Politics of Saints and Sinners in the World of Political Correctness -- The Monstrous Idiocy of Rebecca Futo Kennedy, a hapless mental midget and puppet of Donna Zuckerberg, the Globo-Homo Jewish Termite gnawing away at Western Heritage

Donna Zuckerberg, the hideous Jewish globo-homo bitch and sister of a**hole Mark Zuckerberg, abuses her position in the field of Classical Studies as a termite gnawing away at the pillars of Western Civilization. Who is this vile and toxic Jewess to subvert another peoples identity and culture? 

Rebecca Futo 'Fatso' Kennedy

The Politics of Saints and Sinners.

People on the Right tend to believe ALL peoples are sinners. But through the cultivation of virtue, they can become more like saints.

People on the Left tend to believe ALL people are saints. But due to social conditions, they are corrupted into sinners.

With the rise of Identity Politics, things got a bit more complicated.

People on the Right(or at least the true right) care more about winners than sinners. The Right is about the competition among individuals/groups to win as much as possible. Libertarians emphasize winning on the individual level, whereas identitarians stress winning on the ethno-organismic level. The Right still believes all peoples to be 'sinners', but it has pretty much abandoned the Christian Project of 'saving the world' through Jesus Christ, the patron saint of sinners seeking redemption.

People on the current so-called 'left' believe certain groups are natural saints, certain groups are natural sinners(or historical sinners so stained with the legacy of guilt that wickedness has become their second nature), and certain groups are neither. Jews, blacks, and homos are seen as natural saints. Whites are seen as natural sinners. The rest are neither. (Muslims, for example, are sometimes seen as saints[as victims of white 'racism' or 'Islamophobia'], sometimes as sinners[as terrorists who want to harm Jews and Israel].) But since all groups prefer to be regarded as saints than sinners, they emulate the politics of Jews, blacks, or homos OR try to associate themselves with one or all three of the sacro-anointed groups. So, we have Muslims bitching about 'Islamophobia'(which sounds like 'homophobia'), and we have even successful Asians moaning and groaning as 'victims' in imagined alliances with blacks, Jews, or homos.

The New Left of Identity-Politics differs from the Old Universalist Left of the Rousseauean Catcher-in-the-Rye School that regarded ALL peoples as natural saints prior to becoming corrupted by social tyranny and injustice.
The New Leftism of Identity Politics bestows natural/automatic sainthood upon certain groups while reviling certain other groups as naturally/innately sinful.
This dynamics has ironically led to new sins: The sin of pride and moral vanity among certain groups, especially Jews, homos, and blacks. It has also led to the sin of self-debasement and suicidal mentality among whites. Atonement and redemption are one thing, but self-debasement and/or self-destruction are another. (Worse, those whites who debase themselves and call for white suicide feel a sudden rush of pride and vanity for being 'good whites' who've seen the Light. Their display of self-debasement thus serve as moral exhibitionism.)

There is a kind of moral exemption for white 'progressives' in the current 'leftism'. True, Identity Politics Leftism says that all whites are natural sinners, but by dramatizing their self-purgatory rituals, whites can score temp-sainthood points, at least against 'deplorable' whites who aren't so hung up about 'white guilt' and redemption.

Consider this piece of tripe: We Condone It by Our Silence. Confronting Classics’ Complicity in White Supremacy.

So, even though the putrid and disgusting Rebecca Futo Kennedy belongs to the race of natural sinners, she feels smugly superior by the virtue of smearing OTHER whites, alive and dead(even 1,000s of yrs ago), as 'racist'. She's the sort to dig up her great great great great great grandfather from his grave and spit on him just to score 'virtue' points with PC. This is the 'sinergy' that progs like Kennedy draw upon to congratulate themselves.

It never occurs to these smug (ass)holier-than-thou prigs and progs that people of different times and places thought and felt differently and had other priorities due to particular circumstances and crises. They lack empathy and fail to understand the rules of the game in other times and places.
For them, the PC of the Current Year is the absolute truth, and they wield it like a cudgel(or padlock for smashing skulls) and smugly pass judgement on others, even on Greeks who lived 1000's of years ago and struggled to survive in a dangerous and contentious world. (After all, Greeks not only invaded others but were invaded many times by others. It was a very insecure and dangerous world torn asunder with constant warfare, not least among the Greeks themselves.) But affluent, comfortable, and privileged bubble world of academia, prigs and progs like Kennedy have NO idea of how things may have been in other times and places. Any sensible person knows, just as it'd be stupid to judge ancient Hebrews by standards of today's PC, it'd be ridiculous to judge ancient Greeks with today's 'values'.

There was a time when historians and classicists tried to understand and empathize with peoples of different times, places, and cultures. They understood that only a narrow-minded self-righteous idiot studies history just to pass judgement on other times, peoples, and places, indeed as if current values and assumptions are the only true ones, the end-all of truth. Real scholars studied history to broaden their understanding of peoples and cultures, not to reduce history into Smug Self-Righteousness for Dummies.
Today, we have PC snobs like Kennedy feeling superior to others and even turning up their noses at 'ancient racists'. She's like a junkie addicted to smugasms. She needs her daily fix and is on the constant lookout to call something else 'racist' to get her next high.

Also, where do people like Kennedy get the idea that today's PC is the 'most evolved' and most advanced moral value-system? If so, why has it led to such decadence, degeneracy, and corruption in the West(and its political & cultural satellites) as the Whole World began to adopt Diversity and Homomania as universal truths? Is Sweden really getting better with the invasion of Africans and Muslims? Will Italy and France really fare better with millions of black Africans who come only for sex and money and whose idea of culture is gangsta-tribal rap music? Is it really morally uplifting to associate the venerable institution and tradition of marriage with men who do homo fecal penetration or have their penises and testicles cut off to get fake vaginas? Really? Has Western Europe really benefited morally and intellectually by handing its culture and discourse over to rappers, flaming homos, and Zionist globalists? Really?

As a sinner, one seeks atonement and redemption. When this is sound and sincere, it can lead to moral good and rejuvenation. But when one dramatizes one's 'sinergy' to feel holier-than-thou, it's just vanity of bogus sainthood by other means. Vanity is an especially corrupt form of pride, and as such, a sin.
Kennedy is saying that, though born of sinful white 'racist' blood, she is an honorary saint because she bleats endlessly about 'racism', even to the point of spitting on ancient Greeks for having been too white. What an idiot.

In truth, all peoples are sinners. The most they can do is draw some inspiration from saints, but then with caution because there real saints are exceedingly rare. Also, is it worth being a saint when genuine saints usually get martyred? (Sometimes, I suppose it is worth it. The Christian bakers who lost their businesses and their savings because they refused to bend over to degeneracy and bake 'gay wedding cakes' should inspire all decent people for whom there is higher value in life than profits and social approval of the corrupted.)
The best moral/spiritual formula is for all people to accept that they are sinners. 'Sinfulness' is just the way of human nature. With that in mind, people should also try to be winners since life is about competition, without which there is no achievement. But being conscious of our sinner-nature, we need to observe the Golden Rule that applies to individuals and to nations in their competitions. Just as an individual shouldn't do unto others what he doesn't want others to do unto him, a nation shouldn't do unto other nations what it doesn't want other nations to do unto it. The golden rule among nations should be DO NOT INVADE OTHER NATIONS AND DO NOT VIOLATE THEIR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
The US is now a sick evil nation because, even as it bitches endlessly about non-existent Russian Collusion in US elections, it has done more than any other nation to interfere and mess with other nations' political processes.

The current problem is that Jews, blacks, and homos now act arrogantly, aggressively, and insufferably because they regard themselves as Natural Saints who can never do wrong. This has led to total moral corruption, a kind of moral nihilism or amoral morality. Indeed, what are SJW but a bunch of Justice Nihilists? Then, it's not surprising that blacks now think it is their Moral Privilege to carry out 'hate hoaxes'. Even when they get caught, they act like the aggrieved... because they've been flattered constantly as being natural saints NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. So, a black doing wrong is more righteous than a white doing right. You see, blacks are BORN Saints whereas whites are BORN sinners.
And we have Jews acting the same way. When the Israeli hate-hoaxer was captured and exposed for having defamed white people as 'anti-Semites' who send bomb threats to Jewish centers, the reaction from ADL was the Jewish hoaxer is also an 'anti-Semite' and therefore, Jews are once again the pure-as-snow victims even though the Jewish hate-hoaxer had defamed white people to serve Jewish interests(by drawing sympathy to the Jewish community).
As for homos, we must believe the fiction that they weren't in any shape or form responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Never mind all their foul and irresponsible behavior in bathhouses. It was all the fault of "Reagan's Indifference". We must look upon homos as something akin to angels. In the Current Year, men who have other men stick their penises into their fecal holes are to be revered as possessing the cleanest souls. When will there be 'gay hymns' in churches singing about how nothing excites the angels as much as a guy cutting his penis and balls off to get a fake vagina?

The cult of Natural Sainthood for Jews, blacks, and homos has led to total moral corruption, not least because Jews, blacks, and homos tend to have out-sized personalities that lean toward pushiness, egomania, thuggery, and vanity. We have chutzpahstic Jews, rappin'-hollerin' Negroes, and bitchy-flaming homos acting like they are the paragons of all that is good & noble despite the fact that Jewish-directed US foreign policy has wrecked the Muslim World and restarted 'new cold war' with Russia, blacks commit the most crime and social violence in the US and other places where they are prominent, and homos routinely degrade culture around the world into a celebration of narcissism, decadence, and degeneracy. (If the Ancient Greeks should be admonished for one thing, it was letting too many homos and pederasts get out of hand.)

But there is another group of people who are a pain in the ass. The sinner-saints of the White Prog Community. Unlike Jews, blacks, and homos, these white progs see themselves as born sinners stained with 'white guilt'. So, their moral imperative is to make scenes of atonement and redemption. They have an obsessive-compulsive mental disorder of constantly washing themselves of sin. They feel so dirty, having been born with wicked white blood, so they do their Lady Macbeth thing as PC theater.

But paradoxically, those who feel most dirty and compulsively wash themselves feel so much cleaner than others who don't share in the obsession-compulsion. If Jews, blacks, and homos feel clean for having been born with clean blood, white progs feel cleansed and replenished by endless rituals of PC blood transfusions. The difference is Jews, blacks, and homos feel clean simply by being what they are since PC deems them to be natural saints. In contrast, white progs must tirelessly, or obsessively-compulsively, undergo self-cleaning ritual-therapies to feel cured. White progs can never feel clean; they can only feel cleansed, and this requires endless process of enema-like expurgation of one's natural sinner-status. The ensuing hysteria makes the sin-cleanser feel superior to those whites who aren't as obsessive-compulsive in their expiation of natural white sin.

Kennedy the white sinner constantly washes and dries her wicked dirty white soul. Because she feels dirty and constantly lathers her soul with PC soap, she feels so much cleaner and superior to whites who don't feel so dirty and don't feel an obsessive-compulsive need to take PC showers. So, Kennedy's sin-obsession has ironically filled her smug-ugly soul with the supremacist pride of soapy-sudsy sainthood. She may be not be a natural saint like Jews, blacks, and homos, but boy oh boy, she surely is saintlier than 'racist' whites who don't scrub themselves with PC soap as obsessively-compulsively as she does.

Her ilk doesn't impress me. They are just snot-nosed supremacists of another kind. They are virtue-nazis wallowing in ideological supremacism. She thinks herself so superior to other whites who don't preen, sneer, and virtue-signal like she does in her foamy white-guilt bubble bath.
Worse, her moral masturbation is blind to her preferred ideology being the biggest evil in the world, one that is destroying entire nations and communities. ONLY AN IDIOT thinks 'diversity' is a panacea for all problems. Diversity is the product of imperialism and colonization. Alexander the Great created an Empire of Diversity, and how much blood was spilled in the process? And eventually, the Greeks became part of a diverse Roman Empire that didn't expand peacefully. The loss of autonomy was NOT GOOD for Greek Civilization. PTOLEMY WAS RIGHT IN HIS PRIVATE MUSINGS in Oliver Stone's movie: https://youtu.be/YK4s2Fjefn8?t=1m3s

The last thing we need is Mark Zuckerberg playing Alexander the Grape, with his snot-nosed spoiled-brat sister Donna doing the Angelina Jolie part of the crazy mother hen.
At least the real Alexander, crazy and ruthless as he was, was a real romantic and courageous leader of men. The master-connivers of globalism like Zuckerberg are a bunch of snakes and weasels who risk nothing of their own power and privilege while endangering what is most meaningful and valuable for most people: A sense of homeland, a place to return to. If an Hungarian travels around the world, he may see all sorts of remarkable things and meet interesting people. But he will always be a stranger in other nations. It is only when he returns to Hungary that he can relax and feel 'this is my homeland.' It's good to know that there is at least one place in the world where you are not a stranger but an owner along with your fellow countrymen.
But what happens when Hungary fills up with foreigners? There WON'T be any part in the world where a Hungarian can feel at home. He will be a stranger even in a familiar land, in the land of his ancestors. Globalists and their well-paid and well-connected commissars don't understand this since they live in a Laputa-Elysium world of their own.

Globo-Homo Mark Zuckerberg, the cyber emperor of censorship and Jewish supremacism, pretends to sympathize with blacks and Christianity. These Jews...

Oddly enough, PC says the only way to clean whiteness is by staining it with color. (But won't, non-whiteness be 'stained' and infected with Evil Whiteness?) Oddlier enough, non-whites who denounce whiteness are ever so eager depart from and abandon their colorful societies to go to white nations and live & mix with whiteness because they prefer whiteness over their own kind.
Now, if whiteness is so problematic, then non-whites should stay in their wonderful non-white colorful world and revel in it. But all they ever dream about is running from the world of color and going to where white folks are. Since non-white immigrants prefer whiteness above all, even over their own kind, aren't they a bunch of 'white supremacists'?

Just Say It is RACE-IST AND TRUE. Associate Race-ism with Truth.

Even after so much ink has been spilled over how Political Correctness robs us of reason, liberty, integrity, and courage, we still can’t have honest discussions of world problems because the vast majority of people adhere to the PC definition and deployment of the term ‘racist’. The word has such power over us because nearly everyone, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, agree on its dubious meaning. So, even as there are increasing numbers of people who deny that they are ‘racist’ or hurl back the accusation at the other side, almost no one dares to deconstruct the term and examine why it is so powerful.

People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.

Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.

Anyway, because a neutral-seeming term like ‘racism’(race + ism) has been defined as an extremist ideology, it’s difficult to have an honest and truthful discussion of race. After all, the formulation of the term ‘racism’ keeps reminding us that ANY ism(belief) about race must be extreme and pathological. Some have tried to solve this problem by using terms such as ‘racialism’ or ‘race realism’, but that only complicates matters. Such tactics are defensive when, if anything, true race-ists must go on the offensive and stop backing down. The term ‘racism’ must be rehabilitated, just like innocent victims of tyranny. The only alteration I would recommend is to spell and pronounce it as ‘race-ism’ to reiterate that the word should mean race + ism = belief in reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness. For more on this matter, go to this link: http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-only-true-race-ist-how-misuse-of.html.

Anyway, for the time being, what steps can we take to slowly steer the ship to redefine ‘racism’ or race-ism properly? I propose the ‘Race-ist-and-True’ Rule. If you make a true statement about racial reality and racial differences OR exhibit natural tendency of racial consciousness & solidarity, don’t ever back down when you are accused of ‘racism’. If you try to explain that you’re not ‘racist’, you’ve lost the argument there and then. You’ve put yourself in a defensive and pleading corner, as if the other side has the right to judge you while you feel a need to defend and justify yourself. This is because what should be a neutral term has been rigged by Jewish radical agenda and political correctness to mean something extreme and evil. For that reason, ANY belief in race or expression of racial identity(at least if you’re white and gentile) is automatically smeared as something extreme.
Now, what is so extreme about believing that evolution created different racial groupings of human beings? It is so obvious to any honest pair of eyes. What is so extreme about noticing racial differences? We can see it all around in sports, crime, and all sorts of behavior. And what is so evil about a people having a sense of racial identity, unity, and solidarity? It seems rather natural given that humans are genetically programmed to judge things based on sight and other visible signals. But because the mere terminology of race + ism has been defined as the most heinous form of extremism, even people making the most obvious observations or statements about race and racial differences must be on guard against charges of ‘racism’. With nearly all the institutions and powers operating in such PC manner, is anything possible to stem the tide of this rabid and virulent Judeo-Nazi agenda?

Yes, even if it’s an upward struggle. Also, the first tentative steps are the most important in any movement. It means you are serious and willing to move forward with the truth. And once we reach the top of the hill(like the Train that Could), it will be easy coasting from there on, with historical gravity being on our side.

So, what exactly is it that should be said when our perfectly reasonable views are accused of ‘racism’? First, I’m talking of rational and sane statements about racial reality, racial differences, and racial identity. I’m not talking of clown antics of people like Andrew Anglin who will say ANYTHING to trigger people and gain notoriety. Their views really are extreme, demented, or unserious(and mainly for attention). There can't be any moral defense for such stupidity and dementedness though we must defend speech rights to say offensive things.
As for those of us who dare to speak the truth about race & racial differences and have facts, truth, courage, and integrity on our side, the proper way to respond to accusations of ‘racism’ is to say that our views are ‘race-ist and true’. That is the right way. Don’t try to deny that you’re ‘racist’. Don’t play by their word game that was long ago rigged to favor them... just like a socialist can’t win any argument IF even the most moderate socialism is made synonymous with Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer Rouge.

Likewise, a capitalist will be in a hopeless position IF the base terminology of ‘capitalism’ is defined to mean Scrooge-like greed and pathological selfishness. Indeed, communist nations defined capitalism in just such manner, and that made it nearly impossible to lay out a rational case for free markets. According to communist terminological rules, the term ‘capitalism’ could never mean a neutral theory of economics based on market dynamics. It couldn’t be approached rationally and judiciously because it had an albatross of ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ around its neck.

Now, capitalism CAN be exploitative and ugly, but just because a system is capitalist doesn’t mean it is ultra-libertarian where the ONLY thing that matters is greed & profits and nothing else.
But in a communist nation, there were few things worse than being called a ‘capitalist-roader’ or ‘bourgeois’. Communist terminology fixed it so that ‘capitalism’ could only mean utterly greedy exploitation and ‘bourgeoisie’ could only mean the reactionary exploitative class. A rational, balanced, and empirical discussion of capitalism or the bourgeoisie’s role in history was nearly impossible because those very terms were loaded with moral contempt and loathing.
And in the Current West, ‘racism’ has the same kind of effect. Thus, even if someone like Charles Murray wants to calmly discuss the subject of race, it is denounced immediately as ‘racist’, and then any views about racial differences between whites and blacks is associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. This hysteria would have us believe that because racial differences had been invoked the past to justify certain institutions, any idea of racial differences must be to restore slavery.
This is like someone in a communist system insisting that any argument in favor of capitalism and market economics must be evil because, at least in his mind, anything associated with markets and profits must be about the greedy rich hogging all the wealth, sadistic henchmen tyrannizing workers, giant smokestacks belching out black soot to choke the proletariat, and innocents beaten down with truncheons. The radical stigmatization of the term ‘capitalism’ made it difficult for reformers to call for more efficient market economics because their reputations and careers(and even lives) could be ruined by accusations of being ‘bourgeois reactionary’ or ‘capitalist roader’. Even basic market reforms and limited privatization that might boost the economy became taboo in many quarters because, according to the communist terminology, there could never be a moderate and balanced form of capitalism. No, all forms of capitalism were extreme, exploitative, & evil, and that was that, and there was nothing more to be said.
People in the West face the same trouble with the term ‘racist’. As Charles Murray and many others found out, there are too many people brainwashed by PC into believing that rational ideas about race and racial differences are simply not possible. There can only be one view of race, and it is ‘nazi’.

Now, there are idiotic Nazi types who do espouse extreme and radical views on race. Calling them ‘racist’ would be correct to the extent that they do hold views on racial reality and racial differences. But the difference is their views are indeed radical and extreme, and more importantly, there is no way that sane and rational people who believe in racial reality and racial differences have views that resemble the lunacies of Neo-Nazism. So, my advice is not for radical racists who are prone to saying idiotic things. As so much of what they say is numbnuts and retarded, I have no wish to represent them or defend them. Fools who dig themselves into holes can’t be helped.

But, what if you’re a sane, rational, and honest person? What if your views on racial reality and racial differences are fully in accordance with known facts & data and are indeed in alignment with what any honest pair of eyes can see from racial reality in any society. If you’re that person and if what you’ve said makes good sense, then the worst thing you can do is deny that you are ‘racist’ when that charge is thrown at you. If your race-ism is valid & true and if you’re accused of ‘racism’, the proper response is to say that your views are ‘race-ist and true’.
This puts the accuser in a bind. After all, truth has the advantage of prestige. How can falsehood be better than the truth? Those who argue for the Noble Lie will lose soon enough because no one wants to believe that he or she must stick to demonstrable falsehoods for the ‘higher good’. People want to believe that their righteousness is based on rightness about reality. The rabid dogs of PC want to believe that science, reasons, and facts are on their side. To be sure, there are some PC hacks who argue that truth about race must be suppressed for the ‘higher good’. But such argument simply cannot stand for long. It’s like the Geocentrism of the Catholic Church couldn’t withstand the truth of real astronomy that placed the Sun at the center. If PC admits that it favors lies over truth in the name of the ‘higher good’, it will be admitting that PC 'goodness' has no legs of truth to stand on. It must be propped up by crutches of deception, the logic of which is not unlike withholding the truth about Santa Claus to little children.

So, truth beats all in the end. Those with truth on their side merely need to speak honestly because truth backs them up. In contrast, those opposed to the truth must resort to lies, propaganda, hysteria, or banal homilies. Indeed, the reason why so many Jews(in media and academia), Antifa Janissary types, and cuck-collaborators are so triggered by rational race-ists is due to their abject fear that they may indeed be wrong on facts and truth, thus on the wrong side of history. Not only are racial differences so obvious to the naked eye but new genetic studies are showing that group differences among various races are all too real. PC hacks are now so desperate that they go beyond calling people ‘racist’ and call them ‘nazi’ as well. (This is rich coming from Jewish globalists especially because, if we were to judge people by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, Jewish Power is the most nazi-like force in the world as it indulges in Jewish supremacism, warmongering & imperialism, politics of paranoia & scapegoating, cult of megalomania, and even genocidal tendencies.) PC hacks hope to shut down debate by screaming ‘racist’, and that is supposed to decide there-and-then that your race-ist views are false and invalid.
But if you do have truth and facts on your side, you should respond to the charge of ‘racism’ by clarifying that your views are, yes, ‘race-ist’ and also true. This way, the term ‘race-ism’ is gradually, step by step, associated with the courageous will to speak the truth and counter the platitudes of PC. Prog idiots use ‘racist’ as shortcut to invalidate those who won’t get on with the program, and they gained much power by convincing so many people that, yes indeed, any view about racial differences had to be about irrational ‘hatred’ and ‘supremacism’.

And PC got the upperhand because even people with rational and sane views on race, upon being accused of ‘racism’, denied the charge and tried to explain themselves on ground of science and facts. But the fact is they never had a useful term for their rational position on race. Because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been defined to mean something extreme(and possibly the most evil thing in the universe), people with rational views on race simply didn't know how to characterize their positions. Perhaps, they could have used the term ‘genetist’(as opposed to geneticist who is a researcher of genetics). A genetist could mean someone who believes in the genetic or biological roots of human existence. But ‘genetist’ is too broad and would apply to all life forms. As we are mostly involved with human affairs, it made sense to winnow down to categories and concepts with the greatest relevance to us. And race is of great importance because evolution has been at work to create different human groups that really do vary generally in appearance, body size, intelligence, strength, speed, temperament, and other factors. Therefore, we must stick to the term that addresses the reality of race, and that term must be race + ism or race-ism. If race is real(and it is), then it means there are real differences among races. That is the truth, and we prefer the truth over falsehood. So, it means we are race-ist and truthful. Then, if some PC dog barks at us and accuses us of ‘racism’, we must simply say that, yes, our positions are race-ist-and-true. PC dolts assume that the mere accusation of ‘racism’ has a magically discrediting and disinfecting effect on people who espouse 'hateful' views.

But they are unprepared to deal with people who dare to point out that race-ism = truth. If we stand our ground and insist that our views are race-ist-and-true, then the other side will find itself in a bind. They are so used to ‘winning arguments’ with that magic word ‘racist’ that they've grown mentally lazy. Our enemies are accustomed to people cowering or backing down because PC has long held that ‘racism’ = extreme views on race = falsehood.
But we can easily demonstrate that race-ism is valid and true. Facts are really on our side. Races do exist, and the differences are not just skin-deep. So, our race-ism is rational and sane. Furthermore, because we have the facts on our side, our views are race-ist-and-true. Because we stand our ground and associate race-ism with truth, it is now up to the PC side to prove that our race-ist views are untrue. But this is difficult because the evidence of racial differences is so everywhere and so obvious. Furthermore, the advancement of genetic science is beginning to prove that differences among racial groups go the roots of our DNA.
So, there you go, the idea of Race-ist-and-True will be difficult to beat. Then, the next time you are accused of ‘racism’ by PC dogs and dolts, don’t cower and sweat as you try to persuade them that you’re not ‘racist’. Instead, tell them that your views are Race-ist-and-True. Insist that truth is on your side precisely because you are a race-ist who has the will and courage to look at the world with honest eyes. See what happens.

Why I’m the Only True Race-ist - How Misuse of Terminology confuses Meanings - We need to go Cold Jive Turkey on Magic Negro Myth - Why Everyone is a race-ist even if unknowingly or subconsciously

The term ‘Racism’ blurs ‘race’ and ‘ism’ and confuses people. The proper spelling should be race-ism. That way, people would be more aware of the true meaning of the word. ‘Race’ means race and ‘Ism’ means belief. So, race + ism = belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

So, I say I am a race-ist. Ism means belief, therefore race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief, creed, conviction, or thought system. Now, race-ism can become radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Nation of Islam or even extreme strains of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are on factual basis and for their psycho-social implications.

The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined by the Powers-that-be to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such way, it negates the possibility of formulating a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because the neutral formula of race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred(especially among white folks), it’s difficult to conceive of an objective term about belief in race reality. I suspect the term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term about race would be near-impossible. If ‘racism’ means hateful racial supremacism, what would be the proper term for belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and need for racial identity and consciousness? Some defensively use ‘racialism’ and ‘race realism’, but even those terms become tainted because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been associated with the Worst Evil.

Suppose I define ‘heliocentrism’ as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such meaning should be called ‘helio-supremacism’ or ‘helio-chauvinism’. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if ‘heliocentrism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term denoting the centrality of the Sun in the Solar system becomes difficult to conceive.

Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest and superduperest things in the cosmos and deserve supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as thinking-and-feeling beings on the planet.
But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity over the entire planet or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all extraterrestrials must bow down to human earthlings.
Such an outlook should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania, NOT humanism. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for human + ism to mean something extreme, maniacal, or demented. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist baggage.

But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that crazy?

Same goes for ‘nationalism’. It should mean belief in, loyalty to, and defense of one’s nation as historical entity and cultural homeland. Now, nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as national + ism simply means belief in loyalty to one’s own nation. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and inheritance. But the PC media have defined ‘nationalism’(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme or ‘far right’. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘neo-nazi’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with hatred and supremacism when, in fact, it is the globalists who HATE the sovereign right of nations to survive and preserve themselves.
So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting the rights of other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ when it’s George Soros who is the real Prince of Darkness. When something as sound as basic nationalism is defined so radically, it sucks out all the air in the room for a normal and balanced definition. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’(that actually turned imperialist and violated the nationalisms of other peoples), then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it creates a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been rendered extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term RACE-ISM to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness. Thus far, I’m the only true race-ist.

As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. America has gone way past the struggle for legal equality for minorities. The new dominant theme is about how we must all bow down before black chauvinism and Jewish supremacism. For example, when a white person is called ‘racist’, it now means ‘kiss black ass’. When he is called an ‘anti-Semite’, it means ‘kiss Jewish ass’.
Daring to say NO to blacks and Jews or daring to NOTICE negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence is anathema in the Current Year when ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are used as bludgeons against anyone who won’t play the game.

So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superiors and Jews as rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superiority, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an "extreme animus against homos who are only minding their own business" has come to mean the "refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos". So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to participate in a homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is deemed ‘homophobic’ and targeted for political extinction. Or, if a Church says NO to homo colors and banners, it must be ‘homophobic’ too. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus because ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological & panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny genital mutilation. In our demented Jew-run society, even laughing at homos or finding homo community to be ridiculously funny is ‘homophobic’.)
Those three terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. The Holy Three, the Blacks, Jews, and homos have become arrogant and contemptuous because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro demigods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him ‘Caitlyn’.
In a way, Milo represents the fusion of the Holy Three, and if he weren’t so politically correct, he would be the darling of the SRS(self-righteous supremacist) circuit. He is Jewish, Homo, and accepts only Negro dong up his bung. He also looks a bit ‘Aryan’, which can’t hurt because, despite all the anti-white-bashing, the ‘Aryan’ aesthetic still has great iconic value. Jews, browns, and blacks lust after ‘Aryan’-looking women despite all their yammering about ‘diversity’.

So often, the problem of meanings derives from the willful or misguided abuse of terminology. The ‘ism’ of ‘racism’ was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
From the start, blind racial animus or hostility should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc.

Worse, the problem wasn't just the wrongful definition but the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ that came to be associated with the term, especially via the electronic media. While dictionaries offer verbal definitions, the political potency of certain terms derives from the term’s association with sensationalized images and sounds. This is why the term ‘racism’ has special potency in relation to blacks. Hollywood, PBS, and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of association between ‘racism’ and American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians, which is inconvenient to Jewish Zionists. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s WESTERN deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of what had been the most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s a faint sense of injustice but no real outrage. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, Traumatic Muslim, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. There is little sympathy for Palestinians among Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba and the Occupation. Palestinian tragedy hasn’t been made into TV series, movies, protest songs, and popular books. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their hearts and minds haven’t been filled with the iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of sounds and images of Palestinian victimhood. Public opinion could change overnight. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I kill for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matters a tremendous deal. Consider the movie E.T. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend a little boy. But Spielberg’s movie made E.T. so lovable, and so many adults and children were swept up with emotions for the warm cuddly creature from heaven. So, even though there are 100s of millions of REAL PEOPLE suffering all over the world, many Americans felt more compassion for a fictional space creature than for, say, Palestinians under Zionist Occupation. No less fantastical than E.T. is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as a divine god figure.) So, what matters is not just the control of terms but control of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. Images like that are baked into our minds. It’s like Mel Brooks’ movie BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of a ‘nigger sheriff’, the Negro cowboy’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though some of us eventually grow out of Magic Negro Myth, it takes some effort because we all imbibed so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It takes time and effort to wean ourselves from Negropiate. We gotta go Cold Jive Turkey.


What we must do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective, or it be a form of radical racism and be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism about blacks would realize that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to intelligence, whites generally have the edge and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and raw power, blacks have the superiority and advantage.
So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Without manhood, white men will lose his soul, and white women will lose respect for white men and go for ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The only place for white males in a world racially integration with black is cucky-wuckery. Does any self-respecting white man want to be like CucKen Burns? This is why the white race needs SAFE SPACE from black thuggery.

Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manly pride. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Colin Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why white cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how many racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know the changes were extensive. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.

Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and was twisted to justify horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an Ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety or will always lead to horrors. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath-water. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t mean that socialism has NO value. Socialism has real value in right doses and with proper implementation. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist because they support things like public libraries and Social Security. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain common needs and guarantees.

Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America DOES notice race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter, and that’s why they are so rich and influential. Things get confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed as ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed as ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief of race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power to exploit us”, that is ‘antisemitic’. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, that is anti-antisemtic or ‘philosemitic’. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised.

But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept? The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child must have emergency brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got it through grade inflation of a ‘caring’ professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are going to sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.

Also, why do ‘anti-racist’ progs feel more compassion for certain races than for others? Why has there been far more concern for Jews than for Palestinians since WWII? Because of the iconography of Anne Frank and Shoah, and also because people associate Jews with great scientists, humorists, doctors, and thinkers. In contrast, their image of a Palestinian is some street urchin tossing rocks or some woman making funny sounds with her tongue. ?esthetics and iconology matter(and it goes way beyond ‘optics’).

And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, moderate left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is denounced as ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are more likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow pooters. Now, ideologically, these people may stick with PC dogma, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellows are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, even-tempered, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yabbity-dabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery. So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

So, if we are to be honest, we must fix the terminology, and we must demonstrate that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he won’t be so scared because he has a good chance of beating up Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same. The more muscular Negro can beat him up.

James Watson and E.O. Wilson on Charles Darwin