There are two kinds of justice in the world, metaphorically speaking.
Jewish Justice and Palestinian Justice.
Notice that Jews & Israel can do just about anything. Build nukes, pass nuke technology to apartheid South Africa, aid ISIS fighters, shoot missiles into Syria, mow down Palestinian protesters, occupy Palestinian territory(and Israel itself was stolen in Nakba) & grab more land, use neo-apartheid against Palestinians, exploit Slavic women for white slavery, drug an entire nation on opioids, use the US and EU to wage Wars for Israel, rob Russia of its wealth, spread paranoia about Iran & Russia, and etc. Even get Jonathan Pollard out of prison even though his espionage led to the deaths of hundreds. And yet, all we hear from US politicians is WE LOVE JEWS, WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF THE HOLOCAUST, GIVE MORE BILLIONS TO ISRAEL, HATE IRAN, HATE RUSSIA, HATE WHATEVER JEWS HATE. That is how Jewish Justice works.
As for the Palestinians? They were destroyed by massive Jewish immigration-invasion with the backing of Jewish bankers and the empires of UK, US, & USSR. Palestinians had no chance as the great empires all gave cover and protection to Jewish takeover of Palestine. Palestinians were provoked into war because the division of their homeland was imposed by foreigners. If China or Iran today were to send in tons of their peoples into Israel and then call for dividing the nation in two -- one for Jews, one for newcomers --, how would Jews react? They would rise up and resist. Palestinians understandably rose up in 1948, but they were crushed, and the war was used as pretext to ethnically expel the bulk of the Arab population by means of terror. And then, under more bogus pretext Zionists also seized West Bank in 1967, setting off endless Jewish migration-invasions that have drastically reduced Palestinian territory. But does anyone talk of Nakba in the US? Is there Nakba day or Nakba memorial? Nakba week or Palestinian Tragedy Month? Does any politician, Democratic or Republican, mention the utter injustice experienced by Palestinians? Has there been a single movie or TV show about Nakba or the Occupation? No. That is how Palestinian Justice works.
So, metaphorically speaking, which one are you? A Meta-Jew or a Meta-Palestinian? So many stupid whites thought that if they support Jews, praise Jews, hug Jews, indulge Jews, and worship Jews, Jews would treat whites as meta-Jews. But if Jews treated whites as equals, then whites would have the same rights and privileges as the Jews. Jews couldn't tolerate that because Jewish Supremacist Power -- Current Jews are addicted to supremacism like Japanese were addicted to Pan-Asian supremacism and Germans to Pan-European supremacism in WWII -- depends on white submission and subservience to Jews, just like Jewish possession and domination of Israel-West-Bank depends on Palestinian subordination to Jewish Might. Then, it was hardly surprising that Jewish power treated whites a Meta-Palestinians.
Now, which groups did Jews promote as Meta-Jews? Blacks and Homos. Blacks could be used to paralyze white moral pride -- the stuff about slavery and endless remembrance of Emmitt Till -- and undermine white manhood pride(as black men can kick white male butt and win the respect of white women with jungle fever). Reduced to wussy cucks, white race has been made to feel a need for redemption and benediction from morally superior groups. Knowing this, Jews pulled a bait-and-switch. Bait White Americans mainly with guilt about blacks, but then steer white desire for redemption toward serving Jews and Israel, which is ironically doing to Palestinians what whites once did to blacks long ago under Segregation. Same with the manipulation of white guilt about American Indians. Tell whites that they must atone for the 'genocide' of Indians by letting in more immigration-invasion. Total Bait-and-Switch. If mass immigration destroyed the American Indians, why should there be MORE immigration? Well, it's good for Jews in their game of divide-and-rule.
As for Homos as Meta-Jews, they are useful in boosting minority-elite power/privilege as the New Normal of social, cultural, and political affairs Jewish minority-elites and homo minority-elites see eye-to-eye. Jews boost homo power, and all those homos in Deep State -- Washington DC is 10% homo -- serve the agenda of Zionist hegemony all over the world. Also, globo-homo craziness has been effective in replacing Christianity and traditional-natural-normal values that empower the normal goy populace. If all those straights have been led to believe that the highest value is 'rainbow' homos who indulge in fecal penetration and trannies who cut off penises(and beat up women in sports), then it means the great majority of normal people, de-normalized and devoid of moral confidence in themselves, must SUBMIT to the 'values' of the 'special' minority.
So, there is Jewish Justice for Jews, black Meta-Jews, and homo Meta-Jews. Whites sucked up to Jews in the hope of being considered as fellow Meta-Jews, but Jews said "No, you can't be our equal. You exist to serve us." Whites could have woken up and told Jewish power to go to hell, but they just cucked and keep their heads bowed. Uppity whites were denounced as 'white supremacist' and 'nazi'. But then, why shouldn't white elites debase themselves this way? They've lost all pride but do get fat paychecks from Jewish Power. Paul Ryan will make some serious money. The Bush Die-Nasty got a second chance with George W. Bush because it totally cucked to Neocons with Dick Cheney as middleman. The white elites are worthless cucks, but they get paid well for being such good dogs. The John McCain farewell was the biggest Good Dog pet funeral of all time.
Anyway, there is no Jewish Justice for whites. As Meta-Palestinians in the eyes of Jews, Whites only get Palestinian Justice. SPLC and ADL spread lies, but they are showered with tons of cash from Jews, favored by media, and get to defame anyone. Meanwhile, Jared Taylor has struggle and scrape to secure a place for a conference(despite the fact that among white advocates, he usually cucks to Jews). Antifa scum get to bash heads, but their violence is not denounced by the Jewish-run Media. They are indulged with favorable Jewish Justice. There are Jewish lawyers to represent them if they get caught, which is rarely the case as cops have been ordered to go easy on them. These scum can bash skulls with padlocks but get off scot-free. Meanwhile, people who push back and fight back are denied banking service, deplatformed, railroaded, and locked up behind bars. They get Palestinian Justice. And Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions have done NOTHING for white patriots. Despite the bogus rhetoric, Trump has gone along with the arrangement of Jewish Justice for Jews, blacks, homos, illegals, antifa scum AND Palestinian Justice for whites, even those who supported him despite getting attacked in the streets by globohomo thugs.
White people need to wake up to the fact that they will never be anything but Meta-Palestinians in the eyes of Jews. Sure, some whites will do okay if they collaborate, but then Palestinians who collaborate in West Bank are rewarded too. Just like there are two forms of justice in Israel-West-Bank -- one for Jews, one for Palestinians -- , there are two forms of justice in the US and the world as devised by hegemonic globohomo Jewish Power. As far as Jews are concerned, white patriots in US and EU, Russians, Iranians, Syrians, and Christian Conservatives are Meta-Palestinians who deserve Palestinian Justice. Even when Jews wrong Russia, Russia gets blamed. Even when Jewish-controlled US is the aggressor against Russia, Russia is the guilty party. Why would hypocritical Jews who treat Palestinians like shi* treat the rest of the world any differently? Why did whites ever think that if they support Jews treating Palestinians like subhumans, Jews are somehow going to treat whites any better? After all, aren't both Palestinians and whites a bunch of 'dirty goyim' in Jewish eyes? Don't Jews think in terms of "Is it good for the Jews?" wherever they are and whomever they're with? The West looked the other way and even aided Israel's invasion of West Bank, but did this lead to Jewish gratitude to the West? No, Jewish policy toward EU and US follows the same dynamics as Zionist policy toward Palestinians in the West Bank. It is population replacement and destruction of goy nationalism on the arrogant Mono-Nationalist premise that ONLY JEWS are deserving of proud identity and nationalism.
The current formula is as follows:
Jewish Justice or JJ for Jews, Negro Meta-Jews, and Homo Meta-Jews.
Palestinian Justice or PJ for whites, Russia, Syria, Iran.
And then, there's the tricky part. If Muslims are OVER THERE, they deserve Palestinian Justice. Sanction them, destroy their economy, invade them, rain bombs on them, turn them into refugees. In their home nations, all these Arabs and Muslims are Meta-Palestinians. (There are exceptions. Saudis are Meta-Jews because they are such total cuck-dogs of the Zionist-US empire. Saudis can get away with anything: Murder, Torture, aiding terrorists.)
But if Muslims are OVER HERE, they suddenly favored with Jewish Justice. Protect them, promote them, and coddle them as akin to New Jews, a vulnerable minority group that needs to be protected from MAGA-monsters. But then, if like Ilhan Omar, a Muslim in America talks about Jewish Money and Power, he or she is back to being treated with Palestinian Justice.
No matter what whites do for Jews, Jews will always regard whites as Meta-Palestinians. It's about time whites realized this. Only then can whites work toward equal justice for all peoples, one that will recognize the right of nationalism and sovereignty for all peoples(than just for Jews). What Jews mean by 'liberal democracy' is Jewish supremacism and privilege. Real justice would not favor Jews over whites or whites over Jews or Jews over Palestinians or Palestinians over Jews. It would say that Palestinians and whites are deserving of nations and national security, just like Israel as a Jewish state.
It's utterly disingenuous for whites to complain about how Jewish power is undermining nationhood for white people when white people have supported the Zionist denial of nationhood to Palestinians. By assenting to Zionism's perversion of justice into a matter of Jewish Justice for Jews and Palestinian Justice for Palestinians, whites have encouraged Jewish Power to see the entire world as a macro-version of West Bank: One rule for Jews, another for goyim.
White liberation/emancipation from Jewish supremacism begins with saying NO MORE to Zionist colonization of the West Bank. Any white person who supports this has NO RIGHT to complain about Jewish power doing the SAME THING to his own nation. If Bob supports Bill's attack on innocent Paul, why should Bob complain when Bill turns around and attacks Bob too?
Sometimes, it may seem as though the PC crowd just doesn't get the joke. Often, the problem is they do get it and just can't handle it. Likely, the Asian attendees at the event got the Nimesh Patel joke, and that is why he had to be Babu-ed or Baboo-ed. As well-trained dogs of PC(that serves as the manual for status-striving), Asian-Americans were predictably 'triggered'. Yellow dogs have a tendency to seek approval and follow, and in the Current Year, 'gay rights' are blessed Gay Rites.
Now, jokes are generally triggering and 'offensive'. Usually, someone or something is the object of mockery, the 'target' or 'victim'. It could be the other or it could be the self, usually the case with Joan Rivers and Rodney Dangerfield, the man who never got any respect.
Humor usually doesn't go well together with holiness and reverence, matters that call for sanctimony. When mockery of a sacred cow is tolerated, the once holy cow looks like holy shit. Perhaps, it was less Darwin & Marx and more Marx Brothers that did in Christianity & Bourgeois morals. One can never look at opera in the same way after NIGHT AT THE OPERA.
Peter Ustinov's take on an ill-fated production of Richard Wagner's SIEGRIED is hilarious. One can hardly watch that scene with 'solemnity' and straight face anymore. Video at 40:05.
And the Old Elites of Europe relied heavily on pomp and spectacle, the stuff of awe and reverence that kings and noblemen relied upon to justify their privilege and dominance.The Order sensed that, once people began to see the rulers as laughable and ridiculous, the status quo was doomed. Pompous elites could be weakened with humor or fanatical anti-humor. With the rise of modernity, mass media, and growing cynicism(especially in urban areas), people began to chuckle about kings, queens, and idiot prince who seemed increasingly out-of-place and even 'alien' in the New Order created by the power of money and machines. Sometimes, humor and rage aren't that far apart.
In the case of Iran, the mass revolt vilified the Shah as both a ridiculous clown and an impotent shill. The most fanatical within the uprising soon lost their sense of humor and thirsted for blood. Same in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge. And certain Russian/Jewish communists weren't big on humor either. Think of the character of Strelnikov in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO.
But in the capitalist West, the general way(often Jewish) of subverting The Order was through humor(and pornography as in Weimar Germany). In some cases, laughter at one authority was the flip-side of grim commitment to another authority, the new boss.
Consider how the soldiers laugh at the elite officer in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, but mockery is soon followed by brutal violence and bloodthirsty hate. Whatever the ultimate agenda or outcome, few things are as effective as laughter in de-legitimizing authority. This is why PC can't abide by humor directed at what it deems holy. If humor could bring down respect/reverence for kings, ideologies, and God Himself, it can bring down just about anything.
Why does the urbane sophisticate finally lose his cool in ALL ABOUT EVE? He becomes the object of laughter. He's used to being the wit than outwitted. And Humbert's biggest humiliation in LOLITA is that he's just a butt of jokes to Quilty.
Humor can be gentle or G-rated(like on the TV show HEE-HAW) but is most effective when racy and irreverent(or, at the furthest reach, surreal). (Potty-mouthed 'X-rated' stand-up routines with nonstop twaddle about sex and genitals are mostly tiresome with few exceptions: Sam Kinison and Eddie Murphy, esp. Mr T. as a 'faggot' routine.) Edgy humor stings its 'victims' with potency. It can be downright lethal. Granted, humor is often self-effacing or double-edged, passive/aggressive. It often mocks the mocker along with the mocked, like with the Mexican Restaurant scene in SANFORD AND SON, a show with many 'Hispanic' jokes that spring back on Fred G. Sanford as a black bigot.
The passive/aggressive nature of humor elicits both self-pity and confidence in the audience. On some level, the audience identifies with the comic/clown(for whom nothing seems to go right) because everyone has problems. And by laughing at the comic's 'problems', the audience 'therapeutically' comes to laugh at their own with similar overtones. Thus, there is no clear line between comic-as-them and comic-as-us. Because the comic is given to exaggeration, the audience is relieved to find that their problems aren't so bad, and yet, the exaggeration is of situations all-too-familiar to many people. But then, because the comic has the balderdash to spell out his 'problems' and give the middle-finger to the world, he is also a figure of confidence, even arrogance. He becomes kind of 'heroic'. And yet, there is ambiguity in his middle-finger. Is it for the audience or for the audience?
Now, in our post-religious age, nothing should be sacrosanct, but as Jonathan Haidt and others have remarked, human psychology is drawn to righteous holy-schmoliness, and new 'gods' are elevated by cultural consensus shaped by elite academia and mass media. Certain figures and narratives become de facto sacred even if ostensibly part of secular culture & politics. MLK, (Harvey)Milk, and Mandela aren't regarded as gods in the literal sense but treated as figures of idol-worship nevertheless. Homos are associated with New Agey 'rainbow' colors, Jews always with the Shoah, and blacks with slavery(as an evil second only to Shoah according to the current Jewish-dominated narrative hellbent on milking 'white guilt' for all it is worth) and Civil Rights Movement, the Manichean Narrative of which is about stark Good vs Evil with no grey in between.
Granted, there has been a schizo element in trying to sustain reverential thoughts about Jews, blacks, and homos. After all, even as Jews insist on being regarded solemnly as the Shoah People, their natural tendency is to be subversive, perverse, and insulting. So, when we think of Jews, the mask of Anne Frank often peels off to reveal Sarah Silverman. Blacks demand we see them as the 'We Shall Overcome' people, but so much of black culture is crazy, trashy, ugly, and demented(and proud of it). We live in the Age of Mandela and Twerking, of black reverends and black rappers. In a way, Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and DJANGO UNCHAINED conveyed this schizo aspect of Jews and blacks as Sacred Monsters: Consider their Moralism + Sadism, or Sado-Moralism. And then, there are homos. It's amazing how many people have been led to remember the AIDS epidemic as a kind of homo-holocaust when it was the result of sodomites butt-banging one another like rabbits-in-heat.
Now, what was Nimesh Patel's great 'sin'? It was simply that he mocked blackness and homosexuality. (Good thing he left out the Jews or else the controversy would have been greater.) Now, one could argue that his jokes were ultimately sympathetic to blacks and homos, i.e. those groups have a tough time due to 'racism' and 'homophobia'. Still, he made a joke of issues related to sacrosanct groups, and PC will not tolerate mockery of the holy-schmolies. It undermines sober reverence of the main idols of PC. Humor, inebriated with anarchic spirit, forgets what is holy and pokes fun at just about everything. PC demands a teetotaler brand of humor that is always mindful of what can and can't be said. One might say humor has entered the Prohibition Era, and who knows, maybe humor(with anarchic intoxicant content) will go underground as a form of gangsterism.
If Patel had joked in such manner about any other group, even Asians, there wouldn't have been a fuss. But Jews, homos, and Negroes are are not to be mocked; and the insistence is the product of both PC indoctrination/idolatry and craven cowardice. After all, surely the yellow dogs in college campuses know that the most vocal and hostile groups tend to be Jews, blacks, and homos. Piss off one of them, and all hell may break loose. So, to prevent homo and/or black outrage directed at Asians, Asians shut down a fellow 'bad' Asian to preemptively signal that they are with the PC program 100%. They understand that we must all revere and quasi-worship the Holy Schmoly Three of Jews, blacks, and homos.
If anything, the joke-that-no-one-got within the purview of the recent event is that these Asians sure lived up to racial stereotypes as the ever-so-obedient, ever-so-conformist, and ever-so-predictable yellow dogs. They made it plain as day that they suck up to power and kowtow before the Official Narrative. Since blacks and homos are holy in the Jewish-controlled West, Asian yellow dogs worship at the altar of Obligatory Iconography. The perimeters of humor are to remain within permissible bounds.
Because Jews control the Power and designated themselves, blacks, and homos as the Holy Three, most Americans are nervous about saying anything that might be construed as neo-blasphemous and offensive to precious sensitivities of the Holy Three. Granted, Jews can joke about Jews, blacks can joke about blacks, and homos can joke about homos... but everyone else better watch out, and furthermore, Jews, homos, and blacks must be careful not to step on each other's toes in their Holy Culture Waltz. As for Asians(especially yellow East Asians), they come from status-obsessed conformist cultures, and therefore, they(especially sheepish and dog-like East Asians) tend toward conformity with the Prevailing Dogma(of whichever society they happen to reside in) to gain status points. This isn't really about 'safe spaces' but about status-points. Especially because Asian Identity lacks intrinsic value in the Western PC scorecard, Asians yearn to latch onto one or all of the Holy Three. Asians-as-Asian having no value, Asians seek value in roles as Asians-for-Jews/Israel, Asians-for-blacks, and/or Asians-for-homos. In this way, yellows are like pseudo-white-people. Just like whites, having been robbed of autonomous worth by PC, have no choice but to gain moral worth by latching themselves in service to Jews, blacks, and/or homos(as the Holy Three), Asians feel they must also latch onto the Holies to have any worth. So, Asians-for-Asians is regarded as a yawn or irritation, and that means Asians can feel righteous only by cheering or championing the Holy Three. Because Asians-for-Asians is regarded as petty and selfish by PC(whereas blacks-for-blacks, homos-for-homos, and Jews-for-Jews are regarded as the noblest commitments), 'woke' Asians go out of their way to show that they prioritize the interests of Jews, blacks, or homos over their own. Whether it's Nikki Haley or Amy Chua sucking up to Jews OR the Asian Alliance at Columbia University sucking up to blacks and homos, it's obvious that Asian themes have no moral or spiritual currency in the West. Hindu browns and Far East yellows must suck up to the Three Holies. Incidentally, one crucial difference between whites and yellows is that, whereas whites lack intrinsic value due to the cult of 'white guilt', yellows lack intrinsic value due to their perceived 'lameness'. Asian women have some 'hot' value but as sexual subjects to be owned by other races.
Now, why are some peoples holier than others? After all, isn't our 'progressive' society all about 'equality'? One reason is Jews have the power, and Jews get to decide who is or isn't holy. It's simple as that, and Jews are of course going to favor themselves and their key political allies. The other reason is that the core formula for being part of Holy Three is as follows: Possession of Superior Ability + Possession of Victim Narrative. Why does a particular group receive more sympathy for its victimhood IF it is perceived as having superior qualities? Because there is the sense that a SUPERIOR and even god-like people have been wronged. Thus, it seems more tragic than if a 'lame' or mediocre people had been wronged. Why do we feel more tragic when a lion than a warthog is killed(even though warthogs are intelligent animals too)? It's because we admire lions as the superior hunter, the king of the jungle, whereas we regard warthogs as just ugly prey animals. After all, who ever got enraged in the West over some white hunter who killed a warthog?
Because blacks are admired as superior athletes, singers with louder voices, and studs with bigger dongs(or sexy ho's with bouncier booties), they are admired in the West as the superior race. People may not consciously think so but they sensually feel it, and feelings go a long way in shaping society. (It's like most men are more likely to help a pretty woman in distress than a fat ugly one. It's not conscious but subconscious bias. Most men probably see themselves as decent fellers who'd care equally for anyone in need of help, but reality plays out differently based on people's feelings.) Because of differences in perceptions about race, the history of slavery and Jim Crow seems especially unjust because blacks, a Superior People, were wronged. In contrast, there is far less sympathy for American Indians even though they suffered something worse than slavery. They suffered 'genocide' and permanent loss of their land due to massive immigration-imperialism. Given the 'genocidal' impact of immigration-imperialism on American Indians, one might think PC would associate immigration with imperialism & historical 'sin', indeed the Original Sin of America. But not so. Instead, all we hear about immigration is that it's especially great because Jews, one of the Holy Threes, gained so much from it. Also, we are told that the Original Sin of America is black slavery, not the 'genocide' of the Red Man. Why? Blacks are deemed holier. Because American Indians can't sing and dance, don't excel in sports, and aren't seen as super-studs, their victim-hood is acknowledged as sad but dismissed as boring. (In some ways, the American Moral Paradox can be explained in terms of a people trying to cover up 'crimes' with crusades. Because America was founded upon 'genocide', slavery, imperialism, and massive destruction of natural wonders, it is easy to paint its history with blood, sweat, and tears, a saga of greed and plunder. Because of this moral crisis, one way to justify Americanism was to tirelessly associate its growth with never-ending crusades. "Offense is the best defense" as they say. The most surreal version of this is Tim Cook fulminating about necessary crusades against the 'sin' of 'hate speech' before the ADL. As we all now, Apple is a vile, greedy, and corrupt globalist company that uses semi-slave labor around the world. It has no qualms about doing business with tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism. It is also joined at the hip with the neo-imperialist Deep State that pushed wars that destroyed millions of lives. As for ADL, it is a hateful Zionist-imperialist organization that seeks to silence any criticism of Israel's murderous policies against Palestinians. If anything, Apple and ADL have a lot to answer for, but notice that Tim Cook goes on the moral offensive and accuses other people of 'sin'. But then, it's hardly surprising that homo-supremacist Tim Cook is so deferential to Jewish-Supremacist ADL. After all, Jewish Power was behind Homomania that elevated homos and trannies to the status of angels and demigods. Jews made people like Cook the new gods of America, and homo vanity is just fine with Jewish power. With Anno Sodomini, homos get to decide what is 'sinful'. So, it is 'sinful' to refuse to appease the filth of 'gay marriage', but homos waging ugly war on true morality and decency is never 'hateful' since Jews and Homos get to decide what is 'hate speech'. Tim Cook is of Christian background, but post-religious ilk like him, having lost their faith, seek new meaning in New Age lunacies like Homomania, especially as it stokes their 'gay' vanity as a superior breed.)
The formula for the Holy Three has roots in Christianity. If Jesus was just a man who got beaten and killed, it would have been just another sad story of a good man undone by powerful forces. Such men were dime-a-dozen throughout history. So, why did His story become so powerful? Because a Narrative developed that He wasn't just some guy with a helpful message but the Messiah. Humankind didn't just kill a Nice Person but the one and only Son of God. And so, Christians were filled with both great awe and massive guilt.
If white folks had brought over scrawny Vietnamese or meek Bolivian Indians to toil as slaves in America, there would have been no great respect or reverence for those peoples. And not much in the way of 'white guilt'. Even after Emancipation, such peoples would not have excelled in sports or pop music. And small Asian men or short brown men would not have been regarded as studs that can inspire 'fever' among white women and cucky-wuckery among white men(reduced to hapless 'white boys'). Also, as Asians and browns have weaker voices, men of oratorical power like MLK would not have emerged among them. Brown natives of Latin America suffered 'genocide', slavery, and oppression for centuries, but the attitude of even American Progressives is essentially "bring them over to cut our lawns, do our laundry, and change diapers." Americans of all ideologies regard browns as a race of permanent helots. In contrast, Americans regard blacks as the superior race due to black success in song, dong, and strong. Thus, whites feel more guilt about blacks because they came to realize that they'd once oppressed a 'cool' superior race of 'the greatest', as Muhammad Ali anointed himself. So, even though Americans like to tell themselves that they are all about 'equality' in terms of ideology, they favor some groups over others in terms of idolatry. Some groups have more idolatrous value than others, esp. because American sense of worth is largely determined by celebrity of sports, song, and sex.
Now, why do Jews and homos also have holy power? Jews are not successful in sports and the sexual attractive sweepstakes. Granted, many Jews were talented music composers(though often for black singers with more powerful voices). Still, Jews also have a combination of Superiority and Victimhood so essential to the Holy Formula. Jews can invoke the Shoah(as the greatest evil of all time) & history of persecution under Christians for their Victimhood Narrative. But Jews can also promote themselves as the Chosen People, the Genius People, the people of wit, and the people of wealth. So, Jews are regarded with awe. Awesomely tragic and awesomely triumphant. In contrast, Palestinians get no respect despite their undeniable victim-hood because they are seen as mediocre, uninspired, and lame. After all, where is the Palestinian Einstein or Mendelssohn? Where is the Palestinian Bob Dylan or Steven Spielberg? So, victim-hood isn't enough for a people to gain Holy-Schmoly status. To be one of the Holies, you need the formula of Victimhood + Superiority.
Homos also concocted a victim-narrative for themselves(of course with the invaluable support of the Jew-run media), but no less crucial is their perceived superiority. Because homos tend to be vain and narcissistic, they've gained notable success in fashion, entertainment, and upper echelons of privilege. It's like the rich in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET feel prestige in hiring a 'gay butler'. And because homos love to rub shoulders and dilly-dally with the rich and powerful, the privileged classes have come to see homos as loyal partners-in-crime(with better taste in decor and design). Granted, the homo victim-narrative centered around AIDS relies on twisted logic. HIV spread far and wide among homos because they were indulging in wild orgies at all times in all places. But because Jews control the media and prize homos for Favorite Ally Status, they've spun a PC narrative about homos as saints & angels destroyed by some 'homophobic' tragedy. So, HIV epidemic was more the product of Ronald Reagan's wickedness.
Anyway, the reason why the Asian Alliance shut down Patel was simply because he mocked two of the Holy Three. He didn't show 'due' deference when speaking of homos and blacks. Asians are sheepish status-seekers and predictably conform to prevailing socio-cultural dogma. It's a pattern we see over and over. Why was it that East Asians, despite possessing intelligence comparable to that of Western folks, failed to achieve the kind of progress and revolutionary breakthroughs that came to define European Civilizations? Because the Asian Character tends to be sheepish, obedient, and conformist. So, their minds were used mainly to gain status and seek approval from the existing power structure than to expand freedom and seek truth(beyond the dominant dogma). If not for the impact of Western incursions into East Asia, yellow people there would still be preparing for eight-legged Confucian essays to pass exams to become the same-old-same-old bureaucrats mouthing the tired truisms. Then, it is not surprising that East Asians in the West are such unoriginal yellow dogs who predictably toe the dominant line. Furthermore, having no intrinsic value or powerful self-identity in the West, the yellow dogs seek worth by begging for approval from the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, and homos. But then, dogs always seek out masters to serve. The main Asian trait is 'to serve' than 'to lead'. It is to be the dog than the master of history.
Apart from the Holy Three, no other people really matter in the West, especially if the people in particular have been wronged by the Holy Three. So, when blacks riot and burn down businesses, no one cares about the store-owners, many of whom are Arab or Muslim in depressed communities. Or when Zionists use brutal force on Palestinians, people look the other way or support Israel(as Congress and US presidents always do). Or when homos use their privilege to shut down bakeries & organizations that won't bend over to the 'Gay' Agenda, there is either sullen silence(among craven and cowardly 'conservatives' who dare not infuriate Jews who are behind Homomania) or ecstatic support of homo tyranny(among 'progressives' for whom immorality is the New Morality). The Holy Three are like the 'made men' in GOODFELLAS. They are free to roam and rule as they please.
How about Muslims? They are mere cannon fodder. Since Jews are holy and control the US, they continue to steer foreign policy to destroy any Muslim nation reviled as a 'threat to Israel', even though Israel is the main threat to all peaceful nations in the region. As a result, millions of Muslims have had their lives ruined in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran through wars, invasions, terrorism(sponsored by US and Israel), and sanctions. But who cares? After all, Muslims are mediocre and have no special talents. Sure, Jews feign sympathy for Muslim 'refugees' while willfully ignoring the fact that those nation-less Muslims are the result of Wars for Israel pushed by Jews who control the US. Ending Wars for Israel will stop turning Muslims into refugees, but Jews keep using whore-politicians(Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump) to wage more Wars for Israel because Israel-Uber-Alles is the neo-religion of the West. Also, notice that Jews steer those Muslim 'refugees' into the West while Israel takes in not a single one(nor hands back stolen Golan Heights to Syria). If anything, Jews continue to steal more land in the West Bank. At any rate, the reason why Muslims get no love despite being victimized in a Jew-controlled world is because they aren't superior in wit(Jews), athleticism(blacks), or creativity(homos). So, who cares if millions of them die?
Same with Asians. Americans may have killed up to a 300,000 Filipinos(by indirect as well as indirect means) in the US-Philippines War, millions of Japanese in WWII(in a conflict in which the Western Imperialists were just as much to blame), millions of Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War, and millions of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. The greatest killings done by the US were mostly in Asia. These wars resulted from US imperialist hegemony over Asia, but Asian victimization at the hands of the US doesn't count for much because Asians are seen as lame and boring grinds whose dominant theme is "Hey, be quiet, this is the library". Victim-hood without perceived superiority doesn't stir up much sympathy.
A single dead Jew, black, or homo is regarded more tragically than a million dead Muslims or Asians because Jews, blacks, and homos are perceived to possess superior qualities, whereas Muslims and Asians are seen as masses of faceless lame folks. But then, it seems most Asian-Americans are indeed pretty lame, conformist, and predictable given their attitudes in the West. Most being mere teacher's pets, they just regurgitate PC fed to them since kindergarten. They are 'good little boys' and 'good little girls' who never had an independent idea or value in their heads. Even when they act 'defiant' or 'rebellious', it is in total imitation of other peoples, esp. Jews, blacks, and homos. Asians are yellow dogs and copycats. There are exceptions to be sure, but as they say, two swallows don't make a summer. Likewise, two yellows don't do it either.
Now, one could argue that Arab Muslims and East Asians are both superior to blacks in IQ. After all, the Arab World and Asian World are far more advanced than black Africa and better-run than black-dominated cities like Detroit. But not every advantageous trait is 'iconic'. After all, people with superior engineering skills just do their jobs. They are not celebrated as stars or celebrities. Only a handful of uber-smart people like Einstein become well-known to the world. To appreciate science, technology, and most brainy professions, it takes time and patience. In contrast, it is immediately fun to listen to music, watch sports, get excited about sex, laugh at comedy, and rhapsodize about celebrity. Homos are creative with fashion and celebrity, Jews are funny & brilliant as comics, and blacks dominate pop music & sports, both of which are closely aligned with sex culture.
In some ways, Jews have both the easiest and most difficult task in maintaining their 'iconic' status. It's easy because they control media and academia; as such, they get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. But, much of 'iconic' Jewish value reside in elite levels of achievement. Jews gained renown as writers, intellectuals, and scholars. Despite the high regard for Jewish Genius among the educated classes, most people don't care such things. For every person who read Philip Roth, a thousand people heard rap songs. Jews have been dominant in comedy, but as culture becomes dumber and trashier, future Woody Allens may not be properly appreciated. Worse, PC is doing to comedy what HIV did to homos, and this is bound to cut into Jewish wit. And as athletes and singers, Jews have been unable to compete with blacks. Also, someone of Bob Dylan's vision and genius isn't likely to be highly regarded in future America where the culture just keeps getting stupider. The key to Dylan's success was wit and brilliance because he wasn't a conventional song-and-dance man. But, in an idol-obsessed world, there is less space for eccentric artists like Dylan. And Shoah is too much of a downer. In contrast, homos have the wild-celebration thing that gets people all excited, and blacks got song, dong, and strong. Straights can join in the celebration of flamboyant homos, and non-blacks can enjoy blacks showing off on the sports field, but how can non-Jews really enjoy Jewishness?
Anyway, Asian yellow dogs are a confused lot. In a way, they are almost like closet-white-supremacists. In Japan, they have all these animation or 'anime' where characters tend to look Caucasian. Japanese cultural identity is a fantasy of wanting to be white. And, a New Yorker article reported that South Koreans are champions of plastic surgery. They go under the knife to emerge with white-looking eyes and noses. They go for trans-racial fantasies. And they dye their hand blonde and pretend to be pseudo-white-people. Also, Asians prefer whites as sexual mates and want to have white-looking babies. Granted, Asian women have advantage over Asian men in this department because, whereas Asian women have high sexual market value, Asian males have the lowest. Men of all races want to have sex with Asian women(who are seen as very feminine) but women of most races have no attraction to Asian men(who are deemed a bunch of dorks). And in dating sites, Asian women prefer white men over Asian men. And Asian male homos prefer non-Asian men to bugger their bungs. Notice how George Takei's yellow homo-bung is the plaything of some white guy. When Yukio Mishima visited New York, he looked for a blond homo, apparently to bugger his yellow bung.
Also, in terms of immigration patterns, Asians always prefer white-made or white-majority nations. Asian immigration preferences are for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US. Or Europe. Asians don't want to move to non-white-majority nations. In fact, Asians would rather move to a white-majority nation than to a fellow Asian nation. Asians feel that whites will treat them better and fairer than other Asians will treat them. So, everything that Asians DO would indicate a preference for whiteness. But to hide this shame(of favoring another race while devaluing their own), yellow dogs bark lots of anti-white noises. But if Asians really feel that way, why not avoid white people by staying in their own Asian nations? Why permanently relocate to white-majority nations? Why prefer white-made institutions over their own? Why take white names instead of keeping Asian names? Why not have Asian-looking babies than having white-looking babies? Why dye hair into blonde or brunette? Why have plastic surgery to look white? Asians bitch about past American policies that excluded Asians, but why were they so eager to flee from their own kind in the first place to live in a white-made and white-majority nations? Aren't Asian immigrants favoring whites over their own kind? Aren't they trying to 'include' more whites while 'excluding' fellow Asians in their own lives? After all, by coming to white-made nations, Asians become part of a white-majority world while excluding Asian Civilization from their daily lives. Such total lack of self-awareness. We should judge people by what they do than what they say. In terms of what Asians actually do, they seem to be closet-white-supremacists who want to live in white-majority nations, have white names, have sex with whites, and have white-looking babies. And it seems to be matter of Like Yellow Father Like Yellow Daughter. Asians see 'becoming white' as a journey of social, racial, and civilizational evolution, improvement, and ascendancy. Whether via plastic surgery or race-mixing, Asians feel no intrinsic value.
In the moral politics of PC, Asians suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos. As Evil Whitey is PC's main scapegoat, Asians join in on the Two Minutes of Hate against Whitey. But the fact is Asian immigrant-invaders moved to white nations because they favor whites over all other races, including their own. And despite their PC rhetoric, they try to settle in white areas and avoid brown and especially black areas. Based on what they really do than say, they are closet-white-supremacists. But then, so are Jews. For example, Jews revile 'racist' Nazi aesthetics of superior Aryan Beauty, but Jewish men have often longed for 'blonde white goddesses' while dumping Jewish women. Men like Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, and Arthur Miller had quasi-Nazi taste in 'Aryan-looking' women as the epitome of beauty and desire. And brown hordes seem to be closet-white-supremacists too. They run from fellow browns and Diversity to make it to the US that is still perceived as a white country.
Anyway, Nimesh Patel the brown Asian was silenced by yellow dog Asians because he violated the PC decree of worshiping Blacks and Homos. Asians, being lame and conformist, seek to appease the Holy Three and are deathly afraid of displeasing them. Patel dared to crack jokes about homos and blacks, and that was simply a capital offense in the minds of conformist and sheep-like Asian grinds whose idea of humor is to serve the Power. (If these Asians really care about justice, why were they silent about Obama and Hillary's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why don't they protest Trump's anti-Iranian and anti-Palestinian policies? And why were they silent when Jewish Madeline Albright was killing 500,000 Iraqi kids?) They're really a bunch of phonies.
Be that as it may, in some ways, PC may be saving comedy.
Comedy reached its greatest heights as a subversive form of expression. Someone like Oscar Wilde would have been redundant and irrelevant in a permissive society. Best kind of humor always had to be risque. Lenny Bruce certainly got mileage of going against the system.
For a time, there was total freedom for comedians to be as outrageous as they wanted to be. The burst of freedom greeted as liberation and was fun for awhile but became pointless and tiresome because wanton vulgarity saturated everything and become just another mundane feature of life. People using F-words and discussing graphic sex became the New Normal, from elite-educated to the unwashed. The only way comedians could remain 'edgy' was by getting grosser and more putrid than the next guy. It was like a bunch of drunkards wallowing in their own vomit and urine.
But now, PC is once again creating a climate of repression and taboos, and that means real comedy can become risque again. But what is especially perverse is that PC considers itself to be edgy and subversive. After all, PC is the dogma of 'radicals' who take pride in their subversive attitude toward society. (Of course, the mindless dogs of PC, lacking agency and individuality like Mao's Red Guards, must be told by Central Command what to 'subvert' and attack. So, if Big Sister tells feminists to subvert the dead horse of 'patriarchy', you bet feminist dogs do just that and only that.) PC's delusional rationale for repressing free speech(now almost synonymous with 'hate speech') is to protect ‘radicalism' in a safe space. (It's as if 'radicalism' is now an infant that has to be babied and nursed. But then, we live in an infantile age.) It’s like a blade that has to be perpetually sheathed to keep it from blunting or breaking. But, this defeats the knife's purpose. A knife is designed to be a sharp instrument in order to cut. Then, cut it must despite the risk of tear-and-wear. The radicals once took pride in being edgy, but that edginess has been institutionalized. The blade has been placed as a sacred relic in the PC museum, and any weapon that dares to call on the knife to a knife-fight must be silenced & suppressed because the knife, having been consecrated as holy, no longer needs to prove itself. Everything institutionalized comes to be protected and preserved, shielded from further challenges. So, PC’s radicalism has become in name only. It is a protected blade that remains in the safety of the sheath. And the Power tells us there is no more needs for duels or knife-fights to see who or what is better because the 'debate is over', that's that, so you better shut up, and just learn to love PC and the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos.
But this provides a new opportunity for comedians to subvert the Power. Political Correctness, in the name of protecting the 'weak', has come to protect the powerful. Once this state of affairs is exposed for what it really is, comedy comes alive again. We are living in a time when Jews, homos, and blacks wield immense power. Pretending that the Historical Clock stopped in the late 50s or early 60s is pure fantasy. Blacks today aren't like blacks back then. Jewish Power today isn't like what it was back then. And heaven knows homo privilege today isn't anything like homo reality back then. It's like the Chinese today aren't the coolies of yesteryear pulling rickshaws carrying white imperialists. Time passes, and things change. In a world where homos can destroy bakeries for refusing to bake a 'gay wedding cake', it is laughable to treat homos as some pitiful victim group. (What is the next frontier for 'marriage equality'? Same-Family or Incest Marriage?)
Whether a society is theocratic or ideocratic(defined by secular ideology), certain ideas, images, idols, and/or icons are held up as holy, sacred, divine, and/or irreproachable. It goes beyond factual value or utilitarian worth. It is what makes the society feel justified, redemptive, inspired, uplifted, and/or righteous(and maybe better than other societies).
Sacramentalism has value insofar as it provides emotional or spiritual(or quasi-spiritual) meaning(and even uplift) to the people of that culture. But it comes with a certain danger: When something is held up as sacred or holy, it becomes taboo to say or do anything that offends the official sanctimony. Now, if what is upheld as holy or sacred is the absolute truth, it may cause little harm to prevent views or actions that threaten to demean that truth. For example, if people are forced to accept 2 + 2 = 4 as truth and forbidden to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, could it really do much harm?
But few things in life can be said to constitute the absolute truth. Even hard sciences undergo paradigm shifts. Social sciences and social values(being more heavily influenced by societal norms, political power, and ideological biases) are suspect as final arbiters of truth. So, in order for there to be advancement in our understanding of humanity, we need a spirit, culture, and system of free inquiry and open exchange of ideas. Ideas and views that challenge the Official Truth may or may not have lasting value, but unless there is freedom to challenge the Official Dogma, what we have is Sacramentalism as the dominant cultural authority. And this is no less a problem in modern secular societies as in medievalist theocratic ones. Consider the two stories:
The first story happened in Saudi Arabia, a medievalist theocratic state. The second story happened in UK, a modern secular republic(or democracy). No two societies couldn't be more different. And yet, there is an eerie similarity to the two stories. What are they? They are both the result of Sacramentalism.
In Saudi Arabia, Islamic Law is sacred. For non-Muslim observers, the death of Saudi girls in the fire in the above-linked story sounds horrible and totally unjustified, and I would concur. But we don't share in those sacramental Islamic values. For ultra-devout Muslims for whom their religious laws aren't merely the rules of man but the divine decrees of God, what is Holy is more precious than mere mortal lives. I'm sure even hardcore Muslims were saddened by the deaths of those girls in the fire, BUT more sacred to them was the preservation of Islamic Laws and Tradition.
In the case of UK, there is the neo-religion or neoligion of Diversity and 'White Guilt'. Generations have been drummed with the PC mantra that 'diversity is our strength' or DIOS(the new deus of the West). It is not to be disputed. To disagree or dissent from Diversity-as-Sacred is to be a bad evil person, a 'racist', gasp gasp. It is an article of faith to worship Diversity. Also, white Britons have been weaned on 'white guilt' that was supposedly inherited from crimes of British Imperialism. (But then, there is also an element of closeted-white-pride among some Britons insofar as non-white masses seem to prefer white UK over their own homelands ruled by their own kind. Thus, UK is remade into a mini-facsimile of the Old Imperialism for those who secretly hark back to the Age of Empire: UK as theme park of Britannia ruling over diverse peoples. Also, even though 'white guilt' is supposed to browbeat the white masses into timid obeisance, it has also become an opportune article of neo-haute faith among the snotty elites who turn up their noses at the hoi polloi who ask, like Oliver Twist, "Can we have a little less invasion?" HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR SUCH, YOU LOWLY RACIST!!)
Since Diversity and 'white guilt' are sacrosanct in the new UK, any fact or revelation that exposes PC assumptions as falsehoods(or half-truths at best) must be suppressed, indeed denounced as demonic. And those who dare to speak inconvenient truths must be castigated as heretics.
The result was silence from law officials who knew all-too-well what was happening in Rotherham. But they remained mum out of fear of being condemned or excommunicated as 'racists' if they'd bothered to sound the alarm about those white girls being abused by Muslim sex traders and rapists.
Likewise in the US, many military men who suspected something wrong about Nidal Hassan(the Fort Hood shooter) kept silent lest they be suspected of desecrating the magic spirit of Diversity(as our 'greatest strength'). So, the shooting that could have been prevented based on troubling signs in Hassan's behavior was allowed to happen.
Also, one of the airport security officials said he sensed something strange about Ansar-Al-Fatah on 9/11, but he didn't say or do anything since it went against the spirit of 'Diversity' as America's greatest strength. And then, consider all the time and energy wasted in the US by having everyone(even old white ladies) inspected at airports when young Muslim men are prime suspects as terrorists. All that wasted energy and resources were also due to the sacramentalism of PC.
Due to the Sacramental place that blacks occupy in the US narrative stemming from the Civil Rights Era, it's nearly impossible to speak honestly about the problems of race, especially as they pertain to crime and violence. The Holy Narrative would have us believe that these saintly and wonderful blacks suffered so nobly as slaves. And blacks were completely in the right and white segregationists were completely in the wrong during the Civil Rights Era. So, blacks are tragically holy, whereas whites must atone for their great 'sin'. Now, there was slavery and oppression of blacks in American History. And there were morally compelling themes in the Civil Rights Movement. But the real history is far more complicated than the Ken-Burnsy fairy-tale we've been getting forever.
True, blacks had to labor as slaves, but slavery was hardly unique in the world. Also, the only reason why many black slaves seemed relatively docile and nice(in Uncle Tom-ish ways) was out of the fear of the white man's whip and gun. It had nothing to do with the innate nature of the blacks, which is more aggressive and brutish than the natures of other races.
And segregationists were partly justified in their fear of the Negro as the black man is bigger, more muscular, stronger, tougher, and more aggressive than the white man. And the ensuing racial mayhem committed by blacks all over the US(and not just against whites) attests to the problems of real differences among the races.
So, even though there are compelling arguments in favor of the Black Narrative, the counter-narratives are valid in their own way. There is no single truth that explains everything. No social or historical truth is so sacrosanct that nullifies all other narratives. (It's like the Narrative of Jews-as-killers-of-Christ-as-Son-of-God is just one side of the story. For one thing, Jews don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus, so even if they were to claim responsibility for His death, they wouldn't feel that they killed the Son of God or the Messiah. Jews are not tainted for all time because of what they did to Jesus nor are they holy for all time because of Shoah.) But PC insists that we treat the Black Narrative as holy, the only acceptable one. As our society worships the Magic Negro, MLK cult, and Civil Rights Movement as a battle between angels and demons, we can't have a honest discussion of race and racial problems. The narrative keeps reeling back to some old movie with Gregory Peck defending an innocent Negro falsely accused. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is like the GROUNDHOG DAY of the American Narrative. No matter what Negroes do, we are back to ground zero of Innocent Saintly Negro vs all those wicked white 'racist' bigots. That serves as the template of our discussion of race even after blacks rob, rape, riot, and rampage.
As for global affairs, the most dangerous 'Sacramentality' of America is the Icon of the Holy Jew. Because of the Holocaust-as-neo-religion, we are supposed to worship Jews. We are not supposed to say anything critical of Jewish Power lest it be 'antisemitic' which may soon degenerate into 'Nazism', thus paving the way for new holocausts.
Now, if Jews were powerless or just regular folks in the US, such protection of Jewish sensitivities couldn't do much harm. But Jews are the most powerful people in the US, the most powerful nation in the world. Worse, Jewish control of foreign policy led to Wars for Israel that decimated innumerable people in the Middle East: Mostly Muslims but lots of Arab Christians too. Also, Jewish bitterness at Russian sovereignty(as barrier to total Zionist takeover) led to the 'new cold war' that may even turn hot.
It's interesting that Conservatives express outrage at Saudi Arabia for sacrificing 15 girls to defend Islamic sacraments, but these Conservatives seem unaware that their near-worship of Jewish Power has made them turn a blind eye to how megalomaniacal Jewish Power has steered US foreign policy toward wrecking entire nations, killing 100,000s of people, and uprooting millions into refugee status. 15 dead Saudi girls, that's an outrage. But 100,000s of dead Muslims and Arabs and all those US soldiers who returned in body bags or with mangled limbs? Who cares?
As Jesus said, "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her."
Americans, who in their worship of Holy Jews, hurl bombs all over the world and destroy entire nations, should be the last ones to be casting blame on others for sacrificing lives for an idea or icon.
And then, there is the problem of Millennials and the Cancerous Bunghole, aka the Millennial Bunghole Apocalypse. How did this happen?
We know why. Due to the rise of Homomania -- the worship of homos as holy-schmoly -- and promotion of kinkiness(in our degenerate culture), society has been reluctant to teach kids about the dangers of fecal penetration, aka 'anal sex'(which really should be called 'poopjob' since it's like a blowjob or handjob except that the penis is rubbed against the muscles of the poopchute). With all the homotion(homo promotion) and kinkery, millennials have been raised to worship homos & trannies as the secular saints of America and to 'experiment' in sexual adventurism. Actually, Homomania is really a neoligion(or neo-religion) and even threatens to take over churches and become the new (satanic)christianity. According to Anno Sodomini of gaytianity, Jesus died on the Cross to bestow blessing on men buggering one another or cutting off their puds and nuts to get fake poons.
Since homos are holy, we can't say anything that might offend their sensibilities. So, the younger generation was not informed of how fecal penetration or poopjobs increase the chance of anal cancer by 17 times. Also, insofar as pornography promotes homosexuality and interracialism among young ones, it too was allowed to spread all over the internet, and the result is young girls grew up with the idea that taking it up the butt is part of the 'new normal' in sexual behavior. The result is many more cancerous bungholes, some of which will lead to deaths.
But there is no concerted effort to inform young people of the dangers of fecal penetration because homos are sacrosanct(and kinkery is so 'cool'). But then, this is a country that still cannot face up to the fact that the MAIN REASON why all those homos dropped dead like flies in the 80s and 90s was because they were buggering one another all over the place in wild abandon. But homos, like Jews and blacks, are holy according to PC, so they must never be blamed for anything. Just blame it on "Reagan's Indifference".
So, all those who feel smugly superior to Saudis who allowed 15 girls to burn to death in the fire should really look in the mirror. They say nothing in face of the Millennial Bunghole Apocalypse.
Ziad Ahmed wrote 'Black Lives Matter' 100x times on his application essay and was rewarded with admission to Stanford University, beating out other applicants who took their essays seriously. (Stanford's act of 'social justice' was clearly a case of corruption whereby worthier candidates were passed over in favor of the trendy virtue-signaler. How ironic that justice, which is supposed to defend fairness against corruption, is utterly blind to its own corruption of favoring the correct over the credentialed. Worse, the fact that there was no real effort to challenge Ahmed's undeserved admission indicates that America is not only increasingly corrupt but utterly craven. Apparently, blacks are holy and magical. That being the case, it wouldn't be good sport to reverse the admission of a kid who wrote BLM a 100x, right?)
Anyway, does Ahmed's fame(or notoriety) signal the rise of Muslim power in America? Are Muslims prepped to join and ultimately challenge Jews for the mantle of American 'Liberalism'? Should Jews be worried?
No, Jews need not worry about his ilk since he is a Bangladesh Muslim whose beef is with Hindus than with Jews in the Middle East. He is a Safe Muslim. Even though all Muslims around the world pay lip-service to the plight of Palestinians, non-Arab Muslims really don’t care. (And even most Arabs don't much care since the main rift in the Middle East is Sunnis vs Shias than Muslims vs Jews.) That said, a Muslim is still a Muslim, and Jews don’t like Muslims and vice versa.
The ONLY reason why Muslims have received some favorable coverage of late is because of Donald Trump. In order for the US to continue with the INVADE policy(military intervention and proxy wars) in the Middle East, it must mask its imperialism with Humanitarian gestures of INVITE(taking in 'refugees' with shows of 'compassion'). So, when Trump endangered the policy of INVITE, he also endangered the policy of INVADE, and that enraged the Supra-Semites(Jewish Supremacists) who want perpetual wars among Arabs/Muslims to further hegemonic Israeli interests. US makes a show of offering a helping hand to strike with the other hand holding the hammer.
Now, surely many Muslims see right through the duplicity of the Supra-Semitic US foreign policy. They most certainly understand how Jewish-controlled foreign policy is messing up Muslim nations. So, why are so many Muslims, abroad and in the West, allied with Jewish-Zionist globalists? Because for many Muslims, their main hope is gaining entry to the good life in the West, not some high-minded principles about protecting Muslim nations from neo-imperialism emanating from the Zionist-controlled US. So, even though Muslims detest the brutality of the INVADE strategy, they much appreciate the INVITE policy(at least for themselves and their close ones) and therefore are opportunistically allied with Jews(who are behind the US foreign policy of using Saudis, Turks, and Qatar to undermine Syria).
Even so, there is no real love for Muslims among Americans, not even among Progs addicted to Virtue Vanity. Muslims are just political pawns(against Trump) for Progs and globalists to toy with and feel good about. (The Jewish way is to attack Trump as a 'xenophobic racist' for his wariness about mass immigration-invasion from the Muslim World but then to pull the strings to effectively silence and strangle the BDS movement calling for justice for Palestinians still struggling under occupation. Perversely enough, Jews in the UK are freaking out about close ties between the Labour Party and Muslim groups. Jews pressured the UK to take in all those African and Muslim immigrant-invaders and refugees. But because the plan didn't pan out as Jews wished when the White Left made common cause with Muslims who loathe Zionism, the very Jews who'd admonished the UK into taking in all those Muslims are now throwing tantrums about how Jeremy Corbyn is overly sensitive to the concerns of Muslims against the supremacist interests of Zionists. In a nutshell, Jews had intended to use non-whites against whites in the UK, but Corbyn's alliance of the White Left with non-whites & Muslims against the Zionist strange-hold over the UK is making many Jews go batshit crazy.) The proof that White Progs feel no special love for Muslims was quite evident when most Progs said nothing and did nothing while Obama-Hillary team was destroying Libya(with no-fly-zone air war) and Syria(by working with allies to undermine Assad). Well well, so much for their ethical concern for Muslim lives!
Now, this Muslim kid Ziad Ahmed surely has an inkling(even if only subconscious) of how the political-moral game is played in the West. That is why he ran with BLACK LIVES MATTER than MUSLIM LIVES MATTER(even though countless more Muslim lives have been destroyed by the US war machine than blacks were killed by American Police).
Despite all the PC talk of equality, some groups are more equal than others in Western Political Morality. Notice how Mandela the Negro is revered while Arafat the Palestinian has been disappeared down the memory hole in the West. (Also, notice how Israel touts the memory of Mandela, as if to own him, when, in fact, Israel was the main ally of apartheid South Africa and currently practices apartheid against Palestinians in the West Bank.)
Certain groups are designated as holier by the sacraments of PC. So, to gain political advantage in the US, your people need ethno-consecration via association with officially recognized holy groups IF your own group is deemed unholy, uncool, or unimportant.
If you’re black, Jew, or homo, you are holy and justified just for being what you are.
But most racial/ethnic/cultural/religious groups mean little or nothing in America. So, in order for them to gain the aura of righteousness, they must associate themselves with one of the holies. Their own group must be presented as being in good graces with one of the Holy Three, or their own cause/interest must be shown to reflect or further the prestige and authority of the holies. (So, Ziad Ahmed went with BLACK LIVES MATTER than SAVE CHRISTIAN ARABS FROM US IMPERIALISM.) Trump also played this card by hugging blacks and flattering homos as people for whom he feels special consideration. He said he wanted to vet Muslims to protect homos, a holy people. He said he wants to limit immigration to help them Negroes in Detroit(who are being out-competed). And of course, Iran must be destroyed to save those poor poor Jews in Israel.
In the US, you won’t gain much if you belong to a non-special people. Also, your cause or movement doesn't mean much if you express sympathy for a people who are not of the Holy Group pantheon. For instance, so many Christian Arabs have been brutalized or killed since the Iraq War. So many lost their homes, so many got raped, and so many were exiled. It’s a sad story. But they are ignored and passed over because they are deemed a Holy People; the Glob-Homo Media all but ignore them. (Jews hate Christian Arabs because the latter rely on secular Arab leaders like Assad for protection. As Assad is allied with Iran and Russia -- nations hated most by Jews -- , Jews hate Christian Arabs who support him.) So, it doesn’t matter how much you champion the plight of Christian Arabs. No one listens and no one cares. Also, it has long been political poison in the US to champion the cause of Palestinians because doing so offends the Jews, the holiest of the holies. So, despite all the injustices suffered by Palestinians, there's been either silence or compliance with Zionism as the supposed 'outpost of Western values'.
The reason why the GOP cuddles up to Zionists is because white gentiles lack autonomous holiness and therefore need to rub themselves on Jews for some holy static. Groups without holiness are like men suffering from scurvy who crave fruits with vitamin C. Likewise, the non-holies rely on the holies for doses of sanctimony and righteousness.
The service is costly. It's like Russia, a non-holy nation by canons of globalism, must associate itself with Chabad Jews to obtain and stockpile its supply of holiness. (Given Russia's great sacrifices and suffering in WWII and its victory over Nazi Germany, you'd think the Russian Brand would be blessed with eternal holiness. But the globalist narrative is controlled by Jews who have denied this aura to the Russians. So, political holiness is less about real history than who gets to spin history.)
Jews, homos, and blacks are designated as holy, so they don't need to rely on others to feel justified and righteous. But, a people who aren’t one of the three must associate themselves with one or all to earn moral pokemon points. And that is what Ziad Ahmed did. Black Lives Matter indeed.
Because we tend to frame politics in terms of Left vs Right, there is this myth that the Progressive Elites are for Egalitarianism whereas the Right is for natural hierarchy. But if this is true, why are Progressives concentrated in the most elitist and privileged circles? Why have they created a Elysium World of their own? Do today’s ‘progressive’ elites really believe in Marxist notion of class equality?
In its original incarnation, Progressivism was not egalitarian in the sense of flattening all of humanity into shared or common mediocrity. Rather, it was a way of moving society forward, genetically as well as socio-economically, to increase the overall quality of humanity. It’s no wonder that a man as hierarchical as Theodore Roosevelt was part of the Progressive Movement that espoused eugenics in both the US and Europe. In contrast to this kind of Progressivism, there was the Proletarianism of Communism that did try to flatten humanity into an equal and shared mediocrity. Some intellectuals found communism to be morally justified and did try to create a society where people were forced to be as equal as possible. But this kind of society was like a mass prison(where inmates are forced to be equal by sacrificing freedom that always breeds new inequalities), and worse, it bred a new elite that preached equality but hogged all the power and privilege for themselves(as satirized in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM).
In the video below at 25:00 mark, Sam Dickson speaks as if Hillary Clinton is a true-blue egalitarian who cares for all of humanity equality, and THAT is the main problem with her.
Dickson would have us believe that Hillary is the kind of woman who would offer her teats to Haitian babies as well to her own child Chelsea. We are to believe Hillary’s pathological altruism favors all of humanity equally. Well, I say, judge people by what they do, not what they say. Based on actual facts, people like Hillary have no use for egalitarianism. It’s all just talk to renege on their obligations and duties to the national people. Let’s look at Hillary’s actual practice of power as opposed to her mush-headed rhetoric. She showered Chelsea with all the attention, privileges, and care in the world. Chelsea, by all accounts, was raised as a brat, a princess. Also, through her parents’ many connections, Chelsea married a princeling son of a super-rich Jewish family. So many career paths opened up for her because she happened to have Billy Boy and Hillary as parents. And what was Clinton Foundation’s record in Haiti? It was pretty lucrative. Clintons not only mugged for attention as do-gooders but raked in lots of cash.
Sam Dickson should know better. Prosperity Progressivism, like Prosperity Gospel(of unscrupulous Televangelists), is a scam. It’s like the sleazy Morris Dees of SPLC always decrying ‘hate’ in the Jew-run Media to rake in many more millions... mainly from Jewish supremacists.
There was a time when true-believing radical intellectuals really did commit their lives to creating an equal classless Marxist-Leninist society. It happened in Russia and China but also in Cuba, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia. But NO ONE believes in that kind of egalitarianism any more. Communism in the USSR was ended by ruling elites themselves who got tired of running a system to take care of all the people made lazy under excessive statism. And China moved away from Maoism to a market economy, and it has lots of billionaires. Sure, the CCP will sing paeans to Mao’s vision but it’s entirely rhetorical, to maintain the facade of ideological legitimacy for the ruling party. What China really runs on is nationalism and enterprise.
Furthermore, there is a reason why the elites changed Leftism from a class-based ideology to a fashion-statement-idolatry. If the ‘new leftists’ are mainly obsessed with 50 genders, green hair, tattoos and piercing as identity, and pornography as empowerment, they hardly pose a threat to the Hyper-Elites who hog most of the wealth, power, and privilege. So, when people like Hillary Clinton yammer about ‘equality’ and caring for all of humanity, it's just empty rhetoric to mask the true character of what her ilk are really about: Insatiable greed for power, privilege, status, and wealth. (Aristocrats of Old hid their ambition and greed by invoking Jesus the King of the humble and the meek. Aristocrats themselves were neither humble nor meek.)
Indeed, the current order is more about personality or personal idiosyncrasies than about political ideologies. It’s about personalities that are especially obsessed with gaining entry into the elite club. To enter this club, they will do or say anything to be accepted. People like Hillary, Mitt Romney, Fareed Zakaria, John McCain, Nikki Haley, Amy Chua, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, George Hawley, and etc all share a common personality. You know that type in high school, the kind who are so eager to be part of the Popular Group. They want to be liked and accepted by the ‘right kind of people’, the ‘best kind of people’. The Power generally favors such personalities because they tend to be obsequious to the Rules of Rulers. They will grovel, roll over, and play the game as long as they are let in. So, if the Ultimate Power says Homomania is the new religion of the land, these kind of personalities immediately roll over and fall all over themselves to cheer and go along. Because Judea is the ultimate power in the world and control the locks to the gate leading into the Elysium Globo-Club, these 'Popularist' Personalities say and do anything aligned with Jewish supremacist interests. Popularism differs from Populism, the political passion of the hoi polloi, in that Popularism isn’t really about concern for the masses. Rather, it’s like being the ‘popular kids’ in school who are not really popular with most kids. To be a ‘popular kid’ means to be part of the Cool Crowd around athletes, rich kids, or attractive kids. It’s to be part of an exclusive club. Most people who become rich and successful later in life didn’t have the stuff to be ‘popular’ in high school. Geeks, nerds, and brainiacs are not ‘popular’ in high school. But once they graduate from college and gain success, they create their own Popular Club that is shut off to the 99% or even 99.99% of the people.
Now, there are certain personalities that are especially obsessed about being allowed into this Club. While most of us may be live-and-let-live, there is a kind of personality that feel self-worth ONLY WHEN allowed into exclusive clubs. People with brains and talent can make lots of money and afford to enter such clubs with money alone, or they can create their own Clubs. But if you don’t have the means to make tons of money, you can enter politics and cater to the rich and powerful. Or you can work in media or media and do the bidding of the Power Elite, as Fareed Zakaria, Amy Chua, and Niall Ferguson do. While such individuals may be smart, even brilliant(in the case of Ferguson), their main passion is to be part of the Club. As such, there is always a limit to how far they will discuss matters freely. They dare not venture out of the perimeter of permitted discourse as set by the Power(currently of Judea).
So, in a way, the current divide in the political struggle isn’t just about ideology or identity. It’s about personality. The main difference between what is known as the Alt Right and what is known as Conservatism Inc is that Alt Right pulls in personalities that are hard and willing to pay the price of being denied entry into the Club. Alt Right attracts the most defiant personalities in the world. You have to have a strong heart and stomach to be part of the Alt Right, a movement targeted for destruction by the Power. In contrast, Conservatism Inc. attracts obsequious personalities whose priority is to be allowed into the Club and rub shoulders with the right kind of people.
Granted, the truly-truly obsequious personalities gravitate to Democratic Inc. because most of the wealth, privilege, and prestige are now associated with haute-hip-riche urban centers, entertainment industry, and elite academia, all of which are owned and controlled by Democratic Jews who control the idols and icons of what is ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’. Paul Nehlen, whatever one thinks of him, has a defiant personality. In contrast, Paul Ryan has the most malleable personality that will do anything to keep his membership in the Club.
Another thing Sam Dickson overlooks is the Paradox of Inverse Proportion of Compassion and Conceit. In other words, it’s easier to be selfish and self-centered IF one claims to care for ALL humanity. Why? Because there is simply NO WAY one can take care of all of humanity. Because saving all of mankind is fantastically utopian, it becomes purely rhetorical without real-world practicality. If a person says he cares for his community and nation, being a manager of a community or a leader of a nation is doable. As such, rhetoric has to be proven by reality. If someone who lives in a certain town claims to care for the townsfolk but does NOTHING, he will be exposed as a phony. Theory has to be proven by practice. But if that very person says he wants to save ALL OF HUMANITY, he can just dream like John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ in front of a piano without doing anything. So, he can talk BIG but do nothing since it is impossible to manage, represent, or lead all of humanity. After all, it was a full-time job for Moses just to lead the Hebrews. Imagine if he claimed to lead all of humanity to the Promised Land. He would have all talk and no walk. Jesus did claim to be the Savior of all of humanity, but the myth says He is the Son of God, so He must have superhuman powers that no human can have.
Anyway, all this elite-egalitarianism or elito-egalitarianism is really just a ruse. Just look at the likes of Bono of U2. He spends most of his time living in mansions, penthouses, hanging with rich celebs, and attending cocktail parties. Off and on, he flies off to Africa for photo-ops with African children to playact at being modern messiah, but precisely because his shtick is about caring for all the world, he actually does nothing to fix any specific problem anywhere. It’s like a man who says he has ideas for a thousand novels but fails to write a single one since he wants to write all of them, which is impossible. So, his wish to write 1000 novels just becomes an excuse for him to be lazy and not write even a single one. Irishmen like Bono renege on their obligation to Ireland and their ethnic kinfolk by pretending to care for All of Humanity. It requires real commitment and devotion to do something for a specific community or nation. That means no more dreaming and time for actual doing. But all these narcissistic and vain personalities don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do something REAL for a community or a nation. Too much headache. So, they pontificate about how they care for ALL OF HUMANITY to rationalize neglect of their own specific communities and nations.
Bono the bonehead. Too busy SAVING THE WORLD to ever care about what happens in Ireland.
Elites push Diversity for the same reason. By pretending to care for ALL the diverse groups in America, the elites care for NONE at all except for themselves and the uppermost elites(the Jews) whom they must serve in order to remain as members in the Club. Just look at the state of California. It’s supposedly the most diverse and most ‘progressive’ state, but it’s also the most unequal between the Have-lots and Have-nots. The super-elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley make all the right-sounding noises about how they are so into diversity, equality, tolerance, inclusion, and etc., but at the end of the day, all they do is care about themselves because it is impossible for elites to represent, manage, or lead such a diverse population of whites, blacks, Asians(of so many varieties), ‘Hispanics’(of many origins and gradations of color), gender-bender folk, and etc. Ultimately, it is easier to serve one master than to represent 10 groups, and so, the California elites(made up of ‘popularist’ status-strivers with obsequious personalities) mainly serve the ONE Jewish Master that dominate both Hollywood and Silicon Valley(and not far away, there is Las Vegas also ruled by Jews).
In contrast, when the US was 90% European-American, a man like FDR did feel a strong bond with white Americans. Also, because it is doable for the elites to represent, guide, and manage ONE people, something like the New Deal was doable. New Deal was essentially about white elites doing something for white nationals. But something like the New Deal is now impossible because the US has become so diverse and divergent in identities and interests. This is wonderful for the elites since they can spout off about doing something for ALL THE DIVERSE AMERICANS but then do NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE because it is virtually impossible to do everything for so many groups who don’t see eye to eye on anything. So, instead of truly representing many peoples, today’s elites really just serve one master: Jewish Power. At the end of the day, the only people who get served are Jews and Israelis because, if all bought-and-paid-for politicians have one thing in common, it is their obsequiousness to Judea.
Another issue I have with Dickson is his misunderstanding of individualism. He says the problem with Anglos is they are too individualistic. But the greatness of Anglo civilization was in the fusion of individuality and cooperation. The film DUNKIRK conveys the balance of individualism and communalism among the British. In contrast, Nazi Germany went crazy because all those Germans totally surrendered their individuality and outsourced their minds to the Fuhrer who ordered his men about like mindless obedient dogs. In contrast, British Civilization was about the balance of order/discipline/collective-action AND individuality, especially as expressed in wit and satire that had a debunking element to power. Radical individualism or individualism without attachment to something higher or bigger is worthless, but without individuality one cannot have a mind, free will, or agency. One just becomes a cog in the machine. So, just like truth isn’t ‘right’ or ‘left’ but a useful balance of both, best kind of society is one where individuality is balanced with ‘collectivity’.
Paradoxically, the biggest danger of an extreme collectivist order is that it may be predicated on the ultra-individualism of a single ruler. Nazi Germany wouldn’t have been so dangerous if NO ONE had individualist power. In fact, all the individualist agency that was denied to the German masses were concentrated in the individualism of Hitler who decided to play demigod. In the end, Nazi Germany was destroyed not so much by collectivism but by Hitler’s concentrated individualism that decided the fate of the nation. Same goes for Maoism in China. While Chinese had no individuality, Mao had the ultra-individuality of a godlike figure. He could play Shiva and Zeus over the Chinese. His individual whims could turn the nation upside down.
This is why National Humanist Neo-Fascism must foster a sense of agency and self-worth in every individual. While there is a need for order, discipline, and collective action, the movement will turn into a mindless Cult of Personality UNLESS everyone in the movement has the will and courage to say NO when they see something wrong. There were many good things about Italian Fascism and National Socialism, but both failed because the masses outsourced their individualism to Il Duce or Der Fuhrer who, inflated with demagogic egomania, acted as gods than cautious men.
Also, while Dickson is right that individualism must be suppressed in warfare in favor of order and unity, the might of nations depends not only on collective military action but on the economy of innovation. It is the economy that produces wealth that can be taxed to support a military. The USSR was heavily militarized but its suppression of individualism in the economic sector led to stagnation. In the end, the Soviet Union could not afford its massive military because its economy could barely produce enough bread for people. In contrast, capitalist US produced lots of wealth that could be used to fund a massive military. Also, individual incentive led to tremendous advances in science and technology that could be applied to military ends. The US has the most powerful military in the world not because it has the most soldiers or the most disciplined fighters. It’s because US military has a huge budget(thanks to a capitalist economy) and the most advanced weaponry made with technology advanced in large part in the private sector where individualism is key to entrepreneurship.
As for Patrick Casey, he says America came to be about progressive movement toward equality(at 14:15 in the video below). Not so. American concept of equality was not like communism. Rather, it was about equal freedom for individuals in pursuit of happiness. So, equality wasn’t an end goal but an instrument whereby people would be equally free to make something of themselves.
America never much cared for those who did nothing with liberty. America loved those who gained fame, fortune, or reputation with their freedom. This is why America is so obsessed with Jews, blacks, and Homos. Not in the name of coercive freedom but in awe of their demonstration of superiority in the areas Americans are most obsessed about: Money, Power, Science/Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Sex, and Fashion/Celebrity. If Patrick Casey is right and American ‘progressivism’ is about equal concern for all peoples, how come the main concerns of Progs center around Jews, Negroes, and Homos only? Why is American Power so into Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel but so very little about Palestinians and Iranians? Why is there so much about blacks but so little about American Indians or poor Mexican-Americans in places like El Paso? Why is there so much concern for Homos but nothing about incest-sexuals? It’s because, as Patton said, Americans love winners. So, even as Jews, blacks, and homos play the Victim Card, their vaunted place in American Mythos is due to Jewish victory in finance, science, and law; black victory in sports, pop music, and sex(via jungle fever among white women); and homo victory in fashion, celebrity culture, and entertainment. In a way, the fact that all three groups have blended victimology with victorology is the secret to their special success. After all, Americanism is a strange blend of underdog persecution complex and top-dog domination compulsion. There is the story of America’s founding as a refuge for poor souls persecuted in tyrannical Europe. There is the story of blacks struggling for justice. But there is also the celebration of freedom in the New Land allowing people to go from rags to riches. So, a nobody can start from the bottom and become richer than even kings and monarchs in the Old World. Jews who started with little created the Empire of Hollywood. Some black ghetto kid got into the NBA, made millions, and sexually conquered thousands of white women. Or homos, though ravaged by the AIDS epidemic, worked so hard in vice-and-vanity industries to make so much money and gain key connections with the power. As such, along with Jews and blacks, homos have become the one of the three most iconic groups in America.
So, Casey is making a mistake if he thinks the American ‘progressivism’ is all about ‘equality’ as a goal. Barack Obama got a $60 million book contract and will live like a king. Silicon Valley and Hollywood, bastions of ‘progressivism’, are awash with billions and billions in cash. Harvard, a ‘progressive’ elite university, is endowed with more money than it can ever spend. The most exclusive institutions in the US are ‘progressive’. If they use radical-leftist-sounding rhetoric now and then, it is to mask their total obsession with power and privilege. It’s like Jews being the richest and most powerful people in America but concealing their real status by cliches about ‘social justice’. Don’t You Believe It.
Patrick Casey mentions the French Revolution as the beginning of the right vs left divide at 5:30 in the video. He seems to favor the French rightists who supported the King and the aristocracy. He condemns today’s Right of being belated Leftists, i.e. Rightism eventually comes around to agreeing with the Left. Casey is overlooking two important matters. First, the French Revolution was necessary in many ways and the beginning of real nationalism. If anything, today’s globalism is a return of the aristocratic system despite its use of ‘progressive’ rhetoric. Prior to the French Revolution and nationalism, the ruling elites saw their own peoples as subjects and servants. They felt no special bond with their own people. French aristocrats mainly identified with other aristocrats in other parts of Europe. Even as various kingdoms jostled for greater power, the aristocrats of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, UK, and etc. all identified with one anther, married one another, and hung around together. They were the globalist Jet Set of the time. If they all had one thing in common, it was viewing their own people as subjects, servants, serfs, or even chattel. We have something similar today. The elites of Germany, UK, the US, India, Hong Kong, Mexico, Canada, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and etc. no longer care about their own people. They are main obsessed of belonging to the Club where only the rich, well-connected, and properly credentialed can get in.
Indeed, for the globalist elites, multi-culturalism isn’t about making EVERYONE equal. They themselves certainly don’t want to be equal with the hoi polloi. Does anyone think people attend colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Cambridge to become equal with the rest of us? Sure, these colleges take in token non-whites via Affirmative Action and make symbolic noises about ‘social justice’, but they are elite-generating factories for the Club. As such, they are very much like the aristocracies of old. Granted, past aristocracies were more honest in being openly snobby and arrogant. Aristocrats told their subject folks to lick their boots. Aristocrats made sure that only they got to ride around on horses and carry guns. Similarly, old empires were at least honest in telling conquered peoples that they were subject of foreign powers.
In contrast, today’s neo-aristocratism hides the snobbery and conceit with Proggy Symbolism, and today’s neo-imperialism(of the US controlled by Judea) rationalizes its world hegemony with cliches about spreading ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, concepts employed with utter cynicism as the US is allied with some of the most corrupt and inhumane nations on Earth. Judea or World Jewry rules the US that rules the world.
Does Patrick Casey really think that neo-aristocratic, neo-monarchical, and neo-godlike Jews really want equality with all of mankind? Just look how Jews treat Palestinians and neighboring Arabs. Jews love seeing Syria torn to pieces. Jews loved how Iraq and Libya were laid to waste. Jews call on the US to cripple Iran's economy. Jews are the 2% that controls 95% of media. Jews control 50% of Wall Street and nearly all of Hollywood and Las Vegas. Does Casey really think these 'progressive' Jews want to be equal with us? That would mean Jews who are 2% of the population should have 2% of the wealth? Does Casey really think so-called ‘progressive’ Jews are committed to creating such a future?
This is why we need to dispense with the notion of right vs left. True nationalism must be left AND right. The French Revolution was excessive and crazy at times, but its template of creating a modern nation where ordinary people would have basic rights and be led by national elites that identified with, represented, and led the people was a great one. Without common rights within a nation, an aristocrat can abuse the lower elements and just be slapped on the wrist... like in ROB ROY. If a rich man kills an innocent poor man, he should be punished as harshly as if a poor man killed an innocent rich man.
The problem today is that common Rule of Law no longer applies in the West. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton could act as War Criminals at the behest of Jews but never face justice. Or Jews can pull all sorts of dirty tricks but get off easy. Jonathan Pollard is now a free man with a plush job. Marc Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton while on the lam. And now, Trump pardoned some lowlife Jewish son-of-a-bitch because Jews, the neo-aristocrats, are above the law. In contrast, white patriots at Charlottesville weren’t even allowed their basic Constitutional Rights of free assembly and free speech. And the Powers that be use Antifa(who are always given just a slap on the wrist) to terrorize dissenting voices. And yet, Casey is arguing in FAVOR of aristocracy and special privilege? Well, if he looked past the bogus PC rhetoric and notices how the globalist system really works, he’d realize it’s totally neo-aristocratic and privileges certain groups and individuals above others. Hillary Clinton certainly got just a slap on the wrist by the FBI despite her email scandal.
In a world that bestows neo-aristocratic favors to Jews at the expense of basic rights for whites, Patrick Casey romanticizes the Old World of French kings and aristocrats who treated their own people like today’s elites treat whites. It was the French Revolution that gave the French people basic rights and protections. It was the Revolution that gave them dignity as free nationals than as subjects of kings and noblemen. And the revolution stressed that the national elites must serve the national masses. So, the truth for us is not in the ‘right’ or in the ‘left’. It is in the intelligent combination of both. Nationalism is inherently both leftist and rightist. Nationalism is the Goldilocks rule between egotistical individualism(or petty tribalism) and impossible universalism. Nationalism says, even though some may be rich and some may be poor in the nation, every member of the nation has equal right to the nation. Also, nationalism necessitates some degree of socialism for the common good. Public education is to ensure that ALL people of the nation will be literate, knowledgeable, and skilled. National healthcare, enacted in both National Socialist Germany and Social-Democratic Sweden(before it went crazy with globo-elite-pushed multi-culturalism), was for the good of the entire nation. Also under nationalism, conscription meant that sons of the rich must serve and fight alongside the sons of the poor. Indeed, nationalism is the only way some degree of socialism can work. Socialism is about common economic interests, and it works best when a people have a common sense of ethnic identity and destiny.
Another thing. It’s only half-true that the Right trails the Left, eventually agreeing with the Left on a host of issues. It’s equally true that the Left abandons its principles and restores Rightism(though by another name).
In some cases, the Right never ‘catches up’ with the Left. If Casey is correct, Western Europe and the US should have eventually become communist because, after all, the only thing the Right does is trail and follow the Left. But in fact, the ‘free world’ never turned communist and, if anything, effectively contained and defeated or discredited leftist communism. It was Russia that dropped communism and reverted to nationalism. And in China, Maoist radical egalitarianism gave way to rise of nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and capitalist-elitism.
Also, 'leftist' Clinton didn’t follow in the footsteps of FDR and LBJ but in those of Reaganism. His New Democratic Party was tough on black crime(and locked up record number of black males), deregulated Wall Street, abandoned Big Labor, supported ‘free trade’, and shifted the Democratic Party from the working class & unions to the new super-rich of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the so-called ‘creative’ economy. And the reason why the Democratic elites love homos is because the homo style is naturally neo-aristocratic with hyper-narcissism and vanity. Homos are the mascots of the rich. They do little else but celebrate glamour, fame, and celebrity. Indeed, homos were instrumental in the old world of aristocrats because they were adept at concocting fancy dress and manners for the super-elite class. The fact that the New Progressivism went from Mayday to Gayday should clue us to the fact that history is not about Left always leading and the Right always following.
Indeed, classic leftists would NOT recognize today’s leftism as any kind of leftism. They would see it as decadent indulgences of ultra-bourgeois neo-aristocrats who turned the idea of Progress into a celebration of vanity and privilege.
And course, Jews want it this way. Jews now hate Class Warfare politics because it could mean gentiles who have less versus Jews who have so much. And the only nationalism Jews love is Zionism because it is about the nationalist-socialist unity of all Jews, rich and poor, in their sacred homeland. But they wage relentless war on all gentile nationalisms, especially those of whites, because whites who are into their own national identity are likely to abandon White Submissivism that sucks up to hegemonic Jewish Supremacism that simply cannot operate without the cuck-collaboration of White Submissivism. Jews fear White Uppityness.
It is time for white people to go BEYOND RIGHT VERSUS LEFT. They must realize that both leftism and rightism are necessary and complementary, just like night and day, just like mind and body, just like work and rest, just like study and play. If we are supposed to see ourselves as ‘rightist’, then are we suppose to reject even good things of leftism? Likewise, if one must be a leftist in the purist sense, must he reject even essential things of the right? Leftism and rightism should be seen as complementary, like yin and yang, like positive and negative charge in electricity. Why are Jews so powerful? It’s because they’ve learned to use both leftist and rightist modes of thinking. Israel was created by fusion of leftism and rightism. It was to be a Jewish state but also a nation where every Jew, rich or poor, had common rights ensuring his basic dignity as a member of the state.
If leftism is all bad, rich whites shouldn’t care about all those ‘white trash’ suffering from loss of jobs and opioid epidemic. If white elites should think aristocratically, they should identify mainly with other similarly privileged people around the world. Nationalism is a crossing of rightism and leftism. It is a well-defined and restrictive definition of a specific people on a particular land. Yet, it also says every member of that community, from richest to the poorest, has equal value as a patriot and citizen, and as such, there must be a sense of national camaraderie from top to bottom. Jews stress exactly this theme in Israel where the richest Jew feels closer to the poorest Jew than with rich Arabs. But in the West, Jews promoted neo-aristocratism among white elites whereby rich whites are supposed to identify mainly with rich Jews, rich Asians, rich blacks, rich Hispanics, rich Hindus, and rich Muslims than with fellow whites in the middle class and lower class. Thus, neo-aristocratism divides White Folks.
This is why we need National Humanism and Neo-Fascism, a better kind of fascism that overcomes the monumental mistakes and crimes of Italian Fascism and especially National Socialism that ultimately failed because of sacrificing of individual agency in favor of Cult of Personality and Imperialism(that violated the blood -and-soil principles of other peoples).
