Afro-Colonization of White Wombs(ACOWW) has been facilitated by White Achievements and Power of Electricity and Electronica as Magnifiers and Amplifiers of Black Prowess

Many nationalists blame the rise of feminism as the main cause of West's downfall.

Feminism is a big problem, but it alone can't do much harm. After all, prior to mass immigration-invasion, feminism was just a headache in Sweden, not an 'existential' matter. Feminism or no feminism, the real threat to the white race is due to biological differences among the races, especially between whites and blacks.

After all, the white underclass is hardly intellectual/ideological or into stuff like 'feminist' Critical Theory. Most never came across academic tracts on anything. But we see more and more 'white trash' women breeding with black men than with white men... which only adds to white male depression and White Death, esp as white-have-nots have no leadership or guidance from white elites. If anything, they are condemned for 'white privilege' by the white elites who hog the real privilege(by cucking out to Jewish overlords). White elites ameliorate the burden of 'white guilt' by fancy displays of virtue-signaling. Look how far Tom Brokaw, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and their ilk got by mixing privilege/success with self-serving displays of 'conscience' that dumps most of the burden of 'white privilege' on Joe Sixpack.

Even anti-white-ness per se may not be the main threat to the White Race. After all, white women are not attracted to American Indians -- legit 'victims' of US history -- despite the Narrative that morally advantages Indians over whites. So, even if white men are accused of 'genocide' against the Noble Red Man, the fact is most white women will not run into the arms of Red Man. And no matter how much we hear about the mistreatment of Chinese railroad workers, white women will not have 'yellow fever' for yellow gorks.

The real problem is electronica and Afro-funkery.

Paradoxically, the greatest achievement and strength of a people can end up serving the power of another people. It's like the roads built by Romans. They were meant to expand Roman power and domination. But in the end, it made the invasion of Rome much easier because the barbarians could use those very pathways to march toward Rome to sack it. So, what the Romans built to ensure their domination over others facilitated the domination by others over Romans. Rome ended up being 'host' to invaders. It's like a dog's mobility is a great advantage, but it also enables the spread of parasites much more effectively. Dog's speed allow dogs to hunt and run from danger. But it also means dogs will run all around and spread fleas and ticks to other dogs and mammals. Dogs unwittingly serve as the hosts and carriers of the very creatures that feed on them. It's like the Alien creature in Ridley Scott's movie uses humans as host-carriers of their eggs.

Prior to white development of mass travel, mass communication, and electronic media, blacks were nothing more than oogity-boogity primitives in their own world. Though physically powerful and aggressive, they lacked the intellect and temperament to develop the kind of technology necessary for world domination. They mostly chucked spears at hippos and then yelled "run like a mothafuc*a". They beat on bongo drums and shook their booties and told folktales about how someone's grandma was an antelope. So, no matter how physically powerful and wild they were, they were stuck in their own little worlds and meant nothing to the rest of The World.

So, how did Afromania spread(indeed, even before homomania)? It was due to white achievements in electricity and electronica. Electricity allows the development of electronica, the gadgets, especially of media and entertainment, that AMPLIFY and MAGNIFY human expression, showmanship, and prowess. Before electronica, it took an entire orchestra or a big chorus to make loud sounds. With electronica, a skinny Mexican like Carlos Santana or dufusy Briton like Jimmy Page could create thunder with a single guitar on par with Wagner's operas. Rock music wasn't possible without electricity. Prior to electronica, black music could be loud and raucous but its reach was limited to a saloon or hall. But when bluesmen went electric, they sounded 1000x more powerful.
Even without electronica, people could express themselves powerfully, but the impact was limited. Electronica amplified the power of expression 100x and transmitted images and sounds to millions and even billions of people, especially via satellite technology.

Now, blacks had NOTHING to do with modern science. White folks did it all, just about. Even non-white achievements by Japanese were micro-improvements on white macro-paradigms. So, the power of electricity and electronica developed as achievements of white power to serve white power.
The problem is the power of electricity and electronica came to favor the expressions of another people, even ones that posed harm to the very people who developed the technologies.
It's like Japanese companies like Sony and Toshiba made lots and lots of TV sets and sold them around the world. So, did Japanese TV's spread Japanese culture and prestige? No, for the most part, what people around the world watched on those Japanese-made TV sets were Hollywood and American culture. So, if Japan sold 100 million TV sets, they did little to spread Japanese racial or cultural prestige or enhance Japan's soft power. What really mattered was what was broadcast on TV, and it was mostly American sports and entertainment and movies and music. Japanese provided the hardware but not the idols for global consumption.

So, all those Japanese TV's were really serving the American Sound and Image.
In the end, who prints books is less significant than who provides the ideas and images conveyed on the pages of books and magazines.
I mean a person in some part of the world with a Sony TV does NOT think when watching a movie, "I'm watching a TV set made by Sony. Gee, those Japanese make good TV's. Good workmanship. Nice technology." No, he ignores all that and just gets excited about what is coming through the Tube, which is far more likely a Hollywood product than a Japanese movie or TV show. If Jews were to make all the TV sets but if Palestinians were to make all the TV shows, which side would gain the advantage? Will people show more appreciation to the fact that Jews made the TV sets OR will they show more appreciation to the programs created by Palestinians?

So, when white folks feel assured of their power because so much of Human Achievement was the result of white genius, white brilliance, and white innovation, they are not seeing the bigger picture. Much of white achievements in technology is merely useful and convenient. People don't pay attention to the technology itself but what it can deliver or convey. How many people know what really goes into a TV, smartphone, computer, internet, or video game in terms of technology and programming? They just like the sight-and-sound, the fun stuff relayed by such technologies. Thus, so much of white genius and white-human-achievement goes undetected and remains invisible. When people flush the toilet, they don't think of the important historical figure who came up with modern plumbing and sewage system.
People are still organisms, and most organismic needs are basic and functional. People do them because they must. It's like taking a urine, taking a dump, drinking water, getting some sleep, cleaning and bathing, and etc. People do them not because they want to but because they must. They're about bodily functions.
What people fixate most on are things of pleasure. Not just any food but sugary-creamy food. Music and dance, related to sex culture, as music and sexuality light up same parts of the brain. And human organisms still have that warrior-hunter instinct, which is why people, esp men, still love sports and action movies and video games.

As for culture, elitist high art has no chance against pop culture. Elite culture had prestige when the world was ruled by aristocrats with fancy airs. They were patrons of high art. Also, the power of religion emphasized themes of grace, dignity, transcendence, and redemption over ones of wantonness, excess, vulgarity, and shamelessness. For most of human history, most people had humble folk culture and family lore. Elites had high culture. But in the democratized world of mass consumption, pop culture is the only dominant culture, and it is driven by profits derived from catering to 'base' animalistic drives of masses of human organisms.

White people developed the power of electricity and invented electronica on a massive scale. Today, even tribesmen in Africa have smartphones that connect with all the world. Since white folks developed the technology and since East Asian nations make a lot of these gadgets, one would think the power of electricity/electronica would favor whites above all and Asians second. But, the controllers of much of globalist media and entertainment are Jews who generally happen to have their own ethno-organismic interests that tend to be hostile especially toward white gentiles(but also against Muslims and Asians). So, movies like GET OUT, DJANGO UNCHAINED, and 12 YEARS A SLAVE are financed by them(but nothing about the Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map).

Also, in our culture of shameless thuggery and lasciviousness, blacks have a decisive advantage in entertainments with greatest reach for masses around the world: Pop music, sports, vulgar comedy, pornography, increasingly sexualized dance forms, and art of hollering(like in rap battles, though when used well, it can lead to impressive oratory, as with MLK).
Blacks always had these traits, but they were contained in Africa. Someone in Mexico, India, China, Turkey, Iran, or Hungary wouldn't have known about black volume or virility prior to mass electronic communication. But with the spread of electronic networks all around the world, blackness in sports, music, dance, sex, and hollering has spread all over. And this is leading to a kind of Afro-mono-culture. Now, global electronic networks can, theoretically or ideally, spread all sorts of cultures and expressions around the world. And this spirit does exist in the Art Film Community where people still show interest in different works from around the world. But these films make minuscule amount of money. Look at any Variety box office charts, and it's rare for a foreign or indie film to make more than $100,000 at box office in the US, no matter how good the film is. Most indie or foreign films make much less than even that.
Especially in a world culture that is increasingly shameless, infantile, savage, and vulgar, people don't have patience or interest in anything except that which gives them a quick fix or high, like crack or smack. Also, sports is a zero-sum game. People only care about top winners and no one else. Blacks dominate sports because they got more fast-twitch muscles, making them quicker and more explosive. Also, blacks have tougher bones and faster reflexes. Evolution made for racial differences in physical advantages. Since blacks are most wild and dominant in the culture of mass thrills -- even coming up with a dance called 'twerking' -- , World Culture is going Afromaniacal. Long ago, French pop music was unique. While it borrowed elements from other musical styles, it maintained a distinctive Frenchness. But go on youtube and check the top 10 hits of France last year, and it's just French version of Afro-funkery and rap. And look at the French soccer team. Almost all black.

This means that the most advanced part of the world, the West, has done most to promote and disseminate the attitudes and (lack of)manners of the most primitive, aggressive, and troublesome race on earth, the blacks, whose racial nature has made a total mess of Africa, Haiti, Detroit, parts of Baltimore, and etc. Whites built computers and the internet. Blacks had nothing to do with it. But black expressions are spread to all corners of the world via the internet.

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/how-hip-hop-is-fueling-feminism-in-an-unlikely-place/77095?utm

Afromania may be sold as 'diversity', 'feminism', 'progress', or 'tolerance', but it is really Afro-colonization of the world via the CARRIER of white technology. Even though technology was created by high intellect, great discipline, and much learning, their purpose is to make things easier and simpler for most people. Initially, technology was to ensure better survival and production of basic goods like automobiles and laundry machines. They were not about pleasure but necessity and convenience. But once people's basic needs were met, they relied on technology more and more for pleasure, especially with the rise of youth culture in the 50s and 60s when hedonism became the main mode, even to the point of infecting leftism, whereby May 68 in France was ignited by French male students being angry for lack of easy sexual access to coeds.

The masses find most pleasure in sports as form of neo-tribalism, pop music, dance as horny expression, comedy & culture of vulgarity, pornography & other forms of sex culture, and narcissism & celebrity(to the point that even fat homely Lena Dunham imposes herself on us as 'hot stuff), and etc. And blacks have gained dominance in many of those. And because US media have global reach and because internet interconnects all the world, it means Euro-power in electricity and electronica have come to serve as midwife to and carrier of savage Afromania. And this may be a destructive force, not least because modern technology not only allows mass communication but mass travel. In the 50s and 60s, white Britons may have listened to black music and drawn inspiration, but most black Africans had little chance of making it to UK. Also, there were far fewer blacks back then in Africa. But modern medicine and food vastly increased black population in Africa. Also, air travel is now cheap enough that any well-off African can fly to any part of the world. Also, the breakdown of borders and loopy redefinition of 'western values' mean that Africans can willfully endanger themselves at sea to be dragged into Europe, whereupon they can trek from Italy or Spain to northern parts of Europe. And since the 80s, European women have been dosed on madonna-ism, the ideal of white ho having orgy with the entire NBA. This leads to the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. And if you have trepidation about any of that, all of EU, from top to bottom, have been mentally-colonized to condemn you as 'racist'. A people who are only territorially conquered can still survive as a race. Poles and Kurds had been conquered this way, but as most of their women had children for their own men, the people and culture survived. But when the women of a race are womb-colonized by another people, it leads to something like mestizo-ization. The Hispanic colonization of native wombs in Latin America forever destroyed the identity and pride of Meso-Americans who still linger as strangers in their own land, or strangers in a familiar land.

At the current rate, the white race is going from boomers to doomers. Not only do more and more white women invite their wombs to be colonized by black men but white men, as sappy cucks, have embraced their own inferiority and fitfully virtue-signal their 'anti-racism' of having accepted the black man as the 'better man' who's more deserving of possessing and enjoying white female beauty. Paradoxically, white 'progressives' who rhetorically reject the notion of racial differences actively behave in ways that are premised on racial differences. After all, why would white women go with black men unless they believed black men are superior as savage-warrior-hunter-studs over sappy white loser males? And why would white males seek comfort and compensation in Asian women? It's because they are losing white women to black men.

Elementary Truth about Black Nature and Character — Evolution and the Negro — NFL and the Knee-Gro

The main thing we need to understand about blacks is their reactions/responses tend to be brutally elementary. They evolved in close proximity with wild animals, and their mode of being is survival than existence, let alone the meaning of existence. Blacks don’t think, “To be or not to be, that is the question” or “I think, therefore I am.” They sense, “I be if I outrun a hippo, I not be if it done catch my ass and stomp me upside my head.” They feel, “I run(like a mothafuc*a), therefore I be.”

For many thousands of yrs, white folks evolved in environments with reduced contacts with direct threats and dangers. So, there was more room for thinking and pondering. More space for security that favored a calmer disposition.
In contrast, blacks evolved in a world of constant struggle for survival against lions, hyenas, baboons, buffaloes, elephants, crocodiles, hippos, warthogs, leopards, gorillas, cobras, mambas, tse-tse flies, and etc. And because this mode of survival made blacks savage and wild, it was aggravating for Negroes to rub shoulders with other Negroes.

So, black emotions and responses tend to be very elemental and ill-suited for reflection, contemplation, introspection, empathy, and self-awareness. Wrapped tightly in their own egotism, blacks are rarely willing to consider other or opposing points of views. In order for blacks to have survived in harsh Africa, they had to obsess about numero uno or ‘my ass’. And such attitude also fueled a lascivious sexual culture that had black males and females calling most attention to themselves to attract the most mates. It’s no wonder that much of black dance forms have degenerated into stuff like bumping-and-grinding and ‘twerking’. In the black African world, survival depended more on fast-twitch reactions against threats and dangers. It was about instantaneous responses to ‘save my ass’ or ‘kick your ass’. Such emphasis on self-preservation led to self-centrism that, in social expression, came to be all about ‘muh bling’, ‘muh booty’, and ‘muh dick’.

Imagine an antelope or some animal in Africa. Suppose it sees something threatening, which could indeed turn out to be fatal. If it ‘thinks’ or ruminates about the problem, it could end up dead, killed by the predator that lunges at it without mercy. So, its survival depends on the immediate response of fight or flight, not momentary hesitation and earnest curiosity. Blacks developed much the same survivalist modes as other creatures of the African wild. If they saw a lion or hippo, it was about fight or flight. Chuck a spear or chuck your ass out of there. There was no time for calm assessment of the situation, let alone contemplation or meditation.

So, there developed a kind of brutally primitive ‘wisdom’ in black emotional reactions. It’s like Beavis and Butthead are ‘wise’ in an idiot-savant way precisely because they are so dumb. Lacking intellect and penchant for reflection, they opt for the occam’s razor of what seems most obvious, like ‘boing’. And they are right half the time with such simple rule of thumb.


Likewise, there’s an elemental truth in how blacks see the world. It may not be deep or profound, but it immediately gauges the brutal stakes of survival… like ‘run like a mothafuc*a’ upon catching the first whiff of danger: "Don’t think about it. Just run and save your ass." Or "the nigga’s craaaazy!" There is no need to psychoanalyze the Negro. Just ‘jungloanalyze’ him.

So, blacks are very adept at elemental survival… but when it comes to complex issues of history, society, ethics, morality, and such, their elemental reactions and responses fall short. Their responses to such matters are uselessly fight-or-flight. Many of them fail to grasp that complex mental tasks cannot be performed if one remains in hunting or playing-basketball mode.

Indeed, the black habit of yelling ‘racist, racist, racist’ is just a verbal form of spear-chucking. It isn’t real thought. It’s “Here’s a spear for your ass, whitey. I wants more gibs-me-dat.” It’s a manifestation of the hunting instinct. Or, it’s a form of flight-panic when blacks are caught doing bad stuff. Unable to morally justify their behavior when found out, they just go into baboon-ish panic mode and holler ‘racist, racist, racist’. The response is essentially same as apes or baboons freaking out when caught in a tough or dangerous situation.

https://www.facebook.com/Fox32Chicago/videos/10157012464860348/



In the black mind, the core of existence is about a b/w stark struggle of fight or flight. To the 'groids', the world is less a stage(let alone a classroom) than a boxing ring. When it comes to white power, a lot of blacks feel, “If we don’t keep chucking more spears at the big white elephant, it will charge and stomp our ass and turn us into slaves again.” The world is not about compromises and contracts but confrontations of win all or lose all.

Some say blacks fail at complexity because of lower IQ, but blacks with higher IQ have similar attitudes and the same ‘moral’ failing. Why? Their emotions outrun or out-ape their intelligence. So, even if certain blacks are just as smart as whites or even smarter, their emotions remain stuck in ‘chuck a spear’ or ‘run like a mothafuc*a’ mentality. This is why even smart blacks like Cornel West and Michael Dyson tend to emote like rappers. Indeed, rap music is useless as a vehicle of meaning because its meanness tramples all over meaning. And in black churches, sheer volume trumps the content of the sermon.

White and black history in the US is highly complex. There was much tragedy for blacks, but there was also much triumph due to contact with white civilization, the most advanced in the world. Indeed, what would blacks have achieved if not for contact with whites? Even today, if there are to be solutions for blacks and Africa, such will have to be devised and developed by whites as blacks lack the necessary temperament to emerge from the primitive mindset of fight-or-flight. Blacks generally lack the emotional qualities that can handle complexity(that call for empathy).

Whites are far more adept at dealing with complex issues. But whites also have their own pathologies that may prevent them from dealing with reality in a truthful way.
One is intellectualism. Sometimes, the danger is so obvious and palpable, but many whites prefer intellectual interaction over decisive action to deal with the pressing problem. Intellect can suppress or deny the urgent needs of the body. The preference for higher intellect has its counterparts in the conceit of higher morality or spirituality. If misapplied, higher morality can favor sanctimony over survival. It’s no wonder that so many whites will risk the very survival of the West just to attain some illusory ‘higher state of being’.

Consider the creature in Howard Hawks’ THE THING, the original movie. The alien monster is clearly a danger to mankind, but the scientist-guy is willing to risk everything to communicate with it(as a higher being) than working with fellow humans to kill the damn thing. And he even turns higher-moralist and believes that, given the choice between saving inferior humanity by killing the superior creature AND saving superior creature by sacrificing inferior humanity, the right course of action is to favor the creature. Today, many whites are willing to sacrifice the West just to appease blacks as the magical god-race. In other words, even if the Africanization of Europe will lead to downfall of Western Civilization, it'd be worth it as a tribute to Black Greatness. White tragedy in service of the Great Negro is to be favored over White triumph in defense of the West against the ghastly 'groids'.


See how foolishly a ‘liberal’ white scientist could act in such a situation? In such a scenario, an elementary-minded Negro would more likely do the right thing: Chuck a spear or run like a mothafuc*a.

*********

https://twitter.com/v_of_europe/status/913455534505897985



Look how the weaker white man is being mauled in his own homeland(Italy) by the stronger and tougher Negro from black Africa.

All white folks must understand the BAMMAMA Factor, or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Knowing that truth, whites must ask, "Why allow a stronger & more savage race of people into our nation?"

In the video above, white onlookers are afraid to intervene because they know blacks are tougher and will kick their butts. If they try to save the white guy from the black guy, they too could end up being beaten by the black guy.

BAMMAMA leads to ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. As blacks beat white guys, white women lose respect for white men and lust after black thugs. White manhood cannot co-exist with black thuggery.

This is why it made good sense to support the KNEE-GROES: Negro athletes who took the knee and alienated their white fanbase. NFL should be about Knee-groes run amok as such will antagonize and alienate whites and hopefully wake them from their cuck stupor. There is no reason white males should be watching NFL that is about BAMMAMA and ACOWW. It is anti-white, and whites need to wake up. So, I support Negro hostility that wakens whites into Race-ism, aka Race Realism.

A Response to an Analysis of John Boorman's EXCALIBUR, Further Right than Far Right by David Yorkshire - May 13, 2017

For David Yorkshire’s Analysis, Click Here: FILM REVIEW: EXCALIBUR, Further Right than Far Right

This split between man and Nature is at the heart of liberalism in which Western Man is considered as apart from and not a part of Nature.

There are many facets to liberalism. In some ways, liberalism was about the return of nature and sexuality. Liberals saw Conservatives, especially Christians, as the suppressors of natural energies, especially of sexuality. Liberal Boomers feel nostalgia about the 60s because it was about Return to Nature, or Back to the Garden. Rock Music, Sex, and Drugs were supposed to reconnect modern man with his natural energies.

But then, there is another side of Liberalism that fears nature as the aggressive warrior-side of man that tends toward tribalism based on racial differences. Liberals had a tough time with the neo-barbarism of Hell's Angels.

This foreshadows the land's decay and the birth of Arthur's unnatural son, Mordred, to his half-sister, Morgana (in a departure from the existing Arthurian canon and a move towards incestuous themes in Der Ring des Nibelungen).

I don't think the rise of Morgana & Mordred has anything to do with Nature vs Christianity. Morgana and Mordred represent the Malevolence of Power(any kind of power) misused for vanity and megalomania. Morgana represents the dark side of the Dragon, the demonic force. She also represents the Will to become god. She has powers like Merlin, who recognized something special in her. But if Merlin uses his special knowledge to guide man, Morgana is all about vanity(and vengeance). Merlin is like half-man/half-god who cares about mankind. Morgana is half-woman/half-god who wants to be full-god and give birth to a god-man. She seeks immortality. She is about the vanity of power, or the vanity of vanity.

This of course asks questions of the Grail, what it is and what it represents, for it is noticeable that it is never referred to as 'the Holy Grail' in the entire film.

As Boorman envisioned it, the Grail is the lost truth. The Grail is also a mirage and illusion. It doesn't exist yet exists only when people realize it doesn't exist. That's the paradox of the Grail. Arthur sent his knights to seek the Grail OUT THERE in a physical quest on horseback. They thought it's a physical object that can be found like lost treasure. Later, we discover the Grail is not a thing. It is a state-of-mind, a realization. It cannot be found OUT THERE. It can only be found WITHIN. Perceval finally grasps it when he realizes that it's really about hope and reconnecting with the roots of truth and honor. So, in a way, the Grail was always right there in the hearts of Arthur, Perceval, and all the knights. They just forgot it. It's like what Joel McCrea's character tells Randolph Scott's character at the end of RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY. McCrea says goodness and honor were always there in Scott's heart, but he just forgot it, that's all.

Final Scene from RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY


This and Merlin's answer that "Good and evil, there never is one without the other" prompts Sir Gawain's outburst about Guinevere's lust for Sir Lancelot, an outburst that is made possible by Arthur's democratic leanings in creating the Round Table that gives a voice to all. Arthur's woes are compounded when he refuses to defend his wife's honour, as he must judge as king before fight as husband, much to the dismay of Guinevere. He therefore chooses civilization over barbarity, societal law over the Natural law of defending one's loved ones. Ultimately, Arthur has created these laws himself and they reveal a man who is increasingly willing to embrace the passivity of Christianity of his own volition. After all, why does there need to be a judge in a trial of combat?

It's not that simple. The Round Table is not democratic. It is aristocratic, solely the domain of the knights who'd been there with Arthur in the founding of Camelot. And there is hierarchy, with Arthur as King and with Lancelot as the greatest knight.

And Arthur's refusal to fight and defend Guinevere's honor makes sense because Gawain impugned not only Guinevere but Lancelot as well. His terse words dishonored both of them. So, even if Arthur were to condemn Gawain to death or fight him, Lancelot's honor would still be besmirched.
Therefore, the proper thing is for Lancelot to defend Guinevere's honor. And if not him, one of the other knights who have faith him Lancelot and Guinevere. Also, another reason why it must be Lancelot or one of the knights is that the Arthurian World is a world of magic. As Arthur says, in a duel of honor, the wrong cannot win over the right. And this is why none of the knights will come forward to defend Guinevere. They too suspect, along with Gawain, that there are certain dark feelings between Lancelot and Guinevere. And Lancelot too is uncertain about what action to take because, as he says, they(he and the queen) are innocent of body but not of heart. So, Lancelot is anxious about championing the queen because he may lose. He may be the greatest knight, but the Magic of the Arthurian World will favor the righteous over the false in a duel of honor. So, he has to purge himself of his wrongful feelings before finally arriving to defend the queen. But in his self-purging, he has seriously wounded himself. He wins the duel but with a cloud of uncertainty. Gawain begs for mercy and says the queen is innocent. Lancelot still tries to kill him, but the Magic prevents him from doing so, and Lancelot himself collapses.

Also, Arthur's action cannot be called 'passivity'. If anything, he sticks to the law because he is sincerely committed to being a just and noble king. Also, the pagan 'karma' of the Arthurian universe disfavors the rash and barbaric. Uther was rough-and-tumble, but he didn't last very long. He was not The One, and the Dragon let him die.

Equally, Guinevere is correct when she states that "In the idleness of peace, I see that gossip has spread its own evil." This is an eternal truth. As the True Right has always known, without real struggle, the human mind will artificially create struggle, hence the rise of the Social Justice Warrior from the creamy all-too-comfortable bourgeoisie and their crusades against all manner of invented abstractions that boil down to a struggle against Nature herself.

Actually, Guinevere is being disingenuous. The 'struggle' wasn't artificially created. It was always there. Indeed, when Guinevere and Lancelot first saw each other, they instantly fell in love. But they couldn't be lovers since Guinevere promised herself to Arthur, who is also Lancelot's best friend. So, Guinevere married Arthur, and they all pretended everything was hunky dory. But in fact, Guinevere and Lancelot were lovesick for one another. So, the tension that flows forth from this repressed love is not due to some idle chatter but the eventual emergence of the hidden passionate truth.

Arthur never suspected it because he loved Guinevere too much and trusted Lancelot. But others did notice it(if in silence), and Morgana exploited it to drive a wedge among the knights. The sexual dynamics are profoundly important in the Arthurian Universe since it is a world of warriors, and top alpha women go with the best knights. Arthur, as king, is the leader of knights. So, it is natural that he should have Guinevere. But there is a certain unease because Lancelot is actually the better warrior. And unbeknownst to Lancelot, he wasn't really beaten by Arthur. Arthur cheated and drew power from Excalibur to defeat Lancelot. But Lancelot thinks Arthur beat him fair and square, and that is why he pledged allegiance to Arthur. So, their friendship, beautiful as it is, was founded on a falsehood. The superior warrior Lancelot submitted to Arthur on the belief that Arthur beat him in combat.

By rule of nature, the top woman wants to go with the toughest man. But in civilization, power is gained not only through fighting but through statecraft, wit, and talent. And Arthur has those qualities, of course with the help of Merlin. So, he is king, and Guinevere went with him. But her natural womanly side still lusts after Lancelot, the greater warrior.

This is relevant to the Modern West because black men are tougher, more muscular, and more athletic than white males. This is why John Boorman appreciates THE BIRTH OF A NATION, which is about sexual anxiety, very much like Arthurian Legend. White men long ago feared the Negro man who is stronger, more muscular, and bigger-donged.

In nature, the strongest and toughest warrior-hunter gets the most desirable women.
In civilization, men can gain power with smarts and skills. So, best women often go with successful men who may not be the strongest or most attractive. That is the tension of the Modern West. White men, having higher intelligence, do better than black men economically. So, successful white men get top white women. But then, white people watch sports and watch pop culture and see the Negro Man kicking the white boy's ass. This leads to Cuck Mentality.

In a way, there is a certain logic as to why the Negro is often featured in the role of Lancelot in these new Hollywood tellings. In the Modern West, black males dominate sports and sex culture. So, they possess the Top Warrior archetype. And that is why increasing numbers of white women are into jungle fever, betraying white men, and offering their wombs to be Afro-colonized. They see black men as the superior warrior and stud. Look at Sports Illustrated. The top male athletes are black, and the bikini models are white. Look at athletes and cheerleaders in NFL and NBA. Mostly black male players and white cheerleaders.
THAT is the greatest threat facing the white race: ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. White guys want to believe that it's all about blacks raping white women, but in fact, tons of white women Go Negro because they got jungle fever for the superior stud.

Anyway, what happens among Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot was anticipated by Merlin who told Arthur that, yes he will marry Guinevere but will be betrayed by his best friend.
So, it goes to show that even a temperate man like Arthur can become blind to the bigger picture because of the hypnotic power of love. Even so, I think what Arthur and Guinevere feel for one another is love whereas the feelings between Guinevere and Lancelot are much stronger: it is lust.

And deep inside every woman is a desire to be saved by a hero, no matter how much she rails against 'the patriarchy'.

Yeah, but the problem is that Guinevere wants to be 'saved' from Arthur by Lancelot. In a way, the problem is that Guinevere feels 'oppressed' by the security offered by Arthur. It provides her with privilege, wealth, safety, and nice things. But what she wants most sexually is to be taken by Lancelot. In a way, she wants to be 'unsaved' from civilization and be taken by barbarism of lust. So, it's not so much that a woman wants to be 'saved' by 'patriarchy'. She wants to be swept away by the top lover-boy. This is why many Romance novels are about women being abducted and conquered by the superior man, the 'bad boys'. This is why Helen of Troy doesn't want to be saved. She finds Paris to be more dashing and desirable than her humdrum husband. She collaborated in the 'abduction'. A woman wants to be saved ONLY IF the savior is the superior man. But if the would-be-savior is the inferior man, she prefers to be taken by the superior pirate, thief, or lover-boy.

Indeed, women prove to be rather problematic in the film, which no doubt will please the Manosphere types who love to point to women as 'the enemy'. Morgana is indeed a representation of evil, but Guinevere is all too human, and her betrayal of Arthur is seen equally as stemming from Arthur's betrayal of her in the scene we have explored.

Everyone is problematic in EXCALIBUR, but things get complicated with women because their power is subtler and more mysterious. Men are problematic, but their conflicts are settled with brain or brawn. In contrast, some women have beauty-and-allure, the mysterious power of which is difficult to measure or figure out. Also, it's not just about looks. Guinevere is attractive but not the most beautiful woman. But she enchants men because of her personality. She has a special touch, a sparkle.

Also, Guinevere's betrayal of Arthur has nothing to do with his supposed 'betrayal' of her. She had subconsciously betrayed Arthur in her heart from the moment when her eyes met Lancelot's. On that wedding day, even though she was betrothed to Arthur, she was besotted with Lancelot. And when she saw the wounded Lancelot on the bed nude after the duel, the combination her lust and her compassion was just too much, and she couldn't hold it back anymore. She was caught in a conundrum. If she went off to make love to Lancelot, she would be betraying her husband and duty as queen. But if she didn't run off to Lancelot, she would be betraying her heart that wants to run off to him.

As for Morgana, she is not a simple character at all. She is the most complicated character after Merlin. In a way, we can understand her rage and bitterness. After all, Merlin conspired with Uther to have her father, the Duke of Cornwall, killed. This was especially unjust because it was Uther who'd broken the peace. Merlin was angry with Uther, but he decided to salvage the situation by having Uther 'rape' and impregnate Igraine. Merlin foresaw the death of Uther but also a new order arising from Arthur, son of Uther. But there was collateral damage in this plot. Though Merlin did this for the greater good, he had to commit an evil. He had to help Uther 'rape' Igraine and kill Duke of Cornwall. Thus, Morgana lost her father and witnessed her mother being raped by Uther. In a way, she is loyal to her father. She is avenging what was done to her family. It's like Lady Kaeda the avenger in Kurosawa's RAN. She is justified in her rage and hatred.

But Morgana is about more than vengeance. She is special, like Merlin. She has the vision, and she is consumed with vanity of power. She justifies her action on revenge for what was done to her family, but she goes way beyond vengeance because lust for power has its own logic. She can't say no power & vanity just like Guinevere cannot say no to lust.

But then, this was true of communism and Nazism. Communism justified itself as revenge of the oppressed working class, but its power-lust led to greater evils. And Nazism was initially justified on Germany's humiliation in WWI and Versailles Treaty. Hitler rose to power speaking of national justice and restoration. But he was consumed with power-lust and didn't know when to stop. Power has its own logic, like fire that always threatens to burn out of control.
Jews and Negroes also gained power in the name of righting historical wrongs, but they too became engulfed with power for power's sake. Today, black rappers are into thug power, and Jews are mad about globalist domination. Jews went from Holocaust-remembrance to acting like Judeo-Nazis.

Arthur's passivity leads to his problems with both his men and with women. His cuckolding and sexual assault leads to his impotence. In turn, this leads to the land decaying.

It's not his passivity that leads to the fall. Rather, it's his reneging on his duty as king due to personal angst. When he discovers that Guinevere and Lancelot betrayed him, the proper thing is, by the codes of that particular order, to kill them both. And indeed, he goes off to kill them.
But he just couldn't do it. He still felt too much love for them. And because he is a wise man, he can read their hearts. He understands why it happened. Merlin once said that Uther could't look into the hearts of men. Arthur can look into the hearts of others, and he realizes that Lancelot and Guinevere are not evil and didn't meant to hurt him, Arthur. It's just this crazy thing called lust/love.

Arthur could have done two things: The proper thing as king to kill them both as they slept. Or, he could have walked away with Excalibur and returned to being King.
Instead, he abandons Excalibur, Merlin's special gift to him. Merlin led Arthur to the Sword of Power to be savior and leader. A king must rise above his personal angst and think of the good of society. But Arthur, distraught over Guinevere and Lancelot, just abandons the sword and returns to his castle to wallow in misery. He forgets what Merlin told him: 'You and the Land are one.' Arthur's abandonment of Excalibur was like a betrayal of Merlin. When Arthur drives the sword into the ground and walks away, we see the sword striking into the back of Merlin, and he too becomes disoriented.

I think the idea of 'you and the land are one' has multiple meanings. It means the relation between leader and the land, but it also means the connection between mind/soul and body.

Yet for all this, the film received mixed reviews from the critics. This is largely because critics of the time all hailed from the same middle-brow liberal clique.

Actually, Ebert's criticism made some good points. Even at 2 hrs and 20 min, there is a lot of material that isn't sufficiently developed. It's a film that should have been epic in scope: one more hour would have fleshed out more details. Still, many critics were blind to the film's undeniable virtues.
Ebert, Siskel, and many critics also devalued BLADE RUNNER for the same reason. They focused so much on plot and characters that they overlooked the real stylistic and visionary aspects of the film.

I don't think Ebert's lack of appreciation had to do with politics. After all, Ebert later recommended CONAN THE BARBARIAN, RED DAWN, and RAMBO, more blatantly 'right-wing' movies. I think he focused on the wrong things: story and characters. He felt there was too many things happening without proper development, and he was right in a way.

Maverick Liberal Jewess Pauline Kael, an admirer of Boorman and who wrote a mostly glowing review, also noted that the movie has problems of continuity and characterization. Incidentally, Kael's review of the film is one of the best in film criticism. It's in the volume TAKING IT ALL IN. A snippet: http://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/e3.html

I think EXCALIBUR is one of the greatest films ever. THE 13TH WARRIOR is one of the few films of similar theme & setting that is comparable in beauty and power, but it tragically bombed at the box office... whereas a totally worthless pile of crap like LOTR raked in big bucks. It goes to show what a dumb-dumb world we are living in.

* * * * *

With one movie, Boorman conveyed more ideas and poetry than all the STAR WARS movies combined. Boorman also made a fascinating sci-fi film with ZARDOZ, one of the most relevant films given what is happening in the world.

Boorman presented Big Ideas with poetics, romance, grandeur. And he took inspiration not only from Arthurian legends but from Germanic mythology, especially as revitalized by Wagner. And the relationship between Merlin and Arthur is among the richest on screen.

Merlin is an ambiguous character. Always anxious because he sees MORE. So, if humans are rejoicing over some victory and celebrating like it’s the End of History and their side won, Merlin foresees dangers ahead and knows that all glories are fleeting. Even at the worst of times, he sees glimmers of hope. Even at best of times, he sees disasters looming up ahead. He is like a less amoral Indrid Cold in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. His vision is from a higher plane. He can look further over the horizon. Thus, he’s never content with apparent stability in the here-and-now. He’s always worried because to know more is to be aware that everything is fleeting, no matter how 'permanent' it may appear for the time being.

But there’s also a detached & aloof quality about him. Despite his involvement with humans, he is not of any particular world. And he’s seen it all — the cycles of rise and fall — before in other worlds. And there are other worlds after THIS ONE. This detachment is an advantage but also a sadness. Because he isn’t attached to a single time and place, he can continue in other worlds even if the current world falls into ruin. But because he isn’t loyal to a single realm, he doesn’t really belong to any one or any people. He's like a professor, not unlike Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE, who can't feel lasting attachment to any one class or student.

In the end, he is a wanderer, a stranger to all. Ben Kenobi and Yoda are supposed to be like Merlin figures in STAR WARS, but Kenobi is too goody-goody, and Yoda is a muppet.

Merlin tried to help Uther, but it proved hopeless because Uther was too impulsive and primal. He couldn’t control his anger, his lust. As Merlin says, Uther couldn’t look into the hearts of other men. Everything was about himself and his immediate desires. He risked everything for a romp with Igraine because he couldn't control his lust. Because he fails to look into the hearts of other men, he alienates them and makes too many enemies and falls in the end.
But the great irony is Arthur is created by Uther’s most foolhardly deed, the sexual conquest of Igraine. Merlin realizes that his failure with Uther was part of the ‘plan’ because the failure fertilized the success(if limited) with Arthur.

Arthur is smarter and more sensible than Uther. Arthur is cautious, like Michael Corleone in contrast to hotheaded Sonny Corleone. And with the aid of Merlin, he learns to look into the hearts of others. He has empathy, he has understanding. He not only battles the knights who oppose his kingship but reaches out to them in understanding. Ultimately, he wins over Euryens not by force of arms but display of virtue.

He is also capable of self-criticism. When the sword breaks in his duel with Lancelot, he confesses that his pride broke it. He was supposed to use Excalibur to unite all men, but he used it for personal vanity and vendetta. This wisdom is an advantage, and the Lady of the Lake forgives him and restores Excalibur.


But the world of EXCALIBUR Is fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. It’s like Merlin says everything has its opposites. Also, the opposite of something may actually be nearest to it or hiding within it.
It’s like Michael remembering his father’s advice in THE GODFATHER PART 2: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. In EXCALIBUR, Arthur asks where evil is, and Merlin says it is always where you least expect it. Evil isn’t necessarily OUT THERE SOMEWHERE but just around the corner, in your own domain, right behind you, or even right in front of you. It’s like the biggest enemy of the white race is not Russia, China, or Iran, some foreign nations far away. It is the PC virus within the very core of the West. An external enemy can be fought with sword or gun. But the evil virus can be within you.


Just as evil could be right in front of you or within you without you noticing, so can the truth & redemption. The biggest truth could be invisible because it’s hidden within one’s soul or standing right in front, thus out of focus. After all, the knights who went on the quest for the Holy Grail were misguided in thinking it was out there somewhere. Perceval discovers that the truth is actually within his own soul, indeed it’s always been there. He just forgot it, as did Arthur.
Again, it's like the scene in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY where the dying hero tells his partner that there was good within him all along: he just forgot it, that’s all. (Given the out-of-control sexual politics among youth today, RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY offers some sobering lessons about impulsive behavior among the youth, but also how excessive puritanism — like with Elsa’s father — can make things worse.) The ‘holy grail’ was within Arthur himself. He just forgot what Merlin had taught him.

And yet, there is a paradox to Arthur’s decline. It was precisely because he was wise and could read the hearts of other men. Everything has its opposites. The source of wisdom and duty could also lead to weakness and doubt. When he discovers that Lancelot, his best friend, had betrayed him(by taking Guinevere), he wants to kill Lancelot and his wife. But he can’t make himself do it because he has too much empathy. He can look into the hearts of Lancelot & Guinevere. Despite his rage, he is also understanding. So, he hesitates and finds it impossible to kill his friend and wife. His wisdom makes him understand more but also renders him ‘weak’ and lacking in resolve to carry out the execution.

But there is the tragedy. He surrenders Excalibur, the greatest gift bestowed to him by Merlin and Lady of the Lake. In doing so, he abandons his role as king. A king is supposed to serve something bigger than his ego and self. Whatever his personal foibles, he is supposed to rise higher and rule for the good of the people. But Arthur, so depressed over the Lancelot/Guinevere affair, withdraws into self-pity and becomes despondent like Scottie in VERTIGO. He just tunes out and drops out. If he were a private individual, it wouldn’t have mattered to others. But as leader, he has a kingdom to rule and must never renege on his duty and responsibility. Whatever his personal setback, he must rise higher and rule for the good of all. But he just surrenders Excalibur and walks away to hide from the world. And the moment when he drives Excalibur into the ground proves most vulnerable for Merlin who feels the blade strike into his back. His gift to Arthur has been abandoned, Arthur has violated his covenant with the sword, and there is disturbance in the Dragon. It is in that moment of confusion and distress that Morgana gains control of Merlin’s dazed wits and uses his magic against him.


* * * * *

The mythic themes of EXCALIBUR, much like those found in Greek mythology, give us a clue as to why the West broke through the 'sound barrier' of progress in ways that never occurred to non-Western cultures. It wasn't just about rise of reason and science but the heroic individual will to strive further and reach higher. It was the visionary audacity to steal fire from the gods.

PC accuses white people of having stolen from other peoples. But man-stealing-from-man has been the rule of history just like animal-stealing-from-animal is the rule of nature. Clans stole from clans, tribes stole from tribes, kingdoms stole from kingdoms, and empires stole from empires. Whether it was the Zulus, Mongols, Huns, or the Vikings, the story of mankind has been stealing from other peoples, just like wolves and hyenas steal from other animals. So, if whites had done only like the other races and only stolen from others, they couldn't have broken through the 'sound barrier' of history.

So, what set the white race apart from others? What did white individuals do that other races failed to do?

They stole the secrets of the gods in Promethean manner & unlocked the mysteries of the universe.
Whites unlocked the secrets of micro-organisms and how diseases happen.
Whites gazed into distant space and discovered galaxies and black holes.
Whites discovered the mechanism of atoms and harnessed nuclear energy.
Whites solved the secret of flight and gained mastery of the sky.
Whites cracked the secret codes of higher morality and envisioned a world of order & liberty.

So, white people stole the secrets, ideas, and values that had once belonged only to the gods. Whites stole the keys to unlock countless mysteries that had baffled, mystified, or frightened the rest of humanity.
And by unlocking the secrets known only to the gods, white people attained and then spread the higher & deeper truth to all of mankind. If not for whites, would any race be flying through the skies or probing the secrets of viruses?

That is Power. It began when Prometheus stole fire from the gods.
The real secret of white power is not that whites stole from non-whites. Whites ‘stole’ only crude rudiments like land and labor from non-whites. Every people stole such from other peoples since the beginning of time.

What set whites apart from other races is that they, in the spirit of individuality and heroism, mastered the art of picking the locks of the gods & the cosmos and walked away with priceless treasures of knowledge.
You can steal land from red savages and labor from black savages. It takes no genius to conquer territory or enslave others. All peoples could do that and did that.

But the art of navigation, art of medicine, art of flight, and the art of nuclear power can be stolen only from the gods. And only individuals of vision, dream, or genius could pull it off. After all, like William F. Buckley said, "You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters."

Other peoples merely feared or served the gods. Only whites dared to access the vault of the gods holding the secrets of everything from the smallest atoms to the biggest stars.

That is the true source of white power. White stole everything… from the gods.

Why Philip Weiss’ Cure for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is Worse than the Disease

Mondoweiss: The Never-Ending Crisis of Zionism by Philip Weiss

There are so many things wrong with the above article, I don’t know where to start.

Now, kudos to Philip Weiss’ sympathy for Palestinians. In US politics, Sympathy for Palestinians is virtually forbidden. No mainstream politician dares to express any sympathy for the plight of a people who are now in their 50th year of Occupation(and never mind Nakba, the mass campaign of pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map to make way for the creation of Israel). Virtually all US politicians(at federal, state, and local level) are into Israel First, Israel First, Israel First. Same goes for the mainstream 'right-wing' media and mainstream 'left-wing' media. They never utter the term Nakba, and most Americans never heard of it even though the US played the most instrumental role in the mass pogroms against Palestinians.

Though Weiss is often right in his diagnosis of symptoms, his proposed cure will only make compound the problem. (It's like Marx was a better appraiser of modern economics than its solver.) Indeed, Weiss' proposed solutions are not unlike the mindsets and fateful decisions that led to the current mess. Weiss fails to understand that he's a universalist-imperialist who, in condemning nationalism, unwittingly serves as yet another puppet of globalist-imperialist open-borders. He fails to realize and acknowledge that violation of nationalism has been the true curse of the 20th century.

The current mess with Palestinians began with and under imperialism. Much of the Middle East failed to develop into a viable political entities under the Ottoman Empire. And then, the British Empire allowed Zionists to ‘immigrate’ into Palestine and gradually, the dramatically, take over from Arabs. That was the origins of the disaster. It was made possible by imperialist suppression of local autonomy and independence. And of course, Israel is now backed by the US, itself no longer a sovereign national entity but a war-mongering(culturally or militarily) hegemon that invades other nations financially & militarily and is, in turn, invaded by other nations demographically.

Weiss says the current plight of Palestinians is like what Jews suffered 100 yrs ago, but that’s a complete misconception.
For one thing, Palestinians are in their own lands, from which they’ve been evicted or on which they are occupied. Jews in Europe, in contrast, were living in other people’s lands. The violent reactions against Jews in Europe were, in some respects, like Palestinian intifada against Zionists. This was made all the worse due to imperialism. After all, why did the worst outbreaks against Jews happen in Imperial Nations? Because so many ethnic groups felt occupied under Imperialist rule and came to regard Jews as collaborator agents of the empire. Any non-Austrian gentile who resented Austrian rule came to distrust Jews as the agents and middlemen serving the empire. Or, it could be the other way around. The ruling ethnic group could come to regard Jews as radical agitators riling up the other groups against the imperial status quo.

Despite certain degree of ambivalence and even hostility toward Jews, sovereign nation-states, in general, treated Jews much better: UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, and etc. France was known for ‘notorious antisemitism’, but it didn’t have regular outbreaks of pogroms like in Eastern Europe where aspiring nationalism were suppressed by the empire, be it Germanic or Slavic. Granted, sometimes, Jews found the Imperial Order to their benefit. Diversity, as in Austro-Hungarian Empire, made it near-impossible for all gentiles to unite against Jews, as later were to happen in National Socialist Germany. The various gentile groups were too busy squabbling with each other to unite their forces against the Jews. But on the other hand, because so many groups felt so disenfranchised, occupied, and denied national sovereignty, they grew ever more bitter and came to scapegoat Jews as the source of problems. Imperialist Diversity weakens national unity among goyim, but it also intensifies their rage and bitterness, and that can provide dry wood for massive conflagration. And even though National Socialism was a severe case of nationalist antisemitism, the origins of Hitler’s rage were imperial(and he became most dangerous to Jews when he pivoted from German nationalism to German Imperialism). He grew up in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where ethnic tensions were intensifying due to Slavic and other hostilities. If he’d grown up in a secure Germanic nation, he might have regarded Jews as just a minority that should be tolerated. But he got radicalized in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where politics was hostile along ethnic lines because non-Austrians felt oppressed by Austro-Hungarian elite power. And since this bitterness was directed at ALL Austrians, even an ordinary civilian like Hitler could become ultra-ethnic in hostility. And WWI was the result of clash of empires, not of nations. Germans put pan-Germanicism above all else, and Russia pandered to Pan-Slavicism. And UK joined with France and Russia because it saw the rise of Germany as a threat to British Imperial Hegemony.

Hitler had a chance of making National Socialism work, but because he grew up under Imperial Mentality, his ambitions spilled across German borders and targeted Czech nation, then Poland, and then even USSR. That was his undoing. He wasn’t satisfied with German Nationalism. National Socialism turned into Imperial Racial Socialism for the ‘Aryans’.

But Jewish reaction to antisemitism also made the problem worse. It was right for powerful and influential Jews to do SOMETHING to help out their less fortunate brethren around the world. But what did Jacob Schiff’s support of ‘Russian’ Revolution lead to? A totalitarian terror state where millions of people were sent to Gulag and where 100,000s were summarily executed by secret police. Pogroms were terrible, but the casualties were in the thousands. In contrast, the Soviet Revolution, disproportionately led by Jews, killed millions and destroyed tens of thousands of churches. It even killed every member of Tsar’s family, kids included. This blooy radical behavior on the part of Jews led many European conservatives to side with Fascists and National Socialists as the lesser to two evils. And prior to WWII, that would have been the sane assessment because most of the mass horrors til then had been carried out by communists, many of whom were Jewish.

Weiss writes:

"The most brilliant Jew in the world, Franz Kafka came out of his office in Prague to see Jews being beaten and he went to Zionist meetings."

Here, Weiss sort of hints at how today’s problems are rooted in past reactions. Kafka obviously wasn’t the only Jew who reacted to events by showing interest in Zionism. Zionism was a strange hybrid. It was a reaction against both Imperialism and Nationalism. In some ways, Jews were jumping on the Nationalist Bandwagon. With each ethnic group demanding their own nation-state and sovereignty — further emboldened by Woodrow Wilson’s idea of national self-determination following WWI — , Jews figured they should demand their own nation too. But there was one problem. While Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croatians, Poles, and etc could look at the soil beneath their feet and claim it as their ancestral homeland, Jews could make no such claim in Europe. So, they had to look elsewhere, and the most significant piece of real estate was the Holy Land from which the Jewish people and culture originated.

But even as Jews caught the spirit of gentile groups calling for their own homelands, they were also reacting against gentile nationalism. Had the Imperial system continued, Jews could have carried on as a nomadic or mercurial group serving as middlemen among various folks. But with the rise of nationalism, such ambiguous identity was becoming untenable. Gentile national identities could become hostile to Jewishness, and even this hostility had a duality. It loathed Jews as a stubborn ancient identity that refused to assimilate with gentiles and convert to Christianity, but it also loathed Jews as a mercurial hyper-modern zelig-like chameleons who could adapt to any place and time.

Anyway, because European Jews couldn’t claim any land in Europe as their own, they couldn’t just oppose imperialism. If Poles wanted Poland, all they had to do was oppose Russian and German imperialism. Once Russians and Germans were gone from Poland, it was Poland for the Polish.
In contrast, even with the fall of empires, Jews were still without a nation of their own in Europe. They had to claim their homeland elsewhere, and it turned out to be the Holy Land. And since Palestine was dominated by non-Jews, Jews needed the support of Imperialism to gain access to the land. Jews had trickled in during Ottoman times, but it was under British Imperialist rule that Jews began to enter in much bigger numbers. Jews were looking to create a nationalist state but with the help of imperialism. Thus, Israel was created in the most paradoxical manner. It was to establish Jewish national sovereignty, but it could only be done by using an imperialist power to deny national sovereignty to the natives.

This was all the more complicated because European Jews were both the most powerful and the least powerful people. They were least powerful because they were minorities in all territories and had no land to claim as their own. Serbs and Slovaks were far less successful than Jews financially and culturally, but they still could claim the soil under their feet as their homeland. They were rooted whereas Jews were rootless. This rootless was a huge disadvantage to Jews, but it was also why they’d grown so powerful. Unable to stake their wealth on rootedness to soil, Jewish wealth developed via networks. It was ‘cloud-wealth’, like Google offers cloud-computing. So, even if Jews got kicked out of a certain nation, they might still have wealth stored in international networks. Even if they lost their homes and personal properties, their bank accounts could be forwarded to London or Paris. In contrast, if a ‘dumb Polack’ lost his home and property, he really had nothing left. Jews had Cloud Wealth wheres gentile simpletons had Earth Wealth. To be sure, not all Jews had Cloud Wealth, and many in Eastern Europe were dirt-poor. But because the Jewish Network existed, even the poorer Eastern European cousins soon learned to take advantage of it.

This duality of Jews as the most powerful people(with financial stake in just about every European nation and kingdom) and least powerful people(as a folks without homeland) made things all the more complicated in relation to Zionism. On the one hand, it was weak Jews pleading for a homeland of their own. They were unfortunate unlike other European folks who could claim the land under their feet as theirs.
On the other hand, it was a case of powerful Jews manipulating and bribing the Great European Empires to do their bidding… like what God did for the Hebrews in their departure from Egypt. Open up the seas and let Jews enter the Promised Land. It was a replay of Exodus — and even called such by Leon Uris the novelist — because the ancient story itself is paradoxical. On the one hand, Hebrews are a weak people in flight from the powerful Egyptian Military. On the other hand, Jews have all-powerful God on their side, and the Egyptians have no chance.

Anyway, if Weiss’ point is that today’s Jews must act on behalf of Palestinians like past Jews did for Jews-suffering-pogroms in Eastern Europe, he should think again because those efforts 100 yrs ago backfired horribly. It led to the rise of communism and death of millions, and then the counter-reaction of rise of National Socialism that led to WWII. Looking back, Jews should have been more sober in their assessments and courses of action. Jews overreacted and falsely blamed the Russian Tsar for the pogroms. This led to worldwide Jewish support for communism, the horror unleashed by which was many times worse than pogroms. And didn’t Zionism(yet another scheme to help suffering Jews), which eventually reclaimed the Holy Land by humiliating Arabs and Muslims, lead to the current state of affairs? If Jews really wanted a land of their own, rich and powerful Jews should have pooled their resources together to buy some land in some empty part of the world. A land the size of Israel in Australia, Canada, or some other part willing to bargain with Judea. With the power of the Rothchilds in the UK, I’m sure something along those lines could have been arranged. But Jews wanted the Holy Land. And this entailed war and ethnic cleansing. Worse, it led to occupation and Zionist imperialism on Muslim nations. Zionist nationalists asked for the white horse than took the cuddly pig. It’s like the scene in VIVA ZAPATA where Brando’s character offers a Mex kid a piglet but the kid insists on Zapata's great white horse.

Jews could have asked for a nation in some inhabited part of the world, and then it would have been a peaceful piggy-wiggy nation. But they wanted the War Horse of the Holy Land, and they’ve been riding that horse and trampling all over international norms.

That said, what is done is done and can’t be reversed. Israel is here to stay. Still, Jews failed to do it right. Jews could have done two things. Call for peaceful co-existence with Arabs, but then this would have entailed NO MORE JEWISH IMMIGRATION. Arabs could have accepted a Jewish-Arab-inhabited Holy Land IF Jews would agree to end of immigration. But Jews wanted endless Right of Return to all Jews around the world to Palestine, and that was something Arabs could not accept.

So, the inevitable result was war. But Jews didn’t do this right. If a people are going to ethnically cleanse a people, they need to go all out. Kick them all out, like what Andrew Jackson did with the Indians. Instead, Jews expelled most but kept enough to cause lots of trouble. The Rule of History is, “If you are gonna do it(even if morally dubious), do it ‘right’ and go all the way, but if you feel it’s wrong or not worth doing, don’t do it at all.” It’s like US military involvement since end of WWII. It’s been confused, with US getting embroiled in a serious way but not enough to really finish the job. Look at the mess in Iraq. And before that, it was Vietnam. Kennedy was wise about Cuba. Once he decided against intervention following Bay of Pigs, he stuck to his guns and let Cuba be. It’s like Chechnya. Russians had two choices: Just let it go OR go in big and utterly crush the rebellion. Neither would have been ideal, politically or morally, but there are times in history when half-heartedness leads to more and bigger problems.

At any rate, if the purpose of Zionism was Jewish nationalism, Jews shot themselves in the foot by letting too many Arabs remain in Israel and then occupying West Bank. The ONLY sensible rationale for Israel’s conquest of West Bank in 1967 would have been to push the remaining Arabs in Israel into it. Instead, Jews colonized the land, and now Jews got Diversity Hell in both Israel and West Bank. Diversity leads to trouble.

Weiss writes:

"Peace Now urges separation: 'the occupation corrodes Israel and its image, and will continue until Israel extricates itself from the Palestinians.' Jewish separation from Palestinians is a delusion. It is like whites separating from blacks in the U.S. Israel is 20 percent non-Jewish; and it rules territories containing 5 million Palestinians; and though the world has resolved to 'extricate' the Jews from the Arabs for 70 years now, the communities are intertwined more than ever, as Israeli Jews flood the West Bank and build more and more Jewish-only colonies."

If separation is a delusion, how were Jews able to carry out Nakba in 1948 when Jews were the minority and far less powerful than they are today? The real delusion is that Peace can be arrived via Diversity. Weiss has a good heart about Palestinians but he’s being naive. Justifiably or not, Arabs are PISSED. If Jews were to go for one-state-solution and allow Arabs equal rights, it will be the end for Israel. Palestinians who outnumber Jews in West Bank will rise up and commit horrible acts of violence once Apartheid regimen is lifted. And if Arabs have equal rights in Israel, then it will mean Arabs should be allowed to immigrate to Israel as well. The Right of Return for Palestinian Diaspora will spell doom for Israel as a Jewish state.
If you want lasting peace, Peace Now is somewhat correct. Its only problem is it doesn’t go far enough. All Arabs in Israel should be pushed to West Bank and all Jews in West Bank should be repatriated to Israel. It may be politically impossible, but such is the ONLY lasting solution. It’s like the only sensible solution for South Africa was separation. Let whites be HERE and let blacks be THERE. Instead, the 'rainbow nation' turned into bloody nation. Palestinians have a right to be spitting mad at the Jews, and for that reason, any notion of long-lasting peace under Diversity is a delusion. Weiss’ is being willfully naive and hopeful to stoke his ego as the Good Jew denouncing Bad Jews. There can be no ‘good Jews’ or ‘bad Jews’ in the current situation. It’s between sensible Jews and delusional Jews, and Weiss is also delusional.

Weiss mentions blacks in America and says it’s delusional to call for separation between whites and blacks. Weiss may be right about that: Whites may be stuck with blacks. But then, how did this become the case? Because of Diversity created by Imperialism. The US could be black-free IF whites had not practiced the Atlantic Slave Trade under the auspices of European imperialism. (Granted, later British imperialism did some good things by banning the slave trade of the Spanish empire.)
Anyway, the biggest problem of the US — the ghastly blacks — is the result of imperialism.
Diversity complicates matters, usually negatively, down the road if not here-and-now.

Whites understood this about Indians, which is why Indians were expelled as whites expanded territories. Whites knew it’d be problematic to integrate with red savages getting drunk, scalping skulls, and hurling tomahawks. Also, Indians had a legit claim to this land since their forefathers had hunted bison and gophers on it. So, for there to be peace, whites had to drive out the Indians and create a white nation. Even Emma Lazarus understood this, which is why she supported Manifest Destiny. She wanted more whites and Jews to come to America and turn red savages into wretched huddled refuse in Reservations. “Better you than me.”

But if whites got rid of white-red diversity, they recklessly increased white-black diversity? Why? Because if whites confronted reds as warrior savages wielding tomahawks, whites brought blacks as slaves in chains. So, whites figured they’d always have power over the Negroids. With blacks, it was white masters ruling over black slaves or servants. But whites didn’t consider the future where blacks might be freed and then use their stronger muscles and bigger dongs to destroy white manhood and colonize white wombs. It goes to show Diversity ends in disaster one way or the other.

Anyway, even if Weiss is correct that Jews in Israel and whites in the US must make do with Diversity since we can’t turn back the clock, he(and others like him) is still foolish because he wants to INCREASE Diversity.
It’s one thing to argue that some nations became diverse due to certain accidents or events in history, and therefore, people in such nations must try to make the best of it. Okay, fair enough.
But why should any nation willfully INCREASE DIVERSITY when history shows time and time again that such conditions lead to more tensions, more divisions, more distrust, more corruption, more hostilities, more confusion, and etc?

After all, look at the US and EU. It’s not about ‘racism’ vs ‘anti-racism’ but about Paleo-racism vs Neo-racism. Conservatives are Paleo-racists who want white nations and white-majority nations to emphasize white identity, heritage, and power. Progressive Neo-racists, contrary to being for racial equality, are for the supremacism of Jews and blacks over other races and for whites to be attacked and blamed for everything. Look at the phenom of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs being pushed by PC. It’s not about racial equality. It means that white women should reject white males as pathetic dorky cucks and surrender their wombs to the superior dongs and seeds of Negroids. Why does BBC series on the Fall of Troy feature Zeus and Achilles as blacks? Why are Christmas commercials showing white women going with Negroids? It’s not about racial equality but about how white women should go with black men as superior to white males. PC is just neo-racism with new configuration of superior races and inferior races.

Most people are either Paleo-racists or Neo-racists. Only a few are Tru-racists or Race-ists. The thing about Paleo-Racists and Neo-Racists is they deny their own racial biases and accuse OTHERS of ‘racism’ whereas Tru-Racists or Race-ists admit that everyone is consciously or subconsciously race-ist since it’s impossible not to see race and racial differences and their effects on society.

Even Weissism is a form of Neo-Racism because even if Weissism were to be implemented 100% in Israel-West-Bank, the result will be Jewish domination. Why? DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are much smarter than Arabs or People of Sand. Just consider. The US has tons of smart and capable Anglos and Germanics. But Jews beat them all. So, how are the Arab Sand People supposed to compete with Jews? Even if Israel were totally meritocratic and treated everyone in colorblind manner, Jews will totally dominate. It’s like blacks totally dominate sports cuz genetics in sports biologically discriminates against slower/weaker races. Israel would just go from Paleo-Racism that officially favors Jews over Palestinians to Neo-Racism where biology favors Jews over Palestinians.

For Palestinians to live in a nation of Arab dominance, it can’t have lots of smarter Jews. In a Weissian future Israel, the ONLY hope for Arabs would be the power of numbers and demography. Currently, Israel bans Muslim immigration, welcomes Jewish immigration, and pays special money to horny rabbinical students to have lots of babies. But under Weissism, there can’t be special Jewish privileges on immigration. And special money for Jewish breeders would go against the spirit of equal treatment under law. I mean, if horny Jewish rabbinical students should be funded to breed, why not for horny Islamic students?

In the end, Weissism is hardly different from Neo-conservatism. Weiss is a globalist-imperialist who ridicules national identities, national sovereignty, and national borders. He is for Europe being flooded by masses of Africans and Muslims, oblivious to the fact that the fate of Europeans will be like that of Palestinians who were flooded and destroyed by Jewish mass immigration.

Where Weissism is different from Neo-conservatism and most forms of Liberal Zionism is that he calls for the destruction of ALL nations, Israel included. I must admit there’s a refreshing aspect to such moral consistency in contrast to Neocons and Liberal Zionists who denounce identity and nationalism among goyim(in the name of spreading ‘liberal values’) but demand that goyim serve and support Israel as a Jewish state.

While moral consistency is better than moral hypocrisy, the core of Weissism is globalism, and that means no national rights, no national security, no national sovereignty for any people. Weiss seems to think that his values will lead to some Lennonite Imagined World, but it will have the opposite effect. It will turn all the world into the hellhole that is West Bank and Gaza.

Utopianism is imperialism of the mind. It is over-ambitious and deluded. What is real and realistic are peoples, cultures, heritages, and national borders. We need more of that.