build settlements; Clinton applied pressure on Israel and ended up with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Next president George W. Bush learned the lesson. According to the official narrative, W. sought to correct H.W.'s legacy by going all in on Iraq. But the real lesson was APPEASE JEWS 100%, which is why W. turned over foreign policy totally to the Neocons and kicked Palestinians in the teeth even as Israel continued to gobble up more land. But then, too much of a good thing could be a bad thing. Neocons messed up foreign policy so badly(and the Jews in Wall Street messed up the economy so spectacularly) that it paved the way for Obama. Of course, Jews blamed it all on Dubya and promoted Obama as the guy who reverse course. But what did Obama do but bail out Jewish Wall Street and serve War Street in smashing more Muslim nations and antagonizing Russia and China? What Clinton, Dubya, and Obama have in common is they ran on the Iron Lesson of "Kiss the Jewish Butt If You Want to Win". The reason why Jews hate Donald Trump so much was the wild man won despite having pissed off Jews often during his campaign. No wonder then the Jews and its deep state attack dogs did everything to bring Trump down. The tragicomedy of it all was that despite all his talk, Trump never meant to do anything but take it up the ass from Jewish Power.

Anyway, Jewish Power is now absolute in America. Even Catholicism has turned into one big 'woke' cult with that devil pope Francis. Blacks are totally in the pocket of Jews. The days of Jesse Jackson's hustle-tussle with Jews is long over. Just consider the transformation of Al Sharpton and Spike, who once used to bait Jews, into cotton-picking blucks(black cucks) of Jewish Power. Look at Obama and Kamala. And what is the new messianism of the US about when not waving the Israeli flag or BLM banner? It's the globo-homo 'rainbow' flag, and the whole 'gay' thing is totally a proxy of Jewish Power. Jews got all the academia, media, finance, entertainment, gambling, real estate, big tech, and etc. And the kind of 'journalists' who are vetted and hired by Jewish-run media conglomerates are either Jewish Zionists, craven-cuck goy types(who will sell their mother down the river to get ahead), or 'woke' idiots who are dumb enough to fall for the mantric nonsense of PC.

So, people like O'Keefe need to stop appealing to the journalistic or whore-nalistic community. The whornalists are gleefully laughing at his dilemma because their are libby-dib careerists(who would never dare displease the ruling elites) or deranged foaming-in-the-mouth 'woke' morons who really think Trump is 'literally Hitler' and O Keefe is Joe Goebbels. The whole Russia Collusion Hoax, Covid Hysteria, Assad-Gas Hoax, and Electoral 'Fortification' should tell us all we need to know about the wink-wink cooperation among big state, big tech, big media, and big finance. The master stroke by Jewish Power is having not only bought people off with money but convinced them of their righteousness with mantric mindlessness; most journalists are mantric candidates. So, the biggest whores of mendacity in the media really think they are the biggest crusaders of justice.

Instead of wasting time by pathetically pleading with the corrupt whornalistic community(and institutions like ACLU that is really nothing but a Jewish supremacist front), people like O'Keefe would do better to call out the media companies and their hirelings for what they are: Propagangsters or propagangstoids of the Deep State that do the bidding of Jewish Supremacism. They are information hitmen motivated by approval from the system. But then, even O'Keefe dare not discuss Jewish Power, and that's why he too is ultimately useless.

FBI RAID OF PROJECT VERITAS FACILITIES LOOKS LIKE POLITICAL TARGETING OF OPPOSITION JOURNALISTS - Tim Pool

Saturday, November 6, 2021

Holodolatry(or Holocaust-Idolatry) needs to be countered with Holo-Correction and Holo-Context — Don't Deny the Horrors of World War II but Correct the Falsehoods and Provide the Contexts

Why Not Question “the Holocaust” in Schools? - The standard narrative does not stand up to serious historical scrutiny - by PHILIP GIRALDI — https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-not-question-the-holocaust-in-schools/#comment-4993303

This Texas proposal might as well be a gift to Jewish Power because it defines the discussion into "Holocaust Did Happen" and "Holocaust Didn't Happen", with precious little in between. It's like posing the Soviet Question as one of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and "Stalin hardly killed anyone." What about the possibility that Stalin might have killed 20 million, 10 million, or 5 million? Should the question about the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodia Tragedy boil down to "Did Pol Pot kill 3 million?" or "Did Pol Pot kill no one"? It's a false dichotomy, the kind which has long dogged the discourse on the Shoah.

What we need is to treat the Holocaust as history, thereby opening up discussion and allowing questions, some of them inconvenient(given the current political/moral climate). The real problem is the Holocaust is treated as dogma, even a quasi-religion. We are to believe that 6 million Jews were killed(and one digit less is tantamount to 'denial') and that Jews were totally innocent and pure-as-snow, i.e. the German and other Anti-Semites just went bat-shit crazy due to history of European Christianity and 'scientific racism'.
But this is like saying 200,000 Japanese perished instantly in the nuking of Hiroshima(and don't you dare ask if the casualty number might have been less, say 100,000 or 80,000 as that would be Denial!) and that the bombing was done just for the hell of it(because America couldn't resist doing something horribly 'racist', which is part of its DNA). Now, it's true that many innocents died in Hiroshima and there was a lot of anti-Japanese and anti-Asian animus in the US. But the nuking cannot be understood without the larger context of the Pacific War and Japan's aggressive role in it. Even if one concludes the nuking was unjustified or believes that countless innocents died(even if the nuking was justified), it'd be foolish to argue that it happened simply because white Americans, riled up by anti-Asian prejudice, decided to nuke Japan for the fun of it. Japan too had been a player in the imperial conflict for hegemony over the Pacific and had plenty of blood on its hands. Of course, just because Japan did bad doesn't mean the US did good. And even if one were to argue the US did bad in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it doesn't follow that Japan was good. After all, gangsters fight and kill one another all the time. It's possible that all sides are bad in one way or another. Some may be worse, but that still doesn't make the less psychotic gangsters good. They too are thugs after all. Foreign Affairs have always been gangster politics, and genuine good guys on the international scale have been as rare as the white tiger or two-headed snake.

Then, in order to have a deeper and more meaningful discussion of World War II and Shoah, there must be an honest discussion of the historical-social-economic context. Now, care must be taken so as not to use the context as mere excuse or rationale. After all, that would be too easy. Any side can say, "We did it cuz they did it" or "They did bad, so we did bad too to get even." It's like a trial where lawyers for the prosecution and the defense frame events in such manner to favor their side.
History isn't about who is innocent and who is guilty. While it's reasonably simple and fair-minded to ascribe guilt or innocence to individuals, matters are far more complicated as players and participants in History aren't lone individuals but entire systems, vast populations, and agendas across entire eras. Thus, one can be part of a nation or population that was once victimized by aggressors but later became powerful and aggressive toward others. Americans, for instance, can see themselves as rebels against British Tyranny, 'genocidal' invaders against the American Indians, the enslavers of blacks, the liberators of blacks(and enders of slavery), spreaders of liberty(and democracy), champions of free enterprise, neo-imperialist exploiters, robbers of Mexican lands, slayers of evil German and Japanese empires(and saviors of Jews), and/or enablers of Jewish Supremacism.
And in some events, a nation could be both good and bad. Some see the US role in Vietnam as noble, an attempt to spare the Southern Half from the brutality of communism in the North. Others see US as neo-imperialist interventionists trying to prevent the natural unification of a nation that had finally freed itself from French Colonialism.

Even when it comes to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, one will not understand history if they're merely seen as evil. If Hitler was little more than Charles Manson and if National Socialism was about nothing but murderous nuttery, how did they come to power? Why did they gain such popularity? Isn't it more likely that they had some good ideas that appealed to the long-suffering German masses and had some genuine policy triumphs before Hitler increasingly embarked on a game of 'chicken' with neighboring nations that, since late 19th century, developed a certain dread about German power? So, even if National Socialism steered toward the abyss by gambling with history, it had come to power with a measure of legitimacy because its platform and criticism struck a chord with many German folks who'd directly witnessed the degenerate dystopianism of the Weimar years. (If the Weimar era and National Socialist era demonstrate one thing, it's that neither brazen dystopianism nor radical utopianism is the answer). If National Socialism and the Germans who supported it weren't all bad, then it follows that the Jews, who became its main victims, weren't all good.

Besides, it's not as if the Germans picked on some hapless and powerless minority. It was not like a cat attacking a sparrow that poses no harm. Rather, the Germans targeted Jews as the most powerful and problematic minority group in Europe(and the UK and US). Germans felt especially betrayed by Jewish crimes during the Weimar Period because their nation, relatively speaking, had been nicer to Jews than, say, Poland and France have been. Germans-against-Jews wasn't like a cat picking on a sparrow or a dog attacking a rabbit. It was like a dog attacking a fox or weasel in the henhouse. Many Jews weren't a hapless and powerless group of kindly merchants selling toys(as depicted in THE TIN DRUM the film by Volker Schlondorff) but gangsters, financial thieves, cultural degenerates, and/or part of the global World Jewry cabal. Of course, there were nice Jewish merchants who had no part in Jewish Evil, and the National Socialism was demented in targeting all Jews, but Germans had good reasons to tackle the Jewish Question as Jews were an extraordinary people with tremendous potential for good or evil, or both, but that could also be said for National Socialism, a movement that did much good before it did much bad.

It's true that context is often invoked(especially by polemicists) to excuse a certain power and its actions, but history cannot be understood without context. Nothing just happens out of the blue. People react to conditions and events. They may misdiagnose the problem and do foolish and even horrible things. Also, the so-called response or solution may make things worse. It's like we can understand why Ugandans and other black Africans were upset with the domination of Asian Indian merchants in the aftermath of British Empire's departure. But the solution was also misdiagnosed because, while it was true enough that Asian-Indians took advantage of a world order established by British Imperialism, they also gained market dominance because blacks lacked the skills to run modern economies or even a sincere willingness to learn. And so, the forced departure of the Asian-Indians didn't lead to economic boom for the blacks but depression and shortages(that soon fueled more social strife and political crises).
Still, we can understand why the native majorities were upset with so much of the economy being dominated by a foreign minority, a sentiment also widespread in Southeast Asia and Philippines in regards to the Chinese. Part of the reason is envy, but it is also a matter of anxiety. How can any patriot be certain that the foreign minority influence, especially in bribing and corrupting politicians, may well undermine the sovereignty of the nation? (Indeed, what have Jewish wealth and power done to the sovereignty of Western nations?) And the super-rich rarely happen to be men of integrity or principles. While plenty of successful people have smarts and talent, few rarely reach the top without dirty tricks; it takes a certain sociopathy to violate so many rules for personal gain. Then, it should be of no surprise that European native majorities found Jewish Minority Power to be deeply problematic. Not only were Jews smart and successful but many of them were devious, cunning, and even downright criminal(and without scruples). Also, even if good many Jews had redeeming qualities and were capable of loyalty, their fealty and devotion were mainly tribal than for the goy nation and people in which they made their fortune. It's like Sheldon Adelson made his billions in the US and the goy world, but his stated regret is having donned the uniform of the US military than of the IDF. So, Adelson's one redeeming quality, that of patriotism and loyalty, wasn't to the majority goy America but to the Jewish Israel.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it concentrates on 'Anne Frank' Jews while wholly ignoring 'Leo Frank' Jews. (Leo Frank was an American Jew, but we're using him as a metaphor here.) The Narrative would have us believe Jews were all or mostly sweet and innocent like Anne Frank, but deranged 'Anti-Semites' just went crazy and decided to murder a whole bunch of the nicest people in the world. In truth, there were many Jews who were more like Leo Frank, especially in the upper echelons of Jewish Power. Indeed, the Leo Frank case offers a glimpse into how World Jewry operates. Instead of good Jews standing with good goyim against bad people(Jews and goyim alike), Jews(even more than goyim) stick with the bad among them on the basis of tribal loyalty and supremacism.
So, the Shoah was more like goyim reacting to Leo-Frank-Jews of the world but then, tragically enough, even going after Anne-Frank-Jews.
Sadly, it's often been the case that war on one tribal pathology led to another tribal pathology, which is what National Socialism turned out to be. But then, there was a time when Neo-Conservatism was greeted with much interest as having set forth a new path for American Conservatism that had grown moribund over the years — indeed the old-school Republicans in the late Sixties and Eighties capitalized on Liberal/Democratic failures than came up with winning formulas of their own. It was at this time that Neo-Conservatism saw their opportunity as the energetic and creative wing of American Conservatism. It gained traction for valid reasons. But just like National Socialism had a pathological core, the innermost agenda of Neo-Conservatism turned out to be pathological Jewish supremacism, and once the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton's synthesis of 'economic conservatism' and 'social liberalism' was achieved(which is exactly what most Jews wanted), the so-called Neocons had little on their minds but Wars for Israel. Zionist fingerprints are not only all over the plans for war but on events like 9/11 that finally pushed the American Public over the edge in supporting massive troop deployments to the Middle East to transform the entire region into puppet-democracies(the strings of which would be pulled by US in the palm of Zion) or a ceaseless war zone where Arabs and others, driven into sectarian distrust, would end up slaughtering one another while NATO and Zion armed the various sides to further the blood-letting. But as with National Socialism, the evil of Neoconservatism cannot be understood without taking the larger context into account. One wonders if Neoconservatism was always demented at the core with future war plans to bring about Jewish-Zionist hegemony or it became demented over time because power has a way of growing bolder, more arrogant, and more reckless with every victory. Given the Zionist fingerprints all over 9/11, it suggests Neocons were always dark agents of Zion or, at the very least, inseparable from the Zionist or Yinonist Agenda. Still, Neoconservatives gained influence by proposing some useful ideas to an American Conservatism that had grown staid and stale.

Now, if Jews were a poor and powerless people, it wouldn't much matter what we believed about the Holocaust. It's like what we believe about the American Indians or Australian Aborigines hardly matters because they are a powerless group. But the Holocaust Narrative has had a malignant impact because Jews are the most powerful people in the world, not least because they tamed the Northern European stock to be their war horse. It's one thing to be willfully naive about a powerless people but quite another to be that way about the most powerful people whose megalomania, political-spiritual-moral-historical-intellectual-etc., is totally out of control. It's like the West's willful naivete about blacks-as-innocent-childlike-saints has done great harm, especially in the Era of St. George Floyd. In truth, the black comprises some of the most aggressive, most criminal, most brutal, and most savage thugs in the West, BUT the Jewish-run Narrative holds that innocent blacks are being brutalized and murdered by 'racist' white cops and whites in general. Result has been demands to 'defund the police' while defending the thugs, leading to more murders and mayhem in city after city.

Now, just because Jews are powerful and have done lots of bad doesn't mean that the Shoah didn't happen or that many innocent Jews perished in it, no more and no less than the fact that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in World War II, even those who opposed their regimes and the wars. Also, even the worst Jews deserve their day in court. It's like the dire facts of black brutality and aggression(that largely arise from black genetic character) don't mean that blacks weren't exploited as slaves and were victimized by whites in the past. It'd be fallacious to say, just because Jewish Power is currently so evil, innocent Jews weren't met with goy evil, or just because so many blacks are now deranged thugs, they didn't suffer in the past under white domination. But it's also fallacy to assume that, just because Jews experienced a great horror in WWII, Jews today are a bunch of Anne Franks radiating with victim-sanctity, or just because blacks were once slaves or faced racial discrimination, blacks today are upright and struggling for a righteous cause. If the character of a people become affixed to an event in history, it all depends on the event that is memorialized. It's like 1776 makes Americans out to be resisting tyranny and struggling for independence. If we focus on the years in which Japan invaded China, the Japanese come across as a bunch of murderous aggressors. But if we focus on post-war Japan when the nation developed into a peaceful 'democracy', Japanese seem a kindly people. But history never stands still. Just because Romans once kicked Germanic Barbarian butt didn't meant Romans/Italians were eternal victor-invaders while Germanics were eternal victim-conquered. Indeed, it wasn't long before Rome was sacked by the Germanic barbarians.

The problem is the Holocaust is treated less as history than idolatry or Holodolatry, canonization of a historical event into quasi-spiritual matter. Worse, Holodolatry forces us to speak of Jews as a single entity. So, we can't speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, good Jews and bad Jews, radical Jews and moderate Jews. When it comes to most peoples, we speak of the powerful and the powerless. For example, we don't blame all Japanese for all time for what happened in the Pacific War. The main blame goes to the militarist rulers. This allows for one perspective on powerful Japanese and another on powerless Japanese, such as civilians who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, there is no absolute dividing line between the powerful and the powerless, as so many of the powerless often support the powerful. Lines become blurred. Many Japanese supported their ruling regime, and many powerless Jews looked to powerful Jews for direction and purpose.
Still, there are decision-and-opinion-makers(the powerful) and those who blindly follow along(the powerless) because they don't know any better, have been hoodwinked, or feel obligated out of tribal loyalty. Any interpretation of events must hold to account the powerful with greater burden of responsibility. Such approach can make us understand Jewish Power and 'antisemitism' better. Some powerful Jews acted badly, and it led to anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because the Jewish Community as a whole didn't take a stance against bad powerful Jews. (And when some Jews did stand up to Jewish Greed, they took it to radical extremes with ideologies like communism that devastated societies.) If we speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, we can better distinguish between guilty Jews and innocent Jews. But Holodolatry forces us to look upon ALL Jews as sacred victims of 'antisemitism'. This would be like bunching together Tojo and other Japanese militarists with the Japanese victims in Hiroshima. Holodolatry has turned into trickery whereby powerful Jews morally shield their abuses from scrutiny and criticism by hiding behind the cult of Jewish Innocence. When will the world admit that bad Jews must partly answer for the plight of good Jews? If bad Jews didn't act so bad, good Jews wouldn't have gotten burned in the goyim's overreaction against bad Jews... just like so many good decent innocent Germans and Japanese would have spared the horrors of WWII if the bad and powerful among them didn't play fire with History. But if the world holds the bad/powerful Germans and bad/powerful Japanese accountable for the suffering of innocent Germans and Japanese, it has yet to do the same with bad/powerful Jews whose vile deeds led to a backlash that destroyed many good Jews. If anything, whereas all Germans, even good/powerless ones, have been tainted with the guilt of Nazism, all Jews, even bad/powerful ones, have been sainted with the aura of Holy Holocaust.

If ALL Jews must be regarded as holy-schmoly innocent victims, then ALL Germans must be regarded as evil-schrivel guilty murderers, which is why every new generation of Germans is inculcated with the cult of eternal guilt regarding Jews. Under rules of Holodolatry, even the worst Jewish thug-murderer is a holy victim while even the nicest German must bear the burden of guilt. Holodolatry has merely led to a new kind of quasi-spiritualized racial supremacism where a certain historic tragedy absolves everyone within a certain group of guilt while abasing everyone of another population to the status of forever-damned. Notice how even the foulest Jew, like Michael Cohen, seeks a way out by yammering about how his so-and-so relative may have been a 'holocaust survivor'. This is why, in the current climate, if a Jew raped and murdered a white goy's mother, the white goy is likely to praise the attack as justified because a holy Jew done it. Just ask the Palestinians how morality works in the current West. Jews can do no wrong because Holodolatry elevated them to permanent status of holy-hood.

If someone has clearly been murdered, it'd be retarded to turn the discussion into a matter of "It was the greatest and worst murder of all time" vs "It didn't happen." Rather, the murder should be investigated thoroughly and understood within the larger context. Was the victim a totally innocent saint who was killed for no good reason by some deranged nutter, or was it more complicated? Among individuals, moral simplicity is sufficient for understanding murder: A real sicko killed a perfectly nice person for no rational reason. But on the historical level where every nation/group is made up of so many individuals, some good and some bad, moral dynamics becomes far more complicated. As for WWII, it's reasonable to say the Jew acted badly and the German overreacted with brutality and even murder. Why deny the murder when it did happen? But then, was it the greatest murder of all time? And did the German really stab the Jew six million times?

Of course, many Jews will spin even the most sincere attempt to better understand WWII and the Shoah as just another kind of 'holocaust denial'. To these Jews, anything shy of the narrative claiming that "totally innocent six million Jews died at the hands of totally deranged Germans" is tantamount to 'denial'. But whatever such rabid Jews say, responsible people can and should support a new historical approach that tries to understand the context in which the horrors happened.
Indeed, this is the approach with communism. While most historians will agree that millions perished under communism, they nevertheless take into consideration the context in which these things happened. Communism gained in influence because there were real problems with capitalism. Bolsheviks did terrible things but had popular support because the Old System had failed on so many fronts(and because White Armies offered nothing new). Khmer Rouge came to power because the CIA destabilized Cambodia and the US rained tons of bombs on the country. And even though the Khmer Rouge were genuinely nuts, many Cambodians turned to them for a reason. So, even without justifying the evils of communism, one at least tries to understand the events and why they happened under the historical circumstances.

And the same kind of perspective is necessary in regards to the Holocaust. Why did so many people come to hate Jews, and not just in Germany? Was Hitler simply evil or were some of his decisions justified given the challenges? Also, should we speak of simple good guys and bad guys when the British, Americans, French, and Russians were also super-imperialists with blood on their hands in the creation of their empires? And what was the Jewish role in geo-politics(of World War I, Russian Revolution, and World War II) that made the tensions between National Socialist Germany and World Jewry all the worse and more dangerous?

In other words, we don't need the Denial Narrative to better understand WWII and the Shoah. We only need the Corrective Narrative(to revise the falsehoods about the Holocaust) and better contextual understanding to understand why such a thing could have happened. And if Jews had many enemies, why should that be surprising? Many peoples throughout history were hated or dreaded for some reason or another. Romans, Germanic Barbarians, Huns, Assyrians, Egyptians, Vikings, Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Japanese, and etc. They had fans but also haters. Given that Jews amassed vast fortunes and used influence to steer world events(to the detriment of certain peoples), why is anyone surprised that some of this led to Jew-hatred? We aren't surprised that those under British Imperialism came to hate the Anglos. Or that Poles came to hate Germans and Russians. We understand why the Chinese came to hate the Japanese. Then, it should be understandable why some peoples came to resent or hate Jews. Indeed, should Palestinians be marked as 'irrational anti-semites' for hating Jews given what Jews did to Palestinians? You see, anti-Jewish hatred can be totally justifiable. If Germans and Japanese came to be hated and died in large numbers as a result of the backlash from their enemies, then why is anyone surprised that Jews were also met with violent backlash? (Jews bitch about past pogroms against Jews but usually rationalize black pogroms against whites and non-blacks on account of black victimization in the past. But using the same logic, pogroms against Jews could be justified on account of Jewish exploitation of goyim. But of course, Jewish Morality accords Jews the power to fix or nix any narrative. So, goy violence against Jews was, is, and shall always be bad, but black violence against whites or non-blacks can be deemed justifiable on account of 'history'. It's almost as if Jews are above history as they and their favored allies cannot be judged by it even as they tirelessly judge it.)

Instead of denying the Shoah, its falsehoods need to be corrected and questions must be asked as to what role Jewish Power played in exacerbating tensions around the world that led to the conflagrations of the 20th century. While Jews shouldn't be scapegoated as the sole villains of history, neither should they be escape-boated as the only ones with clean hands who, for no reason at all, got their knuckled smashed. (Perhaps, the hope among some goyim is that smart and pushy Jews will change their nasty ways and treat them nice IF they denounce Nazis as the worst evil and defend Jews as eternal saintly victims. Fat chance. Jews will grab the mantle of eternal victimhood but not act saintly. Result is consecration of Jewish megalomania as the summit of morality.)

GOY'S GUIDE TO KEEPING KOSHER - Brother Nathanael

Sunday, October 31, 2021

Charles Murray and His Critic Edward Dutton are both too fixated on Facts to understand that 'Woke' Woes derive from the Faith-driven Delusions of the Current Year — Awesome White Race-ism's Role in US History — The Need for White Fidelism if Whites are to Survive as People & Culture

https://vdare.com/articles/murrayism-as-in-charles-murray-has-failed-now-what

And, more immediately, it shows that “Murrayism”—trying reasonably to discuss racial differences while making many concessions to the anti-science Left and suppressing Politically Incorrect science that goes further—has failed. Now what?

What is to be done?

Name the Jewish Supremacism and call for White Liberation from it. Jews control academia, media, deep state, and much else. Probe into the source of PC and 'wokeness', and they're invariably part of the Jewish Strategy to suppress white identity, pride, and autonomy lest whites-going-their-own-way or WGTOW happens. Jewish Supremacist Power needs white submission much like a rider needs an obedient horse. To Jews, whites are just dog, cattle, or horse.
After all, if PC or 'wokery'(and its mantras about 'equity', 'diversity', and 'inclusion') really mattered as universal principles, why is there no outcry among politicians and 'mainstream' journalists about how the US continues to abet the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians? How come there is hardly any discourse about disproportionate Jewish wealth, influence, and privilege in top industries and institutions? So much for Jewish commitment to 'equity'. How come there is no discussion of Jewish role in Western Imperialism — Jewish bankers certainly bankrolled much of it, and Jewish merchants provided all manner of materials and services to white imperialists and invaders around the world? Why is there utter silence about lack of 'inclusion' of Palestinian-Americans in media and high places that would allow for viewpoint 'diversity' as counter to the Zionist-centric worldview that animates American Foreign Policy?
In other words, how come Jews, the richest and most powerful group in the West, are passed-over by the inquisitions of PC and 'wokery'? It is because 'wokeness' has been conceived by Jews to ostracize and impugn whites(especially Anglos and Germanics) for their 'historical sins' while overlooking the dark facts of Jewish role in history. This is what Charles Murray and Edward Dutton fail to address. If you want to understand the Nile River, you must find the source. If you want to understand the current 'woke' madness, you must unveil the source, which is Jewish Power. If you don't have the sense to realize this and the courage to address it, you might as well just give up. It's like bitching about your house being on fire without ever naming the suspects who either set the fire or hired others to do so.

Another key tactic against Jewish-controlled 'wokeness' must be to reject using ‘racist’ as epithet. Take it from the only true race-ist. Spell it as ‘race-ism’ to accentuate the meaning of -Ism, i.e. -Ism means belief, and race-ism should mean belief in the reality of race & racial differences and the need for racial consciousness. Jews and blacks have strong racial consciousness, and look how they grew in power... whereas whites have been sinking like a stone ever since they abandoned their own race-ism. Without race-ism, a people are invariably doomed. It's a law of history, even of nature.

Also, repeat the truth of BAMMAMA or 'blacks are more muscular and more aggressive'. So much of Black Problem can be explained by thuggery fueled by contempt for 'slow' and 'faggoty' whitey. The essence of black hostility toward whites isn't driven by anger about history but arrogance over biology. Black guys see white guys as a bunch of wussy 'faggoty-ass' weaklings and treat them like punching bags. And black girls hate 'white bitches' for being prettier and taking black men from them. If 'history' is the main reason for black violence, why do blacks so often attack nonwhites as well? Blacks take pride in thuggery and feel it's their 'lion-king' right to make predatory moves on weaker races. And of course, this thug-pride often leads to black-on-black violence and mayhem as well because so many Negro males vie for the title of who-be-the-most-badass-mofo-in-da-hood.

There is also the matter of JAMIAMO, or 'Jews are more intelligent and more obnoxious', i.e. Jewish Supremacism and contempt for goyim are largely the product of tribal arrogance stemming from a combination of higher intelligence and nastier will, made all the more aggressive and hostile by Covenant-thinking. Jews feel they are the Chosen of God or History to rule over inferior goyim. Jews will never admit to this and instead yammer about 'diversity, equity, and inclusion', but always judge people by what they DO than what they SAY. Why do Jews pull strings to suppress BDS, a movement calling for justice for Palestinians? You see, Jews may SAY one thing, but what they really DO is a different matter. Jews see Palestinians as mere cattle to be slaughtered or vermin to be expelled off the land.

Chucky Cucky Murray: “America is self-destructing, discarding its founding ideals…”

ROTFL.

What made America(by which we mean White America) powerful and rich was not its founding ideals but its founding practices, which was AWESOME RACE-ISM.

AWESOME WHITE RACE-ISM made America powerful. It took all the lands from native Red Savages. If not for awesome white race-ism, whites would have recognized the 'rights' of the American Indians and made hardly any moves to wrest the vast territories for themselves for agriculture and industry. Awesome white race-ism also kept Black Savages down. This was crucial because Europeans europeanize whereas Africans africanize. Left to their own devices, blacks are prone to turning societies into Haiti or Detroit. It was because whites maintained control over blacks that black labor was rendered productive and contributed much to American development. If blacks had been granted equal freedom early on, they would have gone into 'africanization' mode and worked to undermine the American experiment; they also would have attacked and victimized the weaker white race in increasing crime waves. This isn't to deny the injustice of slavery(or the 'genocide' of the Red Savages or American Indians for that matter), but America simply couldn't have been realized into existence with its 'founding ideals' alone. America was essentially an extension of European Civilization in the New World, and whites had to use much force and violence to ensure they were in control to conceive and construct their preferred vision of civilization.
But then, could the modernization and progress of the entire world have been possible without white violence? Even when the West arrived before the Rest bearing gifts and offering friendship, the latter tended to rebuff the white guests and ordered them to go away or refused to adopt the advanced ways of the West. The Rest had to be forced into adopting modernity, and much of this force was awesomely white race-ist.

AWESOME WHITE RACE-ISM also took the Southwest Territory from Mexicans who were deemed stagnant, backward, mired in inertia, and hopelessly lacking in initiative. Who can deny Anglos did so much more with the SW territories than Mexicans could ever have? Indeed, to this day, Mexican economy is just an addendum to the US economy. Awesome white race-ism also limited the mass immigration of the yellow hordes. As there were many more Chinese than whites, open borders policy toward the Far East would have meant the American West, though conquered and settled by whites, could turn yellow-dominant, a much bigger version of what came to be the fate of Hawaii. Also, if studious yellows with decent IQ arrived in huge numbers, they might out-compete whites(and other races) in schools and take over institutions founded by whites for the purpose of white power. Why would whites want that? Awesome race-ism shielded America from such a fate. (Just like Chinese resented Western imperialists, aka 'foreign devils', taking over parts of China, white Americans had reason to worry about possible demographic imperialism if US enacted open-borders policy for the Far East that made up 1/4 the world population.) Awesome white race-ism once reminded Jews that America is a CHRISTO-RACE-IST country and that Jews better behave. Back then, most Jews got the message and wrote X-mas songs and made Jesus movies; they knew better than to rock the boat too much. But what has happened to the US ever since whites ceded power to the Jews? Nails are being hammered into the coffin of White America. What would happen to Israel if Jews allowed non-Jews, especially those hostile to Jewishness, to take over key institutions and industries of finance, media, academia, government, and etc.? Jews would merely be marking time as the demise of Israel as a Jewish State would be assured.

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. ” - Ayn Rand

And yet, what goes for ‘anti-racism’ in the US is a game of ascribing moral, social or political significance to Jewish and black genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry(that makes him either Jewish or black).

And Rand was pro-Zionist and had a way of generalizing Jewish Israelis as a people of individuality and progress while ascribing subhuman savagery to ALL Arabs.

Now, I would half-agree with Rand. It’s stupid to assign virtues or abilities to any individual based on his race. While certain races have more particular abilities and positive attributes than others, it simply doesn't compute that just because one happens to be ____, one possesses particular virtues/values. Germany produced many great musical composers, but most Germans had no musical talent. Singapore is relatively a cleaner country, but it too has corrupt people. There have been many great Jewish thinkers, but most Jews aren't big on thought. Individual virtue can't be ascribed to religious affiliation either. Just because one is a Christian doesn’t mean he acts Christian. Plenty of Buddhists are thugs and gangsters, more into money than Nirvana.

But a saner concept of race-ism is NOT about ascribing virtues to individuals based on race. Rather, it’s the sense that an individual isn’t just some atomized creature defined by ideology or individual merit/demerit but an inheritor of a long history, genetic as well as cultural, and that he gains from a sense of solidarity with others of his racial family. While every individual can claim something unique(especially if he’s gifted), his essence is largely the product of heritage and inheritance in appearance, allusions, and remembrance. What is history but collectivity and continuity of memory? Biography makes sense only in the larger context of History, and every person belongs to a certain group as he didn't create himself but is the product of the history/culture/biology of a people. Ayn Rand's ultra-individualism(which she never meant for Jews, however) would only make sense if humans were godlike and created themselves into existence and created their own culture, language, values, and everything.

Now, no one should assume that some individuals are better simply because they are of his or any tribe. He should always remind himself that there are cretins among his own kind and good people among other tribes/races. Still, his people are his people, just like his family is his family. He is part of a culture and history, and it’s his duty to preserve them and ensure their survival and continuity. Putting individuality at the center would maybe make sense if people could live eternally. But every individual is born, live, and die, and what really lives on is the people-and-culture, in which he is merely a link.

Also, most individuals lack individuality. Rand’s heroic ideal of individual is maybe one in a million. While the truly gifted have a greater claim to individuality with their genius, most people find meaning as part of a community and tradition. And even decadents who reject tradition and community go off to form their own subcultures or dogmaville, which is why most people fall under the spell of Toohey in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Tooheyism is presented as villainous, but most people will always be Tooheyian, and therefore, the real solution is to arrive at a better Tooheyism than fall for the delusion that Howard-Roarkism can serve as the model for most people, something that Rand herself didn’t believe because she went out of her way to show how Roark is innately superior in every way, which makes him rare indeed. He was born superior, with precious gifts of talent, will, and fiber.

A better Tooheyism is found in the Frank Capra movie IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE that takes the needs of the community into account but for its good than for vanity of control, which is what cynical Toohey is really about. He actually feels contempt for the masses but knows how to mold them.

Charles Murray is ultimately hopeless because he approaches the current problem as a conflict of ideas and values when it's really a battle for control, i.e. Jews are willing to DO ANYTHING to keep the power, which hinges on the submission of whites to Jewish authority. For Jews, it's power uber principles. Jews push 'wokeness' and bait 'white guilt' to morally paralyze whites into serving Jews. Jews want to be permanent masters over whites who are to be trained like dogs. In failing to recognize or admit this, Murray is either utterly clueless or ultimately craven because, when push comes to shove, he crumbles before the Jew Taboo. Murray is like a fool who keeps speaking the truth in the hope of winning over those whose very power depends on the Big Lie. To the extent that his truth is threatening to their power, Jews will never give his ideas the time of day.

Paradoxically, Charles Murray pretends he’s unaware because he’s all-too-aware of Jewish Power. Even in his disadvantaged and disgraced state, his only avenue to respectability is through Jewish Power. While most Jews dump on him, some Jews(neocons) find him useful because, for all his talk of racial differences, he is hostile to white identity and utterly submissive to Zionism and Jewish supremacism. So, his books still get published by the 'respectable' press even if not the promotion and attention that Murray and his admirers think they deserve.
If Murray spoke of the need for Wower(white power) and pointed to Jews as anti-white agents, he would lose whatever remains of his respectability. His last remaining cred as a scholar and 'decent' human being would go up in smoke, and he would be tossed into the same wilderness with Kevin MacDonald(who does name the Jew) and Jared Taylor(Senator-Geary-like craven cuck who won’t name the Jew despite Jews tarring-and-feathering his ass until the cows come home). He would lose all access to the 'better kind of people'. Reportedly, the bald-headed cuck lowlife even voted for Joe Biden. Now, I can understand not voting for Trump the scump but for Biden? Murray also bent over for ‘gay marriage’ because all the 'better kind of people' got on the globo-homo wagon(and because he has 'gay' friends). If he’s going to be so craven, why not cuck all the way? The fool doesn’t know what he wants.

Andrew Breitbart said politics is downstream from culture. It’s no less true that ideology is downstream from idolatry, and so-called 'Western Values' are now mainly about idolizing Jews, blacks, and homos: The Tridolatry. If Murray were a bit more self-aware, he would understand why there’s such a taboo about blacks. After all, he has operated on the basis of a self-imposed taboo about Jews. He laments how others cannot speak honestly about the Black Problem, but he refused to self-examine as to why he cannot speak critically on the Jewish Question, or even address the question at all.
Being less enamored of blacks, he can be more factual and rational in his discussion of them. But he is so reverential toward Jews that he cannot write critically of them even though it’s the Jews who are slapping his silly bald head and cackling with hideous glee. In a Commentary magazine piece, Charles Murray tackled the Harpending-Cochran theory on Jewish Intelligence. In a way, he took on a controversial topic but in such a gushing tone, and his last words were, “Uh gosh gee whiz by golly, maybe Jews are the Chosen People… Can I suck you Jewish Wiener now?”
So, while Murray is just barely controversial-courageous enough to ponder higher Jewish IQ(which makes some Jews nervous), it is only as flattery and hero-worship. It never occurs to Murray that IQ doesn’t equal virtue and that Jews have often used their higher smarts for evil ends. (If Germans and Japanese can use their considerable talents for bad ends, why can't this be said of Jews as well? Saying that Jews are incapable of evil would mean they are innately nobler, and that would certainly smack of racial supremacism. But such is the unspoken assumption of current discourse.)

Jew-Worship is the idiotic side of HBD, a kind of IQ worship. Just like little boys worship baseball players based on batting stats, HBD clowns worship people based on IQ. As Jews are smarter, HBD-ers are in awe and dream of Jews finally coming around to their side. While Murray is right to admire higher IQ among Jews(as intelligence is pretty amazing), he is wrong to pretend that Jewish IQ = Jewish wisdom/virtue. But because he’s so devoted to IQ-worship, he seems incapable of critical perspective on Jewish Power.
So, even though he talks of blacks and street crime, he doesn’t talk of Jews and white-collar crime. How many Russians died as the result of Jewish Rape of Russian Economy? How many Arabs/Muslims died as the result of High-IQ Jews in media, think-tanks, academia, and government pushing the Iron-Zion Curtain policy?

If Murray had any sense, he’d realize that the silence about black pathology isn’t much different in kind from his silence about Jewish pathology. Just like his gushing reverence toward Jews shuts down any honest discussion of the Jewish Question, the white awe of blacks as loud rappers, victorious athletes, booty-shakers, long-dongers, and bellowing orators has made it impossible for them to think rationally or factually about the black problem.

Indeed, what was the real appeal of MLK? His message of equality? Is that why he came to be deified? Or was it because he could holler up a storm as the mighty Kong of Morality? The Civil Rights Movement soon became a Racial Cult Movement. Not only was MLK howling up a storm as the new voice of god but there was Muhammad Ali whupping everyone and calling himself the 'greatest' and there were so many white musical groups taking inspiration from black music. And it was eventually followed by Jungle Fever and white cuckery, sexual as well as spiritual.
That is why white people cannot be rational about blacks. In MLK, they hear not just some reiteration of founding principles of dead white males but the voice of god hisself; MLK be the real founding father or brotha in their cuckish minds.
Blacks are deemed as physical and spiritual superior race because of their racial attributes. In other words, so-called 'anti-racism' is predicated on Black Racial Superiority. This is why even black criminality cannot be handled rationally. When people worship something, even the terrible things it does is deemed as just and awesome. Did the Aztecs condemn their terrifying gods? No, they knelt before the gods and offered more sacrifices. Did the Jews ever blame their God for sending floods and pestilence and etc? No, God was always right, and Jews blamed themselves as unworthy and deserving of the punishment.
Likewise, whites now worship blacks to such an extent that whatever blacks do might as well be divine. It is prized as divine gift, like jungle music, jungle fever, and jungle sports. Or, it is accepted as divine retribution for bad whitey’s ‘racism’, historical, systemic, individual, subconscious, and etc. So, no matter what blacks do to create more havoc and mayhem, they are righteous and justified whereas whites must find fault within themselves for the deserved punishment. It’s all about idolatry of magical blackness than ideology based on universal morality. Whites feel guilty about blacks because they see blacks as a wronged SUPERIOR people. Notice whites feel ZERO sympathy for Palestinian plight because Pallies are regarded as losers. Who cares is inferior losers are wronged, especially when America is all about WINNERS? And no one cares about ‘white trash’, brown, or yellow victims of black crime because they’re regarded as just a bunch of 'lame losers'.

When whites were proudly race-ist in the past, they made sure blacks didn’t gain such power over whites. Even though whites didn’t spell it out, they understood that blacks posed a unique threat to the white race because tougher black guys could thump white guys and hump white women(infected with jungle fever). Whites understood the biological raciality of nature and countered it with social race-ism. Because nature made blacks tougher and more aggressive than whites, whites needed social defenses against blacks.
But the prosperity of post WWII years made whites drop their guard. They became more complacent, especially when white youths got turned onto black music. Also, the Cold War made US vie for the hearts and minds of the non-white world, and so, the US had to suppress its ‘racist’ past and practices. Also, Jews took over key institutions & industries and figured on using ‘white guilt’ & ‘white fever’, especially in relation to blacks, to weaken and paralyze white identity and power. The combination of Jewish brains and black brawn proved fatal to whites who lost their crucial race-ist defenses. The result is the current America of Cuckery, Jungle Fever, Iron Zion, Idolatry of St. George Floyd, Merrick Garfinkle’s war on whites, and etc. And what do whites have as their spokesmen? Lindsey Graham and Ben Sasse. LOL.

I haven’t read Chuck the Cuck Murray’s latest book, but I’ll bet he doesn’t discuss BAMMAMA or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. If he did, my wrong. At any rate, THAT ISSUE, more than IQ differences, explains why blacks are so problematic. If blacks were low IQ but were a bunch of Gary Colemans or Emmanuel Lewises, would they pose much of a problem? No, blacks are dangerous because they can whup the white race. Paradoxically, this danger that turns whites off to blacks also turns them onto blacks. Black-White relations is like one where a black guy beats up and humiliates a white guy who then cheers for a black athlete who beats up whites on TV. White guy hates a black guy for kicking his butt but then loves a black athlete for kicking butt on TV. It’s the same in France and UK. The very white guy who hates being beaten up by African or Jamaican immigrants will worship the black athlete on TV as his national hero. (And same thing is happening in Japan.) Sports Imperialism is very lucrative to blacks, and Jewish globalists know it’s a potent weapon for subverting national unity and pride among goyim. Black guy comes to France and beats up white French guys, but the French cheer him as the New French National Hero. It’d be like Poles praising the German Wehrmacht in WWII as the New Polish Military. It’s utterly laughable.

Not only Murray but Edward Dutton would rather discuss IQ because it’s drier and cleaner. Also, as whites have higher IQ than blacks, it makes whites feel better. But the problem isn’t IQ. Lower IQ doesn’t necessarily translate into criminality. Poor whites are far less criminal than blacks. Mexicans aren’t high-crime. The real problem is blacks are tougher and more aggressive. If whites weren’t crazy about sports and pop music, black thuggery might be seen for what it is. But because this thug-advantage is sensationalized in sports(that characterizes American pride of manhood and even the cult of virtue) and because pop music sensationalizes rappers as preachers-of-badassery, black bad behavior actually is tremendous profitable to blacks in terms of business and prestige.

So, if Dutton wants to be serious, he needs to be more 'portnoic' and discuss the song-strong-dong factor than babble on and on about IQ. We need more vulgar discourse. When a surgeon must remove a cancer, he must cut into the flesh and see the ugliness inside. To understand what is really happening, we need to understand that the real forces of power in history are ‘vulgar’ and crude. And only neo-fascism can deal with the pornographics of power. Not that one should surrender to such crudity. Rather, one should understand the true nature of power before finding ways to tame it. But idiot Murray lives with the fantasy that Real America was shaped by ‘founding ideals’. Total BS.

Indeed, if US had been settled by Imperial Germany under autocracy, it would have developed just the same. Germans had talent & work ethic, and the New World had tons of land and resources. Germany in the late 19th century was autocratic but raced past UK in industry & many fields and, pound for pound, achieved more than the US. Meanwhile, democracy spread to Latin America, and the results have hardly been spectacular.

The secret of American Rise was the Anglo-Germanic stock, the Protestant Work Ethic, property rights, and tons of resources and land to be exploited. Those could be had without 'liberal democracy'. Indeed, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did, at least on a per capita basis, just as well as the United States even though they didn't throw off the 'yoke of British Tyranny'.

Murray’s book is clear, concise, and well-argued. But I’m not really sure who he was trying to convince... It’s not even for most conservatives: they know these things even if they are careful not to discuss them, let alone review books that discuss them.

But then, why are 'conservatives' afraid to discuss such topics in the first place? Why do they submit to the taboo and remain silent or speak only in hushed tones among themselves, and worse, more often than not, condemn others in their camp when they do show some courage in taking on controversy?

Why is it that people know the facts but fear to speak them? Part of the reason may be careerism and peer pressure, but it's not like people are dragged off to concentration camps to be shot. Or literally burned at the stake. Why the excessive fear then?

It's because even 'conservatives' have internalized the faith-based sacraments of the current idolatry. Even if they know about the Black Problem, they too worship MLK, believe in America's 'historical sin', and hope for redemption via the second-coming of some Magic Negro. And they too are so enamored of blacks as sports and music stars that their starry-eyed vision of blacks as idols and 'heroes' fall silent on matters that might be offensive to blacks. What do fans fear most? Offending the celebrities they idolize. Similar dynamics operate between whites and blacks. After all, the taboos around 'racism' only really applies to blacks. To be 'racist' means to be blaspheme against the idolatry of black coolery and cast doubts on the coming of the Magic Negro as messiah.

Also, as 'racism' has been so relentlessly associated with Nazism, KKK, and 'white supremacism', even the slightest hint of 'racism' is immediately associated with Extremism. Such association occurs both institutionally and psychologically. Jewish-run media go all out to associate even the cuckish likes of Charles Murray with 'white supremacism' and 'extremism', and all those weaned on PC-indoctrination have been conditioned to immediately associate the faintest whiff of white racial thinking with the most extreme forms of murderous hatred. FBI has investigated the who-dun-it of "It's Okay to be White" signs. No wonder then that kids in elite colleges react to the invitation of Charles Murray as if the red carpet has been rolled out for the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Facts are cold but Faith is warm, and people prefer fuzzy warmth. Also, the cult of hope is an easier way to cope than dealing with hard facts that call for real action. Facts about blacks imply we must find ways to deal with harsh realities, but Faith about blacks allows people to ignore inconvenient facts and keep dreaming of a better future where blacks finally realize their messianic role and serve to redeem the white race of historical sin and the wickedness of 'whiteness'. This is why people react so violently to Black Facts or ignore them altogether. Trying to shake them out of their Faith is like taking candy from a child... or taking the blanket from Linus(of Peanuts comics). So many 'liberals' and even 'conservatives' are really delusionals.

Of course, in the long run, their Faith will destroy them as stark facts will eventually catch up to them — you can ignore that the house is on fire only for so long. But, they'd rather kick the can into the future and cling to the hope that things will somehow turn out alright if they worship MLK enough and sing paeans to St. George Floyd. And Jews want it this way because white spiritual and sensual submission to blacks means the extinguishment of white identity and pride, all the better for Jews to exploit and prey on white energies.

To understand the power of Faith, consider modern 'conservatives' who are very much part of the secular world but still believe in God. Now, they've gone to the same modern schools and studied science. They know there's no factual evidence of God or empirical data on miracles. But they still believe in God. Why? It just so happens that their sense of the sacred is deeply meaningful to them regardless of evidence. Secular 'Liberals' might scoff at such incorrigible 'conservative' need for Faith, but they are fooling themselves because most so-called 'liberals' are no less psychologically prone to faith-thinking. They may not believe in Jesus as the Son of God but, for some reason or other, they believe they see holiness in the homo's anus or George Floyd's thug-face consecrated by the Jewish-run media and academia. They may not go for communion but line up to wash stinky Negro's feet or taken the umpteenth Covid booster shot. And they'd rather repeat the dogmatic catechisms of Political Correctness than question everything with a critical mind.

So, if people really want to address the issue of PC or 'wokery', the approach must be psychological as well as factual. One must get to the psychological ROOT of why people allow faith-centered feelings to take precedence over facts and logic. It's like the ending in STAR WARS. It wasn't enough to blast at the exterior of the Death Star. Luke Skywalker had to shoot laser beams into its very core to blow it up. When facts are lobbed at the 'woke' or timid 'conzos', they hardly dent the ideological armor. One must penetrate into their psychological interior and strike at the idolatrous root.

Now, what distinguishes whites from Jews & blacks(and Hindus and some others) is that so many whites root for the other team. Most Jews and blacks(and Hindus) root for their own team, and this is simply natural. So, their worldviews have less to do with facts or faith than with simple fidelity to their own kind. They are into Fidelism, or belief in fidelity to one's own race, tribe, ethnicity, nation, or etc. Fidelity is more basic than faith. It's like one's fidelity to one's family has little to do with ideology, spirituality, or morality. It's just a sense of belonging and gut loyalty. Whites used to be fidelist, i.e. they believe in the fidelity between whites and white lands, between white men and white women, between white parents and white children, between white elites and white masses, between white heritage and white future. But fidelism broke down among whites, and they are losing because Jews and blacks(and Hindus) are still in fidelist mode.

Many whites reject fidelism and go for faithism, which makes them root for the other side. Faithism imbues many whites with the magical myth that Jews and blacks are holier than whites whereas whites are almost irredeemably tainted with the historical 'sin' of 'racism', 'slavery', and 'antisemitism', which means the ONLY way whites have any hope of salvation is by cucking to Jews and Blacks as their masters. Unless whites regain their fidelist ways, they are finished because whites are divided between those who still cling to some vestiges of fidelism and those who are full-fledged faithists whose highest vision of holiness is about total submission to Jews and blacks(and homos, the only whites with some innate holiness points).

TOUGHER BLACKS BEAT UP WEAKER WHITE KIDS, BUT JEW-RUN MEDIA SAY WHITES OPPRESS NOBLE BLACKS