Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Problems of TOADY SUPREMACISM.
Consider the various forms of supremacism. We are most familiar with the kind where a people claim to be superior to other peoples--as with the ‘Aryan’ Nazis--or when a people are accused of such tendencies--Zionist Jews tagged with ‘Jewish Supremacism’.
But there is another kind of supremacism, which might be called toady supremacism--or perhaps sidekick supremacism. This is a kind of supremacism where a people feel superior to most other peoples through an association or likeness with the most superior people. Toady supremacists don’t claim to be the best people but rather the next best thing(especially if they are favored by the so-called best people). They feel kinship with the ‘truly superior people’ either through alliance, approval, tolerance, or delusion. Toady supremacism is, of course, not possible without toady inferioritism. A toady supremacist needs to admire or even worship something higher than himself in order to feel superior by association. To an extent, most forms of religion is a spiritual kind of toady supremacism; owing to their relation to the greatest gods or the one & only God, the members of a particular faith feel superior to people of other faiths. The Jewish concept of the Chosen People is a kind of spiritual toady supremacism. Since Jews believed that their God is not only the greatest and most powerful god but the Only god, and since they’d been chosen by this supreme being, there was a sense that Jews were a special people, the chosen people, even a superior people. This brand of supremacism can be ethnic, moral, or both. In the case of Christians it was essentially moral. As Christianity was a credo-religion, it was open to all races and peoples. It was not a religion about ethnic or racial superiority. However, all Christians believed they had a special relation with the One & Only God as manifested through the Father, Son, & the Holy Ghost. Since Jesus had been a supremely moral being who sacrificed Himself for the redemption of humanity, there was the notion among Christians that they were morally superior to all other peoples. Though Christianity preached humility, humility among Christians
paradoxically made them feel superior--at least morally--to peoples of other faiths who were presumed to be blinded by pride and Satanism. If most religions have been tribal and instilled their members with a sense of ethnic specialness and superiority vis-a-vis other peoples, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam were universal faiths which filled its members with a sense of moral superiority--though, to be sure, the element of sin or suffering(based on one’s ego) in Christianity and Buddhism could lead to self-loathing and inferiority as well.
The Jews were the most special case in the history of the world since their religion was both tribal and universal. Jews created and believed in the One & Only God for all peoples, but they also believed that God had specially chosen the Jews and that the rest of humanity could only be redeemed through the bliss and blessings of the Jews. So, one part of Judaism was very tribal and ethno-supremacist while another part was universalist and etho-supremacist--ethically supremacist. The union of tribal ethnicity and universal ethics still continue to define the Jewish worldview. Jews closely guard their power and privilege AS JEWS but believe themselves to be at the forefront of social, economic, political, cultural, and moral evolution(or even revolution) for the redemption of all mankind. Neo-conservative Jews, for instance, are crazy about Israel and Zionism but also passionate about the global enterprise to make the whole world a better place for ‘freedom, human rights, and democracy’. Sometimes, Neocons trumpet universalist idealism in order to justify wars for Israel in the Middle East; sometimes, they seem to really believe they are making the whole world a better place.
With higher intelligence Jews also tend to be intellectually supremacist though they are loathe to admit this in public lest resentment among goyim boil over. Therefore, most Jews tolerate the white nationalist view that Jews aren’t all that smart and succeeded only through social/cultural means. (Similarly, blacks feel most nervous when whites discuss black athletic superiority since it may lead to growing fear and resentment among whites--especially the males--who may decide racial integration is a bad idea and blacks should be pushed out of white societies and nations. After all, if blacks are indeed physically tougher and stronger than whites, whites would finally have a morally justifiable reason for fearing and even hating blacks. Blacks could reasonably be seen as a criminal, physical, and sexual threat to whites. This is why blacks welcome sites like castefootball which would have all of us believe that blacks are over-represented in sports ONLY because of social discrimination against whites. Such view implies that blacks are NOT a biological threat to whites. It perpetuates the myth purveyed by Rocky sequels, thus removing any justification for white fear of blacks. Without such justification, whites don’t have a very good argument against integration. As I see it, white males can swallow their pride and earn the justification to argue against integration, OR they can maintain their pride and lose that justification and continue to see integration happen--with white males getting whupped and more white women running off with the Negroes.)
Religions allow spiritual toady supremacism where one bows to his god(s) and feels superior to members of other tribes who presumably worship a lesser or false god. But, there is toadyism in all walks of life, big and small. In schools there are not-so-tough guys who hang around tough guys and feel superior by association or approval. A weakling who serves as a toady or sidekick to the super tough guy may feel superior to everyone except the super tough guy; the toady may even feel superior to guys who are tougher than he via the protection of the super tough guy. Though the weakling cannot handle the tough guys himself, he feels protected by the super tough guy. Since tough guys back down to super tough guy, and since the weakling is allied with the super tough guy, the weakling can afford to put on supremacist airs. A toady feels inferior to whomever or whatever he serves, but the payoff is he gets to feel to superior to all that kowtows to the superior force.
What happens in schoolyards also take place in the world of politics, nations, and races. The interesting thing about the Nazi era was not only the ideology of ‘Aryan’ supremacism but all forms of toady supremacism that revolved around it. If ‘Aryan’ Germans and Nordics committed to the Nazi ideology considered themselves to be the best of the best and the cream of the crop, there were many pro-Nazi nations and peoples who embraced and practiced a kind of toady supremacism. Though they regarded themselves to be inferior human material in relation to the ‘Aryan’ Germans, they felt superior to most of mankind through some association, real or delusional, with Nazi Germany. Some peoples and races thought of themselves as sub-Aryan, which is to say they were mostly or originally of Aryan stock but had become polluted by race mixing. Thus, they were racially inferior to the Nordics and Germans but still far superior to those with NO Aryan blood. During the German Occupation, many Frenchmen were exactly this kind of toady supremacists. They served as running dogs to the pure ‘Aryan’ German masters, but since they were servants of the BEST KIND OF PEOPLE they themselves could feel a degree of pride. The dog of a proud owner barks proudly. It is not equal to his master but as the favorite pet or toady to the master, it shares the confidence of its master.
Though Mussolini and the Italians came to power a decade earlier than the Germans--and had been on the winning side of WWI--, they too in time became toady supremacists to the Germans. Though Mussolini and his associates initially loathed Hitler and National Socialism, they were so impressed the rise of the Nazi militarist state that they soon became willing junior partners. And though Mussolini had initially disregarded ‘Aryan’ racial theories as stupid and laughable, he too began to institute increasingly harsher racial policies across Italy. As in occupied France, there was a sense in Fascist Italy that Italians, if not as good as the Germans, were good enough because they were allied with Nazi Germany and because Italians too had been originally racially purer. This kind of mentality prevailed in many parts of Eastern Europe. Because of German power and might, it was only natural that many backward European nations saw it either as the model of development or rightfully dominant European power. This admiration for all things German could be blind and blinding--especially morally--as the implication was that Germany should have a free hand to do ANYTHING IT PLEASES because it was, by nature, superior. Worse, the toady supremacists emulated the Germans by cooking up their own national ideologies of racial purity. So, the French became even more zealous than the Germans in rounding up Jews. If Germans accepted 1/4 Jewish Germans as ‘Aryans’, the French were eager to even round up and ship out Frenchmen who were only 1/4 Jewish. In a way, this mentality was only natural. A toady is always bound to feel a nagging sense of inferiority since he toadies up to his master. Since he is eternally inferior to his master, the ONLY way he can feel pride is by outdoing his master’s commands or policies. Only through such zeal can a toady feel any sense of individual power. In the American South, the most brutal whites happened to ‘poor white trash’ working for rich plantation owners. Since these white toadies had to take order from their rich white masters, the only way they could feel their self-worth was by lording over the Negroes twice as harshly as the plantation owner had commanded. Much the same was true in the communist gulag and Nazi labor camps. Gulag personnel were often lowly toady cogs in the overall communist machine and could only feel a measure of self-worth and power by brutally lording over the gulag inmates. And some of the most brutal Nazi death camp guards were non-Germans recruited by the SS. Since they had to politically and psychologically bow down before the Germans 24/7, the only way they could feel any power was by brutally lording over the forced laborers, especially if such happened to be Jewish.
Anyway, toady supremacism in relation to Nazi ‘Aryanism’ didn’t only exist in Europe.
Some Japanese felt themselves to be superior Asians through their association with Nazi Germans. Since it appeared in the 1930s and 1940s that Germany was the rising and dominant power in Europe--and maybe all of the world--, Japanese felt proud to be associated with such people. Of course, the Japanese were aware of Hitler’s contempt for the Asian race. Hitler had written that Japanese were incapable of a single original thought and that Japan was a nation of monkey-see-monkey-doers. Also, Germans were tall and handsome whereas most Japanese were short and unimpressive. The German-Japanese alliance was an odd one for the core tenet of Nazism was white--specifically Aryan--supremacism(one that even attempted to exterminate/enslave Russians because of their partial Asiatic blood)while the core justification for Japanese militarism was to ‘save’ Asia from white imperialism. Though there was genuine mutual respect in some quarters between the Germans and the Japanese--Himmler especially had a thing for the samurai tradition, especially as a model for the SS--, it was more a marriage of convenience than of affection.
But if Japanese were at least officially allied with the Germans, there were many people(of mixed race or non-white background) around the world who admired and/or aspired to be like Nazi Germans. This too was a kind of toady supremacism, the kind that tended to be highly delusional and ignorant. There was some of this in the Middle East and in South Asia, especially if the people in question could claim some ‘Aryan’ heritage. Even today, there are Iranians who wallow in a kind of toady supremacism. They willingly admit they are racially inferior to Germans or European whites because of their racial pollution with the lower non-white races, but they still claim a special position in the world because they still have SOME Aryan blood in them. Most of these people would have been treated like shit by Nazi Germans, but since Nazi Germany is now a myth that can be romanticized(and since their people never directly suffered under German rule), they can fantasize or delude themselves that pure Aryan Nazi Germans would have doted on them, petted their heads, and thrown them a meaty bone.
These kinds of toady supremacists also exist in parts of India, especially because of the so-called Aryan Invasion long ago. Some light-skinned Indians think Nazi Germans would have tolerated or even accepted them as fellow or lesser Aryans(when it fact, Hitler admired the ‘racially superior’ British Anglos ruling over countless mud-colored people).
But it’s not just light-skinned Indians who are thus deluded. Many dark-skinned Indians also have the hots for Nazi Germany, romanticizing its role as the enemy of British Imperialists--when it fact British rule over India was the least of Nazi Germany’s worries. Many Indians feel inferior living in a hot, poor, backward, diverse, messy, dirty, stinking, and ‘democratic’ nation; thus, they are romantically drawn to the idea of a clean, efficient, orderly, proud, and handsome racial utopia such as Nazi Germany composed not only of one race but the best race. Since Indians can never be a pure noble race, the next best thing is to find a way to associate themselves with a ‘pure’ people. So, you have Asian-Indian toady supremacism.
An Indian, light-skinned or dark-skinned, can claim to SOME Aryan blood and say he too has the noble blood of ancient heroes in his veins. Der Spiegel ran a piece some months back about a German tourist who traveled to Iran and South Asia, often meeting people with favorable views of Nazi Germany. He found it amusing(and offensive and stupid) since Nazi Germany would have regarded all these people as subhuman at best. If Nazis were willing to kill millions of Poles--who are racially very close to Germans--, just take a guess as to how Nazis felt about Persians or Hindus(outside smoke-n-mirrors charm diplomacy). If Germans appealed to Arabs and Persians in the late 1940s, it was ONLY because Hitler could not make peace with the Anglos. Germans were more than willing to let the racially superior Anglos--presumably racial brethren of the Germany ‘Aryans’--rule over the mud-colored people of the Middle East and South Asia AS LONG AS Britain didn’t stand in the way of German ambitions on the European continent. The only reason the Germans appealed to Arab Nationalism and the like was because the British refused to play to Hitler’s tune. Though Hitler had no plans to conquer and exterminate Arabs or Persians, this was not because of any affection but because his main ambition was to conquer Russia. Now, Russians are racially white and not too different from Germans, but Nazi Germans were willing to wipe them out. If Persians or Arabs had occupied Russian lands, Hitler would have done to them what he did to Russians, Poles, and even Jews. But, the delusional toady supremacism continues among Iranians, South Asians, and yes, Latin Americans.
Though there has been a steep decline in toady supremacist ideology in Latin America, it still lingers, and at one time, had been quite extensive. This had something to do with white fears and anxiety in a part of the world where they were a minority in many cases. In order for the white elites to maintain their power over the colored masses, the ideology of white supremacism was appealing. And it also helped that some Latin American nations had a sizable German community. But the appeal of Nazism among Latin whites wasn’t simply supremacist since most Latin whites were not Germans. As inferior Latin whites, they could only be toady supremacists to the superior Germanic--or ‘Aryan’-whites. Oddly enough, the appeal of Nazism for some had something to do with their sense of inferiority vis-a-vis the United States(or the Anglosphere at large). In the Americas, Anglo-America had gained dominance or ‘hegemony’ over Latin America. In Europe and around much of the world, the British Empire had long ago gained the upper hand against the Spanish Empire(and nations like Italy). So, just as Spanish nationalists like Franco and Italian nationalists like Mussolini sided with Nazi Germany against Anglo-British power, there were Latin American whites--mostly of Spanish or Italian descent(especially in Argentina)--who looked to Nazi Germany as a possible counterweight to the mighty power of Anglo-America. Also, Latins felt frustrated that they weren’t so good with democracy and capitalism as the Anglo peoples; and therefore, democracy and capitalism came to be associated with British or Yankee imperialism or domination. Since egalitarian communism was out of the question in deeply hierarchical Latin America, the only option seemed to be fascism, modeled on Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany. But since many Latin whites were racially mixed--a little or a lot--, they felt inferior to the racially purer Europeans. Since they could never go back home again--literally and figuratively--, they could never claim to be the best of the best. They could only opt for toady supremacism. By admiring or associating with supremacist Europeans--especially the Nazi Germans--, they hoped that some of the ‘Aryan’ supremacism would rub off on them.
But it was not only Latin whites who embraced toady supremacism but also some non-whites--Mestizos and even some people of Indian blood. Some of these people loyally served Nazi German exiles after WWII and felt flattered that they were treated cordially by a race as fine as the Germans. After centuries of white domination, many non-whites in Latin America had internalized the notion of white superiority. Though they resented this fact, they also wanted to be approved of and accepted by whites. This mentality had become so ingrained that they were loyal even to fallen Nazi Germans who’d lost everything and were hiding from international justice. Even though Nazi Germans in Latin America were powerless and depended on the goodwill of sympathizers and certain elements of the German community, they still seemed like giants of white greatness and power to the mestizo and Indian South Americans who aided and served them. This is rather pathetic when Nazi ideology regarded such people as mongrel untermensch who should be killed like rats and roaches IF necessary.
Today, there are other forms of toady supremacism, most of which happens to be whites toadying up to Jews, blacks, and even gays. Because of the moral consciousness of Western civilization rooted in Christian ethos of self-reflection, confession, and guilt, the morally superior--and even supremacist--people have been those who claim the most amount of suffering AT THE HANDS OF WHITE GENTILES. There is much less sympathy for victims of non-whites since the non-white world doesn’t wallow in guilt feelings. So, there is virtually no great moral superiority--let alone supremacism--to be gained by having been oppressed by Asians, Arabs, Aztecs, or Africans. A black African in America can scream about his mistreatment at the hands of fellow black Africans, but the liberal MSM will not pick up his cry. Sure, there is coverage of the problems across black Africa, but the main message is that white people should be doing more to help black Africans, implying the main reason why Africa is poor is because of lack of white compassion and sharing. (The liberal grand narrative says Africa is poor because whites had looted the Dark Continent in the past, therefore the ONLY solution is for whites to ‘give back’ to Africa, as urged by the likes of Jeffrey Sachs and Bono.) Also, non-whites sanctified with moral superiority in the West can do just about anything and get away with murder. As long as Western whites feel guilty and apologetic, it’s no problem if Israel continues to murder and brutalize Palestinians, and it’s no problem if blacks in America continue to attack Arabs, Mexicans, or Asians in big cities or whites in integrated small towns.
Though Jews and blacks suffered no more than other peoples, the difference is some of them suffered under whites. (It must be said, however, that suffering under whites alone doesn’t necessarily earn a people the title of moral superiority. The people who suffered most extensively under whites were American Indians and South American Indians, but there’s far less sympathy for them. The problem is native Americans--in both North and South America--have failed to capture the imagination of white Americans in the way Jews and blacks have. Whites feel more guilty about blacks and Jews because whites regard those groups as naturally superior in some crucial way. Though whites oppressed South American Indians and Chinese laborers in 19th century America, there is an unspoken feeling among whites that those people are naturally lowly, unexciting, dull, boring, and inferior--short, sheepish, timid, quiet. Thus, their inferior status vis-a-vis the white man is regarded as natural. But whites have come to regard Jews as intellectual superiors and blacks as physical/musical superiors, and therefore, whites feel greater guilt for having oppressed and suppressed naturally superior groups. If blacks were not physically or musically--at least in the rhythm and vocal department--superior, whites wouldn’t feel they’d done a great injustice to a special people. But because blacks came to dominate in sports and pop music, there is a sense among whites that natural black greatness had been suppressed by white ‘evil and envy. Similarly, if Jews hadn’t accomplished anything of note, white guilt would be less regarding the history of antisemitism. After all, far less is heard of the fate of gypsies under Nazism. But because of the obviousness of Jewish genius and its accomplishments, whites feel extra-guilty about stuff like the Holocaust. Whites feel as though they killed 6 million Einsteins instead of 6 million dufuses. Though Chinese-Americans were treated terribly in the 19th century by whites, there is less outpouring of white guilt since most whites perceive Asians as no more than hardworking ants. So what if some ants got stepped on? In other words, the white liberal perception is that killing a Jew is like killing an intelligent dolphin, killing a Negro is like killing a magnificent lion, but killing a Chinese or South American Indian is only like stepping on an ant--not worth the trouble of too much guilt.)
Since Jews and blacks own moral superiority and indeed brandish it as a form of moral supremacism and since whites are primarily seen as evildoers, the ONLY WAY whites can earn a bit of moral worth and esteem is by adopting and practicing a form of toady supremacism. Since whites can never be as good or moral--in the collective sense--as Jews or blacks, whites must toady up to Jews and blacks to earn some moral superiority credits. But if whites can never feel morally superior to non-whites, whom can they feel superior to by toadying up to Jews and blacks? To other whites of course. So, liberal whites toady up to blacks and Jews--and to a lesser extent Mexican illegals--and use this as the basis for their moral superiority over non-liberal whites who are less willing to roll over for blacks and liberal Jews. Even so, white conservatives also have essentially a toady supremacist mentality. They too try to distinguish themselves from ‘evil’ ‘racist’ whites of the past and present by invoking Michael King, aka Martin Luther King, as a kind of god. Indeed, some white conservatives, by their slavish misreading of MLK’s career, argue that they are morally superior to white liberals because they have the true understanding of the GREAT NEGRO’s profound wisdom. And though white conservatives are opposed to many polices of liberal Jews--most Jews--and thus likely to alienate the Jewish community, they try to make up for this by rolling over and groveling before arch-Zionist Jews. The purpose of such toady supremacism is to demonstrate that 100% pro-Zionist white conservatives are morally superior to white liberals who are only 99% pro-Zionist. The whole thing is rather perverse, since the main basis for Jewish moral superiority is historical suffering. How does it morally fix matters to support Jews in their oppression of a weak and helpless people, the Palestinians?
But toady supremacism among whites in relation to Jewish and black supremacism isn’t limited to morality. It is also related to Jewish intellectual superiority and black athletic/sexual superiority. It also has something to do with white perceptions of Jewish and black superiority in creativity, at least in key areas. Jews have been more creative in the modernist era than any other group across many disciplines. In the vastly popular and dynamic area of pop music, blacks have had a tremendous presence and influence. Jazz had been a worldwide phenomenon all over the world. Even in Nazi Germany, though officially banned, it was often played and enjoyed by many Germans, including Nazi officials and soldiers at the front. Though no ‘black music’ in the Western world is totally black and is indeed the product of cultural cross-breeding or miscegenation of Western and African styles, the rhythmic black element has been crucial to its appeal. American country music has little appeal outside America, but Europeans and Asians love blues and Jazz(and Hip Hop). Europeans would rather listen to Jazz, rock, black gospel, and blues than polka, choral music, or classical music--which is of elite taste and lacks general popular appeal. Jews have also played a significant role in the development of Jazz and other form of American popular music. The majority of the popular and memorable 20th century American tunes were composed by Jews such as George Gershwin, Sammy Cahn, Irving Berlin, Burt Bacharach, Paul Simon, Carole King, and many others. Jews came to dominate a good deal of classical music in the 20th century, especially in the US and Eastern Europe. This is all the more remarkable given that Jews comprised only a small minority in most countries.
When it came to sports and intellectualism, Jewish and black superiority over whites was becoming all too obvious--except to those too filled with empty childish white male pride.
Prior to the emancipation of Jews and blacks, whites could claim superiority and greatness in just about everything--chess, philosophy, violin playing, business, sports, etc. In the early part of the 20th century, the fastest runners in sports events were all white. And Jews faced open discrimination in many nations. But as their freedoms increased, it became apparent that Jews were beating whites in the intellectual fields--science, math, economics, philosophy, criticism, etc--even though most of the cultural institutions were controlled by gentiles. Jews were so good that even antisemitic gentile heads of institutions had no choice but to promote them. Despite their negative feelings about Jews, they had sufficient respect for their profession and discipline to favor the superior over the inferior. (This was especially true in Northern Europe where a sense of fair play and objectivity--meritocracy--were part of the value system. This was true in Germany too, at least before Nazism came along and favored even no-talent Germans over far superior Jews in medicine, law, science, math, etc.)
In athletics, with the expansion of black freedom and opportunities, it became increasingly obvious that blacks had a decisive edge in running, jumping, boxing, basketball, and what have you. In time, blacks were even allowed to play in baseball, the American pastime, and blacks like Hank Aaron smashed records of white athletes. In football, blacks came to dominate most of the power and speed positions.
In time, whites came to feel intellectually inferior to Jews and athletically inferior to blacks. And both were also related to sexuality. Since Jewish men were smarter and richer than white gentile men, many of the brightest and prettiest white gentile women wanted to have sex with Jewish men. Jewish men offered more riches and sex with them would produce smarter babies with greater possibility of success in life. Also, some women find witty men charming and lovable. Though most Jewish men were not physical-sexually anything special, their money, higher IQ sperm, and dazzling wit appealed to lots of white women, especially ones that happened to the smartest or prettiest or both--essentially white girls who went to good schools.
Black athletic superiority was also related to sexuality, indeed in a much more direct and animal way. To the extent that humans are part of the animal world and animated by animal passions, many women feel a NATURAL SEXUAL attraction to the alpha male, and the most visible sign of male dominance is physical prowess. A guy can be a short weakling and still be an alpha male through his smarts, drive, will, and managerial/leadership skills, but that kind of alpha maledom takes some time to establish itself in the world. Smart and aggressive alpha male geeks don’t amount to much in highschool or even college; they only become ‘big and important’ later in life when they succeed in law, politics, or business.
In contrast, a Negro can athletically outperform others or beat up some guy and establish his alpha maledom on the spot, whereas a smart guy has to work his butt off for many yrs to become the company boss. It takes a minute to do 100 pushups and flex one’s muscles while it takes many yrs to become a lawyer or doctor.
Also, physical alpha maledom can stand on its own feet whereas the brainy alpha maledom is dependent on others. Mike Tyson could just beat up someone on the spot and establish himself as the superbadass of the block whereas the authority of the CEO depends on an extensive support network. Of course, a person with really sharp mind can establish his alpha maledom by outwitting and verbally bitchslapping his opponents, but he must depend on a systems of laws or mores that looks down on physical violence; otherwise, he will get beaten up and wussfied by the brute he mocks.
Anyway, sexuality is a powerful and direct emotion, and as such, reacts most powerfully to physicality. Over time, a woman can learn to feel affection and even sexual longings for a decent and nice weakling, but she is much more likely to feel immediate sexual arousal when she sees a powerful stud who establishes his dominance over other men. So, when black males began to beat white males, they were not only winning in athletics but in sexuality--or assletics.
Especially as sports became big business and was aired all over the nation--and as stupid white males watches these events in the company of their white girlfriends, wives, sisters, and daughters--, more white women came to see black males are the REAL MEN while seeing white males as bench warmers, losers, and gimps. This was obviously most embarrassing for white males in boxing where so many white guys got pummeled and pitifully knocked out by blacks who then danced over the fallen pussified white males. In time, word got around that the best sexual studs were black males.
Though we tend to differentiate or dichotomize WAR and LOVE, they are interrelated, as examined in Stanley Kubrick’s DR. STRANGELOVE. In nature, males fight for the ‘right’ to f**k, and females put out to the victorious males of the vicious struggle. In the 60s, there was the whole dumb hippie ideal of flower-power boys and girls going off into nature to make love(than war), but in fact, women lost interest and respect for such males soon enough for it attracted to many gimpy(and smelly)dorks; and lots of women were losers too, which turned off the men. (Of course, it was safe for idiot hippies to have ‘peaceful’ and ‘harmonious’ sex in nature because REAL MEN with guns had cleared it of dangerous animals like bears, wolves, and cougars and savage Indian tribes long ago.)
So, sports is more than about athletics. It is about sex. Just as damsels in the Middle Ages went with knights who were victorious in battle and jousting contests, women today fantasize about and go with victorious athletes. In highschools, the most popular guys are athletes. In school and in sports, the pretty cheerleaders shake their asses for the top athletes. And indeed famous black athletes have miles and miles of white women standing in line to have sex with them, to date them, to marry them. Even an ugly guy like Mike Tyson had thousand of white women. Wilt Chamberlain had sex with 20,000 women, most of them white.
Indeed, it’s gotten to the point where many of the most popular white girls are eager to have sex with Negroes because not having done so would suggest they are not desired by the BEST ALPHA MALES. Imagine a bunch of white female friends sitting around talking, and it just so happens that 90% of the time, the conservation and gossip revolve around sex--especially in our libertine Paglia-pornified era. One girl says she had sex with this black guy and he was so muscular, full of stamina, and had a huge cock and gave her the biggest orgasm she ever had. There was a time when such woman would have been shunned or rejected by her white friends as a coon-poon bitch, but we are living in utterly shameless, treacherous, and traitorous times. Today, when a girl says stuff like that, other girls feel sexual arousal and want to do a Negro themselves. They want to surrender to maximum male power and feel the full power of Mandingo man meat. Suppose next time they meet, another girl says she also had sex with a super Negro stud. After several weeks, suppose 4 of the 6 friends say they’d all have Jungle Fever sex. They’ve had the REAL Thing, not the slow flabby white male faggoty ass thing. Now, the 2 girls who haven’t yet had Jungle Sex feel inferior vis-a-vis their friends. They feel they’re still connected by dial-up modem when all their friends have gone over to super-fast digital cable internet. Furthermore, there is the moral element due to political correctness. Suppose the 2 girls who haven’t yet had Jungle Sex are suspected of holding out because they are ‘racist’ and opposed to interracism. Thus, there is even more pressure on them to go get banged by a Negro. (Paradoxically enough, Jungle Fever attracts a lot of white women for both its liberating and oppressive dynamics. As conveyed in Jane Campion’s god-awful PIANO, there is the Western fascination with the primitive. Especially during the Victorian Era when whites could not openly discuss sexual matters in respectable society, many white males fantasized about having sex with Tahitian women who supposedly ran around with their tits and asses hanging out. Gauguin’s paintings of primitive nudes were once all the rage. But, Western men weren’t the only ones who sought sexual release through fantasy or even real deeds. Many white women felt oppressed by a repressive patriarchy and fantasized about sexual release. WUTHERING HEIGHTS has a respectable woman in love with some dark complexioned gypsy named Heathcliff. Both FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA expressed repressed sexual urges. Since white society was sexually repressive, many white men and women came to romanticize the primitive or The Other. Consider that one of the first great Don Juans of Hollywood was Rudolph Valentino playing Arab Sheiks. Since black-white miscegenation was considered the biggest taboo, Northern European and American white women settled for sexual exoticism involving tall-dark-and-handsome Latin Lovers or Arab adventurers. For many white women of that era, sexual exoticism was deemed liberating from the clutches of patriarchy, Western obsession with rationality and order, and social propriety. But at the same time, white women were attracted to The Other for its oppressiveness as well. As Western society progressed rapidly, the differences between men and women were fading; and as society became genteel and respectable, men became less brutish and boorish. Women saw this as a good thing, but they subconsciously missed the REAL MAN who tore off the woman’s clothes, screwed her good, put her in her place, and etc. GONE WITH THE WIND is popular for it expressed both the desire of women to be free/independent and possessed/put in her place. Scarlett is a strong-willed woman who finds her own way, but she never felt so good as when Rhett took her up the stairs and pumped her real good. Scarlett got humped by a no-good Yankee, but today, white Southern girls are increasingly dreaming of being pumped by some BIG Negro. Through Jungle Fever, they seek both liberation from white male patriarchy and grateful submission to REAL masculinity. Indeed, some argue that patriarchy is the system created by weaker males to prevent young nubile females from going with manlier males. As a moral system, it binds the woman to the man, even if he’s a weakling and a dork. But if we were to embrace sexual Nietzscheanism and allow the reevaluation of all sexual rules, then the toughest males should have harems for themselves, and women would submit themselves to REAL men, the super alpha males. Patriarchy, in contrast, allows each man to own or control his woman. It favors social morality over free sexuality. It is necessary for civilization but can be unsatisfactory for many people. Of course, it can be stifling to many men also--even more so than to women since men tend to be more sexual and wild. A man tied down to one woman is likely to be more frustrated than the woman tied down to one man.)
Given the current state of affairs, with Jewish and black moral superiority as well as Jewish superiority in intellectualism and black superiority in athleticism, white supremacism lacks luster. After all, if whites are indeed superior, how come Jews outsmart them and blacks outrun, out-jump, and out-punch them? Whites can still lay claim to superior looks, and maybe it’s true that white women are the best looking in the world. But looks exist mainly for sexual attractiveness--to win the attention of alpha males--and the best looking white women attract and are attracted to smart men with lots of money--Jews--or strong men with lots of muscle--Negroes.
So, the only game left in town for many whites--especially the males--is toady supremacism. By toadying up to Jewish intellectual and cultural dominance, less intelligent whites can feel part of the superior world. Notice how white gentiles take pride in living in a country with so many brilliant and genius Jews. By toadying up to Jews, white American gentiles, though feeling inferior to Jews, feel superior to European gentiles because they themselves are less stained with antisemitism and because they partake of the blessings bestowed on America by Jewish dominance in culture, science, business, medicine, high tech, etc.
There is a similar attitude regarding blacks. Though a good number of white Americans--mostly males--are resentful of black domination in sports, the fact remains that their home teams relies a great deal on black athletic prowess. So, if their home team wins, it means Negroes gave their ‘heroic’ best. Naturally, even racially/sexually resentful white males feel a toadying gratitude to the great Negro who brought back to the championship trophy to his hometown.
Also, in the Olympics and other international competitions, some of the most popular events--basketball, track and field, boxing, etc--are won by the US because of its black athletes. Before Europe had a good number of blacks, Europeans had almost no chance of winning many events. Today black “Europeans” compete neck and neck with American blacks in events like track and field. Prior to the growing Africanization of Europe, white Americans could feel a kind of toady supremacism in regard to Old Europe. White Americans could toady up to great black American athletes and feel superior, by association, to all those lame and slow European white boys. Though white Americans were athletically no better than white Europeans, their associative toadying up to black American athletes made them FEEL superior.
The famous rock critic Dave Marsh once expressed a similar attitude toward The Rolling Stones. Marsh denigrated the Stones as lacking the REAL THING--black soul--, for being mere white boy imitators of truly great and badass black music. Marsh mocked white fans of Rolling Stones who thought Mick Jagger was something special when, in fact--according to Marsh anyway--, he was just a wussy wimp compared to black music stars. This statement is rather odd coming from a WHITE Rock critic, but it makes sense as a kind of toady supremacism. Though Marsh himself was a short pudgy and funny-looking dork, his having grown up in the Motor City filled him with a sense that he was part of the badass black scene. By toadying up to blacks, he was able to feel at least superior to whites-who-just-didn’t-get-it-and-thought-the-lame-Rolling-Stones-were-great.
So, there you go, there are many kinds of toady supremacism. It exists among whites, blacks, right, and left. Though most white toady supremacists are liberals who suck up to blacks and Jews, there are still white rightist toady supremacists too. Alex Kurtagic and Tomislav Sunic seem to be among them. Though of Slavic background, they seem to subscribe to the Nazi or Neo-Nazi point of view. This is hardly surprising given the behavior of some Slavs during WWII. The Croatian Ustasha acted as the mini-me of the Nazis and killed 100,000s of Slavs. When Nazis invaded Eastern Europe, there were some Slavic people who were so admiring of the Germans or hateful toward Jews, or both, that they did everything possible to be considered at least semi-Aryan. They didn’t expect full rights or privileges, but they were grateful to serve under the TRUE MASTERS OF THE WORLD. It was almost as if they regarded the conquering or victorious Germans as god-men whose veins streamed with divine blood, and it was a great honor to collaborate as sidekick running dogs. Kurtagic and Sunic’s toady supremacism, which essentially revolves the ‘sacred’ mythos of Nazi Aryanism, is a sorry spectacle. Their constant invocation of SUPERIORITY belies their repressed sense of inferiority. As people of relatively insignificant national backgrounds--Slovenia or Croatia--, they overreach by trying to associate themselves with what they presume to the highest summit of European civilization--militarist Germany from the era of Bismarck to the fall of Nazi Germany. It’s almost as if they are country boys from boonies who finally made it to the center of Western civilization, only to find the Old Glory vanished and/or lacking in the hearts and minds of superior Europeans--Germans, Anglos, etc. It’s especially frustrating since their toady supremacism has no outlet--no SUPERIOR people to appreciate and dote on it. Germans and Anglos no longer want to play the Great Power or Best Race game. Maybe some Russians do, but maybe they are too Asiatic and racially tainted for Sunic and Kurtagic’s taste. One gets the sense that they would have been most happy if Germany had won WWII, and if they, as lesser Europeans, could toady up to superior Germans and gain affection and appreciation. There was some of this in the biography of Hitler too. Born into a small insignificant town, he first went to Vienna to bask in the power, glory, and might of the Austrian Empire, only to be met by signs of its decline as the superior Germanic race seemed to be losing ground to venal Jews and lowly Slavs--the ancestors of Kurtagic and Sunic. Given this bit of reality, it’s ironic that Sunic and Kurtagic are such pathetic Germanophile toady supremacists.
They are correct to be worried about the fall of the West and of the arrival of hordes of non-whites, especially from Africa and the Muslim world, but what they offer is not something healthy and dignified for all Europeans but essentially a refurbished Nazism with its political correctness, conceit of SUPERIORITY, and obsession with superficiality--which explains Kurtgic’s greater emphasis on album covers than the music within them.
But there is no end to the examples of toady supremacism. In the histories of many Latin American nations--and in US too--, there were not one but many gradations of blackness. Especially in a nation like Brazil, light skinned blacks tended to toady up to whites more. Though admitting/accepting their inferior status vis-a-vis whites, their association with the superior, best, or highest race meant they could feel superior to the darker blacks.
Today, things have changed a great deal. Many whites--mostly liberals but lots of conservatives too--stake their sense of superiority or worth on how closely they’re associated with Jews and/or blacks. Toady supremacists suck in my book.