To Combat Globalism, Whites in the West Must Restore their Own Nationalism, Not Attack Chinese(and Russian) Nationalism — Globalism Is Essentially a Jewish Creation and Tool, and Jews Suppress White Identity Necessary for White National Liberation in the West

https://vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-globalization-meant-sinification-until-china-virus-intervened

Using the Covid-29 crisis to push nationalism against globalism is good and sound.

Oddly enough however, so-called nationalists in the West are attacking Chinese Nationalism. But if Chinese being nationalist is wrong, it then follows that nationalism itself is wrong. And that means West shouldn't be nationalist like China(and Russia)... which is self-defeating to nationalists.

China used globalism for nationalist purposes. It believes in China First.
And Western nations should use the World Order for their own national interests.
But when people in the West attack Chinese nationalism, they are attacking nationalism itself. It's like Tucker Carlson denouncing China for being 'ethno-nationalist'. Funny coming from someone who opposes immigration on grounds that all of US will turn into California. (But his confused or hypocritical self is full of praise for Zionist ethno-imperialism.)

Russia has shown that a nation can be nationalist and work with China. China has never been opposed to other nations being nationalist. China and Russia get along despite tensions(historical and geopolitical) because both understand and respect each other: Russia uses the alliance for Russian interests, China uses the alliance for Chinese interests. Russia is okay with Chinese nationalism, China is okay with Russian nationalism... as long as neither goes imperialist on the other.

So, why not follow the Russian model? What does Russia do? It pursues Russian nationalism without denouncing Chinese nationalism. That way, Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism can co-exist side by side. They can hammer out differences and compromise on certain matters on basis of mutual understanding.

The problem isn't Chinese nationalism or even Chinese globalism. Pakistan and Iran are far less rich and powerful than the US, but they maintain their sovereignty vis-a-vis China. They trade and cooperate on certain interests without surrendering their power to China. Even impoverished North Korea(with 1/40th of the economy of South Korea) has managed to do its own thing in defiance of China.

But we are to believe that the rich and mighty West has been helpless to stop Chinese power and influence? ROTFL. True, Chinese business interests have moved aggressively into Canada and Australia, but whose fault is that? Anglos turned into a bunch of worthless cucks who measure everything in terms of money and 'woke' virtue-signaling about 'muh diversity'.
What did Sun Tzu say in the Art of War? Power is like water. It generally runs into open spaces. So, when Anglo nations went cucky-wuck and opened themselves to Chinese people and money, guess where a lot of people and money went? China didn't forcibly invade the West(like the West once did against China). Rather, Canada and Australia freely opened themselves up to Chinese people and money(as well as to Hindus, Arabs, and even thuggish Sudanese blacks).

But why did Anglos go from proudly race-ist and nationalist — Canada and Australia used to have WHITE ONLY immigration policies — to globalist, 'anti-racist', cucky-wuck, and pro-diversity? Why did Anglos allow Africans and Muslims to take over entire parts of London? Because Mao sent his Red Guard hordes to conquer them? Because Jackie China and Bruce Lee's ghost led an army of kung fu warriors to invade the West? No, because Anglos let Jews take over the West, and Jew filled white minds with 'white guilt', jungle fever, self-loathing, diversity-mania, and 'muh restaurant' lunacy.

Jews made Anglos cuck to the Other(the Primary Other being Jews of course). Once Anglos got into the habit of cucking to Jews, it was only a matter of time before other groups followed the Jewish Lead: Chinese, Hindus, Arab Sheiks, illegals from Latin America, the African invasion, etc. They all learned to chant 'diversity' and 'racism' to gain increased entry into the rich and clean West. And as white minds were colonized by Jewish PC, whites just nodded along. Keep in mind that until Donald Trump came along, 'nationalism' was a dirty word among nearly all Western elites, intellectuals, journalists, and managerial class.

Russia showed what a nation can do. Russia partly regained national sovereignty from Jewish globalist oligarchs. It has operated on basis of nationalism(relative to the rest of Europe) since. So, when it deals with China, it is on the basis of Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism respecting each other. Russia doesn't have to vilify China, and China doesn't have to vilify Russia.

But US, Canada, UK, and Australia are without Anglo sovereignty. Anglos(like Derbyshire himself) are sorry cucks to Jewish Globalists. If Anglos had sense, they wouldn't opt for anti-Sinicism. Rather, they would argue that white nations must be like China, Russia, and Iran in regaining national sovereignty and operating on the basis of national interest. This can be done without anti-Chinese rhetoric as Russia proved. Initially, China respected Trump as a tough-talking nationalist. Chinese nationalism can work with other nationalisms. Alas, Trump turned into just a cuck to Jews who talks nationalism but engages in continued US globo-homo hegemonism and imperialism. (Also, as Deep State operatives are addicted to the hyper-power game of globalist-imperialism, they despise nationalism as 'small potatoes'. For them, the only game that matters is the globalist contest of world domination. So, instead of envisioning a future where American Nationalism and Chinese Nationalism co-exist peacefully, they can only think in terms of American globalist supremacism vs Chinese globalist supremacism. They project their own supremacism onto others. It's like Jews project all their pathology onto Russia. The difference is China wants to trade with the world but has no interest in spreading 'Chinese values' or 'Chinese ideology', whereas American missionary impulse, Anglo imperial-adventurism, and Jewish supremacism are addicted to transforming the entire world.)

It's weird how Anglo nations are many times richer than Russia(that is strong in military but weak in economy) but politically many times weaker. The West is like one big Hong Kong under British Rule: Rich but a puppet of the Brits. Today, Anglo nations are rich but political and ideological colonies of Jews. When China deals with Russia, it is with a second-rate economic power but a first-rate political power. When China deals with the West, it is with a first-rate economic power but a third-rate political power. Just look at Justin Trudeau or the female leader of New Zealand. Even tough-talking Trump regularly takes it up the ass from Jews and acted as their hitman in the murder of hero Soleimani, the Iranian patriot who's been battling terrorists in Syria. All such Western goy politicians are mere tools and puppets of Jews. But Jews are so powerful that they can hide their power, and goy-cucks play along with the hope that, if they suck up to Jews just one more time, Jews will be nice to them. So, white 'liberals' blame Russia for everything, and white 'conservatives' blame China for everything. Jewish Power manipulates and corrupts US politics, but we had three long years of Russia Collusion nonsense. Jews control US institutions, but we now get 'China Inc or Chinc. controls everything'. It's downright hysterical.

There was a time when the West was both a first-rate political and first-rate economic power. White Christian elites ruled, and they were united as one people with white Christian masses. But over time, Jews took over, and white elites became managerial cucks serving the Jewish globo-homo agenda. And white masses were to be replaced by White Nakba, race-mixed with jungle fever & bamboo fever, and/or killed off with opioids(sold by Jews who once sold opium to the Chinese). Then, the cure is obvious: White Liberation from Jewish supremacism. Unity of white elites and white masses. Nationalism like in Hungary. But we hear NONE of this from the likes of Tucker Carlson. All we get is blaming China for globalism that is really the tool of Jews. The truth is China is prepared to deal with nationalist white nations. Rise of nationalism in White Nations may be disadvantageous to China in certain areas, but Chinese are not ones to tell white nations what to do. (The 'woke' anti-white Chinese in the West are the products of Western PC media and academia controlled by Jews. Chinese in China tend to despise the 'white left'.) They will adapt to the new reality. The one group that is most hostile to revival of nationalism in white nations is the Jews. This is why Jews are now urging whites not to restore nationalism in white nations but to attack Chinese nationalism as the source of globalism's problems. By blaming Chinese NATIONALISM, snuff nationalism in the West as well.

The problem is Anglos are doing NOTHING about the source of US enslavement to globalism: Jewish Power. If anything, they are pretending China is the master of globalism and forced globalism on the West. This is total nonsense. Jews pushed globalism on the West. Jews urged big business in the West to dump on their own workers and send factories to Mexico & China and outsource to India. Jews in Silicon Valley invited all those Hindus. Jewish New York Times hires Hindu and Chinese 'woke' scholars to dump on whites. China didn't create this World Order but merely took part in it. Also, despite all the corruption and brutality of current China, it did make real products and shipped them to other nations, which did a helluva lot more for the world than Jews in Wall Street making trillions via financial manipulation.

If Anglos followed the Putinist model, they could bring back white pride and white-majority nationalism in the West. And then, they could deal with China on the basis of mutual respect. If China currently doesn't respect whites, it's because whites cuck to Jews. Chinese know Jews rule the West. And as whites are cucks of Jews, whites adopted Open Borders and can't say NO to mass immigration-invasion. So, if whites want pride and power back, they must come to terms with Jewish Power. But whites are so in awe of Jews(and so frightened of them) that they are in Alex Jones mode: Jones was deplatformed by Jews but blames the 'Chicoms' for his woes, perhaps in the hope that if he grovels before Jews by blaming everything on China, his accounts will be restored in Jewish-monopolistic platforms.

Whites must blame Jews for globalism. Whites must restore nationalism and white identity by pushing back against Jewish Power. But people like Tucker Carlson and John Derbyshire suck up to Jews... even though Jews hate them most. (It's like Jared Taylor has been denied Twitter and Paypal by Jews, but the fool censors anyone who speaks truth to Jewish Power at American Renaissance.) Jews even fund Antifa that went to Carlson's house and threatened his family. Derbyshire has been de-personed in journalism because Jews smeared him as 'white supremacist'.

Instead of confronting Jews to regain white identity and white-majority nationalism, whites are attacking Chinese nationalism. White 'conservatives' attack Chinese nationalism and white 'liberals' attack Russian nationalism. But if nationalism is bad, then it must be bad for the West too. But if nationalism is bad for China, Russia, and the West, how do we counter and control globalism?

White people need to restore nationalism and come to terms with Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism(and Iranian nationalism and etc), but instead they blame China for globalism while being utterly amnesiac about the fact that the West embarked on globalism that was created by Jews and Anglo-traitors. If whites don't restore nationalism and merely blame China for globalism, then the result will be continued globalism, especially as the REAL source of globalism goes unmentioned: Jewish Power.

Also, if the West is to pursue nationalism, it must give up on imperialism. It is downright hypocritical for the West to bitch about China(and Russia) when the US and NATO invaded and destroyed nations in Middle East and North Africa in Wars for Israel. It is Trump, tool of Jews, who is interfering in Venezuela. Also, how many Chinese naval bases surround the US? How many US military bases surround China? Who created the mess in Ukraine by instigating a coup?

Wittingly or not, John Derbyshire is merely a shill of Jewish globalists who are trying to blame China for the World Order that Jews have created. If nations like US, Canada, and Australia were to go nationalist and ban further Chinese immigration and investment, China will accept the policies and learn to live with them. It is Jews who will go crazy and denounce white nations as 'racist', 'xenophobic', and 'nazi' at the slightest whiff of white majority interests. It's the Jews and castrated white cucks who insist that even the sentiment "It's Okay to be White" is 'racist'. Has China or Russia denounced Viktor Orban and Hungary? No, all the hatred comes from Jews, and those Jews are well-served by Anglo-cucks who now bark like dogs at the feet of their Jewish masters.

Why Richard Dawkins is a Worthless Pile of Garbage — An Atheist's View of why Dawkins is Pure Poison

These notes are about Richard Dawkins, the much-celebrated British Evolutionist, in response to an article by Laurent Guyonet.

https://www.unz.com/article/enshrining-god-in-the-constitution-robespierres-great-idea/

...the principle of authoritative revelation is not the main factor involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The content of the revelation is critical. I believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as “God” in the Old Testament. Yahweh’s obscenity has ultimately ruined God’s reputation... Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing, correctly:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]

In his speech on “the relations of religious and moral ideas with republican principles,” read at the Convention six weeks before his death, Robespierre said:

“I know of nothing so close to atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have destroyed him as much as it was in them; […] the priests created a god in their image; they made him jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless.”

Is modern atheism a reaction to the 'disgusting' character of God in the Old Testament? But atheists have no interest in the New Testament God either. Also, has religion gained in strength by becoming more tolerant, forgiving, and flaky? The very nature of religion is to be judgmental, and that's why all 'tolerant' and flaky churches don't last long or they adopt New forms of intolerance, such as globo-homo dogma or 'muh Holocaust' or 'muh Israel'. Religion is intrinsically judgmental and damning because it is the rejection of the body and the material world as fallen, cruel, horrific, and vile. If one were content and satisfied with the body and the world, what need for God, spirit, and heaven? It is because the material world is so imperfect that people conceived of souls as separate from flesh. And this soul could enter Heaven if it were good and obedient to God. Or it could enter Nirvana if it rejected desire and attachment to the material world and the way of the flesh. A non-judgmental religion is ridiculous. Religion is essentially the judgmental condemnation of the body by what we imagine to be the 'soul'. It is rejection of the world in favor of Heaven and Nirvana. It is spiritual utopianism as utopia is impossible in the actual-material world.

Also, I find it unlikely that modern atheists were really put off by the ruthlessness of God in the Old Testament. Secular Social Darwinists were pretty heartless about the poor. Eugenics, another secular movement, believed the undesirables should be removed from the genetic pool. It had no use for the concept of the soul. Also, the great 'historical crimes' of the Christian West weren't based on the Bible but on pure greed, vanity, and adventurism. Even though the Church played a missionary role in imperialism, the real drivers were the profiteers and power-lusters. And consider ancient history. Alexander the Great was a ruthless conqueror-adventurer, and he wasn't inspired by the Jewish God. If anything, whatever one may find in the Torah, Jews were among the least militaristic peoples in ancient times. Not because they were nicer but because they sucked at fighting. Jews figured, Other Peoples may whup our ass physically, but we will whup their ass spiritually. Others will grab more land, but we will conceive of a God greater than all their gods combined. It's true that the Torah speaks of God ordering Jews to carry out mass-killings and the like. But in ancient times, pagans were just as ruthless, if not more so. Assyrians were terrifying. Spartans were bung-donging killing machines. (It goes to show acceptance of homosexuality does NOTHING to ensure a more humanitarian point of view. Some historians surmise Frederick the Great was a closet-homo, but he was among the most aggressive German rulers. Also, homos today are all over CIA, NSA, & Deep State, and they are among the most enthusiastic pushers of globo-imperialism. They love to play the world like a sex toy and cackle with glee at the horrors in Syria. Besides, though homos started out pleading for tolerance, once they gained dominant power in alliance with Jews, they've pushed globo-homo Queertianity as the new dogma that must be obeyed. Once a secular force in society, globo-homos are now festooning churches and even mosques with 'gay' colors.) National Socialists, Japanese imperialists, Soviet imperialists, and etc. proved time and time again that people can be just as crazy in service to secular ideology or pagan mythology. I don't think the Chinese in Nanking were fleeing in horror because Japanese were running around with Bibles and sermonizing.

As for Richard Dawkins, a fine biological scientist but moronic social scientist, he acts like the god of the Current Year. Whatever happens to be most PC in the present must be true and just for all times. His litany of complaints about God is truly hilarious. He's such a vain dolt that he is utterly unaware of how his brand of atheism is just as judgmental as old-time religion. He's so arrogant, contemptuous, sneering, sniveling, smug, and full of hot air. His personality is more despicable than that of any deity. Oh, he knows best, he knows everything, he is so very rational, he is all about facts and truth while those who disagree are all morons and monsters. What a prick.

I've always been an atheist but can't stand people like Dawkins who are really into self-worship and auto-cult-of-personality.

Let's consider some of his complaints.

1. God is jealous and proud of it. By 'jealous', it is meant that He is possessive. But then, why shouldn't He be? If He is the supreme Lord and the Creator of all, of course He would be jealously possessive of what He created. It means God is a great environmentalist. He created the cosmic and worldly environment, and He is jealous and possessive of the creation. He doesn't want it to be ruined, polluted, or befouled by sin and degeneracy. God created mankind and imbued humans with souls. Naturally, He sees mankind as His property because He created it. So, He wants mankind to be appreciative and not pollute their souls with sin.
If you had magical powers and created an oasis, a beautiful garden, out of the thin air, wouldn't you be 'jealous' and possessive of it? And if you created creatures to inhabit the garden, wouldn't you want them to take good care of it and heed your laws? What is the point of being the Great Creator and Owner of the universe if you're not possessive of what you've made?

2. God is a petty, unjust, and unforgiving control-freak. Now, some of this criticism is valid because, after all, what is God or any bunch of gods but a projection of human nature and human personality? So, naturally what we find objectionable in God is a mythic reflection of our failings and our problems. Every pagan god is far from perfect. Zeus is often petty and nasty. Also, many pagan gods were far more frightening than the Jewish God. After all, Yahweh said no more to human sacrifice and that sort of thing. In contrast, certain pagan gods demanded human sacrifice, especially in the New World among the Aztecs and Mayans. I dunno, but I'll take the Jewish God over such pagan gods. Does Dawkins really believe the God of the Torah is worse than pagan gods who demanded human sacrifices of virgins or kids or thousands of captives?

Now, one problem with the Jewish God is the assertion of perfection. With pagan gods, as nasty-vicious-vile-petty-demented-sadistic-cruel they may be, they never claimed to be perfect. So, with a figure like Zeus, we can see his good sides and his bad sides. As for dark gloomy gods who demand tons of human sacrifice, they may be amoral or even immoral, but at least we know they aren't about justice. They are about POWER. They got it and flaunt it, and they demand we obey. In contrast, the problem with the Jewish God is the cult of perfection that, however, is undermined by Biblical evidence. If indeed God is so perfect and all-knowing, why does He contradict Himself so often in the Torah? Why does He say one thing here, another thing there? Why is He about love and forgiveness at certain times but about death and destruction in another? In a way, the history of Judaism(and even Christianity) has been the dialectics between (1) God's Word and God's Character (2) God's Promise and God's Deliverance. Of course, there is contradiction even within God's words as He says one thing through one prophet and another thing through another. Jews and others have tied themselves in mental knots to rationalize these contradictions: (1) The Scriptures are not infallible but flawed interpretations of God's way and will by prophets who could see further than most men but nevertheless fell short (2) Though God's ways manifest themselves in various and seemingly contradictory ways on the surface, they are all consistent and part of the plan at the deeper core (3) God really isn't perfect but fooling Himself and us (4) God speaks to us in ways that we understand, but His ultimate plan is too mysterious for us to understand rationally or through human faculty... much like mankind cannot really understand the mystery in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. (Some people wonder how God could be perfect but His Creation is so imperfect. If He is perfect, why did He fail to create perfection? But maybe one could argue that it is perfect as whole, and paradoxically the 'imperfections' of the parts are integral to the perfection of the whole. It's like a painting. When we look closely at any part of the painting, it looks blurry and crude, even ugly and messy. Yet, when we move back and see the painting as a whole, we realize how each 'crude' brushstroke played a role in creating the great painting. Same goes for music. The final score is the coming together of all the 'imperfect' elements of music. So, for the cosmos to be perfect, it has to be made up of 'imperfect' parts. Not everything can be perfect because most things are part of something bigger. Perfection connotes wholeness, and no part on its own can be perfect alone. It is imperfect and works with other imperfect parts in the creation of the larger perfection.)

Now clearly, if we were to characterize God or gods as nothing more than projection of human nature/personality onto the universe, the deity/deities would merely be a bundle of magnifications of all that is noble and ignoble about us. Our good sides would be magnified but so would our bad sides. And on that level, there is a pettiness in all conceptions of God. On the one hand, they are so grand and awesome, the kings of mountains, skies, and stars. We want gods to be glorious and impressive. But to the extent that even such magnificent beings are slaves of all-too-human vices and vanities, there will be a massive contradiction between their august construction and all-too-human behavior. Zeus is a great god but is often animated by Beavis-and-Buttheadian 'boing'-mania. He is the god of gods but acts like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.

What is fascinating about the Old Testament is the dialectics among the various prophets, poets, and writers as to the true and ultimate nature of God. In a way, such dialectics were possible only because of the contradiction between the concept of God's perfection and evidence to the otherwise. Did God fail Jews and humanity? Or did Jews and humanity fail God? Did God betray the promise or did Jews/humanity violate the promise? Was the vision of God by every prophet merely a piece in the larger puzzle? Like the US Constitution, the Torah is a record of amendment. Just like there was talk of making the US a 'more perfect union', the Jewish project was about making their God a 'more perfect God'. While the notion of the Jewish God as perfect could be said to be delusional and arrogant, it also made Jews more sensitive to the failures of God(or of themselves, which were maybe the reason why God failed to deliver His promise). If Jews were okay with a flawed god(as the pagans were), they would have been less worked up about the contradiction between their spiritual conception and their political condition in the world. Jews came to believe their God is the only God who, furthermore, chose Jews as His favorite. If God is just and perfect, why is the world, His Creation, so flawed? If Jews are the Chosen, why do they suffer so much? Why can't Jews be masters of the world over goyim and eat like effendi? (Today, Jews are masters over goyim and eat like effendi, but this came about through Jewish adherence to secular satanism.) These questions made Jews a deep and profound people who raised among the most important spiritual questions. It also made them a difficult and neurotic people, rather like Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN trying to crack the mystery of "Who's On First?"

Anyway, the fact that most pagan religions turned into empty rituals, boring customs, or the butt of jokes(like what became of Greek Mythology via Ovid) whereas Jewish religion kept raising questions and even spawned Christianity and Islam goes to show that the Jewish conception of God was more powerful, provocative, inspiring, and meaningful. And despite all the dogmatism, it was adaptable in the sense that God went increasingly from an anthropomorphic super-being to a conceptual spirit, an abstract Deity.
In a way, Dawkins' real beef with Judaism-Christianity-Islam is that its God was conceived of as a meme that cannot be dis-proven and has appealed to humanity for eons. With modern science/education, it's impossible for any rational person to believe in Zeus, Thor, or Osiris. As gods with specified dimensions, they now seem like characters in a superhero comic book. But God has been conceived of as a Being that is, at once so accessible and so mysterious. He can listen to our prayers and cares for us; but He is so great and mysterious that we cannot imagine what He looks or sounds like. Dawkins came up with the concept of memes, and as a radical rationalist, he can't stand the fact that an irrational meme still has such power over the world. But then, even as he spouts off about evolution, he seems blind to how spirituality may have been an evolutionary advantage for mankind. Religion gave people hope and meaning, and surely those with hope and meaning are more likely to believe in the future. Even today, why is it that religious people tend to have more kids than secularists who believe there is no meaning to anything? Secular science is superior at identifying issues and solving problems. It sent men to the Moon. But it tells us nothing about the meaning of the universe and why we are here. In all likelihood, there is no meaning to the cosmos, but such fatalism hardly makes for hope and survival.

Dawkins says God is unforgiving, but is He? Adam and Eve disobeyed Him, but He let them live. Cain murdered his brother, but God protected him. When Ham saw his pa Noah naked, God didn't kill him but turned him into a Negro. Given white folks now worship Negroes, that wasn't such a bad deal. When God was about to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He listened to Abraham and was willing to compromise. Even though so many people were acting like proto-globo-homo tooters, God promised to spare the city IF Abraham could find just a few decent folks. God even sent angel-inspectors to look for evidence, but they were greeted by a bunch of degenerates yelling, 'squeal like a pig'. That's when God had just about enough and decided to blow the city up. Throughout the Old Testament, God is forgiving of Moses, David, and many others... as long as they face up to their own failings. He punishes Jews but forgives them over and over. God is often ruthless but also forgiving.
At any rate, He could change His mind because He was the only God. There is actually less forgiveness among the gods in pagan myths. Whereas the Jewish God might hate you but then forgive you, pagan gods generally hate someone forever. So, if that someone is to survive, he needs the protection of other gods who favor him. If Hera hates you, it is likely permanent. If you survive, it's because some other gods grant you protection. Thus, pagan mythology is more political than moral. It's about balancing of powers. In contrast, the Jewish God is capable of changing His mind. He can go from judge to reformer. He can be executioner but change His mind and let you live. Some say what He did with Abraham and Isaac was pretty frightening, but a pagan god might have demanded the sacrifice of lots of young boys. God let Isaac live because, when push came to shove, He wanted to be worshiped as a good God than just a powerful God.
Also, the fact that Judaism spawned Christianity goes to show there was an element in the former that was about love and forgiveness. If such an element hadn't been inherent in Judaism, there could have been no Christianity.

By the way, is Dawkins aware of his own contradiction? He has often condemned 'antisemitism' but then argues that the Jewish Spiritual Worldview(that also led to Christianity and Islam) has been the biggest curse upon mankind. If the main cultural, moral, and spiritual contribution of Jews has been so rotten, vile, and disgusting, shouldn't Dawkins agree with 'anti-Semites' that Jewish People have been the worst in all of human history? Also, if mythology is the collective representation of the spirit of a people and if Jewish mythology is the vilest in the world, doesn't it follow that Jews must have the worst human character since it led to the creation of the worst credo and belief system? Now, Dawkins may argue that he is opposed to biological antisemitism and okay with Jews as secular people. If so, why not demand that Jews give up on Jewishness, an identity that simply cannot be divorced from the religious history of Jews? Even secular Jews have an identity rooted in the Covenant with God. Also, if Jews suffered through the ages, it was because they insisted on their difference and even superiority based on the Covenant. So, the very notion of Jewishness should be condemned if Dawkins wants to be morally consistent.

Furthermore, what if the vileness of Jewish religion isn't merely the reflection of Jewish Imagination gone wrong but of Jewish personality itself? Maybe the problem wasn't in the spiritual vision but in the roots of personality, in attitude and mindset. Could it be God is especially arrogant, all-knowing, ruthless, judgmental, and vain because Jewish personality tends to be that way? As an evolutionist, Dawkins might ponder the relation between secular Jewish personality and the ideologies/agendas that sprung from it. Couldn't one argue that modern secular Jews, even without belief in God, tended to have personalities of the monomaniacal and megalomaniacal variety(that one encounters in the Torah)? Personality and attitude go a long way. A person with bland personality is likely to be less fiery and fanatical even with religion; in contrast, a person with strong personality is likely to have a god-complex even if he is irreligious — Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong were non-religious but loved playing gods, even at the cost of destroying millions of lives. And look at Neocons. Most of these Jews are irreligious. Their sense of Jewishness is political and historical than spiritual. But they have strong personalities and are willing to smite 100,000s and even millions of goy lives to fulfill their dream of Jewish Supremacism. So, maybe Dawkins should look more into the problem of personality and attitude than faith.

As for God being a control-freak, I find this hilarious coming from an Anglo, member of a tribe known for its hoity-toity compulsiveness. Also, I see some projection here. Dawkins is a mental control-freak who laments that there are still religious people around the world who refuse to grovel before him as the all-knowing secular genius. And look at current Britain. It has the worst of what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. The culture(which is mostly pop culture) encourages young Britons to emulate savage jungle behavior of blacks. And yet, there are also increased social pressures about how you can't buy knives, you can't tweet certain comments, you can't crack certain jokes, you can't use certain words, you must bend over to globo-homo, you must celebrate Diversity, you must agree that not one less than 6 million died in the Shoah, and etc. Current UK encourages increased levels of savagery that leads to social problems but then exerts more control-freakish state power over everyone in the name of dealing with the problems. Brits are now hoity-toity ho's. How about being sensible and NOT importing lots of blacks and discouraging whites from emulating the most savage race? But no, UK encourages whites to be like blacks and then exerts more state power to suppress the problems resulting from globalism.

3. A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. It is true that God watches over Jews as they leave Egypt and clash with pagan tribes to found their own homeland. The most frightening parts of the Old Testament is when God orders the Jews to wipe out entire enemy populations. But here's the thing. Why pretend this is a feature only or mainly of the Jewish God? Those who worshiped pagan gods conquered more and killed more. Romans invaded and killed tons of primitive Britons before they converted to Christianity. Huns, Mongols, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians, and etc. were great conquerors and mass-killers. Alexander the Great has been much romanticized, but he could be as ruthless as any tyrant. All mythologies have gods aiding one people to totally smash another people. The gods defend a people; the gods help a people to invade and take from another people. The Jewish God was no different in this. Still, there are also sides to Him in the Bible that call for mercy, peace, and reflection. The most blood-curdling parts of the Bible is when Hebrews, out of Egypt and in the wilderness, are looking to found their own homeland. It was going to be a bloody process. Now, some historians say that it's all fiction. Others contend Jews did fight and take lands from Canaanites and the like and committed mass blood-baths. But such were common among all peoples at the time, and they all worshiped gods who urged ruthless actions to whup the other side. Still, the blood-curdling God is only one aspect of the Bible, not the main thing.
Besides, modern history shows one doesn't need God and religion to conquer, ethnically cleanse, and wipe out entire populations. While white Christians conquered America & Australia and wiped out native populations, they were mainly motivated by political, material, and economic interests, not religious ones. Sure, they invoked God to justify whatever they did, but they could just as easily have invoked 'progress', 'history', or 'justice'. To most people then, it was justice and progress for advanced white folks to take land from useless savages. Ayn Rand, a fierce atheist, said Jews should rule Zion because Palestinians are useless Arab barbarians incapable of building modern societies. Hitler and Stalin didn't need to invoke God to conquer and destroy entire peoples. Zionism wasn't a religious movement as its pioneers were non-believing Jews, and many were secular socialists. Still, they managed to manipulate the great empires to aid Zionists in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.


4. A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

Too many terms here are subjective and un-scientific. What is meant by 'misogynistic'? From a religious-spiritual point of view, secular pop culture could be said to be 'misogynistic' because it encourages women to dress and act like whores. If by 'misogynistic', Dawkins means women being subordinate to men, that is nearly all of human history and human culture(and nature as well as most females are weaker than males across the species). Pagan Athens required women to wear veils, and women there were less free than in authoritarian Sparta. Black savage culture has been more expressive in female sexuality, so does that mean stuff like 'twerking' is the path to female 'empowerment' and dignity? By the way, despite open sexual expression among savage black women, male-on-female violence has been a bigger problem among blacks. Greek mythology's view of womenfolk is actually more damning than in the Torah. Though Eve causes great harm, Adam also shares the blame. At any rate, God gave Eve to Adam as a gift and blessing. In contrast, Greek mythology says women were presented to mankind as a curse from the very beginning.

As for 'homophobic', what is more intolerant and judgmental than current globo-homo Queertianity? BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT. Or, if you say you find sodomy to be gross(which it certainly is), forget about working in any elite capacity. Also, even if religious intolerance and judgmentalism toward homos were excessive in the past, it was still intolerance in the name of normality, decency, and health. In contrast, current globo-homo intolerance of so-called 'homophobes' is a denunciation and negation of normality, nature, and decency in the name of consecrating degeneracy and decadence. Some things are worth honoring, and some things are only worth tolerating. Family and natural norms are worth encouraging and defending. Homosexuality is, at best, worth tolerating. NOTHING good can come of homo fecal penetration, guys sucking penises, and tranny-penis-cutting-and-balls-lopping. So, while one could argue that the Old Testament is too excessive in its anti-homo-ness, intolerance of homosexuality still makes more sense than intolerance of normo-sexuality and its natural attitudes toward homosexuality. I mean, why shouldn't a sane, decent, and normal person find homosexuality to be deviant and gross? Also, Ancient Jews lived in tough times when people had to focus on core values and core essentials to survive. They had no time for decadence. Is there any evidence that celebration of homosexuality led to civilizational strength? While Ancient Greeks were smart to harness homo talent, it was never good for any civilization to be overly celebratory of homos as it invariably led to decadence and degeneracy as homos are naturally vain and froopy-doop. They act like those trivialist freaks in Fellini films. Keep them on the side, not at the center.

As the Jewish God was a moral force focused on essentials, it's understandable why He was hostile to homosexuality. His laws were about reminding Jews over and over what really matters, what are essential and what are trivial. Naturally, sticking dongs up bungs was not only non-essential but gross and a good way to spread disease. Imagine you have special powers and you create a garden. And then you mold creatures and tell them, "This orifice you use for eating, this orifice you use for shi**ing', and that orifice you use for sex", but a bunch of freaks decide to stick sexual organs into poop-chutes. Of course, you-as-creator would be upset. Suppose you create a toilet bowl that is meant for pissing and pooping but a bunch of people use it for washing their faces and drinking water. Suppose you build a museum for appreciation for art, but idiots fill up the place with junk and have orgies inside.Of course, you will be upset. Naturally, God wasn't into 'gay' crap because He didn't design the bung for the dong.

Dawkins says God is 'racist'. Well, all gods tended to favor one group over others. But then, what's the point of worshiping a god who doesn't favor your side? Also, non-'racist' gods are not necessarily better. In the Trojan War, it's obvious that the gods whom the Greeks worship are not necessarily with the Greeks. Indeed, half of them favor the Trojans, and this prolongs the war. Would you want to worship a god that sides with your enemy? Greeks did, and it caused them all sorts of problems. Because there was no covenant between Greek gods and Greeks, it wasn't long before Romans took them and made them serve Rome. (Later, Romans took the Jewish God as their own, but Christianity was the doing of Jewish heretics who, Prometheus-like, smuggled the Jewish fire to the pagans, something Jews could never forget or forgive. Jews see it as a bigger failure than Rosenbergs sending nuclear secrets to Stalin who became the enemy of Zion.) But generally, most gods rooted for one people over another. Oftentimes, gods needed to be appeased to stay on your side. Gods also needed to be appeased for good weather. Or appeased so that they won't torment your people too much. Popular Chinese religion imagined heavens filled with corrupt bureaucratic gods who had to be bribed so as not to torture one's ancestors too badly. No wonder Chinese are morally screwy.

So, it seems the 'racism' of the Jewish God wasn't such a bad thing or a bad thing at all. What's wrong with your god favoring your kind? The elites should favor their own people, and gods should favor those who worship them. It's how spiritual contract works: A people worship a certain set of gods, and the gods favor them. British elites used to be grand and excellent as race-ist elites. They favored and cared for their own people. But ever since British elites became 'anti-racist', they've neglected and abused their own folks while sucking up to rich Jews, pandering to angry Muslims, cucking to savage blacks, and welcoming the Great Replacement. Race-ism is infinitely preferable to evil 'anti-racism'.

Granted, there was a contradiction in the Jewish conception of God because Jews increasingly claimed He is the only God and the God of all and everything. If so, why should God favor Jews over others when He is lord of all? So, the problem of the Jewish God has been less about 'racism' than conceptual contradiction, even hypocrisy. If God is the only God and if He is just and moral Being to all living creatures, why should He favor Jews over others when, in fact, Jews can act unjustly while non-Jews could act justly? But this contradiction led to the rise of Christianity and Islam.

At any rate, if Dawkins finds the Jewish God to be most 'racist', he is effectively condemning Jews as historically the most 'racist' people since their cultural character led to the creation of the most 'racist' Deity. As such, one could argue Dawkins' view is rabidly and virulently 'antisemitic', but then, the hypocritical fool makes a lot of noise about how he loathes 'antisemitism'. Following Dawkins' logic, Jews can be good ONLY IF they are culturally and spiritually de-Jewified. Jews must undergo spiritual holocaust to be good folks. They must be castrated of their ethno-spiritual roots. He loves Jews only as un-Jews.

Now, why should an evolutionist be opposed to race-ism? Evolution is about genetic divergences and emergence of differences among groups. Indeed, not only is evolution race-ist but it has been the generator of different species and different races. And these racial divergences can lead to different species. After all, there was a time when the ape-ancestors of humans were of the same species as the ape-ancestors of chimpanzees. But over time, one race of those early apes became chimps while another branch became the apelike proto-humans. So, if Dawkins has a problem with racial differences, he should blame evolution.

Dawkins says God is infanticidal, and it's true that God ordered the killing of kibblers when Jews were battling other tribes to found their land of milk and honey. And in Egypt, prior to the Exodus, He killed the first borns among the Egyptians. But His actions against Egyptians were punishment for Egyptian tyranny over the Jews. And when Jews were battling Canaanites and the like, it was kill or be killed. In other words, infanticide(as extension of genocide) was common practice in the ancient world. Your people, upon defeat and capture, were lucky if spared and kept alive as slaves. Quite often, the conquering folks raped, pillaged, and wiped out entire enemies. So, it's hardly surprising that the Jews, like other tribes, committed bloody acts and justified them as the decrees of their God.
But before we judge the past too harshly, let's look at the modern world. During World War I, British blockades against Germany were a form of Total War. It wasn't just military vs military but targeted the entire population, driving many Germans to the brink of starvation. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the secular 'liberal democratic' West enforced sanctions on Iraq that, by some estimates, killed 100,000s of Iraqi children. To create a new social order, Stalin and Mao were willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the name of History. To his dying day, the much celebrated secular intellectual Eric Hobsbawn remained a proud communist and said Stalin's actions were necessary.
Also, many people see abortion as infanticide, especially as it is now allowed even up to the moment of birth when the baby is virtually fully formed. Also, the Modern West and Modern East are cursed with 'conceptocide' or 'fertilocide'. Never mind killing babies. These societies are not even conceiving and creating life necessary to sustain their civilizations. They live for elitism, individualism, hedonism, and vanity. They are essentially death cults and won't survive the way they're going. Is this what Dawkins so proud of?

Dawkins accusing God of 'megalomania' is rather silly. Megalomania is about having a self-image that is bigger than the actual self. If a nobody considers himself a big man, he is a megalomaniac. If a king regards himself an emperor, he is a megalomaniac. If an emperor considers himself an immortal god, he is a megalomaniac. But God has been conceived of as the supreme creator and ruler of all of universe. Naturally, He would have a grand view of Himself. Should the Creator of All be timid as a mouse? Indeed, the striking feature of God is that, despite His grandeur and awesomeness, He expresses an incredible amount of sympathy for a weakling tribe(in the Old Testament) and losers around the world(in the New Testament). The reason why so many people have clung to God through the ages via Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is because He is, at once super-powerful & almighty AND concerned with the little guy. In contrast, Dawkins worships his own infallible intellect.

Dawkins says God is pestilential. Now, we see what Dawkins' real shtick is about. He is trying to blame God for all the problems of life created by evolution. Since the beginning of life, organisms big and small have been slaughtering, devouring, murdering, tormenting, torturing, trashing, smashing, slashing, gnawing, goring, gouging, pummeling, cracking, smacking, and etc. each other. The theory of evolution may be elegant as a model in a textbook, but its practice in reality has been most brutal and horrific. We may wonder at the beauty of nature, but what we consider to be 'beauty' is really a range of survival mechanisms that were developed over eons via natural selection that weeded out so many 'innocent' organisms in brutal ways. Just watch any nature program, and these non-believing animals are murdering and slaughtering each other to no end. Animals evolved to survive because the natural environment was so unforgiving. In other words, evolution has been utterly genocidal toward all those that failed to survive. Evolution led to rise of all kinds of germs that wiped out entire species. It has been pestilential. Also, the uncaring godless universe sent asteroids to smash into planets and wipe out entire species that had evolved over eons in a single day. That is the godless world of the laws of nature and evolution. Look at chimp behavior. They bite off each other's penises and balls. Look at how big cats kill wild pigs. Look at how polar bears butcher seals and their cubs. Look at how sharks maim turtles. Look at how volcanoes and forest fires burn millions of animals to death. And mankind, with or without God, has been pretty miserable. Look at US policy toward Iran and Palestinians. Has Jewish behavior gotten better without God? Secular Jews gave us communist mass-killings and Neocon wars. Were Japanese less cruel because they didn't believe in the Jewish God? Look at their behavior in World War II. Is secular globalism and open borders the way of peace and justice? They are filling the West with savage jungle-jivers from Africa who are bound to turn Europe into New Africa.

Also, when most people lose religion, do they become rational and sane, or do they adopt a quasi-religion because it's human nature to seek spirituality? Look at the 'climate change' faith. Global Warming may be real, and something needs to be done, but for many people it's the new faith. When Western folks lost God, many more of them took up neo-idolatry of celebrity-worship, drugs, and debauchery than commitment to reason and science, the domain of those with high IQ.
Steven Pinker says the world is getting better and better, but what will happen when tons of black Africans turn Europe into jungle-land? The effect will be worse than WWI and WWII combined. As long as Europe was still inhabited by Europeans, it recovered from both WWI and WWII in no time. But with blacks taking over Europe, it will turn into one big Detroit forever. This should be so obvious to any secular and rational person who cares about facts(that are race-ist), but Dawkins has a quasi-religious blindspot of his own: Political Correctness and 'anti-racism' as new catechism. Not unlike extreme religious bigots with their holier-than-thou sanctimony, the PC people are so theatrical and rapturous with their holy-shmoly 'anti-racism' when, in fact, the reality of race is so obvious and the black threat is so dire to the West.

Dawkins says God is sadomasochistic, but this goes for Dawkins and his ilk too. They're oh-so masochistic with 'white guilt' BS. Oh boo hoo, they must atone for their history of 'antisemitism' and 'racism'. But as GOOD WHITE PEOPLE SAVED BY PC, they sadistically love to bully other whites who refuse to kneel at the altar of White Guilt and debase themselves like a bunch of worthless cucks. In this, Dawkins is very much like the religious people he abuses. Just like certain insufferable Christians yammer about their sinfulness but feel morally superior precisely because they churn out such noises, Dawkins bleats about 'racism' but that very bleating fills him with the moral pride and arrogance to stick it to others.

Dawkins is a real pile of shit. As for Jews, they could be promoting Dawkins to dissuade goyim from worshiping God so that Jews can reclaim and own Him all for themselves. If someone owns gold and you want it, it makes sense for you to make him believe that his gold is worthless pile of crap. When he lets it go, you run off with it. So, Jewish support of Dawkins could really be a gambit.

God and gods never existed. They didn't give us life. Life emerged by process of evolution and survives by destroying other life. Evolution created life, and that is the curse. God or gods are the imaginary creations of life, and why did intelligent beings imagine gods? Because nature is so horrible. Because life is so full of agony. And this life was created by evolution, the beloved process of Dawkins. Evolution is a pack of hyenas eating a wildebeest alive. It's lions slowly tormenting and killing a hippo mother and its calf. Without life, there would be no terror. If Earth had no life, who'd care if volcanoes or earthquakes happened? So what if a giant asteroid crashed on Earth? The Moon was hit by tons of asteroids, but it was never tragic because there was no life to kill.

Dawkins got it backwards. He blames the Jewish God for cruelty and horrors, but all those resulted from life. Evolution created life, and life is about pain. Why pain? Because pain ensures better survival. An organism that feels pain is more likely to avoid danger. But the pain is often horrid and unendurable. Before mankind came up with the first spiritual idea, tons of life forms were destroyed by eating and devouring, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, germs(that are also just more life), and etc. Life was so terrible and cruel that mankind came up with gods to explain why the world is so messed up. And by ascribing disasters to gods or God, they hoped to ease the horror by prayer and appeasement. It's true that the Old Testament God sends all sorts of disasters on life and mankind. But even before Jews conceived of their God, such disasters had been happening forever. There were floods, pestilence, violence, fires, and destruction. As people sought answers to such problems, they believed some higher force was behind them. And if gods controlled the universe, there were three possibilities.

1. God or gods are powerful but bad. God or gods are cruel and love to use their power for power's sake. They love to stomp on the weak, and that is the reason for the horrors. Therefore, the ONLY way to ease their sadism and cruelty was to make sacrifices and offerings.

2. God or gods are good but powerless. God or gods are good & loving but helpless to stop the disasters to protect or save mankind. They watch and weep but can't help us.

3. God or gods are powerful and good. God or gods are good & loving but use disasters to punish mankind when it does wrong.

Many pagans opted for #1. Aztecs believed in cruel gods that had to be appeased endlessly. Chinese popular religion believed in more civilized gods but they were utterly corrupt and had to be bribed regularly by burning money.

#2 is problematic even if it lets God or gods off the hook because it implies God or gods are rather weak and helpless to do anything. If they are good but lack the power to save mankind from the horrors, what good are they? Indeed, are they really gods when they are so lacking in power?

#3 is the one the Jews settled on. God is powerful and good, and so, He uses Power to protect the good and punish the evil. Jews believed that disasters weren't arbitrary muscle flexing of God but divine moral acts to punish the wicked. But this caused problems of its own as Jews couldn't help but notice that so many good folks suffered and perished while so many bad monsters got rich and powerful. And so, there was the Book of Job and the rise of Christianity that promised Heaven for the good and meek. For all its problems, #3 is still more assuring than #1 and #2.

As for science and evolution, it just says Things Happen, and if an asteroid hits Earth and kills all of us, that means we just ran out of luck, and that's that. I agree with this, but is it any more heartening than religion?

Without Race-ism, Your Nation, Race, and Culture will NOT survive — It's really that simple, and that is precisely why Jews have vilified white race-ism above all else

We've been told by the Jewish-controlled and cuck-managed media and academia that the greatest 'sin' is 'racism'. Now, if by 'racism', they mean blind and mindless hatred and hostility toward other races based on ignorance, arrogance, and contempt, I would agree. But we must ask why Race + Ism has been defined in such manner. 'Ism' means belief, therefore Race + Ism = Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences and/or the need for Racial Consciousness. Race-ism should mean belief and conviction in certain facts, ideas, and principles associated with racial realities. It shouldn't mean the worst possible extreme and radical manifestation of that particular belief system. After all, being a Christian means one embraces the Faith and accepts Jesus as one's savior. Christianity has ranged from extreme theocracy to something approaching New Age flakiness. There have been hardline Christians, moderate Christians, tolerant Christians, and progressive Christians who reinterpret the Bible in startling ways. So, there is no single way to be Christian. But suppose someone defined Christianity by its most extreme expressions and actions. It'd be ridiculous. It'd be like defining 'socialism' by pointing to Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer-Rouge-ism. But in fact, there have been other forms of socialism that weren't tyrannical and ruthless/murderous. Then, how does it make sense to define 'racism' or 'race-ism' only by the extreme actions of the KKK, Nazis, or Nation of Islam? (By the way, the longest radical racism of contempt, paranoia, and hostility is probably certain strains of Judaism and Jewish World View.)

Anyway, I will use the term 'race-ism' to mean belief in the reality of race & racial differences and/or the need for racial consciousness. And by 'race', I also mean sub-race or ethnicity. There is the broad white race of Europeans and then ethnic groups or sub-races such as the Germanics, Slavs, Anglos, Celts, Italians, Greeks, and etc. Now, what do I mean by no race or nation surviving for long without race-ism? I obviously don't mean the people of a nation must act like Nazis and 'invade Poland' and commit mass-killings of the Other. Instead, a people must know that they are unique and particular by blood & genetic inheritance and/or culture & history. Even if whites and blacks were to be raised and instilled with same language and ideology, they would still be different races with unique features, temperaments, and styles. They might learn from each other and borrow ideas from one another, but if either group is to survive as a unique people, it must maintain a general separateness, sovereignty, and autonomy over its own territory and affairs.
Next, even if two peoples are genetically nearly identical, they could have different histories, cultures, customs, and legends that distinguish one from the other. There isn't much genetic distance between Anglos and the Irish, but they have different histories and cultural consciousness. Same is true of Southern Chinese and Vietnamese. Many Greeks and Turks are similar in genetics and blood, but they are culturally and historically separate groups. Same goes for Germans and Swedes, even more so between Norwegians and Swedes. Just because Finns and Russians are both white Europeans doesn't mean that they don't have rich and varied differences in language, culture, and historical narratives. And those differences are what makes the world fascinating. For the world to be colorful and diverse, there must remain distinct nations of peoples and cultures who maintain borders, identities, and territorial integrity.

And that's why no nation, people, or culture will survive without race-ism and culturism: A belief in their racial and/or cultural uniqueness and the conviction to preserve such distinctions. It is by race-ism and culturism that people get to LAY CLAIM to their bios, ethnos, mythos, cultos, and terros. Without such claim, your people own nothing; they have nothing to call their own; everything about them, their lands, their wealth, their culture, their history, and etc. are all toss-up objects for sale at the global flea-market and meat-market. The entirety of your people, culture, land, and history has been turned into mix-and-match items in a Jewish pawnshop. They may continue to exist physically but no longer as the property of your people. Everything about your people now exists to be raided, auctioned off, looted, and passed around the world. Just like cattle exist but don't own their own bodies and therefore are slaughtered, chopped, and sold around the world, your people-culture-and-land will be turned into meat-and-dairy products under globalist hegemony. Cows can't say NO to being slaughtered, butchered, and sold because they don't own their own bodies. They belong to humans-as-either-sellers-or-buyers. They are mere economic units to be bought and sold on the global marketplace. Beef from Argentina may be sold to Mexico, the US, India, China, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and etc. Cows are organisms like we are, but they have no racial consciousness, no culture, no history, and no means to lay claim to anything. They are clueless creatures that eat when fed and don't know they are to be killed, cut up, and cooked for humanity. They cannot connect the dots. If they had human intelligence and means of speech, they would be able to assert themselves.
But then, maybe not. After all, so much of humanity are being turned into faceless & mindless consumers and even commodities(especially as sex objects to be marketed by Jewish shysters) and their identities, cultures, and territories are being robbed from them right under their feet, but they are either unaware of what is happening or deliriously supportive of this process of dehumanization, de-nationalization, and de-culturalization. And even though Jews do the very opposite for themselves while pushing commoditization on the goyim, so many goyim praise and honor Jews as their masters — it's like how the animals on the farm all praise the vile and vicious Pig Elites in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM where the promise of equality caves to the ruthless logic of IQ hierarchy, art of cunning, and Will to Power. It goes to show that human intelligence and consciousness are malleable. Rationally or irrationally, mini-minds and weak wills are warped and manipulated by big minds and strong wills. While all people think and feel, most people 'think' and 'feel' as the elites direct them to. And the big-minded and strong-willed elites of the current West are heinous and hideous Jews.

Possibly, the most effective means by which Jews robbed white goyim of their claims to blood, soil, culture, history, and morality is by using the Jew-run media, academia, and deep state to spread the notion that there is no greater 'sin' than 'racism'. Paradoxically, Jews suppressed white race-ism in order to bolster their own racial supremacism. Jews attack even the slightest show of white identity and interests as 'white supremacist' while compelling whites to mindlessly support what is clearly Jewish racial supremacism as it's quite obvious that Jews aren't content with Jewish national sovereignty in Israel or expression of Jewish interests(among other interests, some of them counter to Jewish interests) in the US. Instead, Jews insist on Zionist imperialist tyranny over Palestinians and use their control of the US to destroy perceived enemies and rivals in the Middle East by sanctions, invasions, and support for terrorism. In the US, Jews will not tolerate Palestinian-American support for BDS or a foreign policy that balances Zionist lobbying with counter interests of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and others. Instead, all of US must be for Jews Uber Alles, Israel First, and Zionic hegemonism over the Middle East and North Africa. And of course, Jews have done everything to destroy or desecrate Christianity with globo-homo Queertianity. Despite Zionists having turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive homo 'pride' parades, the christ-cucks in US churches praise Jews and Israel in the most embarrassing way. As for principled Christians like Rick Wiles who refuse to kneel before Satanic globo-homo Zion, they are censored, banned, and denied service by Jew-monopolies like Youtube and Paypal.

Incredibly, Jews have gotten away with forcing all of us to support their supremacism, imperialism, and hatred by pushing the pretense that they're combating 'white supremacism' and 'antisemitism'. According to Jews, even the slightest sign of white consciousness is 'white supremacist'. Even "It's Okay to be White" must be shut down and investigated by the FBI. And if you call out on Jewish imperialism and Zionist tyranny, you are smeared and destroyed as an 'Anti-Semite'. They are truly a vile and vicious people, the biggest hypocrites and arrogant scoundrels in the world. As far as Jews are concerned, White History has been nothing but one of 'white privilege', 'white racism', 'white supremacism', and etc. And because White History is so tainted with evil and guilt, Jews insist that even a smidgen of white consciousness, let alone pride, is reason for alarm. In other words, whiteness = disease = evil. Whiteness is so toxic and noxious(and apparently infectious to other whites) that it must remain fumigated and quarantined at all times. Even if just a tiny bit is allowed to escape and assert its worth and autonomy, it might spread like a virus and threaten the Jew World Order as all those 'infected' whites will want to burst out of the Jewish-made PC bubble. Whites must be made at all times to believe that they are ACCURSED with whiteness. They were born with a sickness and, as patients infected with evil, they must listen to Jewish social science doctors who tell them that they must show no pride or unity in their whiteness. If anything, whites must welcome mass-immigration-invasion, the Great Replacement or White Nakba, and massive race-mixing. Whites must all be turned into brown people like those of Latin America or North Africa. Having mixed blood, there shall no longer be proud white consciousness that may stand up to Jewish perfidy. And Jews figure that even if anti-Jewish sentiments may linger among browned folks, they will be too confused in identity to ever unite against Jewish Power. After all, the mixed-race populations of Latin America have been extremely ineffective in overthrowing the white Latin elites who've ruled South America since the days of the Conquistadors.

Whites no longer own their own history. White history has been doctored by Jews who associate whiteness with evil and guilt. Of course, if one does the same with Jewish History, Jews cry 'anti-Semite'. Jews have an effective moral and polemical shield against those who rummage through Jewish History for various evils, but whites have no comparable defense mechanism(and they need to develop it against Jews). Also, Jews covered up the fact that some of the darkest 'evils' of white history have been inseparable from Jewish History. Much of the slave trade that sold Slavic whites to North Africa and Near East were done by Jews. Jewish bankers financed much of Western Imperialism. Jews took part in the Atlantic Slave trade, especially in Brazil that brought over the greatest numbers of slaves. Jews of the British Empire sold opium to the Chinese. Jewish merchants worked with whites who wiped out the American Indians. Jews dominated much of organized crime in Europe and America. And Jewish communists played a key role in the Russian Revolution that ended up destroying millions of lives. So, the evils of genocide, imperialism, brutality, and slave-trade done by whites were also done by Jews who acted as merchants or financiers. But clever, cunning, and nasty Jews make us focus ONLY on the WHITE aspect of those evils. Also, Jews spread the notion among non-whites that WHITES AND ONLY WHITES were guilty of all the wrongs done to them. Indeed, Jews even pretend to be allies and fellow-victims of the so-called People of Color by selectively pointing to events where Jews were attacked by whites while failing to mention that, more often than not, Jews in Europe worked with the European Imperialist elites in the conquest and exploitation of the world. Imagine if the French selectively pointed to periods when they were attacked by the British and claimed to be fellow victims of the British Empire while totally ignoring the historical fact that the British and the French competed and cooperated side by side in their conquest of the non-white world. Jews are fiendishly sneaky that way.
One thing for sure, the Zionist project came to fruition with backing not only from British, Soviet, and American imperialists but even from Nazi imperialists. But then, Jews do a number on naive and stupid non-whites as well. By creating the impression that nationalism in white nations is 'racist' and 'xenophobic', Jews persuade non-whites into thinking that Nationalism = White Supremacism, and therefore, all goyim must reject this Nazi-like nationalism and embrace globalism. But in truth, whites didn't conquer the world through nationalism but through imperialism, and if non-whites eventually regained autonomy and sovereignty, it was through native nationalism and national liberation from Western Imperialism that had been thrust upon the world not only with white arms but with Jewish money. Jews sure are cunning and crafty. By conflating Nationalism with White Supremacism, Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone. They mean to destroy nationalism not only in white nations but in non-white ones. Of course, there are people who know this is BS, but as those in elite circles are mostly fixated on status and as the Jew-run US rules the world, they dare not stick out their necks and speak the truth; instead, they just hunker down and go along with the globalist project on the basis of "I got mine."

Without race-ism, there is no racial consciousness. The only kind of racial consciousness that Jews allow for whites is negative-consciousness or anti-consciousness, i.e. whites are to denounce consciousness of white identity, white history, white culture, and white territoriality as either evil, ill-gotten, or misconceived. Whites must not feel pride and a sense of ownership to what they are, where they live, what they've done, and what they believe. The great achievements of whites must be attributed to ALL of humanity. White history must retroactively be made 'multi-racial' and 'multi-cultural' so that ANY people can lay claim to it. The media put on historical programs where Past Europe has lots of blacks and other non-whites. Even the great white leaders and heroes must be made black or non-white. Jews say there was no WHITE History. Europe was never white but always 'multi-cultural' because NOT EVERYONE in Europe was white. (Using this logic, Japan and China weren't yellow because whites like Marco Polo and other came to visit.) Apparently, the Middle Ages weren't white and European because there were some Arabs and blacks in Europe at the time; therefore, Middle Ages were just as Arab and black. Of course, this isn't really about blacks or Arabs but about Jews. Jews hate the idea of white consciousness that thinks in terms of "we white Christians" and "those Semitic Jews". Such might lead to white consciousness that seeks White Liberation from Current Jewish Supremacism. So, Jews not only push a Diverse Future on the White West but try to fool whites that this Diverse Future isn't a break with the White Past but a merely natural continuance because the White World was always Diverse and into Multi-Culturalism. (Never mind that most of these white relations with non-whites were violent and bloody: Moorish invasions, Mongol invasions, and European Crusades and incursions into non-white territories. If anyone wants to celebrate Ottoman Occupation of Greece and Moorish conquest of Spain as wonders of Diversity, he or she is a mental slave of Jews. I suppose Jews should celebrate Roman tyranny over Judea.)

There are two kinds of histories. Factual history, which should be left up to professional historians who pore over records, documents, data. But for most people, the kind of history that matters isn't factual but mytho-narrative. While this kind of history should stick close to facts and truth as much as possible, its real objective is to fashion a story of a people and imbue it with meaning, significance, and purpose. It's like a biography isn't merely a collection of data on someone. It is a lively tale and summation of his life and what it has come to mean. Thus, certain facts must be selected over others. Certain details are emphasized over others. Necessarily, if you want to portray a man as a villain, you will focus the bad sides of his character and deeds to drive the point home. On the other hand, if you want to portray a man as a hero, you will focus on facts and details that would support such an image. Of course, no man is all villain and all hero. Everyone is a mix of both, and all biographies and all histories should dwell on both the light and the darkness of any person or people. Still, the main purpose of mytho-narrative is to defend, glorify, and romanticize the story of your people. Take the Old Testament. While there are passages that show Jews to have been unworthy of God's love and blessing, it is ultimately a narrative that justifies the story of Jews as a special people with a sacred contract or Covenant with God. This is why it is necessary that mytho-narrative history must be owned and controlled by your own people and its champions. Such historians are essentially word-warriors. They master the power of words and knowledge to fashion a narrative that honors, defends, and justifies your people. While it's possible that a foreigner may be sympathetic to your people while one of your own may be hostile to his own kind, there is a greater likelihood that the history of your people will be sullied, befouled, and condemned in the hands of the Other.
Tragically, white folks outsourced their mytho-narrative to the Jews who selectively spun a tale that made whites out to be the Devil, Cancer, and Virus of human history. Would Jews be so stupid as to out-source their mytho-history to Palestinians, Iranians, or those deemed 'anti-Semitic'? While those hostile to Jews may tell a compelling and convincing story of Jewish Perfidy and Evils through human history, Jews themselves would be stupid not to own their own history and narrative. While it would be good for Jews(and any people) to face up to the dark chapters in their own history, ultimately their narrative must be more of light than darkness. Otherwise, the people will end up like whites under Jews who turned White History into one of exceptional evil that can be redeemed ONLY BY cucking to Jews, ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) , and White Nakba(aka the Great Replacement).

Now, consider race-ism and the ownership of homeland. Any territory without the stamp of race-ist claim will be lost no matter how rich and powerful a people may be. American Indians lost their lands to whites because they were outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-fought. In contrast, whites are losing their lands in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe not because they are weak and poor but because they've lost race-ist claims on their nations. Despite dire demographic trends, the White West is still the most powerful bloc in the world. Then, why is it so helpless against preventing White Nakba or the Great Replacement brought about by Mass Immigration Invasion? It is because whites have rejected race-ist claim to history and territory. The claim of history and claim of territory are interrelated because, after all, territorial claim is justified by historical narrative. "We Hungarians own Hungary because it's the land bequeathed to us by our ancestors." "We Jews founded the Jewish State in Palestine because it was our land in ancient times." "We whites deserve to own and rule the US, Canada, and Australia because, even though we took it from other peoples, we founded and built great new nations in ways that ONLY WE could have." Such race-ist historical claims serve as basis for race-ist territorial claims. These claims say THIS is OURS, and NOT yours: Either the land belonged to our people from time immemorial OR our people built new nations out of the wilderness. But once a people reject race-ism, they lose racial consciousness. Their sense of story and territory becomes merely individualistic. 'My Story' and 'My Property' but no sense of 'Our Story' and 'Our Property'. Once whites rejected race-ism, they rejected the very concept of white people with white history on white territory. So, while whites-as-individuals have personal stories and private properties, they have no sense of collective narrative(except one that emphasizes 'white guilt') and collective ownership of territory or national property. While individualism is useful and productive, the question is what must it ultimately serve? As no individual lives forever or is a god, it makes no sense to put oneself at the center of existence and meaning. Every individual must realize he is part of a link, an inheritor, and that after he dies, what he'd been a part of shall be bequeathed to others whose obligation is to keep alight the torch of identity, history, and territory. The problem with libertarian individualism is it has no sense of life beyond 'me, me, me'. Furthermore, the fact that so many libertarians nevertheless suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos indicates that even for hardcore libertarians, liberty and individuality aren't enough. Even as they denigrate and negate white identity in the name of individuality, they feel this craving to serve something-bigger-than-themselves, and it's usually 'muh Israel', 'muh Magic Negro', or 'muh holy homo'.

Anyway, despite the greatness of white power and wealth in objective terms, the White West began its slide into oblivion because it subjectively abandoned race-ism, the consciousness that had once united whites in white nations into proud peoples with a powerful claims over the lands on which they lived and their ancestors fought for and died. Without race-ist consciousness, they could no longer felt united as members of a white race in a white nation. Without racial solidarity, they lost their sense of racial history and racial territory. If they no longer cared for white identity, it meant they no longer made white claims over white territory. Indeed, the new dogma was that whiteness is just a social construct or, worse, a disease/cancer, and therefore, the greatest evil is for whites to identify proudly as white or European. Lacking such consciousness, how could white people say WE WHITE PEOPLE OWN THIS WHITE LAND? How could a particular land belong to whites when whites no longer have white identity? Without white identity, there is no claim of white territory.
Thus, it doesn't matter how many white people there are in a certain nation; it doesn't matter how much wealth they own or how much power they have in objective terms of guns, tanks, and bombers. As long as they have no race-ist or racial consciousness, they no longer believe that their territory belongs to them as a race and people. So, even as tons of non-whites pour in as immigrants, whites cannot say NO since their anti-race-ism tells them that it's wrong for whites to think, feel, and react collectively(except in denouncing white unity). Indeed, white nations have been rendered defenseless even against rag-tag illegal migrants because, as whites no longer believe in white identity and territory, who are whites to tell non-whites, legal or illegal, that they don't belong in white nations that are no longer deemed WHITE nations? And so, we see the sorry sight all over Europe. Europe is so much richer and stronger than African and Muslim nations, but they are also helpless to stop the invasion.
Worse, while white identity is taboo, white anti-identity is all the rage among the neo-puritanical progs whose minds have been infected by Jewish Propaganda. So, not only are whites defenseless against the invasion but they are hastening the invasion and Great Replacement with enthused aid to non-white marauder-migrants. Some do it in the name of humanitarianism, but if they truly care about justice, why don't they call out on the factors that have turned so many people in the Middle East into refugees in the first place? Why don't they condemn Jewish Supremacism and Wars for Israel? But then, how could they since, even as they reject white identity, they've embraced Jews-as-Deity, and that means Jews cannot be condemned for their foulness. Why, it'd be 'antisemitic'. So, even as Jews mess up the Middle East, whites cannot condemn the Jews but must suffer the cost of the mess created by Jews. Imagine if I burn down someone's house and force you to take in the family that is now without a home. Naturally, you should be condemning me for burning down the house, but you dare NOT do that as you've come to see me as your master and god; so you feel YOU must bear the burden of what I have done.

It doesn't matter how powerful you are objectively if you're weak and cucked subjectively. Suppose you live in a home with lots of guns and bullets. You have strong walls and lots of food and supplies. Objectively, you are well-protected and secure indeed. But suppose you subjectively believe that you have no special claim to the house. As such, when trespassers arrive and ask to be let in, you just let them in. You have the guns but dare not use them against the invaders because you don't believe the house belongs especially to you and your family. Same logic applies to nations. If you lose race-ist consciousness, you've lost the race-ist claim on your land. Then, it is open to invasion from all the world... which is what is happening to the West. Next time Jews tell you to lose your race-ist claim on your land, you ask them why they maintain a powerful race-ist claim on Israel? The damned buggers.

One of the most important assets a race or people have is possession of the women. A people are effectively finished when the women of the race lose respect for the men. Such women are likely to forgo wifehood and motherhood, thereby failing to produce the next generation. Or worse, they might go with the men of another race, even the invasive and colonizing race because it is the nature of women to go with winner-conquerors(even of enemy races). Always, the conquering race takes the women of the vanquished race. When People A conquer People B, the men of People A don't go to the men of People B and say, "Hey, come and hump our mothers, wives, daughters, and etc." No, it's the winning side that conquers and colonizes the wombs of the losing side. When Turks ruled over Greece, they took Greek women. When Mongols invaded China, Iran, and Russia, they took the women of the conquered. When whites were masters over blacks as slaves, white men humped black women. When Zionists took nearly all of Palestine and carried out Nakba, they raped Arab women as sexual trophies. When Soviet Troops entered Germany, they raped countless German women. When US defeated Japan, they used Japanese women as whores. When the Spanish Conquistadors took over South America and Mexico, they took native brown women.
Now, not all conquering folks were enthusiastic about race-mixing. The British Empire was far less into race-mixing than the French Empire and Spanish Empire were. National Socialists discouraged race-mixing whereas Soviet Empire encouraged it. At any rate, the fate of the brown natives of what is called 'Latin America' goes to show what happens when men lose possession and the respect of their own women. Brown men were defeated by white Spaniards who took brown women to produce a neo-race of 'mestizos' who became confused in identity and, to this day, have no real sense of what they are. While race-mixing of any kind always weakens and dilutes the identity of the conquerors as well as of the conquered, it is always far more damaging psychologically and culturally to the conquered side. It was painful for Russian men to see their daughters taken by Mongol barbarians. It was painful for Vietnamese men to see their women turned into a bunch of whores by US military. It was shameful for black men to see their women be taken by 'honkey-ass mothafuc*as' in the Old South. Consider the trauma of French men who were helpless to stop French women from running into the arms of German occupiers. (Granted, some of these French women weren't necessarily treasonous in spirit. They might have regarded pre-Occupation France as a Jewish-dominated tyranny and therefore welcomed German victory as liberation of France from the Juif.) Without women, there is no future for the race. And while men can produce kids with women of any race, if they want to perpetuate the aesthetics, soul, and temperament of their own Volk, they should have children with women of the same race. Spanish men had children with native brown women, and the results were rather Guillermo-ish(of the dreadful Jimmy Kimmel Show). Guillermo may be a nice guy and all, but he doesn't look quite like a Spaniard. Nor does he look like a proud Mayan warrior. He looks like a human burrito.

In our time, the biggest threat to white ownership of white women and white beauty comes from 'anti-racism' and Jungle Fever, a kind of double whammy. Political Correctness is the colonization of white minds by Jewish propaganda, and what might be called Biological Correctness is the colonization of white wombs by black seed. In a way, both PC and Jungle Fever are 'natural' insofar as smaller minds cuck to bigger minds and wussier men cuck to tougher men. When whites began to practice inter-meritocracy, they were bound to lose out to the 'best man'. White Power could only be sustained with intra-meritocracy that rewarded the best among the whites AGAINST non-whites. But once whites adopted universal inter-meritocracy, white minds lost out to Jewish minds that are higher in IQ and stronger in will. And white muscles lost out to tougher black muscles, and white dongs lost out to bigger black dongs. Now, why did whites forsake intra-meritocracy that had served and sustained White Power so well and instead go with inter-meritocracy, a universal call for 'may the best man of any race win'? Part of the reason was the rise of rationalism and its concept of universal justice. Another reason was rooted in Christian ethos. Also, the radical racists such as the National Socialists gave racial consciousness a bad name. Ironically though, even as Jews reviled racial consciousness among whites on grounds of Nazi Evil in World War II, they revamped their own racial consciousness in pushing through the Zionist project and in making whites submit to Jewish Supremacist Power. (Also, let's remember that the Pacific War was pushed by both Conservatives and Liberals alike as a race war against the yellow 'Japs', and Jews did their part in dehumanizing the Japanese like the National Socialists had dehumanized the Jews.)
In any case, when white people gave up on racial consciousness, each and every white person was encouraged to be a mere individualist, consumer, hedonist, celebrity-obsessed idol worshiper, and etc. White women felt 'liberated' and no longer 'owned' by white men, the evil patriarchs. But most of them being stupid or dumb, they just came to be mentally owned by Jews and sexually owned by blacks. They went from women of a race, history, and heritage to mere commodities of Jews and playthings of blacks. And white men, instead of waking up and fighting the Jews and blacks, were too brainwashed themselves with 'white guilt' and too gushy with 'white fever'(for black thrills in sports and rap) to unite and fight to defend race, homeland, heritage, and honor. And at this point in history, it all looks hopeless. The great lesson, at any rate, is that a people will lose their identity, history, homeland, and women when they abandon race-ism. While sane people need to forsake extreme race-ism(like religious people should reject theocratic fanaticism), they need to realize that there is nothing more precious and valuable than race-ism in the preservation of a people and culture on their sacred land. If whites want to reclaim their land and culture for their posterity, they must say NO to Jewish Supremacism and regain white race-ist consciousness.