Some Jews are pondering if Jews should count as 'white'. After all, the notion of 'whiteness' has been much pilloried in the academia, media, and the state, not least by JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. Therefore, Jews find it problematic to count as white because white goyim are routinely scapegoated for just about everything... unless the white goyim happen to be 'gay' or 'gayim'. But then, there could be another problem arising from Jews rejecting whiteness. After all, if Jews don’t count as white and are gauged as a stand-alone group, it means they can easily be identified as the Most Powerful Group because Jewish privilege, the biggest privilege in the world, could no longer hide behind the veil of ‘whiteness’. If Jewish Privilege no longer counts as 'white', people might begin to awaken to the fact that Jews control the US, thereby the world.
The result is the paradox of Jews both vilifying and identifying with whiteness. Why would they identify with a group that they vilify the most? It's because the biggest Jewish fear is being exposed as a people of immense power, wealth, and influence, all of which suggest supremacist tendencies among Jews. Thus, Jews are Zelig-ish by nature, indeed even within the community. Barbra Streisand made YENTL, a story about a Jewish woman who pretends to be a man to gain access to education and, in the same year(1983), Woody Allen came out with ZELIG where a Jew morphs into other identities while, deep inside, remaining the Eternal Jew. The paradox of Jewish character is that Jews mastered the art of adapting into non-Jewish modes not for genuine assimilation but to protect the core 'nest egg' of Jewishness deep within. It's no wonder Albert Brooks in LOST IN AMERICA, as the wandering Jewish yuppie, is so obsessed with the notion of the Nest Egg. Jews know that they amassed a lot of power, wealth, and privilege by means foul as well as fair. Therefore, the last thing Jews want is to be blamed for all the dirty tricks they pulled. Consider Jews and blacks. Jewish agents and managers ripped off a lot of blacks, and a lot of blacks know this. And Jews know it too. But in their effort to maintain the political alliance between Jews and blacks, Jews get awful upset if blacks mention past Jewish behavior in bad light. But if blacks blame 'whites' instead for all the bad things Jews did to them, that is acceptable to Jews. #HollywoodSoJewish is not okay, but #HollywoodSoWhite is okay. So, if a black person was conned by a Jew, and if he says, "A Jew ripped me off", Jews hiss with anger. But if the Negro says, "A WHITEY ripped me off", Jews breathe a sigh of relief and show their approval. Therefore, it's very convenient for Jews to identify as 'white' for the time being.
Of course, by invoking the Shoah endlessly, Jews also make themselves out to be the biggest victims of whites or 'white supremacists'. Disingenuously, Jews pretend the Shoah happened out of the blue for no reason when, if anything, it was an extreme and radical reaction to much horrible behavior on the part of Jews. In many respects, the Shoah was a Counter-Holocaust in response to the holocausts committed by Jewish communists and World Jewry on goyim. Before there was the Jewish Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germans, there was the Slavo-Holocaust carried out in large part by Jewish radicals. In that sense, The Holocaust should really be called the Counter-Holocaust. Horrible Jewish behavior inspired horrible German behavior. Tragically, JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power is at it again in the 21st century as the Jews have become the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis.
In the Current Year, the Cult of Privilege is less about having privilege than being branded with its label. It is rather like an inversion of the concept of the titled aristocracy. After all, the privilege of nobility was not so much about wealth & means as about blood & lineage secured through titles passed down through generations. So, one could be broke and out of luck but still be regarded as a 'duke', ‘count’ or ‘baron’.
Likewise, the cult of ‘white privilege’ isn’t about all white people really having or enjoying privilege. It means being labeled with this historical stain of ‘privilege’. It is something ALL whites inherit, like the Mark of Cain. No matter how poor or downtrodden(or tyrannized by black thugs) a white person may be, he is forced to own the negative-title of ‘white privilege’. John the Oppressor. Bob the Tyrant. Jerry the Bigot. Ron the Hater. Whitey = Evil.
Given how this works, if Jews un-whiten themselves, they could earn the Special Privilege of being forgiven their own privilege of immense power and wealth. Even if Jews remain rich or get richer, their un-white-ness provides them with the special dispensation of not being tainted with moral wickedness that is thought to be uniquely white. (But then, as noted above, Jews-as-Jews than Jews-as-whites will open up a whole new can of worms when it comes to the issue of uber-privilege as Jews have more money and privilege than any other group. Jews-as-Jews may no longer be stained with whiteness, but then, they will no longer be able to launder bad Jewish behavior as 'bad WHITE behavior.')
If you’re black, brown, or homo, you can be as rich, famous, well-connected, and/or privileged as possible without any blame or accusation. Not being white gives you the privilege of denying your privilege even if you, as an individual, has lots of it. That group advantage, in and of itself, is an immense kind of privilege. And some Jews may be hoping for the same thing as they explore the possibilities to detaching Jewishness from whiteness.
After all, white Hispanics enjoy such PC privilege. Being ‘Hispanic’ makes them non-white, and that means they can be as rich as Carlos Slim the Lebanese. They don't count as one of the ‘privileged’ since privilege is only attached to non-Hispanic whiteness. Incredibly enough, white Latinos, the descendants of the first European Conquistadors of the Americas who did so much plundering and pillaging, hide behind the veil of 'people of color'. Meanwhile, to confuse matters even further, even brown natives of 'Latin America' without a drop of white blood are referred to as 'Hispanic' or 'Latino'(or now 'Latinx').
The concept of Privilege according to PC isn’t a condition based on actual wealth or power. It is an inheritance. So, no matter how rich a Negro, Dotkin(Hindu), or Conqui(or Conkey, or White Hispanic) becomes, he is not associated with the Problem of Privilege. In contrast, no matter how poor a white person may be, he or she is forced to inherit the negative title/curse of ‘white privilege’. It really stinks how the shame-game is rigged.
Maybe, whites should twist this around and come up with the concept of White Prestige. Invoking Charles Murray’s HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT, they should say 97% of all contributions to mankind came from whites, therefore, ALL whites are worthy of inheriting White Prestige and White Pride FOR ALL TIME. This way, even the dumbest white dolt will have more prestige than the smartest non-white individual who contributes something of great value. Yes, all whites inherit White Prestige and demand respect from all the world that owes everything to white achievement.
According to PC, this stain or inheritance of ‘white privilege’ is something whites can never be rid of. It's like a scar that marks one for life. The stamp of 'white privilege' is meant to be more resilient that the seal of nobility. It's meant to stick to whites like skunk spray.
If a nobleman was really down on his luck, he could at least sell his title and be rid of it… and end up like the descendants like TESS OF THE D'URBERVILLES. In contrast, ‘white privilege’ is like the blood on the hands of Lady Macbeth. It won’t fade no matter how much it's washed AS LONG AS white folks remain psycolonized by PC. It's like a chronic infestation by parasites that are nearly impossible to eradicate... unless one takes a drastic measure. At this point, only total White Liberation from JSP will bring an end to the cult of White Guilt.
Paradoxically, the current PC is devised to reward whites with real privilege while punishing whites without privilege. The Globo-Homo-Shlomo Order allows privileged whites to keep their privilege AS LONG AS they denounce 'white privilege' and shower contempt on the white hoi polloi. Why would this be? It's the Jewish Way of using carrots to ensure that privileged whites will obey and serve them. As comprador-collaborators of the Empire of Judea, privileged whites get to enjoy status and wealth. If Jews allow such whites to enjoy so much privilege, why do Jews insist that they condemn 'white privilege'? Why are Jews allowing certain whites to have so much white privilege while, at the same time, making them denounce 'white privilege' among whites who have NO privilege? It's really because what Jews fear most is not 'white privilege' — after all, Jews got more White Privilege than other white groups — but white unity, and by making privileged white dump on unprivileged whites, Jews are making sure there is no unity of white elites and white masses. Jewish message to white elites is "You can keep your privilege AS LONG AS you shit on the white masses. You, as white elites, must serve us Jews as your masters than lead white folks as your people." Then, it's hardly surprising that privileged whites can afford to attend the right kind of schools, make the right kind of donations, and make the right kind of gestures so as to present themselves as ‘good whites’. They can afford Magic Soap to wash away some of the stain of 'white privilege'. In contrast, less fortunate whites can’t afford to do so, and they become ‘deplorables’, so grimy and soiled with ‘white privilege’.
Because rich whites can afford to be ‘good whites’ and buy special dispensations — like the Clintons, Bidens, Pelosis, and the rest of them — , we have a surreal situation in this country where rich ‘liberal’ whites and rich cuck-whites can pose as less ‘privileged’ than deplorable poorer whites who can’t afford magic soap to wash away the dirt of ‘white privilege’. It is another kind of Dirt Gap... or the Dirty Gap.
Of course, even for PC-approved privileged whites, the stain of ‘white privilege’ never goes away. Unlike Jews, blacks, and homos who are idolized as naturally and unconditionally clean(no matter what they do), even the 'goodest of the good' whites are stained with the 'original sin' and the Mark of Cain of 'white privilege' and 'white guilt', and therefore, they must always make an effort to show that they wash day in and day out to remain clean. It's as if whites are like Pig-Pen of Peanuts comics. Still, rich and well-connected whites can still afford the Magic Soap that makes them seem 'cleaner' than the deplorables.
We now live in a crazy nation where the general impression is that lower class whites got more ‘white privilege’ than upper-class whites do. It’s not about who has more actual wealth and privilege but who can better afford to wash away some of that stain with Woke Soap. Magic Soap sure is expensive. Hope Soap makes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem cleaner of 'white privilege' than white deplorables who, down on their luck, are realizing that they're all on their own and without white leadership. Their only hope is White Liberation from JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power.
Jews who monopolize social and video platforms like Facebook and Youtube are at it again. They are purging entire accounts and deleting 100,000s of videos. Some say internet companies are implementing this policy under duress from organizations like ADL but that’s neither there nor here as both ADL and the monopolists of those internet companies are Jewish and arch-Zionist. The wretched hag Susan Wojcicki, who was given control over Youtube, may pretend to care about free speech, but it’s all phony hand-wringing. Her ilk would like for us to believe they are defenders of free speech but are forced to act under pressure from ADL and the like. But this is nonsense. Google that owns Youtube is one of the richest companies in the world. It doesn’t have to listen to ADL. It can do as it wants, which is, of course, what it does. And what it chooses to do is work closely with ADL to push Terms of Services that are conducive to the Only Rule that matters to Tribe: "Is it good for Jews?" or more precisely, "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" And it’s not a left vs right issue because Jews on both sides of the political aisle work tirelessly to shut down BDS by means of both business and the state. Incidentally, BDS is mostly aligned with the American Left, but it’s given no latitude by the Zionist monopolists of Google and Facebook who are less ideological and more tribal-supremacist.
Google and Facebook(and other companies) yammer about Terms of Services, but it is THEY who have violated the Terms and Promises. When they were getting started, they wanted to draw everyone in because they wanted to be monopolies. If they had honestly stated from the get-go that they’d favor the Democrats, Globalists, Zionist-Supremacists, Homomania, and etc. at the expense of others, many many people would not have used those services and instead would have sought out alternative services. The ONLY reason why ALL OF US decided to use those services was because Google, Facebook, and the like more-or-less promised us neutrality, fairness, and balance. Google even boasted early on that it would not do ‘evil’. Because people of all stripes trusted Google and Facebook, they signed up for those services on a massive scale, thereby turning them into mega-monopolies that pushed out all competition. But now that they have amassed monopoly powers, what are they doing? They are using their muscle to favor and promote certain voices and viewpoints while suppressing, censoring, and banning others. This is called the Jewish Hustle. It’s like what a pool shark does. He plays the first few games not so well and even loses a few to lure suckers into more games with higher stakes. Google and Facebook Jews conned us. They became monopolies but sucking ALL OF US in on the basis of fairness and neutrality, but once they gained great fortune and power, they decided to use their monopoly muscle to favor certain voices over others.
Furthermore, they’ve betrayed the entire spirit of Youtube and Facebook. Youtube became a thing because, for the first time, ordinary people could become part of the media than mere passive observers. Prior to the internet and effective video-platforms, most people watched TV news and shows made by a handful of corporations, but there was no effective way for them to offer feedback or create their own content. But with advancing video-streaming technology, millions of people were able to become content-creators and share their views. And in some ways, they were advantaged over media ‘mavens’ because they didn’t have a boss telling them what they could or couldn’t say. This freedom made some of the commentary downright loony, but it also meant more freedom for people to speak freely, something that is impossible in ‘mainstream media’ where any reporter or personality who spouts wrongthink can summarily be fired. So, on a host of issues and subjects, the personalities on Youtube and Facebook began to share their views with genuine sincerity. This element of sincerity and courageousness made certain Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter personalities very popular(or notorious), regularly drawing a larger share of the audience than ‘mainstream’ media where most news people and opinion-makers couldn’t step beyond the boundaries set by corporations and official narrative.
That was the whole point of Youtube's appeal. If we should just watch and listen to Corporate News and Shows made by a handful of mega-corporations, why bother with a platform like Youtube or Facebook where the DIFFERENCE is you can gain access to things OUTSIDE the perimeters of corporate and state control? Youtube began as a place where you could upload videos and share your views and share in the views of others just like you who had something to say and could do by making videos. But, what has Youtube been doing lately? It’s rigged search results so that, on any hot, controversial, or contentious topic, just about the only search results it will show are those by corporate news and bogus ‘independent’ content-creators(like the Young Turks) who’ve been tamed by massive funding by the super-rich Jews. Again, what is the point of using Youtube if it’s going to operate just like the Old TV. YOUtube has turned into WEtube, the ‘we’ in this case being oligarchic Zionists and mega-corporations that hog ownership and control of most of the media. They now say, ‘WE’ got the power, and ‘WE’ Zionist oligarchs will work with other Zionist monopolists of the media to control the Platform, Megaphone, and the Narrative. When push comes to shove, Jews prove to be tribalists first and ideologues second. All this stuff about ‘free speech’ and ‘First Amendment’ means nothing to Jews if free exchange of facts, analysis, and opinions threatens the Jewish lock on power.
Of course, the problem isn’t merely Jewish but Cuck-Wasp. Anglo-Americans who once used to rule America handed over power to the Jews so thoroughly and completely that Jewish Power has no effective opposition. When the Founding Fathers formed the new republic, they were careful to implement a system of checks and balances where no person, sector, or branch of government could have total power. But when Wasps handed over power to the Bugs(Busy Urban Globalist Semites, aka Jewish elites), they implemented no standards and methods by which the New Power could be counter-balanced and critiqued. But then, this massive quasi-revolutionary transference of power took place almost stealthily without declaration. It could be a Silent Revolution, Silent Coup, Silent Surrender, and Silent Betrayal because it didn’t happen overnight but over a decade or two. It was dramatic, indeed seismic, but gradual enough for people not to notice, especially when the Jew-run media created the impression that Whites were still in control, not least by using Wasp figureheads & mouthpieces and by getting young people all worked up about ‘white privilege’.
It’s incredible that the Founders were more concerned about the future of the American republic than the late-stage Wasps who handed power to Jews without putting any safety locks in place. To be sure, it would have been risky for late-stage Wasps to sound the alarm as Jews had such control of media and academia when the transference of power happened. Back in the early days of America’s founding, all the organs were controlled by Anglo-Americans who could freely debate the nature of power. But when Jews were taking over, they had near-total monopoly of the media, academia, and the deep state, and it would have been risky for anyone to raise questions about the character of ascendant Jewish Power. Even in the early 70s when Wasps still held the power, Richard Nixon and Billy Graham had to speak secretively about the Jews.
Even though Jews could loudly voice their issues with Wasps, it became deeply contentious and then downright taboo to discuss the problem of Jewish power, personality, and pathologies. Jews could psychoanalyze men like Nixon and raise alarms about the ‘authoritarian personality’(of white goyim, of course), but no one better say anything about Jewish neuroses and pathologies. One thing for sure, late-stage Wasps were most derelict in their duties. Perhaps, it was inevitable that the power would pass over to smarter and more driven Jews, but Wasps, in losing power, could still have created a Culture of Critique(of their own) to scrutinize and expose the dark side of Jewish Power. After all, if Anglo/Germanic Americans(especially those on the Right) were infected with the ‘authoritarian personality’, then one could say Jews carried within them the germ of the radical will(though a compliment in Susan Sontag’s vocabulary) that has caused so many problems around the world(while also leading interesting ideas and propositions).
Anyway, in order to face the rise of censorship in the West, we need to expose and discuss its core source. We need to remind ourselves that it’s not mainly ideological but identito-centric. Essentially, it’s about Jews shutting down any voice they find threatening to Jewish supremacist power. Those who say the ‘left’ or ‘woke capital’ is behind the Culture of Censorship are focusing on the dogs, not on the dog-owner; on the puppets, not on the puppet-master; on the ‘buffers’, not on the guy who is ‘pushing the button’. Besides, the Real Left is deader than the Right. As I’ve said many times before, today’s so-called ‘left’ is just an ‘idological’(idolatry as ideology) front of Jewish Supremacism and Global Capitalism. Big Money and Big Institutions pushed bratty and insipid inanity, triviality, and decadence as the hallmarks of ‘new leftism’ so that Jewish Superpower and Global Capital would NOT come under any real pressure from the populace.
As history has shown, the most effective counterbalance against Big Capital is nationalism and working-class consciousness. Nationalism pressures Big Money to be patriotic and prioritize what is good for the nation-as-a-whole than "what’s in it for ME?" Nationalism binds the elites to a place and people. And worker-consciousness can organize for higher wages and more concessions from the Big Capital class. This is why Big Capital has come to dislike nationalism and worker-consciousness. By undermining nationalism, Big Capital can make more profits by outsourcing jobs and ‘insourcing’ cheaper foreign labor. Furthermore, to erode nationalism even further, the elites say the foreigners must be accepted as ‘New Nationals’ or else it’s ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’. Thus, the rich elites, who’d been morally defensive against the demands of nationalists and workers positioned themselves on the moral offensive as the ‘inclusive’ and ‘welcoming’ Good People at odds with ‘closed-minded’ nationalists and ‘petty-minded’ working class folks.
Of course, the rich elites don’t have to bear the brunt of mass Diversity as they, with increasing profits via globalism, can afford to live in the nicest and safest areas. And even if they rub shoulders with Diversity, it is with the quality kind — the most educated and high-earning POC(people of color) — than with the worst dregs of society. Just like rich whites get the Obamas whereas poor whites have to deal with the Mike-Tysons of the world, rich whites(and Jews) rub shoulders with affluent Asians and Hindus(and white Latinos), whereas the poorer whites must deal with the worst elements among the new arrivals. The elites claim to reject nationalism as too small-minded and petty because their hearts and minds are BIG ENOUGH for all the world and all of humanity. But this is utter nonsense because, even as they destroy national walls, they are busy building economic walls of privilege for themselves that are among the most exclusive habitats on Earth. Also, while elitism on a national level is realistic, elitism on a global scale is merely rhetorical. Elites can lead nations, not the world. Thus, those who claim to care about the whole world end up doing nothing for anyone... but themselves. It's like parents who neglect their own kids in the name of helping ALL THE CHILDREN of the world end up doing nothing for anyone; by focusing on all the children, they neglect their own kids, but then, they do nothing for all the children since it's impossible; it just becomes empty pretty talk. This Elysium World of Globosphere was sharply presented in Woody Allen’s BLUE JASMINE.
All these people put on airs of being open-minded even as they live in the most enclosed places on Earth. Their residences are not necessarily gated or walled of physically, but the costs are forbidding enough to keep most people out. Now, if these people were only about piggery and privilege, it wouldn’t be so bad. What makes them insufferable and ultimately intolerable is they have a bogus and conceited air about them. Ooh lala, they are not only rich and privileged but are MORALLY better than the hoi polloi because they are soooooo open-minded and tolerant(especially of fancy-pants homos). It’s really like Marie Antoinette play-pretending to be a shepherdess. It’s like the jerks at Google and Facebook. They rake in all the money from globalism, live in their ultra-posh neighborhoods that exclude most people, and send their kids to the most expensive schools, but they act like they’re so ‘progressive’ because they are so ‘tolerant’ and into ‘diversity’.
And of course, they are into the Holy Three of Jew Worship, Negro Worship(from a safe distance), and Homo Worship. If these people were truly ideological in the leftist sense, they would favor no particular group over others UNLESS the favored group happens to be the masses of workers, the ordinary folks. Leftism was about the People against the Rulers, not about One Particular Group over Other Groups. Now, some may argue that Jews, blacks, and homos had been victimized in history, and therefore, they are deserving of leftist sympathy as ‘oppressed groups’. But if we look back in history, EVERY PEOPLE had been oppressed at one time or other. Also, blacks were big players in the slave trade and did all the capturing and selling to whites(and Arabs). As for Jews, they were as often victimizers as victims. In the 20th century, they were among the greatest victims under Nazism, but they were also among the biggest villains as communists, Zionist-imperialists, finance capitalists, and cultural subversives. As for homosexuality, even though it was repressed for most of human history(and for good reason), homos never constituted a valid social group because a homo could be BORN INTO any family, any nationality, or any class. A homo could be born into a slave-owning family or into a slave family. Also, given their vanity and natural narcissism, homos have often sidled up to the Power in its exploitation of the masses. In this, both Jews and homos have something in common as historic ‘minority collaborators’ with the Ruling Elites that squeezed their own peoples. And today, globalist homos work with Jewish globalist supremacists for World Hegemony, what with Jews as the King and Homos as the Queen.
So, all would-be truth-tellers need to stop calling the Globalists the ‘left’. As I’ve said many times before, it’s giving them too much credit. It only creates the impression that the current Globalist Elites who rule the West and much of the world are on the side of ‘progress’ when their ideology is really but the Regression to the Greed. How can globo-homo issues be ‘leftist’ when homos and trannies make up just a tiny fraction of society, especially a haughty, fussy, arrogant, and ooh-lala one at that. These homos cater to the rich and powerful. To understand homo psychology, watch THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY(with Elizabeth-Warren-lookalike Matt Damon as the homokin) or the psycho-homo played to perfection by Will Patton in NO WAY OUT.
Now, some might argue that being pro-mass-immigration is leftist because it pits the poor(or poorer) masses of the Third World against the richer and ‘more privileged’ whites of the First World. But, in fact, the Diversity of the newcomers make it impossible for them to unite as a bloc against the ruling power that remains Jewish, Homo, and white-cuck-collaborationists. Also, as the newcomers mainly compete with the white hoi polloi, the elites can exploit the tensions of the lower orders while grabbing most of the loot for themselves. The elites know that white-and-nationalist people, out of racial solidarity, will not side with People of Color against Jewish/white elites; they also know that the POC will not rise against the Jewish/white elites who are for mass-immigration. If anything, POC generally side with Jewish/white elites against the white hoi polloi. Also, even if POC,-as-new-nationals, vote for so-called ‘progressive’ politicians, the fact is they don’t get to decide policy. They only supply votes for politicians handpicked by Jewish supremacist elites who make sure their paid-for-whores shill for Jewish interests and Israel uber alles. If ideology really matters in the US, why is there no difference between the GOP and the Democrats in the mindless support for Israel and endless hosannas to Jews? While more of the grassroots Democrats may be sympathetic to Palestinians and BDS Movement, those concerns are NEVER addressed at the upper echelons of the Party where all the key decisions are made. So, the rank-and-file just supply the votes for the puppet-politicians vetted by Jewish Power to be servile to Zion and Jewish globo-homo supremacism. BDS is usually associated with the Left, but it gets ZERO protection from high-powered Democrats. Even Tulsi Gabbard supported the Anti-BDS bill.
The ‘Idology’ of Jews matter more than any ideology in American ‘progressivism’ or ‘leftism’, which is now totally bogus. Now, it may well be that many so-called ‘progressives’ are passionate and sincere in their hysterics, but they are utterly lacking in agency. They have no clue as to who really rules the world, and their minds are so easily molded by the Jewish Hand that has monopoly control of media, academia, deep state, and finance. If ‘progressives’ are so independent-minded, how did they so suddenly lose interest in the working class and become so obsessed over globo-homo issues? It’s because their silly little heads are hardly different from TV sets. Their antennas pick up signal from the Central Command System. So, if TV shows say ‘homo is holy’, the progs are thus programmed. So-called ‘progressives’ really ought to be called ‘programmives’. They are like chorus characters in a Jewish-Homo musical play. If progs lack true agency, Negroes are mostly about URGENCY; they are masterful slaves of their basest instincts for hollering and ‘twerking’. Dominance of urgency essentially robs blacks of real agency because their instincts, sensations, and emotions override any rational and/or reflective understanding of the world. Black soul is a pool of narcissism that blacks endlessly stare into to feed their junglomania. Even a fat, ugly, and stupid black woman has the diva-complex of thinking she be ‘queen of the Nile and shit’.
Now, what would be the most effective way to combat the rise of censorship? First, we must focus on the main source behind it. All honest observers will notice it is Jewish Power. Then, we must fight fire with fire against Jewish Power. We must direct all or at least most of our fire on the Jews. Next, we must ask, "What means are Jews using to shut down free speech?" It is the moral passion of combating ‘hate speech’, speech that is SO BEYOND THE PALE that it mustn’t air freely lest it poison the social ecology. As emotions override reason among many people, especially in relation to sacrosanct matters, there has been a growing number of people who are willing to sacrifice free speech 'absolutism’ in favor of Approved Free Speech(which is really free-speech-in-name-only). Especially among Millennials, a generation raised under PC in schools and pop culture from cradle to school to work, there is a willingness to shut down ‘hate speech’ that supposedly defiles the Holy Three of Jew-Worship, Negro-Worship, and Homo-Worship. Indeed, there are SPECIAL TERMS to defame any view that dares to speak truth to Jews, blacks, and homos: ‘Antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. Granted, ‘racism’ can mean any kind of racial or ethnic bigotry, but it has bite ONLY in relation to blacks because Pop Culture and PC Narrative have instilled so many folks with images of the Magic Negro. Because blacks have been presented as especially tragic and ‘spiritual’, people are more triggered by heresy against Black Worship than by negative things said about most other racial or ethnic groups. Consider how Hollywood got away with all those movies that stereotyped Arabs/Muslims as subhuman terrorists. Or, consider how it’s perfectly okay for Hollywood to stereotype Russians as vile thugs or fan the flames of yellow peril where the Chinese are presented as especially villainous. Thus, so many Millennials grew up with images of holiness that favor blacks over others. Because Millennials and self-righteous PC types(whose minds have been so thoroughly warped by TV and/or academic indoctrination) are so weepy-eyed and holy-schmoly about Jews, blacks, and homos, they would rather sacrifice free speech in the name of banning ‘hate speech’, which is to them what devil-talk was to Christians in the Middle Ages. Even the rational side of man often caves to the power of taboos that is out to snuff the blasphemous. This aspect of progs is often overlooked because of the conceit that ‘liberalism’ is secular and rationalist, therefore opposed to religious dogma. But ideology, especially when laced with ‘idology’, is just a secular variant of theocracy. Whether it was the mass reverence for Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao OR it is the virtual worship of Jews(as Shoah People), blacks(as Magic Negroes), or homos(as fairy-angels of the new era), the same psychological dynamics come into play. The emotional commitment is so powerful that the faculty of reason and true secular/liberal principles break down. Also, such emotions tend to simplify and ‘dichotomize’ any issue that pertains to their notion of the holy. Just like for the true believers of religion, there is God and the Devil, there is for the PC-indoctrinated minions a worldview where the Good is pitted against the Evil. Because of such Manicheanism, even moderate and slightly deviant views could be denounced as wicked. Just like the Pod People in THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS cannot tolerate any human — each and every person must be made into a Pod Person! — , PC minions believe they are on the ‘right side of history’ and that anyone who disagrees must either be converted soon enough or condemned as hopelessly ‘hateful’. This is why even moderate ‘rightist’ thinkers like Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald have been hounded by PC loons. In their pathetic but passionate little minds, there is Good and Evil, and they are on the side of the Good. The Evil is lack of reverence for Jews, blacks, and homos. Because the Holy Three is SO IMPORTANT to them, even mildly critical or neutral feelings toward the trinity are deeply suspect and to be condemned. It’s like, for true believers in Religion, there can be no middle ground between Faith and Devil-Worship. To the true believer, the moderate non-believer is hardly different from an outright Devil Worshiper. Because he believes God is so true and holy, those who stand outside the light, even if not vociferously anti-God, must be agents of the Devil. Likewise, PC minions’ faith in Jew Worship, Negro Worship, and Homo Worship is so total as the fashion-passion of the moment that they simply cannot conceive of any goodness or decency outside their vision of the Light. To be on the side of angels, one must condemn any critic of Jews as ‘nazi’, any skeptic of LGBTQ nonsense as ‘homophobic’, and any speaker of truth about blacks as ‘racist’. PC isn’t merely about hostility against what it deems as evil but about rage & exasperation over any lack of requisite enthusiasm for the Holy Three. Middle-ground is not acceptable for PC. You must believe! One mustn’t let facts, reason, and skepticism color one’s views about Jews, MLK & Mandela, BLM(even though blacks usually kill blacks), and globo-homo fruitkins(who are now so holy that ‘gay colors’ now routinely adorn Mainline churches.) Just like narcissists are blind to the world in their obsessive self-worship, moral narcissists of PC are blind to all of reality that don’t conform to their self-esteem as holy-schmoly(if Jews, blacks, or homos) or properly-redemptive-and-atoning(if white and cucky-wuck). Take Ken Burns, aka CucKen Burns, an insufferable dweeb who is so into Negro Worship that he is totally blind to all the trouble blacks make for whites. But then, rich and privileged whites like him can choose to rub shoulders with the Nicer Negroes.
Also, blacks tend to treat rich whites differently from poor ones. The poor ones, they beat up and terrorize, but the rich ones, they flatter and schmooze. This is why rich whites, Democratic or Republican, have a totally different experience of blacks. Not only do they rub shoulders with better kind of blacks but blacks, even lowly ones, tend to behave better around rich ones. After all, if a black guy is a limo driver or receptionist, he is bound to treat rich ‘honkeys’ with respect he would never show to a lowly ‘honkey’. So, the rich ‘honkey’, being accustomed to being treated with respect by blacks, has a far more positive view of blacks than lowly whites do who are disrespected and humiliated. Also, the rich ‘honkey’ feels a certain anxiety complex because he is superior to the Negro in social status but below him in ‘moral status’(according to PC that posits Jews, Negroes, and Homos as the holy three); the reason why so many rich whites, including ‘conzos’, took so quickly to Homos is because homos are ‘holy’ and high-status. When a socially superior rich ‘honkey’ is served by a ‘morally superior’ ‘groid’, the former feels his ‘white guilt’ compounded because, even after all these years, he the whitey is being served by the blacky. So, he feels an added urge to be nice to the Negro and entertain friendly thoughts about blacks in general. In contrast, when a rich white guy is with a rich homo, their social parity makes things a bit smoother.
Anyway, once we have identified the main source that threatens the principle of Free Speech, we need to go on the offensive as well as play defense. No one ever won a war purely by playing defense alone. Even the toughest boxer will eventually be KO’ed by an inferior boxer if he only plays defense. This is why Jews keep winning. They play defense and offense. They defend Israel as their national homeland while attacking the nationalism of goyim. They defend their own identity, legacy, and heritage while impugning the identities, legacies, and heritages of other groups. Jews defend their own right to free speech while denouncing the uses of free speech by their enemies or rivals, real or perceived. When Jewish radicals were hounded by anti-communists in the early 50s, Jews lavishly funded ACLU to defend even anti-American and pro-communist speech(or silence as in taking the fifth) as a means to defend Jewish speech(as so many of the leftist radicals were Jews). Even as Jews were going out on a limb to defend their own liberty and speech rights in the US, many of them were supporting Stalinism in Eastern Europe even though people over there were being denied basic democratic rights and even being imprisoned or executed. Why? Because many of those Stalinist agents were Jewish, and Western Jewry regarded them as fellow tribal brethren. This is how Jews play the game. Nationalism for me but not for thee. Free Speech for me but not for thee. Jews also support gun rights in Israel because a well-armed populace means Jews with Guns. But in the US, Jews oppose gun rights because most guns are in the hands of goyim, especially white conservatives and patriots who tend to be more opposed to Jewish agendas of deracination and degeneracy. So, there you go: Guns for me but not for thee. Jews play defense and offense. They defend what is theirs but go on the offensive against what the Other has.
Now, some may argue that it’s not just the Jews. Non-whites are also opposed to Free Speech and Gun Rights, but then, ask yourself, why this is so. It’s because they’ve come under the influence of Jewish media and academia that tell non-whites that white people’s speech is ‘hate speech’ and that an armed white populace are ‘nazis’. Non-whites, just like so many cucky-wuck whites, are mental clay in Jewish Hands. The source of anti-free-speech-ism is not non-whites but Jews who mold so many minds via their control of institutions and industries. Also, Jews are especially dominant in the Democratic Party, and their main strategy for keeping the diverse and divergent coalition together has been by vilifying whiteness. And that is why so many non-whites have come to regard free speech and gun-rights for whites as problematic. Because Jews told them to see whites as the White Devil, they’ve come to regard white speech as devil-talk and white gun-ownership as the Wehrmacht or the KKK. The real source of white problems is the Jews.
Almost always, your enemy will give you bad advice. He will tell you to do what you shouldn’t do while he himself doesn’t do it, indeed does the very opposite. It’s like the British/Jews told the Chinese to use opium while they banned it in their own domains. You would have to be stupid to give your enemy good advice, which would be like feeding him key information. Now, if Jews regarded whites as allies and friends(as whites have come to see Jews), then Jewish advice might be of value. But the truth is Jews regard whites as the enemy(or main rival), and therefore, it doesn’t matter what whites think of Jews. If Bob sees Bill as a friend but Bill sees Bob as an enemy, Bob’s hospitality and trust will be completely wasted because Bill is committed to bringing Bob down. In the end, what YOU think matters less than what HE thinks of YOU. If HE thinks you suck and should be brought down, no amount of YOUR positive view of him will change the fact that he’s out to get you. Likewise, it doesn’t matter what whites think of Jews. The truth is most Jews see whites as either enemies or rivals... or at best lackeys and servants, certainly not as equals. In the present, whites are so trusting and servile to Jews that they will gladly take on the roles of servants out of their total awe of Jews as brilliant rich folks and Holy Holocaust People. For many whites, Jewishness epitomizes Materiality(money) and Morality. If you’re such a white person, you’re a hopeless and pathetic. Your message to Jews is, "Please don’t hate me, please don’t treat me like an enemy or rival, because all I ever want to do is praise, worship, and serve Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel." Such cucks are not even hoping for equality with Jews. They are happy to play the subservient role. It’s like the Charlie Kirks of the world whose big ambition is to be the next John McCain the Cuckaine or Mitt the Shit Romney.
Because the enemy will give you bad advice, indeed quite often the exact opposite of what it does, white people should always have the following rule in mind when dealing with Jews: Do as the Jews do, Disobey what They say. If Jews push ‘white guilt’ on whites, whites must push ‘Jewish Guilt’ on Jews. If Jews push ‘diversity’ on white nations, whites must push ‘diversity’ on Israel. If Jews work with non-whites against whites, whites must work with non-whites, especially Palestinians, against Jews. If Jews shut down white speech as ‘hate speech’, whites must attack Jewish speech as ‘hate speech’. If Jews say ‘antisemitism’ is just horrible, whites must say anti-whitism(the favorite pastime of vile and venal Jews) is totally terrible. Unless whites identify Jews as the main enemy and fight fire with fire, they will lose... as certainly as the Byzantines lost to the Turks. Whites need to go into Reconquista mode that took back Spain from the Moorish invaders. Whites must reconquer what is theirs, and in order to do this, they must seek White National Liberation from Jewish Supremacism.
To fight fire with fire, White Liberation(or White Emancipation or White Independence) from Jewish Supremacism must adopt a Speech Policy that is akin to the Jewish Strategy. Whites must demand a speech code that forbids the defaming or dehumanizing of whites. After all, Turkey has a law that bans insult to Turkey-ness, and Russia has a law that bans denigrating the memory of Russians in World War II. Whites must demand a speech code that forbids any insult to whiteness, any impugning of white memory. Of course, whites will be free to criticize, condemn, and disparage other groups. Whites should call for ‘hate speech laws’ that favor white identity and interests, just like Jews push for ‘hate speech laws’ that favor Jewish identity, Zionism, and their interests. From the Jewish POV, any criticism of Jewish power is ‘hate’. Harsh condemnation of Zionist tyranny over Palestinians is ‘hate’ or ‘antisemitism’, which is why Jews insist that BDS be muted, shut down, and railroaded.
What this shows is that ‘hate speech’ is never a neutral concept. ‘Hate’ is defined by those who control the law. In Turkey, those who insult Turkey-ness are labeled as ‘hateful’, which is why it’s illegal to discuss the Turkish mass-killing of Armenians following World War I. Jews mold the meaning of ‘hate’ to suit their needs. So, all their anti-Wasp and anti-white screeds are not ‘hate’. Jews can defame, dehumanize, and scapegoat whites for all the problems of the world. Indeed, Jews can smear whites much like how Nazis once smeared Jews. All that is not ‘hate’ as far as Jews are concerned. But if any white person shows the slightest hint of white pride or speaks even a bit of truth against Jewish power, that is HATE, say the Jews. This is how Jews play the game. Then, whites must play the same game. Whites must say it must be illegal to insult whiteness. Sure, whites have a checkered history, but then, SO DO ALL OTHER PEOPLES. Why single out the white race as especially guilty or blameworthy for all the problems of the world? This is bigotry and maggotry. Also, what about all the positive contributions that the white race has made for the world? Why not balance the bad with the good? Why dwell so much on white wrongs while never giving credit for white contributions? Such lack of balance goes to show that anti-white dehumanization has become de rigueur in the global debate dominated by Jews. Jews do to whites exactly what they blame the Nazis of having done to them. Jews smear whites as intolerable scum of the Earth UNLESS whites get on their knees and grovel before Jewish Supremacist Power as its cuck-servants. Then and only then are whites tolerated as House Honkeys(if members of the elite) or Field Honkeys(if part of the white hoi polloi). In other words, Jews will not accept whites on an equal basis as a people with sense of identity, illustrious history, and right of destiny. No, Jews regard whites as untermensch, a people who are tolerable only as a slave race. It’s like Nazi German plan for the Russian Slavs was as a race of helots. If allowed to survive, their existence must revolve around serving German ‘Aryan’ interests. Now, there is no need for bad blood between Jews and whites. Both groups could get along, BUT as long as Jews insist on acting the way they do at the moment, whites must push back in kind because otherwise is to risk their survival for all the future. Use the Jewish Way against the Jews. If Jews say, "We believe in free speech but not in ‘hate speech’", say likewise but define ‘hate’ in way that suits white interests. Define ‘hate’ primarily in terms of defaming and dehumanizing whites and furthermore denying the right of pride for all the great achievements made by whites. Also, define ‘hate’ as the neo-imperialist insistence that white people don’t have right of territoriality over their ancient homelands and over nations they built virtually from scratch in North America and Australia. Also, even white self-loathing must be deemed as ‘hate speech’, and the blame must primarily go to the group that did most to instill whites with self-hatred, and of course, the main peddlers of Hate-Whitey Ideology have been the Jews.
Now, some may argue that such ploy would go against the principles of Free Speech, but principles are useless when the Other Side only cares about Power and will do ANYTHING to get what it wants. Principles matter only when (1) all sides commit to the same set of rules and standards or (2) a certain group has the power to enforce the principles on all groups. But the current US is not that kind of country. It’s a nation ruled by Jews whose only ‘principle’ is "Is it good for Jews?" or more accurately, "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" Jews violate both rules 1 and 2 of Principle-ism. They don’t care about principles, and they don’t use their dominant power to enforce the same set of principles on all groups, including themselves. Rather, Jews are always busy moving the goal posts to the extent that the US has become a Kafkaesque nation, and ironically enough, the goyim are now like a bunch of Joseph K’s who are toyed around by Jews who control the Castle of Power.
It is only by putting Jews on the moral defensive and threatening their anti-white speech that they will come around to defending free speech(like they once used to when their radical/communist speech was threatened and when they sought to legalize pornography). Why should Jews defend free speech when they have control over the levers of media & academia and when their anti-white speech is not only protected but part of official dogma? Generations of kids, white and non-white, have been raised to the catechism of Blame-Whitey-for-Everything. And white elites, out of craven cowardice and/or outdated sense of magnanimity, put up with all the anti-white garbage. They sense that they must go along with anti-white dogma in order to keep their privileged positions under Jews as the ‘good whites’. Also, old habits die hard. Just like it took time for it to sink in among aristocrats that their days are numbered, white elites(especially the Wasps) had been so used to having the power that many still carry on with the illusion that they are the ruling class of America. Of course, Jews like to sustain such illusions to (1) to hide their power behind the facade of Wasp privilege, thereby making whites the magnet of most criticism(as in "Hollywood-So-White") and (2) to flatter white cuck-collaborators who, having lost their power, have little left but to cling to their title as the Ruling Class. Because white cuck-collaborators still have a lot of money and privilege(if not much influence and real power), they have a bad habit of conflating their own white privilege with the condition of all whites who are NOT privileged; indeed, many whites are now suffering terribly from loss of work, drug addiction, integration with thuggish Negroes, and mass replacement by foreigners.
We need a new movement that is not for the principle of free speech but for shutting down ‘hate speech’ that defames and dehumanizes whites. The position should be, "While it's fair to criticize wrongs and abuses committed by whites, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to speak of whites as especially burdened with guilt and blame." After all, such is the Jewish line. Jews will say it’s okay for people to criticize Zionism and Jewish abuses, but it’s wrong to say everything Jewish is bad or to blame everything on Jews. (Of course, Jews even denounce mild criticism of Jewish bad behavior as ‘antisemitic’.) What’s good enough for Jews should be good enough for whites. Also, whites must put Jews on the moral defensive by decrying Zionism as ‘hate speech’ that led to the destruction and ‘genocide’ of the Palestinians by means of immigration-invasion. Whites should balance the good/great elements of Jewish history/culture with the dark side, such as Jewish role in communism, radicalism, subversion, criminality, and financial theft. And if Jews bitch about evil white history, whites should point out how Jewish finance played its part in the Western Imperialist ventures. Jewish History is inseparable from 'white supremacism' because Jews were co-partners in the Western Conquest of the World, even going so far as to play a key role in the Latin American slave trade and selling opium to the Chinese under British Imperialist protection. Also, to the extent that Jewish immigrants worked alongside white immigrants to eradicate the American Indians from the Great Plains, Jews also took part in ‘genocide’ of the natives. And to the extent that Jews and their money played some role in the making of the new empires and nations of the New World, Jews are no less ‘guilty’ of the slave trade. Despite Jewish kvetching about ‘white supremacism’, Jews have been tailing ‘white supremacists’ all over the world to make their fortunes. Jews tagged behind Anglos to make tons of money in the diamond mines of South Africa. Wherever Anglo, Spanish, Portuguese, and French imperialists went, Jews followed as financiers, merchants, and investors. Jews exploited every opportunity made possible by ‘white supremacist’ conquerors of the world. And Jews pressured and bribed ‘white supremacist’ Great Britain and Europe in general to aid in the Zionist project that targeted the brown Palestinians for destruction, replacement, and erasure. It isn't very difficult to push Jews into a morally defensive posture. And if Jews bitch about the Shoah(aka Holocaust), remind the world of how Jews played a key role in communism that led to the deaths of millions all over the world. Only when the pushy Jews are pushed back and their rights of speech are threatened, only then will Jews come around to defending free speech. When Jews defended free speech in the past, some thought it was out of principle. But it was just opportunism. When dealing with such people, we need to shelve principles and fight fire with fire.
What is the id? The id is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It consists of all the inherited (i.e., biological) components of personality present at birth, including the sex (life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and the aggressive (death) instinct - Thanatos. The id is the impulsive (and unconscious) part of our psyche which responds directly and immediately to the instincts. The personality of the newborn child is all id and only later does it develop an ego and super-ego.
The superego's function is to control the id's impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression. It also has the function of persuading the ego to turn to moralistic goals rather than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection. The superego consists of two systems: The conscience and the ideal self. The conscience can punish the ego through causing feelings of guilt.
Why are white psyche and white ‘physiche’(the psychology of physicality) so chained to and slavish before the Negro?
Part of the problem is blacks have come to represent both the Id and the Superego(or SuperNegro) among white folks.
1. Blacks as Id.
Because blacks are wild, expressive, colorful, and ‘vibrant’/violent, many white folks(and other non-black folks, be they Asian, Muslim, Mexican, or Hindu) look to blacks to express what is repressed, restrained, or relatively lackluster(or 'lame') within themselves. So, a ‘bland’ and ‘generic’ proggy white girl may listen to Tina Turner, Beyonce, or Rihanna and feel her own inhibited sexuality & angst expressed through the less inhibited Negress’ shamelessly lascivious performance. It's like Jungle Therapy. Because the ‘white bread’ girl hasn't the sheer intensity of vocality, personality, and temperament to express her own sensual desires and natural drives so aggressively and nakedly, she identifies with the propulsive Negress as shaman-medium for her overly tamed and civilized whims and limbs. Because it comes naturally for the Negress to act wilder and nastier, she serves as a kind of Negro-electro-amplifier for the emotions of the white woman that simply cannot charge up to that level of hyper-funky-dynamism.
Among white males, there is a vicarious Negro-for-a-Day thrill in watching black athletes dominate the field because black male-athletic prowess leaves the white kind in the dust. Blacks can run faster, jump higher, dodge better, punch harder, and etc. So, a white guy, brown feller, and yellow boy may look to the Negro as the most potent purveyor of the Global Male Id. In any local high school, the top athlete serves as the idol of manhood in the community. In the global community, the victorious Negro has become the idol of manhood for all the world. As white manhood and especially Asian manhood have been degraded by comparison, white men are increasingly moving into cuck mode and Asian men are moving into pussy-boy mode. When whites in lived their own world and favored local heroes, white people could have white heroes. Consider a movie like CHARIOTS OF FIRE. And when Japan was closed off to the world, it has its local native heroes as top samurai swordsmen and sumo champions. But in global open competition, local/national heroes are easily blown away. It's like all dogs will lose to greyhounds in sprinting, and all dogs will lose to pitbulls in fighting.
Though all males have the masculine Id or male animal drive, it is manifested most loudly and aggressively among blacks, as when Muhammad Ali KO'ed Sonny Liston and howled he’s the ‘greatest’. In the 70s, the soccer world looked to Pele as the greatest idol of the game. Even in nations with no standing in world soccer, young boys grew up looking to Pele as some kind of sports god.
So, there could be a kind of global Id Addiction to or Id Worship of the Negro. Especially because the electronic-globo-world culture is so sports-pop-music-sex-porn-obsessed, many non-black women look to and imitate black women as the model of the most bodacious purveyor of the Id. Consider the success of Beyonce, Rihanna, and Nikki Minaj of the twerking-big-butt-school. So many white girls want to be like them.
And among non-black males, their less robust and rambunctious manhood channels the more aggressive, domineering, and violent Id of the Negro who can howl the loudest as rapper, who can sack the quarterback hardest as defensive lineman, and who can hump the most women as mandingo-man.
The Negro-as-Id phenomenon is surely manifested in the 'cuckolding' community where white men invite black men to hump their wives or girlfriends. Thus, white men partake of the bigger and stronger Id of the Negro who be humping da white ho wid gusto. Negro guy becomes the fantasy-extension of the white guy's Id. The white guy plays both biological slave to the Negro(as biological master) and fantasy Negro(as he identifies with the Negro doing his woman[who is sure to leave him sooner than later as no woman can for long respect a cucker]). As sexuality is about domination, people may find pleasure as either master or slave or as both. This is why so many white and Jewish homos go for black men, though white homos also, at times, bugger black men who usually bugger them, which makes the ‘sexual’ dynamics more complicated. The interesting aspect of homo porn(if one has the stomach for it) is that the ‘politics’ of sexuality is far more confused and ambiguous, and this may explain why homo artists/thinkers like Pier Paolo Pasolini, Yukio Mishima, and Michel Foucault made for interesting theorists of power. Though there is the female dominatrix(and recent feminist encouragement to ‘peg’ the men), the male-female sexual dynamics is far simpler, with men as dominant master and female as submissive slave. In contrast, the homo who is buggered as the ‘bitch’ can turn around the bugger the buggerer and make him the 'bitch'. In some ways, the inclusion of the Afro-homo in the Western homo community made things both simpler and complicated. Simpler in the sense that the Negro homo, being more muscled and bigger donged, was more easily recognized as the dominant partner while the white homo was relegated to the ‘bitch’ role. Even so, whereas a white woman cannot screw a Negro man, a white homo can still screw an Afro homo. So, among interracial homos, even the ‘bitch’ slave can bugger the dominant master who can play the ‘bitch’. Though Andrew Sullivan and Milo Yiannopolous are hardly important thinkers, their interracial homo-eroticism may have made them a bit keener about the various shades of power politics. The sexual ambiguity of Camille Paglia certainly accounts for her dual perspective on sexuality, watching through both male and female gaze.
Anyway, given the hedonistic Id addiction to blackness among white folks in US and EU(and among Japanese who are into Jungle Fever and among Chinese who worship black NBA players), the West may be helpless in its sensual-slavery to the Negro and too blind to wake up, come to its senses, and realize that Negromania is fatal to civilization. There is a reason why Odysseus ordered his men to tie him to the pull of the ship. Under the mesmerizing power of the Sirens’ song, he was willing to abandon everything and steer toward the femmes fatales even though he knew it meant sure death.
Emanuel Macron under the Id Power of the 'Groids'. The leader of France, the second power of EU, welcomes Negroes as Sensual Liberators and promotes Jungle Fever and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
Emanuel Macron, the Wonder Boy of Globalism, cheers as the Afro-French Soccer team wins the World Cup. As athletes are demigods of current culture, white Frenchmen now worship Negroes as the superior god-race. Macron plans to bring 150 million black Africans to France to impregnate all white wombs while white men are reduced to cucky-wuck status.
2. Blacks as Superego.
Because America dominates the world with media-academia-news-entertainment, its particular brand of Guilt Cult, Iconography, and Redemption Narrative defines global morality. What America feels guilty about, the rest of the world is also made to feel guilty about: The Imperialism of Guilt. What American reveres or worships, the rest of the world is made to revere or worship. After all, American stories, passions, and hangups are beamed to all corners of the world. So, if white Americans feel pangs of guilt about a handful of dead blacks, that matters more than 100,000s or even millions of dead victims in other parts of the world. To an extent, White Guilt is a form of White Power. Even though it burdens whites with the paralysis of guilt, it also burdens the rest of the world with particular white passions for redemption and atonement(even though the world had no part in white ‘historical crimes’). If whites feel sorry about Topic A, the rest of the world is made to feel sorry as well. This is why Negroes especially have gained so much from White Guilt. As US is a global super-soft-power as well as super-hard-power, its narratives and iconography are never just its own but beamed to all people around the globe. If whites feel guilty about Negroes as a sacred people, then the whole world must share in the guilt... or else be derided as ‘racist’. Since whites feel guilt about Jews, the rest of the world better share in the guilt... or else they are Anti-Semites. (This is most comical when it comes to Palestinians, clearly an oppressed people under Jews. But never mind what Jews did to Palestinians. Since whites feel guilty about Jews over what happened in Europe in the Shoah, the rest of the world better share in the guilt... even if the people, such as Palestinians, had nothing to do with Shoah and, if anything, were wiped off the map by Zionist imperialists). Especially because Jews dominate media and academia, they've promoted White Guilt vis-a-vis blacks as one of the great sins(next to the Holocaust) in order to paralyze white power and make it subservient by way of moral blackmail.
As a result, the deification of MLK and Mandela became central(and even mandatory) to global morality. Under such barrage, one might think no people other than blacks-under-white-rule(and Jews of course under goy Christian rule) suffered so horribly, overcame tragedy so nobly, and deserve all of our sympathy in all their transcendent splendorousness — never mind all the black brutality against blacks and Arab enslavement of blacks.
In truth, black Americans throughout the 20th century were generally better off and safer & securer compared to countless peoples around the world. Of course, the US was discriminatory toward blacks, but black-American experience in the 20th century could hardly be compared with true horrors in other parts of the world. Consider the death tolls of Armenians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Algerians, East Timorese, Cambodians, Kurds, and etc. And recently in Syria and all because Jewish-supremacists must get things their way.
But because the Jew-run US narrative dominates the world, MLK became a world figure and the 'plight' of black Americans(though piddling compared to true horrors suffered by other peoples in the 20th century) was hyped as one of great 'global' tragedies. And never mind all the dead Iraqi, Syrian, and Palestinian children as the result of Wars for Israel. Just wax tragic about Emmitt Till for the umpteenth time. (To be sure, it also owed to the Cold War in which the Soviet Union and its agents exaggerated the race problem in the US to make Capitalist America seem like an especially evil place.)
And even though blacks in South Africa had it much better than blacks in black-run African nations, Apartheid was made out by the Jew-run and cuck-managed Western Media to be one of the most evil things in history. (Never mind that the South African largess never would have been created under black rule.) If whites feel bad about something, it must be truly bad because white emotions count for more in a media-world that emphasizes whiteness to the hilt as both agency and scapegoat. If whites are glowing over something, it must be especially glow-worthy. If whites are crowing about something, it must be especially crow-worthy. (In contrast, most Americans and much of the world still know little or nothing about Nakba and the Occupation of the West Bank. After all, Jews control the Western Media as main source of world news.) Anyway, because of the cult of Negro Nobility and sanctimony around MLK and Mandela — when Negroes playact as 'noble' and uplifting, they come across as more eloquent & inspirational than most races because of their booming voices or Morgan-Freeman-like folksiness — , white people have come to look to Negro as the gatekeeper of higher morality, the holders of the key to heaven. For many whites, the Magic Negro might as well be god hisself. Indeed, for most whites in both US and EU, it is more blasphemous to badmouth MLK or Mandela(or even Morgan Freeman and of course holy homos) than God or Jesus.
The Negro celebrated as Id and worshiped as Superego.
So, there you go. We have a paradoxical situation where whites look to Negroes as both revelers of the Ultimate Id and torchbearers of the Ultimate Superego. Negro revered as both savage beast and spiritual icon.
Such deranged White Delusions are now at the center of globalist morality and culture.
Of course, white elites don't suffer physically(not yet anyway) from the consequences of this delusion because they have money, privilege, and safe spaces. People like Emanuel Macron, Theresa May, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden have it made no matter what happens. They rub shoulders only with fancy Negroes like Obama who know how to push the buttons and milk White Psychology. They reside in their own Elysium world. Elite scum integrate with the creme-de la-creme of Diversity while the native hoi polloi must deal with the sewage of Diversity. It’s so easy to rant against ‘racism’ if your kind need only integrate with fancy Negroes while poor whites must integrate with the likes of Mike Tyson.
In the long run, the spread of blacks and black influence in the culture-at-large will be the fatal undoing of the West. But whites are too blind to understand this because of their addiction to Negro Id and Negro Superego. On the animal level, they cower as beta-dogs before the masterful Negro as alpha-wolf. On the spiritual level, they kneel in atonement as guilty whites before the Magic Negro as black jesus. Because of this racial-sexual-spiritual complex, it is very difficult for whites to think skeptically and rationally on the matter. Both animal emotions and spiritual passions override criticality, evidence, sense, and logic.
If current trends continue, the White Race will be destroyed by the black fist, black dong, black booty, and the black holler as it gazes up at MLK and Mandela as god-angels at the gates of heaven. Also, even as blacks beat up and humiliate whites in schools and streets, whites will be too busy cheering for black athletes to realize that black physicality isn’t their dream team but their doom and gloom..
What is the current condition of the white race? Just imagine the white race as Milo with a Negro dong up his bung as he bitches that Democrats are the 'real racists' because MLK, the black moses and jesus rolled into one, was for the "content of one's character" and salvation of all of humanity through black magic.
Progs are a funny bunch. They call for Indigenous Peoples Day and then say Diversity is great. But it was Diversity that destroyed the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Take Latin America. Spanish imperialists conquered, spread disease, carried out genocides, and committed mass rape. That led to Euro-Indigenous diversity. And then, Spanish, Portuguese, and Jews imported millions of black slaves into the Americas. More diversity. So, Diversity has been the bane of the indigenous peoples.
In North America in the 19th century, more immigration meant more diversity and less territory for the indigenous peoples who got squeezed out of their lands by expanding Diversity of Anglos, white ethnics, Jews, and black slaves. America used to be All Indian but mass immigration of whites & Jews and importation of blacks made North America more diverse, and that led to the destruction of indigenous or original peoples.
So, it is about time that White Americans stop immigration and denounce Diversity. It would be a Moral Imperative. Proper assessment of White Guilt in America must address the fact that the main victims of White/Jewish Immigration were the Indians. Therefore, because North America was once Indian land, white folks must stop further immigration-invasion and help Indians to regain their footing in their ancestral turf. It was bad enough that Indians lost the lands to whites. There is no reason for them to lose it to immigration-invaders from all around the world. Since white people took the land from Indians, their main moral duty should be to stop further invasion and be nice to Indians. Since the whites didn't take America from peoples around the world, all those non-whites have NO MORAL CLAIM on America. So, on the issue of 'white guilt', whites may feel some measure of guilt toward Indians since they took land from them, but white Americans need feel NO GUILT toward the world since whites didn't take land from non-whites around the world.
The main question is, "Does America belong to the American Indians or to the World". The answer is it belongs to the American Indians. Since whites took it from the Indians, white priority must be to defend America from further invasion and revive Indian pride and prestige. But in our crazy Ellis-Island-centric nation, there is this crazy notion that whites have some moral obligation to open the US to all the world? But why? If America once belonged to Indians and if whites took the land from the Indians, then white moral obligation should be to prevent further invasion of Indian lands and to help Indians regain footing in their ancestral-sacred homeland. (If Jews had a right to regain their sacred homeland after 2,000 yrs, then American Indians have a right to regain territorial security and resurgence of pride in America, their sacred-ancestral homeland. That calls for end to immigration-invasion and promoting Originality over Diversity. While American Indians can't take back America like Jews took back Israel/Palestine, they can regain pride and stand proud once again IF all Americans recognize Indians as the Original and Truest owners of America as a 'sacred spiritual land'.)
Another way to frame this question is, "Does America belong to the Indians or to the Jews?" If we believe that the original claimants of America are the Indians, then we must address the fact that mass-immigration-invasion has been bad for Indians. Sure, it led to the creation of a great nation, but it also led to collapse of Indian folks and cultures. So, if we believe that, in the most sacred and spiritual sense, America belongs to the Indians(who'd been here for 10,000s of yrs before whites and others), then Americans must prioritize the matter of "Is it good for the Indians?" And future policy must be predicated on IIGFTI. Since mass immigration-invasion and Diversity destroyed the Indians, we must stop further mass-immigration and Diversity-mongering. We must favor demographic defense and originality(over diversity because diversity wiped out much of the original peoples).
But the US is currently under the rule of "America belongs to the Jews". So, "Is it good for the Jews?" or IIGFTJ is the modus operandi of US policy. Because Jews figure that more non-white immigration-invasion will lead to further Diversity that makes for weaker racial-national solidarity among goyim who will be divided among themselves, they see it as being GOOD for Jews.
But if American Policy is calibrated to favor and serve Jews, it means the US belongs mainly to Jews. But why? What claim do Jews have on America? Whites didn't take it from Jews. If anything, Jews were co-conquerors of America from the Indians. So, if anything, Jews must share in the White/Jewish Guilt of Imperialism and Genocide of the Indians. (And since Jews also took part in the slave trade, they must share in Slave-Trade-Blues. Imperialism + Slave Trade = Diversity. Celebrating Diversity is to apologize for imperialism.) Indians do have ancestral claim on the Americas. They were the original peoples. But by what right do Jews claim America as theirs? Why should American Policy be predicated on IIGFTJ?
Indeed, they have even less rightful claim than do the Anglos and Germanic who'd done most to found and settle the nation. There were Jews from the beginning of America, but the mass influx of Jews came later. So, Jews have no special claim on America. Granted, Jews can say they contributed a lot to American wealth and enterprise and science and culture, and that's all true. But that is still not an organic claim. After all, China and India have invested a lot in Africa and built the economies there, BUT they can't make claims on those nations that 'spiritually' belong to black Africans.
Now, for a long time, the main claimants of America used to be Anglos and whites, and for good reason. The argument was, "Sure Indians were here first, but they were savages and there weren't too many of them. So, the America as a modern nation is a white European creation." In other words, American Civilization was not something that the Indians had built but was stolen by whites. Whites built it from scratch. So, on that basis, whites could have legitimate claim and pride of ownership. And this was a sound argument. But Jews took over media, academia, & Narrative and spread the notion that Whites are the Most Evil People. So, white pride in anything is evil. It's even controversial to say "It's okay to be white."
So, for the time being, whites are best off using the Indians as moral shield. Whites must promote Originality over Diversity. Indians were the original peoples of America. So, if White Guilt is to be properly conceived, it must address the fact that Originality was largely wiped out by Diversity(the product of imperialism) made possible by whites(who opened the New World to Diversity-Invasion). So, in order to properly atone for their historical 'sins', it is time for whites to end immigration-invasion and diversification of the Americas and focus on restoring Originality of the Indian folks. It may be the most effective way to scalp the globo-homo yarmulka.
The moral discourse can pit one form of White Guilt against another form of White Guilt. The White Guilt of "Is it good for the Indians?" or the White Guilt of "Is it good for the Jews?" In the Americas, the white guilt of "Is it good for the Indians?" is surely more legitimate since America was taken from the Indians who suffered a kind of 'genocide'. In contrast, whites using their 'guilt' to serve Jews makes NO SENSE in America because whites didn't take America from Jews. Furthermore, Jews participated in the 'genocide' of the Indians along with whites. Jewish merchants sold guns to whites to kill Indians with. Jewish banks, along with Anglo ones, financed Manifest Destiny, a lebensraum plan against the Red Savages. Emma Lazarus called on more Immigrant-imperialists.
So far, many on the Right have regarded 'white guilt' as anti-white, but it can be made pro-white. By properly assessing American History, whites can make a moral case that 'white guilt' must prioritize what is good for Indians since they were the Original Peoples with a sacred tie to the land. Also, as white expansion destroyed so much of pristine wilderness, white guilt must also commit itself to restoring more natural habitats in every state in the Union. But there is no sound 'white guilt' argument in favor of serving Jewish supremacism or allowing immigration-invasion from around the world. After all, whites didn't take America from most peoples around the world. Also, non-white ancestors around the world played no part in the building of America.
The real problem of American PC isn't 'white guilt' per se. It is the perversion of 'white guilt' to favor peoples who have no moral claim on White Americans at the expense of peoples who do have a legitimate claim on 'white guilt'. No people have a more valid moral claim on White Guilt than do the American Indians, the Original people, BUT the current 'White Guilt' is manipulated to make white support "Is it good for the Jews?" and Diversity-invasion of non-whites who are coming off to leech off the achievements of another people on a land taken from the Indians. Imagine if you killed someone, but your 'guilt' is milked not to make amends to the aggrieved family of the victim but to offer endless 'compensations' to OTHER people who weren't victimized by you. 'White Guilt' is now milked not by the aggrieved calf but by weasels and leeches from around the world.
It’s a matter of Valid White Guilt vs Corrupted White Guilt. American Indians aren’t big in numbers and don’t have much wealth and influence. But they have tremendous moral capital IF white folks were to play it right. If ‘white guilt’ is so central to the Current Political Culture, then White Patriots must raise the crucial question of "Which people have the most legitimate claim on White Guilt?" American Indians or some Asian-Indian lowlife who sucks up to Jews to gain wealth and privilege? (And let’s not confuse the Original Peoples of the America[s] with low-life weasel Hispanics who, as the First European Imperialists in the New World, pioneered the ‘genocide’ of the indigenous folks. As for blacks, why are recent African Immigrants getting Affirmative Action set-asides meant for black Americans of slave ancestry? It goes to show that White Guilt went from a semi-legitimate ideal to a get-rich-quick scheme for thieves all around the world.) The disgusting fact of PC is that most people who make claims on White Guilt have NO LEGITIMACY whatever. And yet, these Frivolous Claims are taken seriously to allow endless immigration-invasion while the True Tragedy of the American Indians go unaddressed.
Anyway, one way forward for the White Race is to do what the White Vampires do in TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE. Form an alliance with the Indians against the Nihilists of Degeneracy and Invasion.
People are better off studying biology than political science to understand what is really going on in world affairs.
All organisms, including humans of course, are invasivist(offensive) and nativist(defensive). Some are more invasive than others, but all are invasive to some measure. Some are more nativist than others, but all must also be nativist to some degree.
Living organisms are not content to stay put. They like to spread out and take over more turf. If bacteria or viruses are making someone sick, they are NOT content to stick with that person. They spread out and take over other men and women. It's like the pod creatures in THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Or the morphing organism in THE THING.
It has this need to take over other areas. But humans are like that too. After all, why do humans have military bases in Abel Ferrara's BODYSNATCHERS? Why else have humans colonized a distant corner of Antarctica in John Carpenter's THE THING?
Why are they in the land of penguins? Because humans too are invasive. So, the dynamics of THE THING is a war between invaders: Humans vs The Thing. But both are also defenders of what they claim. Humans seek to defend their 'new nativist' turf in Antarctica. And the Thing tries to hold onto the humans, dogs, and other organisms it has colonized; they've become part of its turf. (There are two kinds of claimants. Of the tangible and of the intangible. Those who claim land or immovable objects are claimants of the tangible. Those who claim people's minds or systems(of a Mercurian nature) are claimants of the intangible. Nationalist power is about taking over and defending a definite piece of territory; it is tangible. Christian or ideological power is about infecting and taking over the minds of people all over; it is intangible. Christianity doesn't have to take over Chinese territory to take over Chinese hearts & minds. It only needs to infect and own the souls of converts. Finance is somewhere between tangible and intangible. In the end, finance has power because money can be converted to real goods and properties. But the global financial system allows massive amounts of money-power to easily and instantly flow from one part of the world to another.)
In Carpenter's movie, what the humans fear most is that the Thing will try to spread out and take over all organisms around the world: all humans and all animals and maybe all plants too if such is possible. (The Thing could turn into a penguin or whale and then take over other sea creatures and then swim across oceans and climb up onto other continents.) So, the humans try to prevent the Thing from taking over humans in the station. If the Thing colonizes every human, then the thing-ized humans can go move to other continents and colonize other humans, and then, the human species will all be Thing-ized. The cucksters of the West have been pod-ized and thing-ized by the Glob.
Sometimes, there is a duality, an anxiety, even in the colonized or ones being colonized. We see this in Blair in THE THING.
There are two ways the Thing can take over someone. By physically overwhelming the person, killing him, and copying his DNA. Or, it can infect a person and slowly change the person from the inside. That seems to be the case with Blair. Because he operated on the Thing, it's possible that some of the Thingy germs got into his skin and bloodstreams. So, the Thing is incubating inside him like a virus and taking over gradually.
There is a moment when Blair's mentality becomes dualistic. He feels the human emotions of wanting to defend the human species. But he also feels the Thingy emotions of wanting to take over the human species. Among whites, some remain nationalist and resist the Glob. Some have been completely mentally colonized by the Glob. But there are those who feel anxiety and inner-crisis. Their natural white racial instinct tells them that globalism means hell for the white race. But they've also been infected by the Glob virus that makes them feel 'racist' and wicked for feeling such thoughts. So, to suppress their 'evil' side, they might become extra-fanatical to push the Glob agenda. But then, it maybe possible to come up with new mental-vaccinations to change back the pod-people to sane nationalist white people. After all, there have been cures for certain diseases such as mumps, syphilis, and etc. There is a cure for Globohomostoma.
Nativism is the flipside of invasivism. One cannot exist without the other. After all, to invade means to make an effort and a claim. It isn't merely wandering into new territory accidentally or arbitrarily. It's about advancing with the purpose of making a claim upon the territory. When you invade, take over, and make a claim, it means you have to own it, defend it, guard it, and preserve it. Thus, you as invavist also must be prepared to play the role of nativist on the territory that you have conquered and claimed. If you don't play the nativist role, other invasive elements will take it from you, and then, the whole point of your invasion would have been for naught. If you're going to give up what you conquer, why conquer it in the first place? Why not just leave it alone? When a team wins the championship trophy, it knows it has to keep playing hard to keep the title. Otherwise, another team will take it.
Wolves don't have colleges and study political science, but they instinctively understand this fact of life. Wolves don't invade another territory just for the hell of it but to take over and claim it. They mark the territory with body scents and urine. They guard it through violence and group unity. So, invasivist(or offensivist) wolves are also nativist(definsivist) wolves. If you invade but don't protect what you've invaded, you won't keep it because other invasivist forces will take it from you. The invasivist must also be nativist to keep its bounty. It's like a taker of water needs a bucket(without holes) to keep the water. It's like the character of OLD MAN AND THE SEA is both an invasivist hunter and nativist holder of his trophy. He invades the sea to catch a marlin, but he does everything to defend his catch from other invasivist predators. Hyenas try to guard their kill from other hyena packs, leopards, and lions.
It's like football. The game is invasivist and nativist. Each team tries to invade and grab more of the territory of the other team. But invading isn't enough. What is invaded must also be defended in nativist mode. What is taken from the Other must be guarded as Ours. Because all organisms are invasivist by nature, organisms must nativistically defend what they've invasively conquered.
This is true of all nations. Israel was created(or regained) by invasivism -- Jews had lost it long ago to the invasivism of the Romans. Zionists arrived as invasivists and drove out the Palestinian nativists. But Zionist Israelis must now be nativist and defend what they've claimed for themselves. Without such nativist zeal, the fate of Israeli Jews will be that of Palestinians(and Swedes 50 yrs hence).
The cleverest invasivists try to weaken the nativist resolve of their enemies or targets. Thus, the invasion is made easier, as Greeks did with the Trojans with the false gift of the Wooden Horse. But once the invasion has taken place, the invasivists must turn nativist if they are to keep what they invaded and claimed.
Jews have two ways of doing this. In the case of Israel, it is majority-nativism. Since Jews comprise the dominant demography of Israel, they can be straightforward nativist-nationalist in declaring THIS MUST BE A JEWISH STATE.
But Jews can never take the US, Canada, and EU in such manner. Jews can never be the outright majority in those territories. So, if Jews promote nativism in such nations, it will only lead to white nativist consciousness, white pride, white unity, and white power... which may challenge Jewish minority elite supremacy. So, Jews cannot act like invading wolves in the West like they did in Palestine. They must operate more like invading viruses that penetrate into cells undetected and alter the programming of the goyim from the inside. By colonizing white minds and persuading them that 'diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' are the highest & noblest goods while white identity, racial consciousness, homogeneity, and nativism are the greatest evils, white organisms are rendered less nativist and lose the will to defend themselves against the invasivist Third World that wants access to the richer West(just like predators and parasites head for areas where food is more bountiful). Worse, the PC virus might fool whites into thinking that 'Western Values' are all about welcoming Diversity or endless invasion from the Third World. Now, what kind of sane ideology is predicated on welcoming and celebrating mass invasion? But then, Jews fooled whites into believing 'gay marriage' is the New Normal in morality. Clever Jews sure run circles around square whites(who, despite their hipster conceits, are pretty earnest and childlike).
Now, why would the invasion of the West by the non-West be good for Jews? Won't Jews be invaded too, along with whites? There is that danger to be sure, but Jews are banking on Diversity as insurance for the dominant minority elite(that would be themselves). More Diversity means less unity among the masses. It means the elites can effectively play divide-and-rule among the disunited masses. Thus, Jewish elite power will remain secure above the fray of the squabbling non-Jews divided by diversity. But, some may ask, what if the newcomers challenge Jewish elite power and status? Won't they topple the Jews one day? Jews aren't too worried about such hypothesis since most immigrant-invasivists don't have the wherewithal to rise very high. African immigrants, Muslim immigrants, and 'Hispanic' immigrants(the non-white ones) are mostly limited in ability. East Asians can rise higher, but they lack the spark and leadership qualities to really take over. Also, too many East Asian women have kids with whites and Jews for there to be East Asian unity. The only people who might pose a threat to Jewish dominance are Asian-Indians, many of whom are intelligent and entrepreneurial. Also, Asian-Indians tend to stick together in sex and reproduction. And there are so many of them, and many more are being born. India now has 1.3 billion people and will soon be more populous than China, if it isn't already. It has more people than all of Western Europe and US combined. This is why Jews are trying to forge 'friendly' ties with Asian-Indians and Pakistanis. Jews hope for a Zio-Indo wink-wink cooperation against white power. (Pakistanis are more useful than other Muslims since they are not Arab and thus less likely to care about Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Also, Jews know that Asian-Indian elites are not a united bloc like the Chinese and other East Asians. While most Chinese feel as one people from top to bottom, no such feeling of solidarity exists among the various ethnic groups and neo-castes of Indian society. Indian elites see themselves as an ethnically distinct people who rule over OTHER ethnic groups. Because of the tensions between Indian elites and the diverse masses, the political dynamics are somewhat similar to Jews and non-Jews in the West. Jews are like the Brahmin caste that rules over non-Jews, and Indian elites are like South Asian 'Jews' ruling over lesser groups. So, Hindu elites and Jewish elites see eye-to-eye to some degree.
Anyway, Jews know that have an advantage that Hindus and Pakistanis lack. Jews can pass as whites, whereas Hindus and Pakistanis can't. So, Jews play it both ways. Jews play the Asian-Indian card against whites. Jews go to Asian-Indians and Pakistanis and say, "Look, we Jews and you Indians/Pakistanis are victim-brothers against those white supremacist racist nativist scum." And Hindus and Pakistanis play along because they want continued access to the richer West. But Jews also curtail Hindu-Pakistani power in the West by playing to white fears and anxiety. The coded Jewish message to whites is, "We Jews ain't Christian, but we are 'white' too, just like you white gentiles. So, Jewish power is still white power, whereas Asian-Indian power is Alien. Therefore, white gentiles should support Jews against Asian-Indians if differences were to arise between Jews and Hindus."
Jews play it like the character in YOJIMBO and A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. They play every side against each other. They don't play it like the honorable Gregory Peck character in THE BIG COUNTRY who is caught between two feuding clans and valiantly attempts to resolve the conflict and bring peace. In contrast, Jewish globalist-supremacists thrive on the conflict among various groups. They are like Paul McCartney's 'grandfather' in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. A king mixer.
Anyway, those who conquer must also be prepared to defend. Otherwise, what was the whole point of all that preparation, investment, industry, risk-taking, and sacrifice in the conquest? I mean, imagine if Zionists went through all that trouble of invading Palestine and laboring to create Israel... just to hand it over to Africans, Iranians, Hindus, and Chinese. Why invade something just to let others invade it? Why climb a mountain to give the credit to another?
To invade something means to make a claim, and once the claim is made, it has to be defended in nativist mode. Multi-culturalism is a Jewish globalist mind-virus trick that fools all nations that they must NOT defend their homelands in the spirit of nativism. PC turns the claim into a 'blame' of 'white guilt'. Whites are told they must surrender to invasivism. Now, why would Jews promote such things all over the world when they don't for Israel?
Because when all gentile nations become less nativist and defensive and embrace the cult of Diversity, they will lose a sense of unity and solidarity. And that means Jewish globalist power can more easily infiltrate and penetrate and take over. Jews also use the homo-agenda to weaken the moral pride and confidence of every nation. Any nation that celebrates the perverse 'sexual' behavior of homos as the highest moral good has lost its equilibrium and bearing. Such a degenerate nation can be manipulated and subverted by any foreign power. This is why Jews are bitter about Russia's resistance to the globo-homo-agenda, the proxy of Jewish supremacists.
Anyway, the multiculturalist experiment in the US, Canada, and EU should be studied as a cautionary tale on what happens when nations surrender their nativism. Without nativism, your people and nation will succumb to more invasivists who arrive and take what belongs to your people: the land, the wealth, the womenfolk, and the children too(like at Rotherham) that were claimed and defended by your ancestors.
It's true that every nation is the creation of invasivists sometime in history. Every nation, old or young, is a territory with a history of invaders and conquerors. But those invavists made a claim on what they invaded, and that meant they defended it in the mode of nativists. They, as invaders, understood and feared that invaders can be invaded in turn. So, if invaders are to keep what they've invaded, they must turn into nativists over the land that they've claimed as their own. It's no different with wolves. An invading wolf pack invades turf from another wolf pack. But then, it can also lose that territory to yet more wolf packs. So, when a wolf pack takes land, it must turn nativist and defend it from others. This is why Israel has survived over the years. Zionist invaders took the land from Palestinians. But through brute force of the IDF, patriotic race-ist immigration policy open only to Jews, and nationalist education, Israel has preserved itself and prevented it from being invaded in turn by other peoples. The US used to be like a giant Israel for European folks.
This is why all this stuff about America's 'racist' immigration policies is total BS.
Yes, it is true that white folks invaded and took the land from Indians(and wild animals). But the whole point of invasion is to make a claim on the land you invade. After all, why go through all the trouble of invading(often a violent, bloody, and taxing process) if you're not going to make such a claim? For every ounce of happiness, there was also lots of pain in the creation and expansion of America. It took tremendous work and even great sacrifice at times. So, why should whites folks just hand over what their ancestors invaded and claimed to other would-be invaders? This is especially bogus when whites did most of the work whereas the new would-be invaders just come and live off the bounty of what the ancestors of whites have done to create. Whites make something out of nothing, and others live off that something while spitting on whites(at the behest of vicious Jewish Supremacists). Worse, these new invaders, brainwashed by PC, spit on the graves of white people who'd done so much to build America.
It's like a battle. It takes tremendous blood sacrifice. Lots of soldiers get killed. Lots of families will never see their kids again. So, if one side gains territory in war, it was often at great cost in terms of life and material. So, if territory is gained through war, it must be defended so that it won't fall to the enemy once again. If land that was won through great sacrifice won't be defended, what was all that sacrifice for?
The reason why so many white peoples lack nativist instinct is three-fold: (1) They had it too good for too long, and they have lost the survivalist-organismic instinct (2) Pop Culture-as-main-culture has severed their ties to history and roots. So, they are unaware of the sweat-and-toil of their ancestors. Also Pop Culture makes them prefer other cultures, especially that of the Negro, over their own kind since Negroes be fun, funky, and shi*. It leads to amnesiac jungle-hipster neo-savagery among white youths. (3) PC has filled whites with 'white guilt', so even whites who know something about history see it through the prism of 'white historical sins' as manipulated by Jewish-controlled media and academia. Also, PC, in cahoots with Pop Culture, made Diversity so iconic and sacrosanct that whites feel apologetic if they imagine any story or narrative that is all white and lacking in 'diversity'. So, British TV is now featuring blacks in the roles of white historical figures and penalizes programs that don't feature non-whites. Apparently, British History was deficient because it was too white. PC retrofits or retro-corrects history by Africanizing white heroes. It's like the TV show that has a Negro as Lancelot in the new telling of the Arthurian tale, which is also a means to promote Afro-colonization of white wombs and cuck-mindset among white males reduced to the submissive status of 'white boys'.
History is a story of human biology.
Military history is study of human biological aggression.
Economics is story of human biological drive for territory and property.
Literature is human biological use of signs and words as weapons.
They are all about biology.
At their roots, all of human behavior are analogous to what happens among germs, animals, and plants.
In the end, all our science and technology are nothing more than a beehive made by bees, their Death Star(of STAR WARS).
Human intellect, science, and technology allow people to do amazing things, but, as DR. STRANGELOVE shows, the WHY is ultimately biological. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it begins with the bone and develops into a rocket ship, and the driving force is biology.
The question is WHY do we create stuff, make stuff, innovate stuff, and etc? And this stuff we make may seem so amazing that it seems divorced from biology. But we make them to serve biology: the organism’s attraction to great comfort, security, fun, pleasure, power, sex, domination.
Consider immigration. It is explained in highfalutin terms of ‘proposition nation’, ‘huddle masses yearning to breathe free’, etc. But it’s just organisms seeking greener pastures, no different from a herd of deer or bison entering new territory for more grass to chew on.
Whether humans are making bows & arrows or B-52 bombers, it’s the manifestation of the same biological impulses. Everything we do and make is to serve our biological needs.
Suppose we suck out all the hormones of a group of people while leaving their mental faculties(intellect) intact. There will remain the same intellect and same intelligence. But without hormones that fuel instinct, humans are merely apathetic calculating machines. Without instinct and drive, they have no will, agency, and compass to direct their intelligence. Without hormones, there is no sense of 'us and them'. One has no greater feelings for one's own people than for others, even those who aim to hurt one's people. This is why Jews promote apathetic zen-ism among whites to weaken their sense of us-and-them while Jews maintain a strong sense of us-Jews and them-goyim. (But then, even as Jews tell whites not to feel strong feelings about white identity, they insist that whites must passionately favor Jews over Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians. What a sneaky bunch of lowlifes.)
They actually carried out such an experiment where the hormones of some guy were removed. He just felt numb. He looked around and lacked the will. And everything seemed equally ‘pleasant’ in this emotion-drained state. Everything seemed to be of equal value. Show such a person gold and lead, and they are equally valuable... or equally valueless.
To a person with emotions, gold means power, wealth, and that means success, sex, and good stuff. His hormones drive him to fight for gold. But to a person without emotions, gold is just like anything else. And stuff like power, success, happiness, and etc have no meaning to him since he has no emotions.
If Einstein had no hormones and only intellect, he never would have bothered to discover the laws of the universe. No matter the ability, there would have been no drive, no will, no hunger. He would have been at peace with himself doing nothing. But he had emotions; animal emotions drive man to conquer, and this 'animal' within Einstein drove him to conquer knowledge and unlock the key to the universe and attain the forbidden fruit. And he wanted fame and recognition. So, his life was really about intelligence driven by ape emotions.
