The What-If-Most-People Game: An Easy Way to Tell if YOUR IDEAS & VALUES are Sound and Valid for Most of Society

What would be the simplest way to test as to whose ideas, values, attitudes, and mindset are best or most ideal for society as a whole? One of the easiest way would be to theorize as to what society would be like IF most people think, feel, and do as YOU do. After all, while any society can tolerate, weather, and overcome some degree of bad behavior and destructive tendencies, NO society can last for long if too many people indulge in wrong kinds of behavior. So, a sane, sound, stable, and healthy kind of society is one where most people do what is good, right, responsible, and constructive.

For example, suppose there are two people: Bob and John. Bob doesn't use illicit drugs whereas John is into drugs. Now, which is better? Not using illicit drugs or using them? Bob says it's better to forsake drugs. John says it's better to use them. So, who is right? First, imagine a society where most people are like Bob and don't use illicit drugs. Then, imagine a society where most people are like John and use plenty of illicit drugs. I think most of us can agree that a society where most people don't use drugs functions better than one where most people indulge in drugs. Does anyone want to live in a society full of meth-heads, heroin addicts, and the like? Even most druggies will likely admit that they don't want to live a society run by druggies. Even as they argue for legalization of many drugs, they surely don't want engineers, managers, and other essential workers to be druggies.

Now, take gambling. Is gambling good or bad for society? Suppose Jerry doesn't gamble and finds it to be wrong. Suppose Billy thinks gambling is awesome. What would be better? A society of Jerrys or a society of Billies? Would it be better if most people don't gamble or do gamble? My guess is that even people into joys of gambling would agree it wouldn't be such a great idea to have a society where MOST people gamble. Gambling is not only a vice but mass theft by oligarchs(who in the US happen to be Jewish) from the middle class and working class(and even from senior citizens and poor folks who don't know any better and become addicted to the habit).

Or take prostitution. Suppose Sarah is against it while Skankura is for it. Who would be right? Would society be better if most women are NOT prostitutes? Or would society be better if most women are prostitutes. Even among proponents of legalization of 'sex work', can they honestly say that a society where most women are involved in the sex industry would be better than one where most women aren't? Would it be good for families if most mothers were hookers on the side? Would it be good for society if fathers raised their daughters to be slut-skank whores? Would it be a better society if your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, and daughter were into stripping, porn, prostitution, or S&M for money? Seriously? While we can understand the logic of libertarians who argue for legalization of 'sex work' on grounds of individual choice and free enterprise, surely even most of them know full well that it would NOT be good for society if most women were skankass whores.

Now, take homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Granted, this has less relevance to reality since most homos were born that way and only a handful of kooks are trannies. The fact is most people will never be homo. Even with all the gender-confusion pushed by MSM and academia, most men and women are not going to declare themselves homo. Still, there is the PC notion that homosexuality and trans-genderism are just as valid as real-natural-normal sexuality. They insist that 'heteronormativity' is some kind of mentally sick social construct. They say 'gender is fluid' and anyone can declare himself or herself to be anything, and all these various 'genders' are equal in value and validity. Okay, that being their premise, suppose there is Cary and Nico. Cary is real-sexual and believes a society where most people are proudly real-sexual is best for society. In contrast, Nico is a homo and believes his fruitishness to be just as valid as real-sexuality, aka heterosexuality. Nico believes homo fecal penetration is just as valid and 'natural' as real-sexuality between men and women. So, who is right? Imagine Cary's Society where most people are straight real-sexuals where men and women procreate to produce kids. Then, imagine Nico's Society where most people are fruitkins who bugger each other in the ass or tranny freaks with their dicks and balls cut off and equipped with fake vaginas. Seriously, which society would be better? Which society has better chance of mental health, moral equilibrium, and chance for continuance & survival? Is it really true that all 'genders'(as social constructs) are equally valid? (Also, if 'gender' is a social construct, why does PC say homos are biologically born that way? Is there any consistency in the logic of so-called 'woke' folk?)

How about gluttony? Some argue for 'Body-Positivity' Movement. They say that being a fatty fatkin is glorious and a badge of pride(and lard of honor). But is it really good to eat like a pig and be grossly obese? Suppose Jack believes in eating moderately, exercising, and staying slim. He believes a good society is one where people watch what they eat and watch their weight. In contrast, Otis believes people should eat all they want and there's no shame in being a fatty fatso. So, which society would be better? A society of Jacks or a society of Otises? One where people eat healthy and stay slim, or one where people eat grossly like hippos and look like hippos as well? Again, the answer should be obvious. Then, one wonders why the media, via fashion magazines and the like, push the notion that Fat is Beautiful and just as okay as being slim and trim around the weight?

How about Open Borders? Would it be better for society for most people to oppose the Great Replacement or welcome it? Would it be better for Hungary if most Hungarians were against the Hungarian Nakba or if most Hungarians were for it? For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'Nakba', it was the national tragedy that befell Palestinians when they were colonized, expelled, and replaced on their native territory by European Zionist-Immigration-Imperialists. (As you all should know, Endless Immigration = Genocide or Nakba. If just a trickle of Jewish Immigrants had entered Palestine, Palestinians would still have owned their land and would have tolerated a small Jewish minority. But Jewish Immigration was endless and came to replace the Palestinians... just like endless non-white immigration turned whites in California into a minority. Endless immigration also turned native Hawaiians into a minority in their native ancestral islands.) Anyway, suppose there are two Hungarians. Viktor is opposed to the Hungarian Nakba. He says NO to Endless Immigration, or Replacement Immigration. He believes Hungary will fare best if MOST Hungarians agree with him. Against him is Miklos who sucks up to Jewish globalists like George Soros and welcomes Endless Immigration, one that is sure to lead to the Hungarian Nakba where the native folks are turned into a minority in their own ancestral lands by Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, and others. Miklos wishes MOST folks would agree with him and welcome the Hungarian Nakba. Now, which Hungary will be better off? One where most people think like Viktor or one where most people think like Miklos? If most people think like Miklos, the fate of Hungary will be like the fate of Palestine where the native Palestinians were replaced by European Zionist-immigration-imperialist Jews.

How about Jew-Worship? Would it be better for society if most people said NO to Jew-Worship or if most people said YES to Jew-Worship? Suppose there are Kevin and Lindsey. Kevin thinks it is dangerous for goyim to mindlessly worship and obey Jews who, though smart and creative, tend to be cunning, hostile, vicious, nasty, contemptuous, and exploitative over 'dimwit goyim'. Kevin thinks society would do best if most goyim, while not going full-Nazi, remained wary and cautious about Jewish narratives, agenda, and power. Don't dehumanize Jews but don't deify them either.
In contrast, shabbos goy Lindsey says Jews are oh-so-wonderful-great-awesome-wise-holy-oustanding-and-etc. in every way and then some. Jews are the most sacred, most tragic, most tremendous race of noble folks that ever existed on the face of this planet(and maybe the entire cosmos). If Jews want it, we must give it. If Jews demand, we must fulfill. If Jews command, we must obey. Lindsey believes goy society will be best off if MOST goyim were committed in blind faith to serving, honoring, and appeasing Jews on grounds that what Jews want for themselves and for us must be the BEST thing.
Now, which society would fare better? One where most goyim are like Kevin and remain skeptical of Jewish claims and criticize Jewish abuses OR one where most goyim are like Lindsey and grovel at the feet of Jews as the god-race? Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US embarked on Lindsey-ism and look at the results. Have they been good? The Wars for Israel, bailouts of Jewish banksters, the pornification of mainstream culture, the spread of interracism-jungle-fever-and-ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), anti-white PC propaganda, feminist wedge between white men and white women, Christianity replaced with Globo-Homo Queertianity, White Nakba & Replacement Immigration, new 'cold war' with Russia, and etc.? Has Lindsey-ism been a blessing for America?

And we can go on and on with the game of What-If-Most-People. Given that the health of society depends on what MOST people do, a good society is one where most people do what's right while a bad society(soon to be no-society at all) is one where most people(or enough people) do what's wrong. Needless to say among those cognizant of HBD(human bio-diversity) truths, this isn't only a matter of morality but biology. Some races are more prone to do the wrong thing given their genetic inclinations. Blacks, having evolved to survive in a state of savagery, are hardwired to act against civilizational norms. So, freely left to their own devices, most(or too many) of them will act wrongly and turn once-fine cities like Detroit into hell-holes. White people are genetically hardwired to make more civilized choices while blacks are genetically hardwired to make more savage choices. Whites tend to Europeanize, blacks tend to Africanize. So, a healthy modern society is one where most people are white than black; indeed, blacks in the West can enjoy modernity ONLY BECAUSE they leech off whites; even black achievements under slavery in the Americas owed to white supervision as, after all, black slaves under black rule in black Africa wielded no great results. Though, hypothetically speaking, it's possible for a society made up mostly of black people to have righteous Negroes who act responsible and moral, real-world results invariably show that too-many-blacks lead to 'savagerization'. Likewise, while we can hypothetically imagine a society full of Japanese where most act like jive-ass jiggerish savages, the likelihood is that a society full of Japanese will act in a cooperative and stable manner.

Another factor to consider is that one mustn't confuse 'most' with 'all'. While society is best off if MOST people act in a certain way in accordance to certain values and norms, it wouldn't necessarily be good if ALL people or each-and-every-person acted that way. This is especially true in science and the arts. Certain talents and abilities are inseparable from certain neuroses and eccentric(and often troublesome) tendencies. Many great artists tend to be half-mad or nutty in some way. So, while it wouldn't be good for society if most people had the personalities of Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon, creativity and artistry have benefited from the presence of a small minority of mavericks, rebels, outcasts, and eccentrics. Indeed, this is why homosexuality has been beneficial to civilization as a creative outlier. While homosexuality is biologically useless, morally troublesome, and culturally problematic, the 'gay' sensibility has a way of seeing things that has contributed greatly to the arts, design, and perspectives. So, just because society is best off if MOST people act such-and-such, it doesn't mean ALL people should be that way. Certain social rewards are inseparable from the problems that surround them. It's like there's no honey without the bee stings, there's no championship in boxing without getting hit many times. The good can be attained only through the bad.

Still, for MOST people, there are certain values and standards that are best for society-as-a-whole, and it is essential that the great majority of people adhere to certain values and attitudes. But in our sick, decadent, and degenerate order, such sane-majoritarianism is looked down upon. Fashion magazines push fatties as idols of beauty and health. Cities put on massive globo-homo parades and children are read to by trannies on the premise that 'gay is sacred'. The once-Christian West totally bows down to the demands of Jewish Supremacism as if Jews are deities than flawed humans. Once proudly white nations welcome the Great Replacement or White Nakba. Even though blacks are the most destructive race(by their genetics), the White West worships blacks as demigods and celebrates ACOWW. Even though drugs are harmful for the most part, they are pushed on everyone as soma, soma, soma. Gambling went from a vulgar vice to a 'moral' industry that provides 'reparations' to American Indians. Women get their values from shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS by Lena Dunham. Skankery has been made the New Normal by Disney run by Jews. Under Jewish Power, society is made to push MOST people to choose the Wrong over the Right. Apparently, Jews fear any notion of majoritarian morality because they are a minority-elite and, as such, fear majority values as threatening to Minority Privilege. So, Jews are hellbent on making the majority accept minority-deviance as the New Normal. This is a terrible thing for the West(and the Rest that still looks to the West to lead the world).

The Irony of how Holocaust Remembrance Slipped in Jewish Supremacism under the Guise of Anti-Supremacism

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

One of the problems of Holocaust Remembrance(akin to Holocaust Worship, which leads to Worship of Jews) is that it 'esoterically' carries the seeds of Judeo-Nazism. In other words, it is supremacist, or yet another form of supremacism even as it denounces the 'master race' supremacism of Nazism. The rites and rituals of Holocaust Remembrance aren't really about the evil of mass murder, six million dead, or a people being targeted for mass extermination. It's really about the outrage that it was done to JEWS. The moral logic would suggest that Jews are the superior race, the true master race, the holy race. Therefore, the real crime of the Holocaust was that a false wanna-be master race(the Teutons) dared to mass murder the true master race, the Jews. In remembrance, what we hear is not the outrage of killing 6 million people(though some analyses point to numbers closer to 3 million) but 6 million JEWS. So, the real abomination of Nazi Criminality was that it targeted Holy Jews than mere humans. One gets the sense that the Holocaust wouldn't have been deemed so evil and unforgettable/unforgivable IF Nazi Germans and their collaborators had killed another people while sparing Jews. Abe Foxman was once recorded admonishing Ukrainian leaders NOT to conflate the 'Holodomor' with the Holocaust. The Shoah is a jealous god, and 'thou shall not worship no tragedy before(or alongside) it'. If Jews really regarded the Holocaust as a crime against Humanity, they would welcome comparisons of Jewish suffering in the Shoah with the sufferings of rest of humanity in similar tragedies. But Jews insist on maintaining the singularity of the Shoah because the victims weren't merely human but JEWS. Now, it's understandable why a people would be more upset with their own dead. After all, Armenians are more upset over what the Turks did. Chinese are more sensitive about the Nanking Massacre. The difference is that Jews don't merely grieve over their own dead among themselves but try to force all the world to feel that the Shoah was worse than any other tragedy because it was done to JEWS. Indeed, Jews want goyim to believe that suffering of Jews is worse than even the suffering of their own goy kind. Whites, it seems, have truly bought into this. They are so obsessed with protecting a single hair on a Jewish child in Israel but turn a blind eye to the grisly deaths of thousands of whites in South Africa(because whites expressing white identity will displease the holy Jews). As long as the super-rich Jewish diamond industrialists can rake in billions by bribing the black-run government, who cares if white gentiles get slaughtered on farms?

The 20th century has seen lots of bloodshed and mayhem. But most mass-killings have been forgotten, ignored, or suppressed. Even rationalized. Many will argue that the Holocaust was especially evil because it wasn't just mass-killing but a targeted genocide of a specific people. Fair enough. Still, one can't help but feel that the real outrage is over murder of JEWS than murder of mere people, the goyim. Suppose millions of Jews had died not by targeted genocide but by a broader movement, like forced collectivization in the USSR. Suppose a political campaign ended up killing millions of Jews by famine and starvation than by extermination squads. Would the deaths of those millions of Jews be mostly ignored like the deaths of millions of Ukrainians or Chinese(under communism)? I think not. The reason why Jews are far less harsh on communism is because most Jews greatly benefited in the USSR just when millions of Slavic Christians were being dispossessed and killed by starvation. It was good for Jews, and the victims were goyim. And do Jews feel even a smidgen of remorse or conscience about what they did in Russia in the 90s? Most Jews don't. If anything, they even make alliances with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to undermine and eventually take over Russia, as if it belongs to them as well. Jews kvetch about one dead Jew in Israel but show NO feelings about countless dead Muslims resulting from Wars for Israel.

So, Holocaust Remembrance isn't anti-supremacist. It is a sly program of slipping in Jewish Supremacism under the guise of anti-supremacism. Jewish dead in the Holocaust are portrayed as the greatest victims of racial supremacism, but the sheer inordinate emphasis on the victims being Jewish implies that Jewish Lives are more precious than any other lives. If German Nazis had spared Jews but tried to wipe out Hungarians or only Gypsies, I doubt there would be as much fuss about it.
One thing for sure, Hitler's plan for Russia was grim and brutal. He planned mass exterminations in the millions to be followed by mass enslavement. A Slavic-holocaust or Slavocaust was planned for Russians, and given that Germans conquered much territory during the war, one could argue that all the Slavs under German Occupation were also holocaust survivors(using the logic of the Jewish definition of 'holocaust survivor', who could be ANYONE who lived in zones under Nazi Occupation even if he or she never stepped inside a Nazi Concentration Camp). And yet, there is no World Remembrance of Russian deaths and sacrifices. Germans aren't pressured to feel guilty over their crimes against Slavs. If anything, the German government is pressured by Jewish-controlled US to wage economic war to spread misery in Russia. Germany is also silenced from noticing and denouncing the alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine.
Also, if the great lesson learned by Germans from WWII and the Holocaust is the evil of Ethno-Supremacism, why are most Germans and Europeans silent about the obviously ethno-supremacist policy of Jewish-controlled US that favors Jews over Palestinians, Jews over Arabs/Muslims(whose nations have been devastated at the behest of Zionist power), Jews over Christians -- notice the total silence about all those Christian Arabs destroyed as the result of Wars for Israel -- , and Jews over Russians? In the end, the lesson of Holocaust Remembrance is not "It is evil for any people to claim superiority and commit mass-murder against another people deemed inferior" but "It is evil to target Jews for political violence because Jews are innately holier, superior, and more precious than any other race." Holocaust Remembrance logic implicitly posits that the Shoah was worse than a case of mere human-cide. It was closer to Deicide, the killing of god-men. It's a logic borrowed from Christianity. Why did the killing of Jesus matter so much? After all, Jews and Romans killed plenty of people. Jews stoned many deemed as heretics or blasphemers. Romans killed many deemed to be traitorous or dangerous to the empire. Then, why make such a big fuss about the killing of Jesus, some Jewish carpenter in Judea? Because, at least according to Christian Mythology, He was no ordinary man. Indeed, He was even more than a Great Man. He was God-Man. Thus, it wasn't murder of a human but the murder of the Son of God.
Similar logic underlies Holocaust Remembrance. The real crime is not mass murder of humans but the mass murder of JEWS, the holy race, the awesome race, the genius race, the ancient race, the super race, and etc. Granted, Jews are indeed one of history's great peoples, and surely, the mass killing of Jews will be more consequential than the mass deaths of, say, Bolivians or Burmese. If all Bolivians or Burmese were to disappear(or had never existed in history), the world be pretty much as it is. But if Jews had never existed, the world would be profoundly different, for good or ill. And if Jews were to vanish into the thin air, the world would be much affected by their absence. So, it's understandable why Jews(and their fans, admirers, cucks, and worshipers) would be so obsessed about the well-being and power of Jews in the world. But then, this is precisely why Holocaust Remembrance isn't ultimately anti-supremacist but neo-supremacist. It is less a condemnation of racial supremacism per se than a condemnation of false supremacism that dared to do violence to the true supreme people, the genuine master race of Jews.
Indeed, US politics cannot be understood apart from the fact that Jewish Supremacism is the core defining 'principle' of all that happens. Notice how US politics isn't essentially about Left vs Right but "Jews like?" vs "Jews don't like?" White Identity is suppressed(even if it isn't supremacist) because Jews fear ANY white consciousness will undermine blind obedience among whites to Jewish Supremacism. Slaves mustn't have pride or ego. Only the master deserves to have them. People with pride and ego do not want to serve others. Only when such are taken from them do they become servile to those who are allowed a sense of self. Jews hate the sight of 'uppity' whites who prefer to think for themselves about their own identity and history than be berated by Jews that they are so tainted by 'white privilege' and burdened by 'white guilt' that they must forsake white identity and serve another people, one that happens to be holy, to gain redemption. Of course, that Other People are Jews(even though Jewish money and skills played a big role in White Imperialism, Slave Trade, and conquest of non-whites). Jews bitch about 'white supremacism', but they are suppressing white national liberation from Jewish Supremacism. All this Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria is presented as 'progressive' resistance against Trump as Putin-Puppet, but it's all about Jews. Jews hate Russia because its national autonomy stands in the way of total Jewish World Hegemony. And they esp hate Russia because it says NO to Homomania, a proxy of Jewish World Imperialism. Jews push mass non-white immigration into the West on grounds of 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', but it's all about "Is it good for Jews?" It's obvious from so many New York Times op-eds that what Jews want is to destroy white majority power and create a crazy-quilt nation so that they can play divide-and-rule among goyim from above. That's all it's about. And notice how Jewish Power, both Republican and Democratic, work behind the scenes to shut down BDS even though it is mostly deemed a leftist movement. Why are Jewish 'progressives' working with Jewish Republicans(and cuck-christo-Goppers) to destroy BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians? Because most Jewish Liberals are Jews first and Liberals second. Or, they are Jewish Supremacists first and Jewish humanists second. Even in the bluest states, powerful Jewish Liberals have worked with even hardline Republicans(worthless christo-cucks, the most of them) to shut down BDS. New York is said to be one of the most 'liberal' states, but its cuck-governor bans BDS. Texas and NY are seen as red vs blue, but when it comes to Jews uber Palestinians, both are totally agreed that the US must serve Jews no matter what. And in Florida, a bill is about to become law that would ban speech that notices Jewish power, Jewish supremacism, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. Such a law isn't about humans. It's about gods, premised on the notion that Jews are so holy, great, awesome, and wondrous that it would be downright blasphemous to cast negative aspersions on Jewish Power, notice wicked patterns of behavior among Jews, connect the dots of Jewish influence, condemn Wars for Israel, and call out on Zionist tyranny over Palestinians(and others). Jews say they are condemning 'hate speech', but they are pushing blasphemy laws with themselves as new gods.
Also, if Jews are so concerned about how 'Hate Speech' may lead to violence against powerless minorities, why were they so silent about all those 'liberal' Hollywood movies and TV shows that feature Muslims and Arabs as terrorist madmen or token 'good guys'(who are good ONLY WHEN they collaborate with the US empire against other Muslims)? If Jews are so sensitive about victim-hood, why do they promote violent rap music that celebrates gun violence, rape, & mayhem and call women 'bitches' and 'ho's'? If Jews are so worried about how 'hate speech' may lead to new atrocities and wars, why do the Jewish-run media spew so much Hate News against Iran, Syrians, Arabs, and Russians? Didn't Fake News and Hate News under Bush II and Obama lead to bloodbaths in Iraq, Libya, and Syria? And if Jews despise Trump as 'literally Hitler', why are they most silent and even supportive of him when he is most belligerent, demagogic, and warlike in his hysteria about Iran and Venezuela? It seems Jews don't mind Trump being 'literally Hitler' as long as it's against peoples and nations hated by Jews. Indeed, Jews even form alliances with Literally Nazi elements in Ukraine to get what they want. They even cheer on ISIS psychopaths to wreck Syria, an ally of Iran, IF it is deemed Good for Israel.

The 'moral' logic of Holocaust Remembrance is like that of Globo-Homo-Mania. Initially, the 'gay' agenda was sold as freedom for homosexuals. We didn't have to approve them or welcome them. It was based on the scientific truth that some people are born with homo tendencies, and it's not their fault. Also, as people have feelings, it's not good to insult and harm homosexuals. Just let them be. And most Americans went along with this. But, it soon turned out that this GloboHomo business wasn't just about tolerance of deviancy and freedom for perverts but a supremacist idolatry of homos(and even trannies) as an angel-like special people whom we must feel compelled to celebrate, praise, lionize, and rhapsodize over. As for those who refuse to do so and call out on the true nature of the 'gay' agenda, they are to be deemed as 'homophobic', or sick in the head and unfit to reach upper ranks of society where all the goodies are. Even a huge chain like Chick-Fil-A is to be denied access to cities like Chicago where mass celebrations of Anno Sodomini takes place annually. Apparently, Dick-Fill-Ass is what the US is really about.

Both Holocaust Remembrance and Globo-Homo have been sold as being about justice, equality, and anti-supremacism, but both are actually predicated on the supremacist notion that Jews and homos(their main allies and most tireless globalist agents) are special and deserve praise, adulation, and obedience above and beyond all other peoples. Clever Jews have coated the poison pill of Jewish supremacism with anti-supremacist sweetener. In the mouth, it tastes like 'equality and justice' but dissolves in the stomach to spread mindless support of Jewish Supremacism. At AIPAC rallies, Jews and cucks make big speeches about 'Never Again' and 'No to Hate', all the while pledging undying support for Zionist tyranny against Palestinians, Wars for Israel, mindless hatred against Iran, and defamation of whites who insist on having an identity emancipated from the clutches of the Shylock Doctrine.

Jews could have used Holocaust Remembrance to learn and teach a greater lesson for all mankind. It could have been about how it's wrong for ANY would-be supremacists to wipe out another people. Alas, the lesson has become just another form of Supremacism, i.e. we need to remember the Holocaust forever and ever because the victims were JEWS, the holy and superior race. The lesson became selective than universal.
Even the Jewish-controlled Narrative of the US is about "Is it good for Jews?" Jews say Immigration was noble because it was great for their own kind. But didn't Immigration of Europeans and Jews lead to the 'genocide' of native indigenous folks? Didn't Jewish Hollywood make tons of Westerns lionizing the white pioneers who rubbed out the Indians? Didn't immigration lead to Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map? Never mind all that. Too inconvenient for the Judeo-centric Narrative.
Jews say they are for universal principles and reach for a global audience on that basis, but their ultimate message isn't "equal justice for all humans" but "all humans must agree to praise, worship, and serve Jews and furthermore ensure that all the world will be good for Jews". Jews are not surrendering to universalism but exploiting its reach to make humans serve Jews as the god-race.

But then, the very notion of Jewishness is essentially supremacist as it's based on the conviction that the one true God chose Jews to be masters over all humanity. Indeed, when so-called progressive Jews cling to Jewishness, they are sticking to an exclusionary identity-ideology that says Jews are special and more blessed than others. Even among secular Jews, this mental habit seems to remain. Some Jews argue that Jewishness is about Jews minding their own business and demanding to be left alone by goy bigots. But Jewishness isn't like being Amish, a culture that really just wants to be left alone. Jewishness is about Jews excluding goyim from their own world but making all the goy world include Jewish Power as the righteous master and ruler over all of humanity. It is a mad contradiction, a psycho-political dilemma at the root of the world's biggest problems and conflicts.

If Holocaust Remembrance really has a universal lesson to impart, it should be that ANY PEOPLE can act like Nazis and ANY PEOPLE can end up like Jewish victims. If the message is truly anti-supremacist, then no people are innately nobler than others & no people are innately more wicked than others. Germans who were once Nazis could suffer like Jews did under Nazi tyranny. Jews, who were once victimized, could become like Nazis and terrorize the world. In other words, any people, even Germans, could become 'Jews' in the metaphorical sense, and any people, even Jews, could become 'Nazis' in the metaphorical sense. But according to Holocaust Remembrance, we are to fixate on Jews as the Eternal Victims no matter what they do in the future. Such Moral Privilege is a form of supremacism. It implies that even if Jews were to act like Nazis, they shall always be morally shielded with the Anne Frank card. And even when Germans face replacement and extinction, they are to be regarded as 'Nazis' forever. This is crazy, and the Holocaust is now just a Holo-Curse.

Commentary on "Why ‘Apartheid Denial’ Must Be Made a Crime"(by Henry Wolff)

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/02/why-apartheid-denial-must-be-made-a-crime/

Biggest Apartheid Denials are:

1. Israel was created by Nakba Pogroms that ethnically cleansed Palestinians. Also, Israel illegally occupies West Bank, into which Zionist Caravans come invading(against international law), and Palestinians can't do anything about it... just like white Americans and so many Europeans are helpless to do anything about the foreign invasion. Now, what do West Bank, Western Europe, Canada, and US have in common? Their cucked goy elites -- Fatah or Liberals or Conservatives or Democrats or Republicans -- don't represent the national aspirations of their own peoples but serve the globalist hegemony of Jewish Power that insists on Mono-Nationalism(or Nationalism and pride of Identity for Jews only) against Poly-Nationalism(or all peoples have the right of identity and nationality). White elites in the West are hardly better than dog-like elites in Hong Kong who served the British Imperialists. If anything, Western Elites are worse. At the very least, Hong Kong elites kept Hong Kong Chinese and looked forward to the day when they would take the island from the white man. In contrast, Western elites are in the process of giving away their homelands forever.

2. Biggest forms of apartheid in the US are carried out surreptitiously. Progs have mastered the art of SAYING one thing while DOING something else. It's a form of Moral Masking. It's like US imperialism justifies itself by making noises about spreading 'liberal democracy' when, in fact, these are essentially Wars for Israel and MIC(military-industrial complex). And if Western Imperialism morally justified itself in the name of spreading Christianity, now it's all about spreading globohomo. As Western elites and white people in general have been sold on the lunacy that homosexuality and tranny business = holy 'rainbow', they can't think of anything more redemptive for all of mankind that spreading the glory of Anno Sodomini, even if it means dropping tons of bombs on other nations.

Anyway, Progs practice Cryto-Apartheid or Surrepto-Apartheid via Gentric Cleansing, often spearheaded by white homos. NY elected Rudy Giuliani for two terms and Michael Bloomberg for three terms, and both went after black crime in a very big way. Clinton locked up more super-predators than anyone before or after him. Stop-and-Frisk especially targeted blacks(who commit the most crime). And push for Gentrification changed many black neighborhoods into yuppie-hipster or 'yupster' ones in DC, Chicago, San Fran, and NY. When you have lots of money and legal muscle, you can do just about anything. But lest blacks realize what is really happening, these Progs made much noise about their adoration of blacks(and promoted globohomo to push black issues to the back of the bus, ironically under the presidency of Obama the black man; but then, Jews and Homos made him, not blacks, so he owed more to globohomo than to Negro; blacks got angry about lack of attention, and Obama tried to redress this in his last 2 yrs by supporting BLM, which spiraled out of control like the Cultural Revolution; it became Criminal Revolution). The current Crypto-Apartheid is like how white people drove out the Indians but then erected Indian statues and named towns after the Red Man to lend the impression of their respect than removal of Indians. Remove the bodies while hoisting the symbol. SAY one thing and DO something else. Just like the US war machine that wages war and destruction while calling it 'pacification' campaign.

----------

We need a law against Black Rampage Denialism. Or Criminal Revolution Denialism. Due to BAMMAMA factor -- blacks are more muscular and more aggressive --, black freedom led to black bullying, battery, robbery, rape, and murder of so many whites. All over the US, stronger blacks have been terrorizing and assaulting whites, as Colin Flaherty has detailed so many times.

Yes, there was segregation in the past, but such was deemed necessary because freed blacks, being stronger and more aggressive, could act predatory against whites. And this exact thing happened since the 1960s when the Criminal Revolution took off. And things got so bad that Jewish and white liberals ran from blacks. The era of white flight or 'Exurbodus', or Exodus from Urban areas. Black Criminal Revolution effectively ethnically and racially cleansed so many whites from traditional white areas. Even as Jewish Liberals denounced Segregation in the South, they joined(even spearheaded) the Exurbodus to flee black criminality and thuggery(and to prevent their children being bullied by blacks in schools). This wasn't official segregation as in the South but effectively the same thing.

And how did rich whites and Jews retake downtown areas of cities? They used economic and legal muscle to tear down housing projects, drive blacks out to lesser suburbs and small towns. They boosted property values so that only globalist yupsters could afford them.

----------

Why is the American South especially targeted for ideological abuse? If Confederate Flags, Symbolism, and Ceremonies must be suppressed because of their association with slavery, why is it okay to celebrate cowboys and the Wild West? After all, one could associate all that with 'genocide' of the Indians? Weren't a lot of Indians killed by guns? Maybe the Winchester 73 should be banned(and M-16 and Helicopters should be banned for their association with 'genocide' of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War). And 20% of cowboys were black, and that means lots of blacks also killed Indians. Jewish merchants sold guns and supplies to the pioneers of Manifest Destiny.
Also, didn't mass immigration from the Old World lead to more wars against Indians, effectively leading to their 'genocide' and expulsion from their sacred lands? The US flag can be construed as a symbol of conquest, invasion, imperialism, and 'genocide' against the natives of America, just like the Israeli Flag can be conflated with Nakba pogroms and 'genocidal' erasure of Palestine -- by the U.N'.s own definition of 'genocide', Nakba was clearly an official genocide. Statue of Liberty should be dismantled if we follow this line of moral logic. Though originally erected as a tribute to US freedom, it came to symbolize immigration. But it was immigration that destroyed the native peoples and cultures of America.
Now, it's my understanding that genocide is worse than slavery. Then, why all this celebration of the Statue of Liberty that symbolizes Mass-Immigration-Invasion that reduced Indians to wretched huddled masses, as opposed to all the vitriol spewed against the Confederacy? Was black slavery worse than Indian 'genocide'? If anything, it seems the South treated the blacks better than Northern Whites treated the Indians(and it was the North that spearheaded and financed most of the imperialist Manifest Destiny) -- also, politicians of the US North supported white elites in Latin America who employed 'death squads' to carry out near-genocidal campaigns against browns. Furthermore, what about all the US memorials to wars? Many US wars were imperialist in character and agenda. Taking SW territories from Mexico. Invading Philippines. Committing war crimes against Japan and Germany. Interfering and killing millions in Korea and Vietnam. Using worst kind of mendacity to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, and etc. It seems the US military has a lot of imperialist, even genocidal, blood on its hands. (Ironically, Obama's war on Libya led to open black slave markets over there.) So, how about tearing down all War Memorials as reprehensible tributes to US soldiers who took part in Imperialism and even near-genocidal acts?

American Indians were destroyed by imperialism and mass-immigration. Millions of innocents were killed abroad by US military machine and Wars for Israel. And yet, we must celebrate immigration. We must wave the flag and support the troops(not least because globo-homo Libs are now the biggest warmongers). Why? One reason is Proggism is actually 'sympa-supremacist'(or supremacist in selective sympathy that favors certain groups over others). Proggism is not animated by fairness or principles toward ALL peoples. Just ask the Palestinians and White Americans if they get a fair deal from Current Globalism? Current Proggism is about the idolatrous worship of Jews, blacks, and homos above all.
Why those three? One reason is Jewish control of media and academia. So, Jews control the narrative and decide who is holy, who is unholy. Jews naturally favored themselves. And they favored homos as a talented elite-minority. Jewish power and Homo power together posit the New Normal of Elite Minority Privilege uber super-majority goyim and super-majority straights. Jews chose blacks for two reasons. Profitability as Jews have raked in many billions off black sports, black music, and black sex. The other reason is Jews can use blacks to guilt-bait white Americans(with slavery consecrated as the 'original sin' of America even though the 'genocide' of Indians predated slavery), thus paralyzing white identity & pride and manipulating whites into serving the Other(mainly Jews) as atonement. Why do Jews make a bigger deal about blacks than about American Indians? After all, weren't Indians 'genocided'? But concentrating on the Indian Tragedy isn't good for Jewish interests. After all, Jews gained so much from Immigration. So, the notion of "immigration = 'genocide' of Indians" is problematic to Jews. Also, Jews have always owned Hollywood and made so many Westerns where Indians are little more than shooting ducks, and that makes Jews culpable in spreading 'hate' against Indians. And what Jews did to Palestinians is eerily similar to what was done to the Indians.
Another reason is that blacks are a more vocal and expressive people than the Indians. So, their hysterics make for better theater than the relative stoicism of the Indians. Also, as blacks have gained so much success in sports, music, and sex -- the three things Americans are most obsessed about -- , they've come to be seen almost as demigods by whites in US, Canada, and Europe. A lot of 'European' sports 'heroes' are now black, and white women flock to have sex with them, and cucky white boys stand in line to get their autographs from black stars. And white youth culture is mainly white boys imitating black rappers and white girls 'twerking' while fantasizing about sex with black men.
NCAA and NFL pretty much follow the same dynamics. College sports are about adulation of blacks as local heroes, and tons of white coeds put out to them while white boys sheepishly cheer for them. NFL is about black 'heroes' winning games and humping tons of white women and about white boys worshiping black men as super-jocks and super-studs. Because whites worship black prowess in sports, black song(rap is now the biggest genre), and black sex, whites are bound to feel more guilty about having committed wrongs against blacks. It's like Christians came to feel esp guilty about the death of Jesus because the Narrative says He was no ordinary man but the Son of God. It's like people get more upset about someone killing a lion than a hyena or coyote. Lion is seen as regal, the king of the jungle. More people get upset over someone killing a whale than a pig or lamb. So, even though American Indians suffered more, they are seen as dull and boring, a mediocre or inferior people. Whites may acknowledge that Indians suffered but don't get all hung up about it. But whites feel obsessive guilt about what they'd don to blacks, the superior race of sports, song, and sex.
Jews exploit this psychology because it could be used in their favor too. The reason why the Shoah is such a big deal is not because Hitler killed a lot of innocent people. Suppose Hitler spared Jews and killed only Gypsies. While the world would acknowledge it as a tragedy, they wouldn't make a big fuss over it 24/7 because most people regard Gypsies as a bunch of losers. Also, Gypsies don't have power and money to control media and set the Narrative. But Jews are talented and gained tremendous wealth to dominate media and academia. Also, precisely because Jews have demonstrated their mental prowess in science, medicine, letters, humor, business, entertainment, and etc, white people have come to regard Jews with awe, as the god-men of mind, wit, and soul. So, the Holocaust is seen as something even worse than a mass-killing of people. It's seen as something akin to Deicide, the murder of a godlike race of people.

Progs pretend to be about equality, but they are very selective and supremacist in their sympathies. Proggism is Sympa-Supremacist or Compassion-Supremacist where just a few groups are favored to hog and command most of the collective sympathy. Jews over Palestinians. Jews of Shoah over Ukrainians of Holodomor. Blacks over American Indians. Homos over straights. (Homos are revered for their style and vanity in current culture that is mainly geared toward narcissism and celebrity mania.) And of course, Diversity over Indigeneity.

Diversity is the product of Imperialism that destroyed Indigeneity. After all, the only reason why Hawaii is diverse is because whites conquered and then allowed mass immigration-invasion from Asia. So, the natives of Hawaii -- the REAL Hawaiians -- have been reduced to pitiful minority status in their own homeland. Indigenous people lost out to diverse invasive peoples. It is a sign of utter cognitive dissonance that progs say they are for both Indigeneity and Diversity. They are such idiotic NPC's that they aren't even woke to the illogical line of their (un)reasoning.