Homo Shame more necessary than ‘Gay Pride’

Individual sense-of-self is often at odds with the social/collective sense-of-community. One could feel pride in something as an individual, but society might officially deem it as shameful. Or one could feel ashamed of something as an individual, but society might deem it as something worthy of pride. (In ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, Billy Bibbit is cheered on for his sexual adventure by fellow inmates, and it becomes a point of pride. But when Nurse Ratched mentions how his mother might feel about it, he’s overcome with great shame. In pride and shame, it seems like Billy is responding to the approval or disapproval of others as he lacks a strong sense of self.) Sometimes, the individual could be right(or at least more right), and sometimes, society could be right(or more right). When that idiot Amanda Marcotte who writes for Slate had sex with a porn ‘actor’ and then bragged about it at work the next day, most of her co-workers weren’t enthused(though not exactly disapproving either; they were mostly indifferent). They didn’t high-five her about something she claimed to be so proud of. (By the way, if she’s such an independent-minded maverick, why did she feel a need to seek the stamp of approval by the community of her peers and then bitch about it when it wasn’t forthcoming?) In many cases, what someone is very proud of as an individual could be dismissed or disapproved by the larger community or official/dominant institutions. This has been very true in the field of arts & entertainment. An artist, writer, film-maker, actor, musician, or choreographer may be very proud of his/her work, but the critical community might mock or dismiss it, and the public might either ignore it or find it shameful and stupid. One man’s pride is another man’s shame.
Anyway, it’d be ridiculous to force people to share one’s sense of pride. If a film-maker thinks he made the greatest movie of all time but critics and/or the public think otherwise(to put it mildly), then there’s a huge discrepancy between the film-maker’s sense of pride and the larger community’s sense of shaming(that deems the work as something a sane and sensible person should be ashamed of). For all I know, Terrence Malick may think TREE OF LIFE is one of the greatest films ever made — if not the greatest — , but I think it’s shameful waste of imagination and talent(that Malick once possessed and still may possess but is being wasted due to megalomania). Malick and his defenders have no power and no right to enforce his own view of the movie on the rest of us. Of course, there are nutjob critics like N.P. Thompson who were so reverent about Malick’s THE NEW WORLD that they sounded off as if they wanted to force the world to agree with them... or else. (SHOAH by Claude Lanzmann is another film that everyone in the cinephile community is force-shamed into admiring. Pauline Kael got a lot of hell — even from her admirers — for finding much of it turgid, boring, and self-important. Her reputation just barely saved her, but it’s possible that a lesser critic might have been shamed, fired, and blacklisted for similar opinions.) As we are accustomed to living in a free society, we don’t believe anyone has the right to force us to like or hate something. We don’t want to live in an Emperor-Wears-No-Clothes scenario where the people of the community are under pressure to praise everything about the emperor, even when he is virtually naked and ridiculous-looking. But there have been many unfree societies where the rulers could force the populace agree with the official truths. If Stalin liked something, you better have liked it too. If he applauded something, you better applaud it. If he didn’t applaud, you better be very careful about applauding. If Mao felt self-pride about something he said(no matter how ludicrous it might have been), you better agree with the Great Helmsman and applaud wholeheartedly. In an unfree society, the pride of rulers becomes the official pride of the masses who really have no choice. If you disagree and counter that what the rulers deem as ‘proud’ is really shameful, you can end up in the Gulag. You can be mind-tortured via ‘re-education’ and forced to love Big Brother. An unfree society imposes its notions of pride on everyone. So, if Stalin was proud to be the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of the USSR, you had no choice but agree with the official cult of pride. Same with Mao. If Hitler liked a certain style of art, you better like it too. Leni Riefenstahl in the documentary film about her life and career said she was disappointed with Hitler’s artistic tastes(deemed as kitschy by her), but she kept her views to herself since Hitler was officially the visionary genius of Germany. If Hitler was proud of his artistic tastes/vision, you better agree, at least if you wanted any kind of successful career options in Nazi Germany. Those who were openly critical of Hitler’s cultural policy might not be imprisoned, exiled, or executed, but the chances of his or her success in attaining elite status in Nazi Germany would have dimmed considerably.

Today, in places like Cuba and North Korea — the two last communist holdouts — , people are still expected to agree with the official cult of pride as determined by the rulers. So, Cubans are still expected to hail Fidel Castro as one of the greatest people of all time. They are required to feel proud as Cubans-led-by-great-leader-Fidel. And if fat Kim thinks he’s hot stuff in North Korea — though, in reality, he’s just a stupid pig(apology to real pigs that are actually intelligent creatures) — , North Koreans better agree with his self-assessment because, otherwise, they can get in big trouble or even end up dead. Of course, children in both nations are drummed from an early age to worship their leaders and feel proud to be citizens of nations led by such towering geniuses(the kind the world has never seen). And their parents aren’t going to correct these idiocies taught in schools because the kids are also encouraged to rat on their parents(for incorrect thoughts), and that could spell big trouble for the entire family.

Fidel Castro - the Man Who Knows Everything

Kim Jong-Un - the Boy Who Eats Everything

In an unfree society, not only is the official cult of pride mandatory(and must be agreed upon, approved, and shared by all), but certain feelings of shame are not allowed. So, if an individual Russian during the Stalin Era felt shame in his participation in the communist order, he had to keep it to himself because an expression of shame could turn into a matter of life or death. (Of course, most people assent to authority for much less. Even the prospect of losing one’s job or the fear of being shunned will turn most people into jelly before the powers-that-be. Especially as the powers-that-be have the ‘dirt’ on everyone through extensive surveillance, even if one can legally/morally justify oneself on a particular issue, he can be destroyed on a host of other matters. Suppose someone stands firm and fights all the way against unjust abuse of power in America. Win or lose, suppose the powers-that-be havea record of his having opposed ‘gay marriage’. He can be turned into a non-person in the world of the urban Liberal gentry where most of the power, wealth, and privilege are concentrated. Power isn’t only about freedom but about reputation as all social orders are centered around taboos. One is free to oppose to ‘gay marriage’ by speech in America, but the attendant reputation is a destroyer for anyone seeking social elevation and promotion as ‘gay marriage’ has been turned into something sacrosanct by the Jewish elites. Today, most Liberals believe bakers ought to be sued and destroyed for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’, and Conservatives are reluctant to come to the defense of bakers who stand firm on their convictions. The minds of most Americans are completely owned by dirty Jews who control and impose what is sacrosanct or taboo. As most people are mainly desirous of wealth, privilege, status, and popularity, they will do anything to be seek the approval of the powers-that-be. Most people are that weak and wussy when it comes to genuine moral principles. They go for privilege and status, and they justify their betrayal of truth by fooling themselves that they ‘evolved’ to a ‘higher truth’ when, in fact, the real motivating factor was lust for privilege and approval from the ‘better kind of people’. If most homos were untalented and living in trailer parks than associated with rich and powerful people, who would give a damn about ‘gay marriage’?)

Suppose Soviet authorities heard someone saying, "I feel shame as a Russian when I see my countrymen obey Stalin like cattle and lay ruin to their own heritage and culture." Such sincere feelings of shame borne of individual conscience would not be permitted. Or imagine a conscientious German during the Nazi era who openly declares that he’s ashamed to be German because Germans elevated a vulgar lunatic like Adolf Hitler to the position of supreme leader. Even if his shame is individualistic and his own, it would be disapproved and could get him in trouble. Imposed or coercive collective pride means that one isn’t allowed to feel/express shame in being a part of a community that one finds to be insane or evil. It’s like courageous Japanese individuals who expressed individual shame over Japan’s military aggressions in Asia would have been silenced, censored, or imprisoned during the militarist era. Though one’s assessment of pride and shame is subjective, true pride and true shame must operate on the individual level as a matter of personal conscience. If you feel pride or shame primarily out of social, political, or economic pressure, then you’re just one of the sheeple who lets others determine what is good and what is bad, what is worthy of pride and what is worthy of shame. There is no Real You since you just go with the flow. Joachim Fest’s father, as recounted in his son’s memoir NOT I, had a powerful individual sense of pride and of shame. Despite Nazi pressure, he was individually proud to have resisted the regime in his own personal way, however ineffective it turned out to be politically. And despite the maniacal collective hysteria of national/racial pride centered around Hitler’s cult of personality, Fest’s father felt individual shame as a German who witnessed his fellow countrymen surrender their critical faculty and moral compass in their mindless devotion to Hitler the sorcerer. Thus, his individual sense of pride and individual sense of shame were two sides of the same coin. He felt pride as a man who refused to comply with an evil system, and he felt shame as a member of a culture whose folks collectively lost their minds. He didn’t let the regime dictate to him what he should feel proud of and what he should feel ashamed of.

Of course, supporters of Hitler had some legitimate reasons for feeling proud to be part of the new Germany molded by Hitler. Indeed, had Hitler avoided World War II and concentrated on less risky ventures, he might have gone down as one of Germany’s greatest statesmen. Fest himself argues as much in his biography of Hitler, i.e. had Hitler stopped his aggressions after the annexation of the Czech Republic, he would have been seen as an equal of Frederick the Great and Bismarck. After all, evil men can do good things, and good men can do evil things. Circumstances could force evil men to restrain their radical nature or force good men to take drastic measures. Had Hitler been genuinely afraid of the forces aligned against him in 1939, he might not have invaded Poland and instead might have resigned himself to playing the role of respectable statesman. It’s like even psychopaths can lead perfectly respectable lives if they believe they won’t be able to get away with their crazy acts. Hannibal Lecter killed and ate people because he was certain he could outsmart everyone else(especially as he enjoyed the game of cat and mouse with other humans deemed as intellectual and ‘spiritual’ inferiors). But if Lecter had been genuinely worried about getting caught, he might have repressed his sickness and worked as a brilliant psychologist; he would have been regarded as a first-rate doctor and scholar(and for valid reasons).

In a free society, one’s sense of pride or shame is a personal matter. Even if the elites say something is shameful, you might think it’s worthy of pride. Even if the elites say something is worthy of pride, you might see it as a matter of shame. Even if the majority feels pride in something, you might see it as something shameful. Even if the majority associates something with shame, you might see it as a point of pride. You may be right, you may be wrong, but your freedom to think and feel as you choose is tolerated and/or respected.
But does such a free society really exist? Or are all societies defined by pressures, subtle and not-so-subtle, that more or less compel most people to agree with the official cult of shame or official cult of pride? Especially when the official rules of shame and pride remain constant over a long period, they become almost second nature to most people. Most people don’t think about them and assume that all right-thinking people must and do agree. It is when the rules begin to change that we start to take notice of how these rules really work. What had been regarded as timeless and absolute truths are suddenly destroyed or made elastic to accommodate views and values that go against the original meaning. Rules usually change because the nature of elite power changes, because the social structure of society changes, and because changing trends lead to different habits of mind. A time of transition from one set of taboos to another makes for interesting dynamics.
As a society becomes more liberalized, old truths and taboos began to weaken, and there’s an opportunity for individual freedom and personal conscience to come to the fore and rebel against established conventions. So far so good in the development of a free society. But as time passes and as the new elites consolidate their power, the window of freedom narrows. Though the rules have changed, the dominance of the new elites leads to the establishment of New Truths and New Taboos. This is why the golden age of personal freedom/conscience is always when old truths of conservatism gives way to new truths of liberalism. Conservatism is no longer powerful enough to enforce the Old Truth, and liberalism is, as yet, not powerful enough to enforce the New Truth. Within that window of opportunity, one is allowed a wide spectrum of expressions ranging from the right to the left. Unmoored from old dogmas but as yet unanchored to new ones. It is a time when society has room enough for both the Archie Bunkers and the Meatheads of the world. It’s like the 60s, 70s, and early 80s were the golden age of free speech. Old censoriousness as favored by social conservatives and political patriots no longer held sway in society, and things that once couldn’t be said could be said in areas of politics, culture, sex, and lifestyles. And just about every liberal was for unfettered free speech, and two or three generations grew up believing in free speech as an absolute necessity of a democratic society. But since the late 80s, the Liberal Jewish elites began to consolidate their power in all institutions, and they used their power and influence to raise new generations of kids to believe that ‘hate speech is not free speech’, which really means that Liberal Jews should determine what does and doesn’t constitute ‘hate’. Not surprisingly according to the Liberal Jew elites, Zionism isn’t ‘hate’ but white nationalism is.

It used to be that homosexuality wasn’t only illegal but regarded as a form of sickness(by the medical community), sin(by the religious community), and depravity(by the moral community on both the right and the left). In truth, homosexuality is what one might call a Natural Abnormality. It is abnormal and dysfunctional — it’s about ‘sex’ involving men indulging in fecal penetration and women indulging in mutual-vagina-mashing — , but most homos are born homo. To be sure, a social order can make straight males carry on with the cult of homosexual practice, especially as rite of passage. This was surely the case with Ancient Sparta. The vast majority of Spartan men were not naturally homosexual as only 2% of the population are born as fruitkins. But assboy-ship became a hallmark of the Spartan rite of passage to manhood. When straight males — especially boys — are compelled to indulge in such kind of unpleasant behavior, they certainly aren’t enjoying it. So, why did such practice continue on down the generations in Sparta? It’s because the culture of abuse repeats itself generation after generation. It’s like abused children are more likely to abuse their own children. It’s like people who were corporally punished as children are more likely to use physical punishment on their own children. Even though they didn’t enjoy the violence done to them in their childhoods, it has become second nature to their way of assessing the rules of life. Also, they’ve subconsciously come to feel that such violence, however unpleasant it may have been, contributed to building their character and making them tougher and stronger. It’s like men who’ve been to the military and survived boot camp(with all its hardships and abuses) feel a certain pride in having gone to hell and returned. Thus, to-hell-and-back-ism or what-doesn’t-break-you-makes-you-stronger-ism becomes part of the training manual for a social order.
There’s something within the human heart that feels, "I shall do unto others what was done to me." In English boarding schools, incoming freshmen were abused and demeaned by older classmates. Given the nastiness, you’d think they themselves would act nicer to future underclassmen once they themselves moved up the academic hierarchy. But when they became the upperclassmen, they pulled rank and the same stunts on younger classmates.
In a freer social order, some might rebel and break such a cycle of violence-intimidation-humiliation, but the English school system was all about tradition, order, and honor — and society-at-large was in awe of such traditions, especially as it was practiced within elite institutions themselves. So, younger classmates were expected to suffer in silence and show their mettle by stoically handling the abuse(and wait for their own turn to wield the rod one day). And even though they were shamed and belittled, they were made to feel pride in the fact that they weathered the blows and taunts. As British society was defined by hierarchy, class consciousness, and lower members of society tipping their hats and saying "aye guv’nor" to their social superiors, it was understood by most people that the proper thing was to just grin and bear it. Paradoxically, lower classmates were forced to act like cowering servile wimps, but in their grin-and-bear-it stoicism of accepting such servitude, they might also feel a certain courage of taking the blows and whips without complaint. And when they finally made it to senior-ship, they could feel pride of having made it through the wringer and survived. So, it was finally their turn to act like the nasty upper-classmates in the film IF by Lindsay Anderson. They had paid their dues.

If... directed by Lindsay Anderson

Dazed and Confused directed by Richard Linklater

But then, there’s no guarantee that a freer society with less class consciousness will necessarily be nicer and more ‘humane’. Consider the hazing scene in DAZED AND CONFUSED. And there’s all sorts of nasty ‘classroom-and-shower-room politics’ in American schools, though a movie like CARRIE is certainly an exaggeration(unless the school is full of Negroes, in which case, it’s nothing compared to what the jafro-jivers are capable of). Still, it’s a bigger problem in authoritarian societies like Ancient Sparta or traditional Britain with its rigid class/caste structure. Or in old China where young women were married into the families of their husbands. In essence, the young wife was kicked around as a slave of the mother-in-law who herself had undergone and survived the same ordeal. Needless to say, the young wife would eventually grow old and become a mother-in-law herself and treat her daughter-in-law like a dog.

So, it’s not difficult to understand why Ancient Spartans carried on with the rite of assboy-ship even though most men were not homo. They were ‘abused’ homosexually by older men, and they internalized such unpleasantness as a rite of passage in becoming a ‘real man’. Since they survived the ordeal from older men who buggered their hynies, it was their turn to bugger a new generation of young boys to turn them into ‘real men’ too. (It’s interesting how a lot of these instances of unpleasantness involved sexuality. Homosexual abuse was a factor in English school system as well, and it often involved non-homosexual men and boys. Perhaps, the process of going from childhood to adulthood is traumatic because of the sexual changes that happen in the body, emotions, & drives, and such Rites of Humiliation may serve as means by which the burgeoning sexuality is tamed and put in order. With Ancient Spartans, the rite of passage involving ass-buggering was not a case of sexual libertine-ism but a matter of mandatory requirement. And there was much sexual taunting and shaming — of various nature — in the English school system. In the film IF... by Lindsay Anderson, a teacher is shown pinching and twisting the nipple of a boy who fails to provide the correct answer. And in the case of old China, young women were forced to suppress their sexuality and focus on familial duties. They were, of course, expected to have sex but only to provide a male heir than for any sexual pleasure or fulfilment.
The transition from childhood to adulthood is dramatic in both sexes. Boys start realizing that their balls produce jism that demands to be shot out all over the place. This is why SPIDERMAN is like pop culture Kafka-Freudianism. Not only does some guy turn into an insectodean creature, but he’s shooting white stuff all over the place from the masturbatory flick of the wrist. It’s like he’s cumming all over the city. David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD is about how inside every man is a jism-producing factory that keeps on cranking out spermic eel-like creatures.
And then you have girls who, in budding into womanhood, start bleeding from their pooters(though some say ‘cooters’) on a monthly basis. It’s all very gross if you think about it, which is why the pig-blood scene in CARRIE resonated so powerfully with young female viewers in 1976. (When I was in elementary school, girls of all ages couldn’t stop talking about it even though almost none of them saw it until it finally came on TV.) It’s as if heaven-as-hell menstruated on Carrie. If boys, in turning into men, begin to feel more aggressive as if a bundle of vipers are growing inside their balls and struggling to burst out and conquer the world; girls, in turning into women, feel as if they have a hog inside their belly that wants to be slaughtered and bled by a big hammer that would be the pud. Such urges and expressions/repressions seem gross and ghastly, which is why they make interesting subjects for horror or cult films by the likes of David Lynch, David Cronenberg, Brian DePalma, and John Carpenter.

London Slums

Though we modern folks often mock people in the past for their panics about sex and human biology, we need to understand that things were far less hygienic in the past. People lived far closer to bodily fluids of all kinds: female blood, men’s jism, animal body parts, feces, urine, and etc. And disease was rife, and sexual licentiousness often led to sexual diseases like syphilis that weren’t only incurable but drove people mad and killed them in horrible ways. It was a time when tuberculosis and other diseases were quite common even among the privileged. As dirt, grime, filth, and diseases were everywhere and as medicine had a long ways to go to come up with cures, behavior centered around fear and restraint mattered a great deal. Wrong kind of behavior could make one very sick. One wrong sexual encounter, and a person could ruin his or her life.
Also, it was a time when even rich folks didn’t have modern plumbing. Even the president of America took a shit in a commode. Abraham Lincoln got up every morning and squatted over a bowl in his bedroom and unloaded his feces and urine. And many folks disposed of shit and piss in rather unsavory ways. In many streets in France, many people just dumped the offal out the window. And as horses were the main means of transportation, there was manure all over the streets. And there were feral dogs with rabies. And of course, rats were everywhere.
In such a world, people were bound to be more ‘panicked’ and ‘repressive’ about human behavior. Even in rich families with access the best medical care, it wasn’t unusual for many children to die of diseases. Also, death in childbirth was far more common for women and babies. Since women in the past had more kids than women do today, there was a good chance that they would die of complications during childbirth. Indeed, a common misfortune mentioned in novels of the 19th and early 20th century involves women dying from giving birth. Ernest Hemingway’s most famous novel, THE FAREWELL TO ARMS, is about a woman dying while giving birth — and the kid is stillborn. As deaths from childbirths are far rarer today(especially with easy availability of birth control pills and abortion), something like Hemingway’s sad novel would be less believable if set in our times. (But maybe we still hanker for such tragic depths, and this may explain the explosion of the Orpheus-and-Eurydice narratives in films like SHUTTER ISLAND, INCEPTION, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, and etc. Since women don’t die in real life, we have them die beautifully in movies.) So, we should be more understanding of the past instead of dismissing people back then as hopelessly panic-stricken or repressed or whatever. Effective cures for sexual diseases were still in the future. Condoms were not widely available, and there was no birth control pills. And the means by which women controlled their menstrual flow was far less effective then than now. Today, any woman can drive her car to the nearest drug store and buy any amount of tampons and such stuff. And disposable baby diapers are readily available to all, and garbage is regularly picked up and removed from residential, business, industrial, and recreational spaces. But things weren’t so clean and hygienic in the old days. A woman could be working in the fields and suddenly have blood flow down between her thighs. A baby would shit, and the same cloth/napkin would have to be cleaned over and over. And the fouled water from washing could be just dumped anywhere as there was no indoor plumbing. It was like the conditions of poverty seen in THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY. So, naturally, there were more taboos and repressions about human behavior since proper behavior might offer people with some degree of protection from the filth in the air, water, and in their own bodies trying to come out as urine, feces, blood, sweat, and etc. Today, many people shower everyday, but even people in the 1950s didn’t shower regularly, at least by our standards. (Ironically, even though social taboos and repressions served to protect people from indulging in wanton behavior that might lead to disease and/or death, they could sometimes makes things worse by sanctifying certain behavior via spiritual cosmology. India is famous for this. No sane person should bathe in the filthy Ganges, but Hindus see it as sacred, and therefore, millions go bathing in what is essentially an open sewage river; some even drink the water. Taboos can also be anti-rational and resist scientific advancement in medicine and hygiene. Also, especially in regards to sex, taboos can perpetuate ignorance about certain bodily functions that men and women need to know about in order to avoid dangers. Though sexual taboos exist to protect people from sexual problems, they can sometimes exacerbate the problems by silencing open discussion of urgent issues. The HIV problem in India is partly the result of socially coercive silence on the matter because official morality would have Indians believe that everyone is acting properly and not indulging in sexual practices such as prostitution. So, liberals have urged sexual education in schools. Not because they want to sexualize children from an early age but to inform the children about the truth and dangers of sex. But this also comes with a danger because once the discussion of sex is rendered casual and open, it can affect the culture as a whole to drop its hang-ups about sex. One result of the openness of sexual discussion/discourse is people being more informed about their decisions on sex, which is a good thing. The other result is a culture flooded with stuff like SEX AND THE CITY, GIRLS, and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES that have ‘pornified’ the mainstream and put forth the prostitute-style as the sexual ideal. So-called ‘hook-up culture’ is a vile thing.)
Indeed, if people in the last several decades became more relaxed and libertine about sexual matters, it had something to do with how our scatological nature/content became more ‘repressed’ through commercial products like disposable diapers and tampons, widespread plumbing, antibiotics, and all sorts of other devices and contraptions. For our behavior to be freed, our fluids and waste material had to be better hidden and industrially ‘repressed’.
It’s like Steven Pinker’s idealized present in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE was made possible by vast improvements in the efficiency and coordination of violence. For example, the modern means of killing and slaughtering animals, fishing the oceans, chopping down trees, dismantling entire mountains for minerals, drilling holes to suck out oil, and etc. have improved to such extent that there’s more goods for everyone(despite huge growth in human population) than in anytime in the past. When the means of violence were less efficient, people led tougher lives, and they were hungrier, thirstier, and wearier. If you wanted meat, you yourself would have to kill a rabbit and skin it — like the kid eventually does in KINGS OF SUMMER. Or you might have to take a sledgehammer and strike a sheep, pig, or cow in the head. At the very least, you’d have to twist off a chicken’s neck. But as our industrial means of killing and slaughtering is so efficient, it produces tons of meat for everyone. As our agricultural methods can plant and harvest produce from vast fields — and agriculture is a form of violent war on nature to grow food products desired by humans and livestock — , even poor people grow fat and feel satiated with full bellies.
Likewise, the improvement and wider accessibility of medicine, plumbing, hygienic commercial products, treatments, and etc. have improved so greatly that we’ve grown more complacent about our biological functions. In a less modern society, we have to be mindful of when and where we took a dump and pee.

Dotter Woman Pooing Outdoors

In India, 50% of the people still shit and piss outdoors, which means if you don’t watch yourself, you could be stepping on doo-doo. (This is a problem even in some communities in America where slovenly pet-owners allow their dogs to shit all over and don’t clean up afterwards.)
In the West, conditions have improved so much that even HIV-positive homos can lead reasonably healthy and decent lives. Magic Johnson, homo or not homo, is still alive and doing well. Andrew Sullivan, the fruitkin who got HIV from serving as an assboy to homo Negroes, is alive and doing well too. Though AIDS hasn’t been cured, they’ve found ways to control its worst symptoms, and this particular medical advancement has turned a sure death sentence into a life-sentence, which isn’t so bad.
But, when there was no cure for HIV in the 80s and much of the 90s, panic was the order of the day in the homo community, and rightfully so. (Of course, much of this has been whitewashed, and the Narrative would have us believe that only conservatives and hardcore Christians were in a panic/paranoid mode. Not true. It was the homo community that was most panicked because so many homos were dropping dead like flies. Furthermore, accusing the Right of ‘sexual panic’ is disingenuous because Liberals also accuse the Right of sexual indifference. You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, Liberals say conservatives were flipping out during the AIDS crisis instead of being cool-headed and rational. But then they say conservatives were ‘indifferent’ and ‘uncaring’ instead of being impassioned about finding a cure. Same thing with this thing called ‘rape culture’. On the one hand, Liberals say conservatives are too uptight and repressed about sexual matters. They mock TWILIGHT movies for being ‘old-fashioned’ and repressive. But these same people say white college ‘conservatives’ — especially those in fraternities in southern universities — are totally out of control and whipping their dicks out to rape every college freshman girl. So, which is it? Are conservatives too uptight about sex or too wild & crazy? Were conservatives in the 80s too panicked or too indifferent about the AIDS problem? Needless to say, it’s Jews who use their immense media power to denigrate conservatives.)
Though Liberals, in their mindless worship of homos-as-holy-victims, have tried to whitewash homo ‘sexual’ behavior(that was indeed the main cause for the AIDS epidemic in the ‘gay community’) and blame the problem on ‘Reagan Era Indifference’, the fact is that people on the Right pleaded with the homo community to face the reality and act more responsibly: Either stop buggering one another in the ass or use condoms or be careful whose ass you boof. But, too many reckless homos gave the middle finger to Middle America, and they went about buggering one another all night long all over the place with all sorts of people. The fact that even homos of somewhat ‘conservative’ bent like Andrew Sullivan and Allan Bloom contracted HIV suggests that homos were into major buggering all around. If even ‘respectable’ homos act this way, just imagine how the more flamboyant homos were acting. They were boofing one another like crazy. Indifference or even hatred of homos didn’t spread HIV. I can be in the same room with a bunch of fruitkins and tell them I don’t care about them and even hate them. As long as they don’t bugger one another like lunatics, they will not get HIV. My feelings about them have nothing to do with their contracting the disease. But in another scenario, suppose I tell them that I care about them and suppose they bugger one another like crazy(and one of them happen to be HIV-positive); the chances are they’re all going to be infected with the illness. How I feel about homos has nothing to do with homos getting HIV. It’s like it doesn’t matter how I feel about Herpes. People will get it or won’t get it on the basis of their individual actions. Homos demanded the right to boof one another like crazy, and they paid the price for doing so because fecal penetration is a one helluva way to spread all sorts of filth and disease. So, the reason for the AIDS epidemic in the homo community had everything to do with ‘gay’ behavior of reckless ass-boofery. And such reckless was all too common. Roy Cohn was a Conservative Jew homo, but he got HIV. Worse, even when he knew he was HIV-positive, he buggered other homos. The leftist scholar Michel Foucault did the same thing. He continued to boof other homos despite the fact that he knew he was HIV-positive. Did Reagan force men like Roy Cohn, Michel Foucault, Andrew Sullivan, and Allan Bloom to go around boofing and getting boofed in the ass? Even if the funds for AIDS research in the 80s had been doubled, effective medical treatments would have been in the indefinite future. No amount of money could have found some magic cure there and then(and even today, AIDS can be controlled but not cured). It’s like despite the tons of money spent on breast cancer research, there’s still no magic cure, which is why Angelina Jolie opted for radical mastectomy. But homos, in their hissy-pissy, bitchy-witchy, tutti-fruity, and ta-ta manner, are incapable of facing up to the music and blaming themselves for the very problem that they caused. They are like old aristocrats who messed things up in their domain but always blamed it on others. Homos remind us of Jews like Jordan Belfort and Jack Abramoff who pulled every dirty stunt in the book but still try to blame others for what they’ve done. It’s like World Jewry ruined Russia after the fall of communism by aiding Russian Jewish oligarchs to swallow up most of the wealth. But do Jews take any responsibility for what they’ve done?
Indeed, why is it so difficult for liberal democracy to work in many nations? Because when they make a go of it, globalist Jews exploit the new freedom in that country to take over the media, banks, and even the government. How could Russian democracy work for the Russian masses when World Jewry colluded with Russian Jews to take over everything? Many African and Arab nations are understandably cynical about Western rhetoric about ‘democracy’ since it often involves Jews using their money and might to slip in Jewish influence along with the so-called ‘democracy’. The so-called ‘liberation’ of Iraq may have removed tyrant Hussein, but it gave Neocon Jews an opportunity to mess up Iraq via sectarian strife so that it will never rise again as a regional power. Though Iran is ruled by a miserable Islamic regime, it’s also true that certain ‘pro-democracy’ groups are bankrolled by Jews who would love to shove ‘gay marriage’ onto Iranians. Today, much of American pro-democratic rhetoric in Africa has to do with ‘gay rights’. Now, I can understand the West asking Africans to go easier on homos and to deal with violence against ‘gays’, but who the hell wants a democracy where bakers can be sued and fined and imprisoned for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’? Who wants their children in fifth grade to be taught in schools about the joys of ‘anal sex’?

Modern Toilet - Wonder of the Age

Todd Bless the Plumber

Anyway, because we live with modern technology and amenities that can control, cure, reverse, or hide all the questionable things we do, we tend to be more easy-going about our behavior. We need not worry about garbage since the truck comes to pick it up and dispose of it. We need not worry about fecal matter since we merely need to flush the toilet. We need not worry about sweat and grime since we can shower everyday — and some people shower twice or more times a day. Women need not worry so much about ‘the period’ since it’s easy to carry appropriate products, and there are washrooms all over the place. We can be less ‘panic-stricken’ and ‘repressed’ about our social behavior because so much of our biological/scatological realities are ‘repressed’ and ‘hidden’ by our technology.
Indeed, we would be less panic-stricken about death as well if it could be reversed, as in EDGE OF TOMORROW. We fear death because it’s irreversible. If we fall off a cliff, it’s death for sure. We can die in a car crash. We can be shot to death. So, we still have great fears about death. If a loved one dies, there’s nothing we can do to bring him or her back to life. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can spend all their money to revive a dead mouse, but it never live again. Death is sure and certain. So, death still frightens us like diseases of yesteryear once frightened us. But suppose there’s a reverse-death machine that can easily revive the dead. Suppose in a fit of anger, I shot someone. I would feel panicked about the arrest, prosecution, guilt, and conviction. And people who love the victim will be filled with sadness. But suppose I can push a button and bring back the person back to life. Suppose we had the power of Superman to turn the clock back as he did in the original movie where Lois Lane was brought back to life. That way, death would no longer frighten us so badly. It would merely be just another ‘problem’ that we can control, cure, or reverse. And murder would no longer be such a terrible crime since the murdered could be restored back to life. Would that be better for our morality? If indeed every dead person could easily be brought back to life, what would most of us think of murder? Why would murder be so bad when resurrection would be assured of the victim? If we had a reverse-death machine, the moral consequences of death would be lightened, even trivialized. Murder would not lead to irreversible death but only to a process of ‘healing’ whereby the dead person will be made to live again. It’s like in ZARDOZ where the Eternals cannot be killed permanently. Remember when Zed kills one of the Eternals in the opening part of the film. The Eternal, shot by Zed, seems to fall to his death, but he is reconstituted and alive again. So, murder isn’t a grave matter in the world of the Eternals. The creation of a reverse-death machine would be miraculous. How wonderful if a murder victim could be brought back to life. But then, if the murdered can so easily be ‘cured’, the moral burden of murdering someone would lose its meaning and substance.

In some ways, the advancement of science and technology makes us less moral since many of the problems we cause can be fixed, reversed, or controlled though modern means of convenience. Sexual misbehavior was weighted with greater moral sanctions and taboos in the past because the consequences were so grave and obvious. Women could easily become pregnant with the lack of contraceptives. So, the connection between personal behavior and moral choice could not be ignored. One had to mindful of the consequences of the loss of self-control. Today, women can indulge in all sorts of naughty behavior and just rely on pills, devices, and even abortion to reverse the consequences of their actions. Guys can sleep around and get all sorts of diseases, but then go to the doctor to be treated for VD. Even if VD cannot be cured, it can be controlled. Even HIV is now controllable in the West, therefore homos can relax once again about boofing each other in the ass. And as America is a rich nation, much of bad behavior can be alleviated through welfare, government programs, and increased benefits. In the past, nearly everyone had to work very hard to have enough to eat. With tons of excess food produced every year and with the Fed printing record amounts of money — and with cheap labor in Mexico, China, and India to offer products and services at depressed prices — , we don’t have to worry about inflation that usually accompanies massive printing of money. If in the 19th century some jive-ass Negroes and idiot ‘white trash’ acted like today’s idiot blacks and whites, they’d starve pure and simple. Back then, they had to be mindful about finding work, growing food, or doing something that served their needs of survival.Today, a jive-ass Negro can mess up in school, wear his pants down low, act like an ape, hump a lot of ho’s, and be a total idiot, but the government will take care of his needs. Just look at the useless scum of Ferguson, Missouri.

Jafro-Jivers Acting Negro-ish

Because of modern economy and technology, there’s plenty to go around, and even total idiots can be taken care of. Indeed, we are told that it’s a moral imperative to take care of those ‘poor’ people. But because today’s underclass no longer really suffer the consequences of their actions — since they are guaranteed the basics of survival and more no matter what they do — , the moral culture suffers as a whole. But for how long can such madness be sustained?
And it’s not just Negroes or ‘white trash’. Wall Street is packed with people with fancy degrees from top business schools. Many are as venal and unscrupulous as they’re smart and ambitious. But they needn’t worry much about ‘moral hazard’. Since the Great Depression, the US government has come up with new ways to handle economic crises, and in many ways, these improvements were necessary and for the good. But they also had a morally corrosive effect because the sharks on Wall Street now feel that they will be taken care of by the government(bought and paid for by Wall Street to a large measure) no matter how badly they mess up the economy through unfettered orgies of greed. If anything, the very Wall Street sharks who’d done so much to tank the economy in 2008 reaped the most rewards since the Recession. Under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one needn’t be morally responsible to buy homes, morally responsible to make loans, and morally responsible to buy the loans, bundle them together with bad loans, and sell them all over all the globe. Lots of Wall Street Jews did this, but almost no one went to jail. If anything, the government bailed them out, and they are now richer than ever. We can pat ourselves on the back for having in place a system that managed and survived a great crisis, but doesn’t such a system also encourage us to be less moral since problems of immorality can be reversed, controlled, or contained(by means that some would call unethical to put it mildly)? Suppose Hitler had a button in 1941 that could reset everything like a video game if things didn’t go well. Like the Tom Cruise character in EDGE OF TOMORROW, Hitler could have done the GROUNDHOG-DAY-THING over and over until he got it ‘right’. The problem is not being offered a second chance. The problem is never having to learn the lesson since the ‘system’ will always take care of you or contain(or ‘correct’) your mistake. Worse, in the long run the ‘system’ could encourage people to act ever more irresponsible. The problems are compounded when special interest groups and hostile minorities dominate society. For example, in a sane society, girls would be instructed on the danger of fecal penetration, i.e. it greatly increases the chance of anal cancer, spread of disease, the distended bunghole syndrome, and etc. And straight guys would be instructed that it’s not healthy to have their penises smeared with fecal matter. But because Jews control America and since homos are the favored group of Jews(and since homo men indulge in fecal penetration), our society fails to instruct girls about the gross dangers of indulging in fecal penetration. Why, such information might be ‘homophobic’. Wall Street sharks brought down the economy, but when the Bush administration allowed Lehman Brothers to fail, the Jews didn’t blame themselves. No, they blamed the Bush administration for not doing enough. And to panic the government into acting, Wall Street Jews made the economic panic even worse. And they cleverly supported Obama to give the impression that a new kind of leader was coming into Washington to clean up the culture of greed. So, what did Obama do? He bailed out the big Jewish banks. Homos and Jewish bankers act the same. Homos spread HIV all over in the 1980s by spreading filth all around through fecal penetration, but they blamed the epidemic on Reagan’s ‘indifference’ than on their own actions. According to the homo narrative, the problem lay with what Reagan didn’t do than with what the homos did do, which was stick penises in the holes that doo-doo. It’s like someone burning down his own house and then complaining that the fire truck didn’t arrive soon enough. Even if the complaint is valid, why did he burn down the house in the first place? Such kinds of questions are anathema to hissy pissy homos and pushy-wushy Jews. Jewish bankers in the 2000s risked the entire global economy by spreading the filth of toxic derivatives all over the world, but when banks like Lehman Brothers began to topple, Jews blamed the government of indifference and not acting fast enough. Of course, the government was also to blame, especially since George W. Bush gave the green light on the crazy home loans in the name of creating a ‘ownership society’. If anything, Bush II was filled with so much compassion for non-whites without homes that he backed the homes-for-deadbeats program with Tex-Mex gusto. Even so, Wall Street was the main enabler of the crazy economic scheme. Also, since the late 1990s, it was telling the government and lobbying politicians to butt out and let Wall Street do as it pleases without much oversight or regulation. Wall Street went into bathhouse orgy mode as it wallowed in filthy finance capitalism. It did as it pleased, but when the shit finally hit the fan, it was bitching and whining that Bush II wasn’t doing enough to fix the problem that it created in the first place. It was like homos demanding that they be allowed to boof one another like crazy and then blaming Conservatives for not having done enough to find an instant cure for AIDS, especially so that homos could go on boofing one another like crazy as if there’s no tomorrow. Both homos and Wall Street lunatics sound like Albert Brooks’ character in LOST IN AMERICA. His wife blew their entire saving on gambling, but he wants the money back. He’s just some hapless boomer with midlife crisis, but today, entire industries and groups are shameless in their demand to do as they please and in their bitching that others or the ‘system’ clean up the very problems they’ve caused through their own excessive behavior. "We want our money back." It’s not "I did it my way, and I will suffer the consequences", but "I did it my way, and you better deal with the consequences." In schools, black kids act up and get suspended more, but neither they nor their parents are blamed. No, the blame is on ‘society’ or the ‘system’ for the ‘racism’ of punishing black kids disproportionately(while conveniently ignoring the fact that black kids disproportionately act out of order).
In many cases, many Americans — even or especially white Liberals — know all about the foulness of our (im)moral climate, but they have to maintain the political coalition, and since blacks are a key group(for both demographic and symbolic reasons) in the Democratic Party, their ‘noble victim’ shtick has to be sustained(even against all evidence that blacks are hardly saints and angels). Or consider illegal immigration. Americans didn’t force all those people to come here illegally. Americans didn’t force them to have kids in America. Illegals did so by breaking American laws. Yet, the moral burden is placed on white Americans for fixing the problem. Of course, the solution would have been simple. Send the illegals back and secure the border. But for some reason, that would be violating the ‘rights’ of illegal aliens to break American laws. So, just as homos did as they pleased but then burdened society with the blame for the problem and just as Wall Street Jews fleeced the entire world but then burdened society with the obligation to fix the economic mess, illegals caused the problems by breaking-and-entering in America but then burdened American society with the responsibility to solve the problem of their illegal status. But Americans didn’t forcibly drag them here illegally. They came here illegally. They broke the rules. Because America is very rich and bountiful, it’s been able to accommodate, forgive, and even encourage all such bad behavior. So, even though homos did so much to spread AIDS all over, they are now celebrated and even worshiped as a ‘race’ of ‘angels’. So, even though Jews have done more than any other group to steal from the world economy and mess up things in the Middle East and Ukraine, they are admired and praised as the godly race. And even though illegals broke American laws and leeched off America, we are told that amnesty is like Emancipation of slavery. If America were a poor dysfunctional nation, such lunacies couldn’t be indulged since there would be no way of paying for them. But because America can afford to indulge such lunacies, the moral climate of America gets worse and worse. Jews, homos, Negroes, and illegals get more blatant, nasty, arrogant, narcissistic, and unreflective in their behavior and demands.

Jews especially have a culture of evading all responsibility for their foulness. Consider how a lot of Jewish radicals were involved in espionage for the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s. A network of Jewish spies including the Rosenbergs funneled atomic secrets to Josef Stalin. There were many Jewish radicals, communists, and fellow-travelers working to subvert the American system, send secret documents to the Soviet Union, and, of course, pull every dirty trick in the book to aid and abet Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror against Palestinians. But Jews took no responsibility for their deeds and blamed all the problems on the anti-communist ‘paranoia’ and ‘hysteria’. Given the fact that so many communists and fellow-travelers had infested the US government, you’d think the real problem was that the anti-communists weren’t vigilant enough. After all, the secrets of the Bomb — as well as tons of other documents — did end up in Stalin’s hands. Oftentimes, thanks largely to Jewish agents, Stalin knew more about what was happening in the US government than American politicians did. But Jews take no responsibility. They take no blame. Instead, they just play victim and blame the ‘right’ for ‘paranoia’ and ‘hysteria’.
It’s no wonder that Jews and homos saw eye-to-eye about politics in the 1980s and 1990s.
Both groups think and behave alike. They are hissy, arrogant, hideous, and vile. They are narcissistic and self-righteous and see themselves as the center of the world. Tim Cook of Apple thinks he’s blessed by God because he has a ‘sexual’ predilection for sucking men’s cocks and having other men pump him in the ass. And of course, Tony Kushner the homo Jew conflated the story of the Rosenbergs with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Never mind it was Rosenbergs who gave Stalin the Bomb. Never mind that AIDS spread like wildfire because homos were out of control. Instead, both Jewish leftists and homo perverts play victim and say they were victims of right-wing ‘paranoia’ or ‘indifference’. Jews, homos, and Negroes demand that we never object to whatever they do, and so, they indulge in various forms of financial fraud, sexual lechery, and criminality, but if things go badly due to their excesses, WE are to blame for all the problems resulting from them. Jews messed up Russia after the fall of communism, but notice how they blame everything on Putin, even though the neo-oligarchic system was put in place by Jews before Putin amassed sufficient power to rein in the oligarchs to some degree. Jews, homos, and Negroes are vile groups that should never be heeded or trusted. Sure, like any other groups, they have their own histories of suffering and tragedies, but we should never let them own the morality narrative on account of their suffering since they feel zero sympathy for all the peoples who’d suffered from their actions. Since when have Jews ever apologized or atoned for what they’ve done? What have homos ever done to atone for their long history of collaborating with the oppressive elites all around the world? What have Negroes ever done to apologize for all the misery they’ve created over the ages and in all parts of the world through their thuggery and madness?

Anyway, the true pride and true shame cannot be coerced. We can be pressured to feign false pride and false shame, but that would only indicate that the socio-political order in question is unfree. In Cuba, people are made to feign pride in being ruled by Castro. Under Ceausescu’s regime in Romania, the masses were forced to feign pride at mass rallies. They had to pretend that they were living in a land of plenty and justice. And when the level of enthusiasm couldn’t be sustained, the regime used loudspeakers to add the sounds of applause. It was like adding laugh-tracks to TV comedy.
In the past, even homos who felt real pride in being homo were pressured to remain silent or were fired and blacklisted for daring to display pride in something that the official culture deemed as depraved. Back then, official culture had an elite component and a mass component, and both exerted great influence. Though liberals were dominant in elite positions — though not as much as Liberals are today — , much of America was still governed and defined by what might be called ‘community’ values rooted in family, ethnicity, tradition, religion, moral righteousness, and etc. And the ‘community values’ component of the culture was sufficiently powerful to elicit the respect of the liberal elites. It would have been crazy for the liberals elites to push something like ‘gay marriage’ in the 50s, 60s, or even 70s. Even at the height of the so-called ‘radical 60s’, much of America was powerfully governed by ‘community values’.

To be sure, liberals back then were not like Liberals today. Many, even most, liberals back then thought homosexuality was a sickness or perversion. Though more tolerant of homos than conservatives were, many liberals shared many of the moral and social assumptions of American conservatives. In terms of cultural habits, your average mainstream liberal in the 60s wasn’t all that different from an average mainstream conservative. The working men in HOFFA might be on the left economically, but their cultural values had nothing in common with what prevails among today’s urban gentry Liberals. Globalist Liberals revere Masha Gessen(who is like a dyke Ayn Rand) and endorse her vision of the future. Over 99% of American liberals would have found her demented and sick in decades past. Even many homosexuals would have been disgusted by her ilk. Today, Gessen-ism is the toast of the town in places like Washington D.C., San Francisco, New York, London, and etc.

Also, though Jews and homos were powerful among the liberal elites in the past, other groups were represented too, especially liberal white gentiles, and they stamped liberalism with some degree of mainstream values. But as time passed, Jews and homos took over the institutions of liberal elitism. And they increasingly felt little in common with ‘community values’ characterized by the tastes and assumptions of masses of white gentiles who tended to be relatively conservative(at least relative to the agenda of Jews and homos). If traditional liberalism was largely in sync with ‘community values’ — GRAPES OF WRATH is a leftist novel but strong on family values and humanist stoicism — , the neo-liberalism of the Jewish and homo elites found little in common with ‘community values’. (Traditional liberalism also favored ‘community values’ because blacks were seen as culturally backward and less sophisticated. Traditional liberals felt they must appeal to the common man/woman, and since the common man/woman wasn’t particularly well-educated, his or her decency was defined by something like ‘family values’. Consider Lorraine Hansberry’s play THE RAISIN IN THE SUN where the main character is a stout Negress who holds her family together with motherly virtues and faith in God. When her daughter acts too smart and says she doesn’t believe in God, she slaps her real good and compels her to say, ">"In my mother’s house, there is still God." Even the demon in THE EXORCIST would have run from the black mama’s fierce piety. The mama is no educated or cultured woman, but she has an intuitive and impassioned sense of right and wrong borne of experience, patience, suffering, hard times, and pride in work. And such folks were at the center of the traditional liberal imagination. Today, such a woman would be unwelcome in the Liberal community. Only if a chubby black guy puts on a dress and a blonde wig will he get any kind of love from today’s elite-effete urban gentry Liberals whose values are in sync with Gessen-ism. To be sure, the mama archetype of RAISIN IN THE SUN faded long before the rise of new Liberalism. When the Civil Rights Movement got started, many white folks put their faith and hopes in the noble black mama archetype. She may look like a big gorilla, but she has core values and basic decency. So, when white characters try to block the sale of the house in the play/movie, we can’t help sympathizing with the Negro family because the mama is such a good woman who done slapped her silly daughter yapping about there being no God — and I speak as an atheist. Also, as even traditional Liberals were afeared of Negro’s strength and power, they placed their hopes on Negro’s faith in Christianity as a dampener on Negro rage and wildness. The devout Negro who’s into God was preferable to wild-ass Negro into whiskey and guns. And this was also the appeal of MLK. He seemed so noble and saintly and godly. Little did white folks know that the punk was pulling a Trojan Horse or Brojan Horse trick. In time, the white liberal hope in the devout and decent Negro collapsed as cities began to burn in the 1960s. Negroes became wild and crazy, especially with the rise of sex, drug, and youth culture. Counterculture liberals supported the new black radicalism, but it blew up in their face as cities became inundated with urban blight and crime. So, what were new Liberals to do in the 80s and 90s? The devout mama archetype of RAISIN IN THE SUN was no more. A lot of blacks still went to church, but black churches had turned into boogie-woogie dance halls of apelike antics. As for the black radicals and allies, they just made a lot of noise without offering any constructive plan for Negro improvement. So, the new Liberalism fixated on immigration so that non-black arrivals would serve as buffer between whites and blacks. And new Liberalism favored homos, especially as homos could spearhead the gentrification — euphemism for driving-blacks-out — of cities.)
And yet, ‘community values’ defined the backbone of Middle Class America, and when radicals reared their crazy heads in the late 60s and early 70s, most of Middle America said NO, which is why Nixon won a landslide in 1972. Carter inched out a victory in 1976, but he benefited from the Watergate scandal and the colorlessness of Gerald Ford. Even with all the negatives against the GOP, the race was very close. In 1980 and 1984, Reagan won huge landslides. So, Middle America, the backbone of the American electorate, still preferred the idea of Mainstream Values over radical propositions. This was the case despite the fact that America by the late 70s and 80s had absorbed some of the attitudes and fashions that had emerged in the 60s, especially in relation to sex, drugs, and rock music. But as long as American liberalism was tagged with ‘radicalism’, it wasn’t going to win. This is where the lessons of Saul Alinsky sunk in. For the radicalism to be made acceptable to Americans, it would have to be sold as a form of Mainstream-ism. More crucially, Liberals realized that ‘community values’ and the ‘mainstream’ didn’t go very deep, i.e. most people, Conservative or Liberal, are vapid and shallow. What went by the name of ‘community values’ was more cosmetic than committed in its moralism. What the majority of Americans preferred was the appearance or semblance of moralism, righteousness, and normality than the real thing. So, if the abnormal could be packaged to look ‘normal’ & ‘decent’ and if the normal and decent could be packaged to look ‘extreme’, ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, & ‘divisive’, then a lot of people would favor the New Normal. It’s all in the packaging and selling. People are such pushovers.

Anyway, there was a time when homos were pressured to feel shame even when they, as free individuals, felt pride in their homosexuality. It would have been one thing if society, on the whole, deemed homosexuality to be shameful but nevertheless allowed homosexuals to exhibit individual pride. Instead, a homosexual, even upon expressing pride purely on an individual level, could be fired and blacklisted. And then for a time, there was freedom whereupon homos could express pride in their sexual orientation as individuals even if most of society found them perverted or weird. It was also a time when non-homos and anti-homos could express their conviction(of individual conscience or prejudice) that homosexuality is weird, putrid, or wrong, something to be ashamed of. But their disapproval no longer prevented homos from enjoying their individual freedom and rights as citizens. People could feel pride or shame about homosexuality based on their individual predilections, conscience, and preferences. And in the name of liberal democratic principles, this seemed the ideal arrangement for all involved. If individual homos indeed felt pride about being ‘gay’, they had the freedom to do so. They were no longer forced to hide their homosexuality or express shame about it. But then, no one was forced believe that homosexuality is something one should be proud of. No one was forced to praise homosexuality.

The Homo Style - They come to you nice and easy and 'plead' with you to support the 'gay' agenda. But it's really an OFFER YOU CAN'T REFUSE because if you say NO, homos will collude with Jewish elites to have you destroyed.

Today, we live in a very different society where all Americans are pretty much coerced to wave the ‘pride’ flag of homosexuality and transgenderism. And this coercion is applied not only to straight people and non-homos but on homos as well. After all, there are, even today, homos who feel ashamed of being homo, and there are transgender people who feel uneasy about being transgender. They don’t agree with the homo agenda that homosexuality is something one should feel proud of. Homo community denounces such homos as being akin to self-loathing Jews, and of course, Jews, the main allies of homos, agree. And such homos are rejected and endlessly harassed by other homos. It’s as if homos MUST feel proud of being homo. But is this justified? While expressions of ‘self-loathing’ may seem detestable to many people, isn’t it a matter of individual conscience and feeling? Tim Cook of Apple thinks that God blessed him with the desire to stick his penis into the fecal holes of other men. But some homos feel rather uneasy about the fact that they have weird ‘sexual’ tendencies, and such unease isn’t always religious or cultural. It’s a matter of individual conscience. I know this because I’ve known some homo people who, despite being Liberal and living in a wildly pro-homo environment, prefer to keep their homosexuality a secret because they honestly don’t feel at ease with it and aren’t proud of it. Though they want their anus to be pumped by other men’s puds and even though they want to suck dick, they find that stuff to be ‘wrong’ and putrid. It’s like some Evangelicals in the South might indulge in pornography and prostitution, but they still feel ashamed of it.
Now, why shouldn’t such people feel shame about their homosexuality if they really feel that way? And this applies to self-loathing Jews as well. According to most Jews, Norman Finkelstein is a ‘self-loathing Jew’, but he is honestly ashamed of the Jewish community complicity in the oppression of Palestinians. He finds the political exploitation of the Holocaust by the Jewish community to be contemptible. Agree or disagree with him, should he be denied work at a university — as he was at Depaul University due to pressure from powerful Zionist organizations — because he happens to feel shame about the Jewish community and how it aids & abets the inhumanity of Zionism as it is currently practiced against a powerless people, the Palestinians?
If it is wrong to force an individual homo to express self-shame when he really feels self-pride, isn’t it also wrong to force an individual homo to express self-pride when he really feels self-shame? Likewise, if it’s wrong to force an individual Jew to express self-shame when he really feels self-pride about his/her Jewishness, isn’t it also wrong to force an individual Jew to express self-pride when he really feels self-shame about his/her Jewishness?
This goes for a Japanese too. A Japanese far-rightist may feel a powerful sense of national pride, but should he have the power and means to force all Japanese to express a similar kind of pride even if they don’t agree with his feelings? A Japanese far-leftist may feel great shame about his country, but should he have the power and means to force all Japanese to express a similar kind of shame even if they don’t share his feelings? When pride or shame becomes a matter of collective coercion, the society in question is no longer free. Today, all German children are raised with coercive shame about Germany, indeed so much so that any German who exhibits any kind of virile pride in German identity, culture, and history is immediately suspect and even censured(and censored). According to the New German Narrative, all Germans must primarily feel shame, and if any pride is to be availed to Germans, it’s in their dutifulness in keeping the flame of shame alive. Germans are allowed to feel pride in committing racial/national suicide, but then, it’s a paradoxical kind of pride found on self-loathing shame. The harder a German works to dissolve his or her own Germanness, the more he or she is made to feel pride. It’s the pride of being a suicidal slave to World Jewry. Though what Germans did to the Jews during World War II was unspeakably horrible, what Jews are trying to do to Germany and rest of Europe is as evil because it means the demographic collapse and permanent destruction of the European race with all its glory, beauty, and dignity.
The evil of Jews seems less visible since Jews use the facade of ‘human rights’ and nice-sounding terminology like ‘inclusion’, ‘progress’, and ‘cosmopolitanism’, but the effect in coming years will be devastating. Furthermore, why is demographic invasion a good thing? Wasn’t the greatest Nazi evil the war against Russia? And what was that about? It was about the Lebensraum plan to displace Russian/Slavic people with Germanic/‘Aryan’ volks whose agenda was to reduce the native inhabitants to Russia into permanent slaves or serfs. Though there are some positive benefits from immigration, what is happening today in Europe must be called a massive invasion. Though some see it as just poor folks looking for a better life in the rich West, the fact remains that the gates were opened by the super-rich and super-privileged Jewish elites so that native whites will be swamped by masses of non-whites. Jewish elites do this because they want to play divide-and-rule forever among diverse groups of goyim.

True pride and true shame are individual matters. Some Christian individuals feel genuine pride in being Christian and in being part of the Christian tradition. They believe that the Christian community has every right to be proud of its history and accomplishments. Some Christian individuals feel genuine shame in being Christian and see Christian history as essentially one of betrayal. They, as ‘self-loathing Christians’, believe that Christians, for most of their history, have deviated from the teachings of Jesus Christ and behaved more like the agents of Satan. Therefore, they feel the main obligation of Christians is to feel shame about their history & identity and repent to the end of time for having failed Jesus, for having enslaved blacks, for not having stopped the Holocaust, and for having allowed ‘gay marriage’, presumably the #1 agenda of Jesus if you ask Liberals today. (For some reason, Christians feel no guilt or shame about the history of ‘cultural genocide’ against indigenous pagan folks of Europe, but then, I guess it’s okay to oppress and kill white folks of any stripe.) Anyway, if some nutball Christian individuals really feel that way, they should have the right to do so in a free society. We may disagree with them, but if that’s how they really feel about their faith and their moral obligations, who are we to prohibit them from doing so, let alone destroy their lives by having them fired and blacklisted? It’s like some fat people are proud to be fat, and some fat people are ashamed. It should be up to every fatso to decide if he or she is proud or ashamed to be a fatso. Fat folks may be a bunch of hippos, but they have the freedom to think and feel as they choose. And the same goes for the rest of us. If some non-fat folks think being fat is something to be ashamed of, that’s their honest opinion. If some non-fat folks think that fat people should be proud to be fat, that’s their business too. Jellybellies should have the freedom to decide whether they feel proud or ashamed, and they shouldn’t be penalized whatever their opinion may be. And we non-blimps should be free to size up fatness as a good or a bad. We shouldn’t be forced to condemn fatness or to praise fatness. That’s why we live in a free society. If a Frenchman in America feels proud to be French, fine. If he feels ashamed of being French, that’s fine too. If a non-French-American thinks France is most deserving of pride as a nation and culture, no problem. If a non-French-Americans thinks that France is a pompous-ass nation and that the French should feel ashamed for all the shitty things they’ve done throughout history, that’s fine too.

But, when it comes to Jews, Negroes, and homos, we are not allowed such freedom of opinion based on individual conscience, passions, preferences, experiences, and/or observations. All Jews, Negroes, and homos are pressured to fall in line and feel & display pride, righteousness, and more pride and righteousness. And the rest of us are pressured to conflate Jewishness with nothing but nobility, Negro-ness with nothing but wonderfulness, and homo-ness with nothing but sainthood. The dynamics behind this isn’t much different from what once prevailed in Nazi Germany and communist nations. And similar officially sanctioned mind-sets still prevail in Castro’s Cuba and North Korea. Though the West is still relatively a free place, on certain topics and subjects you better damn be careful because, even if they don’t send to you to Gulag or put a bullet in your head, you will be ruined in business, profession, and reputation by the Jew-run media, government, and court system that will come down hard on anyone who defies the Narrative or Narritivitz.

Suppose you feel that homos should have the right to pursue and succeed in professions. Suppose you collaborate with them at work with all the professionalism that is expected of you. But suppose on your twitter account, you say that you believe fecal penetration between homo men is gross and sickening. You will be targeted and fired. In the UK, you will even be arrested in the middle of the night and locked in prison. In the current order, all homos are required to feel pride in their homosexuality, and the rest of us are forced to either publicly praise homosexuality as something worthy-of-pride or shut the hell up. Indeed, even shutting-the-hell-up may not be enough as rallies, parades, gatherings, and mandatory meetings are organized whereby all politicians and professionals are defacto ordered to assemble in praise of homos. If you don’t attend, you could be targeted for future firing, just like a person in a communist nation who refused to attend communist rallies and parades came under suspicion. And even if you’re not outright targeted for destruction for refusing to attend pro-homo rallies, you will be marked as the ‘homophobe’, and various subtle and not-so-subtle means will be utilized to deny your promotion and contracts. Of course, they will come up with bogus excuses for shunning or demoting you, but then, it’s difficult to prove them wrong as anyone can cook up any excuse for doing or not doing something. It’s like there’s no law in the US government that says you MUST attend AIPAC rallies. But if a politician doesn’t, the Jewish elites will spread the word among themselves that the politician is lacking in proper ‘respect’ and ‘enthusiasm’, and they will then use their connections in the media, government, campaign finance, and other means to bring the politician down. So, there are extra-legal means to force what amounts to a defacto mandatory law. Subservience to AIPAC isn’t part of the US Constitution, but it’s part of the ‘underlaw’ that governs this nation. Just like there are lots of information that passes under-the-table and behind-closed-doors, there are certain realities in America that, though officially not the law, function almost as laws. And OBEY AIPAC is one of those unwritten laws of American politics and governance. Likewise, no matter what credentials you have as a journalist, if you’re known for anti-Zionist views, forget about being hired by the mainstream media. You can be as hardline pro-Zionist as you want if you want employment in the media, but if you’re anti-Zionist the chances of you landing a gig in the mainstream media is close to zilch. It’s one of those unwritten laws of American journalism that says you have to suck Jewish dick to get a gig. It’s like how things work in Hollywood. If you want work, you better get on your knees and suck Jewish cock or eat Jewish pussy — or bend over to homos. It’s an ‘underlaw’.

We can’t and shouldn’t force pride on anyone. Whether a German or Turk feels or doesn’t feel pride in regard to his history and heritage should be up to him. We shouldn’t force shame either. In today’s Germany, the collective cult of shame is FORCED on all Germans from kindergarten. Children who know nothing about history are driven into mass frenzy of tears and self-loathing. Though Germans do take pride in certain aspects of German culture, they are mostly made to feel that they are diseased with German-ness and can only really be cured via abolishment of their ethnicity, land, and heritage through massive immigration and blood-mixing.
In Turkey, on the other hand, there are laws that forbid expression of national shame over events such as the Armenian expulsions/massacres or ‘genocide’. Those who express what are deemed to be anti-Turkish views can be fined, imprisoned, and pressured to recant and express pride in being Turkish. Both the German way and Turkish way are wrong for neither allows the freedom of individual conscience that is the true wellspring of any sense of right or wrong, of shame or pride.
Likewise, a society that forces all homos to express pride in homosexuality and pressures all normal-sexuals or true-sexuals to praise homosexuality as something ‘wonderful’ and ‘blessed’ is unfree and wrong. It’s especially wrong because it’s forcing people to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.
In a free society, people shouldn’t even be forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 4. If people in the US want to believe that UFOs have visited farmers in Iowa, Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings, or some other wacko conspiracy theory, that is their right. 2 + 2 = 4, but if individuals genuinely believe 2 + 2 = 5, they should have the freedom to do so. This is why a free society allows freedom of worship. As far as science and reason know, there is no God or gods. There is only the ‘material’ universe made up of matter, energy, and dimensions. But if people wish to believe in God, Satan, angels, and miracles, that is their right.
But the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn’t mean that everyone should be FORCED to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Sadly, that is very much the case in the US, especially because of the power of utterly corrupt Jewish and homo power.
Jews do control America. It is a fact. It is a 2 + 2 = 4 truth, but we are forced to believe the lie that Jews aren’t particularly powerful or privileged. We are forced believe in the 2 + 2 = 5 lies peddled by the likes of Abe Foxman. We live in a society where Rick Sanchez was fired and blacklisted for noticing Jewish power, where Jason Richwine was fired and blacklisted for noticing higher Jewish IQ, and where Helen Thomas was fired and blacklisted for saying European Jews should go back to Europe. We live in a society where Brendan Eich of Mozilla was fired for believing in true marriage. We live in a society where Christian bakers are sued and driven out of business because they won’t bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. But a Jewish oligarch like Sheldon Adelson proposes the nuking of Iran — a nation with no nuclear weapons — but is left alone by the media. Adelson gets to play kingmaker in US politics. But we better not notice that Adelson is a dirty Jew Zionist who acts like a gangster. We better not say that Adelson has been protected and enabled by the media that is overwhelmingly Jewish-controlled. And if any goy speaks out, he or she will be targeted, attacked, destroyed, and blacklisted. We live in a world where we are forced to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. And this isn’t happening in a totalitarian society but in a so-called democratic one. But then, while democracy is about people power in principle, the real power is held by those with control over the elite institutions in business, government, legal system, science-technology, education, and mass media. Politicians don’t need everyone’s vote to win. They only need buy up over 50% of the vote, and they have powerful donors behind them, and politicians handpicked by Jewish oligarchs are also favored by the Jewish-run media. Whatever one thinks of Ron Paul, he was snuffed by the Jewish-run media in 2012. Those without power have the power to gripe, but those with the power control the megaphone, and the great majority only hear what comes out of the big mike. Some place their hopes on the internet, but even most of the major sites on the internet are owned and shaped by Liberals. And if anything, most of these ‘alternative’ sites are even more radical in their anti-white-ness than MSM. Also, the biggest Conservative sites and blogs on the Net tend to stick close to so-called ‘mainstream’ politics as defined and dominated by Neocon Jews.

Anyway, in a free society, homos should be allowed to express shame as well as pride in their homosexuality. And if we honestly feel that homosexuality is a shameful act, we should also be free to share and express our views. Homosexuality must not become like the Other Jewishness. Jewishness is so powerfully protected and promoted in the US that we must all bow down before the Jew like the sheepish masses in Cuba and North Korea — last two communist nations — must unconditionally bow down before their ‘supreme leaders’. When the political psychology of a so-called ‘liberal democracy’ begins to resemble cuckoo-bananas communist states, it’s time to look in the mirror to reassess the nature of our social values and political principles.

Christian Baker targeted by vile fruitkin scum enabled by hideous Jews.

The Left, the Politics of Eternal Victimology, and the Problems of Freedom.

There’s a saying, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. But, great or not, with any power comes some responsibility. Everyone has some power, and so he is responsible to the extent of the power he has. Even a poor man has power over his children or dog or cat. Freedom is a kind of power. Though often defined in opposition to power, power simply means more freedom to do as one pleases. And when people demand more freedom, they are demanding more power--even if the pursuit of power is individualistic than authoritarian or collective.
When young people plead for or demand more freedom from their parents, they are saying they want more power to do as they please--and all actions have consequences, direct or indirect.
One may draw a distinction between power-over-others and power-for-myself, and this distinction is important. Libertarians say they want every person to be empowered as an individual than have power over others or be under the power of others. But, in the end, all forms of power has a way of exerting themselves on others. A junkie doesn’t merely ruin his own health but could well ruin the lives of his children, and the ruined lives of children can have a ripple effect on the larger society. If a businessman makes a lot of money and influences politics, he’s not simply acting as an individual but as a force with considerable impact on the whole of society. Individuals who own and control the media have great control over the hearts and minds of individuals who may, in time, lose the ability to think and act as individuals. And taking a closer look at human nature, more people tend to be conformist sheep than individual wolves or contrarian owls. Even much of what passes for non- or anti-conformism is just another variation of conformism. Many forms of non-conformism have their own rules, icons, dogmas, styles, and hangups. So, rappers dress alike, metalheads have similar tattoos, punks have same attitudes, etc. Most people aren’t bold, independent-minded, and/or creative. They long to belong to a group. And even the bold, independent, and strong-willed people wish to create a new order in which people are united by a common bond. Fidel Castro and Gaddafi were political visionaries, but the ‘new’ world they created was one where the people had to conform to Castro-ism or Gaddafism. And T. E. Lawrence, a maverick though he was, was trying to create a new order for the Arabs to call their own.

The problem with the Left’s concept of Freedom and Power rests in its Manicheanism. Seeing the world divided into oppressors and oppressed, the assumption is that ALL THE POWER is in the hands of the oppressors while the oppressed have NO POWER AT ALL. This mentality has its roots in Christianity, with the world divided between the rich/powerful and the meek/weak. Of course, Jesus’s view of humanity wasn’t that simple, but Christian ethics have often seen and judged the world between powerful and powerless, haves and have-nots, proud and humble. Karl Marx divided the world between the rich capitalists growing richer and more powerful and the masses of poor people growing ever more pauperized and impoverished. A handful of capitalists at the top would amass all the power and wealth while the masses would have no power and no wealth... at least until the contradictions of capitalism inevitably led to a radical overthrow of the capitalist order to be replaced by an egalitarian communist one.

We are now living in the post-Christian and post-Marxist(which itself owes a lot to Christianism) age, but socio-moral dichotomy laid forth by those belief systems don’t seem to be going away. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Leftist mental habits shape people’s thoughts and public policies. The most egregious example is the case of the Jews. Most Jews are on ideologically on the Left, and many Jews subscribe to the notion of all-powerful oppressors and all-powerless oppressed. Since Jews belong to the historical victim category--indeed they promote themselves as the ‘eternal victims’ of an eternal hatred going back to the beginning of time and lasting til the end of time--, Jews are completely blind to their own formidable wealth/power and keep insisting that they are surrounded by all-powerful Nazis and anti-Semites. (Paradoxically, the more powerful Jews become, more powerless they feel. Wealth and power of the few attracts attention--envy, resentment, suspicion, fear, etc--of the many, and so, the more powerful and wealthy Jews become, more worried they become of the goyim rising with pitchforks to overthrow the Jewish elite that is perceived to be ‘too rich’ and ‘too powerful’. So, as Jews become more powerful and richer, shriller they become in seeing ‘anti-Semites’ everywhere. This is why rich Jews donate tens of millions to ADL and $PLC. Not because Jews really respect Abe Foxman or Morris Dees and not because Jews really think there are Nazis everywhere but because Jews fear that the increase of Jewish power and wealth may one day unleash ‘antisemitic’ rage among the resentful goy masses.) According to ADL and $PLC, you’d think the KKK has more power in America than Jewish-controlled Wall Street, mass media, Hollywood, academia, Silicon Valley, most departments of US government, etc. If a Jew has a million dollars and a goy has one dollar, the Jew will insist that he is an utterly powerless victim of the all-powerful goy. The way Jews see it, ten Jews with a million dollars each are, in the long run, no match for a hundred goyim with one dollar each. In a way, Jews have a point. Whites in South Africa were(and still are)many times richer than most blacks, but blacks outnumbered the whites, and, as they say, demography is destiny. This is why Jews want to maximally diversify the goy population so that no single goy group could unite to take on Jewish power.

Manichean powerology is what happens when a historical-social-moral dichotomy becomes a mental habit, and we need to examine its lineage in Leftist ideology. Ironically, this is aided and abetted by the Rightist mental habit of thinking in terms of its own Permanent Power. When a people have held great power for a long time, they develop a mental habit of thinking that their power is permanent. They even think they have the power long after they lost most of it: Consider the long decline of the Byzantium Empire or the Spanish Empire; even after they became mere shells of their former glories, the myth continued--even amongst their rivals--until the moment of rude awakening. For the Byzantines, it was the fall of Constantinople to the Turks; to the Spanish Empire, it was the totally humiliating defeat at the hands of Americans in the Spanish-American War, which was like the older Ali getting whupped by Larry Holmes in his prime. It was myth vs the man.
Having gotten accustomed to ruling over others, many white conservatives still think they matter even though their ‘power’ is just an empty shell of what it had once been. So, if Jews seem incapable of opening their eyes and seeing that they are no longer victims but the biggest victors in the world, many white gentiles seem unable to wake up to the fact that their power is not it once had been. White people in America face great dangers as a result from drastic demographic changes, but most of them seem not only unworried but welcoming of the new order. Having become so used to stability, privilege, comfort, and power--and the notion of ‘great moral responsibility’ attached to it, especially to redeem the abuses of power in the past--, white people think their main agenda should be generosity and magnanimity to non-whites and Jews. It doesn’t occur to a lot of white people that Jews are many times more powerful. They’re blind to the fact that Mexican illegals often harbor indifferent or hostile attitudes to white America and that black crime and violence--sexual, economic, political, etc--against whites is endemic and appalling. Though white people are being robbed, raped, and murdered in great numbers in South Africa, the image that is stuck in the minds of white people in the West is ‘evil powerful whites oppressing or having oppressed poor helpless noble blacks’).
This isn’t to say whites are now the powerless while non-whites have all the power. Next to Jews, white Americans still have far more power than any other people. But, they don’t have anything like ALL the power. And Jewish power, the biggest power in America, is virulently hostile to white interests. And regionally, non-whites wield considerable and growing power. Asians are powerful in the California college system. Mexican-Americans have major political clout in the Southwest. Blacks rule many communities, streets, and public areas with their fist and savagery. Also, blacks hold key power in many branches of government--not least because blacks, due to their lower intelligence and work ethic, are more suited to tax-payer-funded ‘public service’ than free enterprise.

Above, I said Jews seem to be blind to their own power. But appearances can be deceiving. It’s more likely that Jews--at least smart and rich ones--know the truth about their awesome power. So paradoxically, Jewish ‘leftist’ insistence on their powerlessness could really be a means of concealing their real power since if the people--most of whom are goyim--were to realize the truth, they would finally begin to challenge Jewish power and demand that ‘with great Jewish power comes great Jewish responsibility.’ To be sure, some Jews do admit that Jews are very successful and influential; they argue that Jews remain on the Left and support underdogs against forces of oppression and privilege because of their great sense of responsibility. Though some Jews are sincere in their conviction--it’s never hard to fool onself--, Jewish alliance with ‘underdogs’ is really just a means to maximize Jewish power. After all, notice how selective Jewish sympathies tend to be. Jews make noise about the violence in Darfur but remain mum about Zionist oppression of Palestinians. Worse, Jewish-dominated media present Palestinians as little more than crazed terrorists. On the occasion that some Jews sympathize with Palestinians and criticize Zionist brutality, they place most of the blame on the Likud-Christian-Evangelical alliance. Their silly idea is that rogue ‘far right’ elements in Israel, in cahoots with insane right-wing Christian looneys in America, have hijacked what was and should be a humane and liberal Zionism, which is hilarious when Israel was created by ideologically left-leaning Jews through the use of terrorism and massive ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians. So, how ‘liberal’ was Golda Meir when she said, “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people”?

Anyway, while people with more power need to be more responsible, the world is not so simple that it consists of the all-powerful who need to be all-responsible and all-powerless who needn’t be responsible for anything. This poisonous Leftist mentality has corrosive impact on Western society.
It has led to a condition where everyone demands more freedom but doesn’t want to take responsibility for what they do--especially if one belongs to a ‘victim group’ or ‘oppressed group’. We see this tendency among the young, gay people, women, non-whites, the underclass, the working class, unions, and especially blacks. (When blacks had less freedom and power, the idea was that they should prove themselves as a ‘credit to their race’ to prove themselves worthy of equal power and freedom possessed by whites. Now, this was a condescending and hypocritical attitude to some degree. After all, there were plenty of rotten whites who were no credit to their own race but enjoyed full freedom and power. Why should it be any different for blacks? Purely as an ideological or moral argument, the “credit to one’s race” argument carries little water. But given the biological and cultural differences between whites and blacks, there was something of value in expecting blacks to ‘live up to ideals of freedom’. Culturally, Africans were backward compared to Europeans, and this was true of American blacks as well--though partly because white Americans willfully kept the Negro ignorant and less-educated. Biologically, blacks are less intelligent, wilder, stronger, and more aggressive. So, if blacks were to obtain the same freedom and power as whites, there was the danger that blacks would use their new liberty not to be decent Americans but to be wildass jungle-boogie ‘niggers’. Though white liberals poo-pooed such fears as ‘racist’ and ‘paranoid’, I don’t see too many white liberals signing up to integrate with all those blacks whose communities unleash waves and waves of ‘youth mobs’. Though blacks had every right to be demand equal freedom and power, the fact is the biological differences between the races complicated matters. Suppose women and men were separate races. Suppose weaker and gentler women used the iron whip to keep down and tame beastly race of men. Suppose men demanded equal freedom and power. Would it be wrong for the women race to fret about men race that, with their newfound freedom and power, might use them to overpower and rape the women race? White race in contrast to the black race is the feminine race. With black males whupping white males, white females are fated to become sexual possessions of Negroes while white males will be reduced to pussyboy status. This is the real agenda behind the Jewish support of Obama. He is the product of a Negro boffing a white woman. That so many white men and white women voted for this SOAM--son of a mudshark--signals the end of white pride and power, which means the end of white race itself. When their interracist boy Obama won, Jews were popping champagnes and cackling with joy. I’ll bet James Toback got together with some Negroes to bang some more blonde shikses to celebrate on election night, which for Jews, was erection night.)
Freedom means more power, and having more freedom means having more power. Since the 1950s, there has been an explosion of freedoms for all sorts of groups. The youth rebellion of the 50s and especially 60s brought forth a wide-ranging social revolution. Soem of it was exciting and ‘cool’. But then, the “don’t trust anyone over 30" mentality came to divide the world in terms of Oppressive Old vs Oppressed Young. So, even as young people got more freedom to use drugs, have sex, act wild, and etc, they refused to take responsibility for their own actions. The young were habitually locked into a mindset where Old Folks had all the power while they themselves, the Young and Noble, had no power at all. Take the Woodstock concert. It had some nice things, but it was also a gathering of 300,000 young idiots. They spoke in idealistic terms of the young standing up to the system--especially one that sent young people to kill and die in foreign war--, but the young seemed blind to their own power and their abuse of it. They turned what had been idyllic farmland into a vast disaster area that would smell like human feces for the next ten yrs. Young people at Woodstock fixated on the mythology of themselves standing up to the powers-that-be but closed their eyes, ears, and noses to their own power to turn acres of farmland into debris-strewn field of mud, slime, and shit.

Similar idiocy is to be found in the gay community. That some people are born homosexual should be obvious to anyone. Since sexuality is a powerful emotion, society should allow gays to do their gay stuff. But there is a dangerous side to gay sexuality, especially among homosexual men. Fecal penetration--aka anal sex or sodomy--is a disgusting and dangerous form of ‘sex’ prone to the spread of infections and other ailments. Also, the bohemianism and subversiveness prevailing in the gay community encouraged greater sexual risk-taking through wantonly degenerate acts--in bath houses for example. This made the gay community a fertile breeding ground for the spread of various diseases, the most deadliest of which was AIDS. The disease ended up killing lots of gays and even came to affect the non-gay community through blood transfusions and drug use. Worst of all, the cost on society as a whole was tremendous. With HIV-infected people requiring expensive drugs-and-care, all of society was taxed heavily to foot the bill.
You’d think the gay community would accept blame, but no. It entirely blamed the Christian Right and Ronald Reagan for the epidemic. While it’s true that the ‘God Hates Fags’ Christian Right says ridiculous things and while it may have been true that Reagan didn’t respond to the disease with sufficient alarm--at least initially--, the reason why the disease spread was because of the sexual degeneracy of gays(and of course blacks). Though AIDS is a problem all over the world, it’s been especially problematic for black Africans and gays because of their outrageously disgusting sexual behaviors. Black African males screw just about anything, and black women happen to be very lascivious, thinking more with their booties than their brains. But instead of blaming blacks and gays, we have blacks and gays--with full backing of ‘progressives’--blaming the rest of us for ‘not caring’ and ‘not doing enough.’ So, we have posters like this one:
It says: KISSING DOESN’T KILL: GREED AND INDIFFERENCE DO.
Since when did ‘indifference’ spread HIV? So, if I don’t pay attention to blacks and gays, my inattention is spreading HIV in the black and gay community? (Speaking of greed, isn’t it greedy on the part of blacks and gays to do as they wish--against good advice--and then dump the costs on the rest of us? It’s like Jewish-controlled Wall Street using banks and stock market like a casino and then having the rest of us bail them out when their chips are down. I suppose degenerate gamblers are poor victims too. When people in the Tea Party opposed the bailing out the greedy banksters--who funded Obama and McCain’s campaign--, they were accused of ‘greed’ for not wanting to help out poor Wall Street!) And whoever said the problem was ‘kissing’? Most people know that kissing, in most cases, do not spread HIV germs--unless both kissers have serious problems with bleeding gums. What the poster really should have shown were black African males having orgies with monkeys and lots of skanky black women--as well as raping young girls--and gay men buggering hundreds of other gay men; and the poster should have said, “Wild crazy sex among savage blacks and endless series of fecal penetration by gay men--and sharing needles among junkies--kills by spreading the HIV virus.” Yet, the very people who caused the problem took no responsibility but accused the rest of society for the deaths through ‘greed and indifference’. If some idiot takes a baseball bat and hits himself in the head, should I be blamed for ‘indifference’ to his dumb use of freedom of taking a bat to his own head?

Furthermore, were we really indifferent? Didn’t we warn blacks that wild sexuality would be the cause of serious problems? Didn’t we tell gays that their lifestyle was risky and dangerous? But when decent and normal white people advised blacks to act more ‘middle class’ and warned gays that an overly fruity lifestyle was prone spreading deadly diseases, what did these two groups--and the ‘progressive’ community--tell us? They called us ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, and told us to go fuc* off. They told us that black funkiness was cool and being wantonly sexual was what being a Negro was all about. They told us that gay lifestyle and gay behavior have nothing to be ashamed about or apologize for. So, since they told us to get lost, we figured, oh well, what can we do? So, Negroes acted like wild Negroes and gays acted like crazy gays. And then sexual diseases spread all over their communities. Yet, blacks--both American and African--are never to be blamed. Gays also never get blamed. When Magic Johnson contracted HIV, he didn’t say it was his fault. Instead, he was treated as a hero for going public with his disease. He was treated like a gay ‘proudly’ coming out of the closet. Never mind that Johnson got the disease by having sex with thousands of women--by acting like a typical tribal African male. Since he’s black and since he got a politically correct disease, that made him a hero regardless of how he got sick. And never mind all the millions spent to provide him with the best medical care, something that ‘progressives’ tell us should be made available to every gay person or African with HIV.
(In the past, the Left had this view of the working class as a responsible people who were owed a decent wage and basic services. Now, the Left has this idea that the people should mess up their lives through all sorts of excessive and wanton behavior but should never be blamed for their problems. Instead, the people are all victims and need to be taken care of by taxing the ‘greedy rich’. Ironically, even as the Left promotes wantonly deviant and hedonistic lifestyles among the people--especially the young--, it also says we need more regulations and programs to control people’s appetites because too many people are fat and unhealthy. But the message is never ‘people should take the responsibility to take better care of themselves’. Instead, it’s the people are victims who cannot act rationally and responsibly, and so, progressives should be allowed to create more government programs and regulations for the sake of the people. Of course, if people became more self-responsible, they would be less likely to do excessively dumb things, and that would mean less need for ‘social workers’ and government programs. So, the left encourages people to be irresponsible and cause problems, and then, it steps in to offer solutions to those problems. But the left is helped by this by consumer-capitalists who will pander to the lowest common denominator to maximize their profits by treating the masses as pigs at a trough. Only neo-fascism can break people out of this disgusting trap formed in collusion of the statist left and the capitalist trite.) Magic Johnson was even appointed by President George H.W. Bush for some AIDS panel, which goes to show Republicans are a bunch of slavish tards when it comes to public policy. (His son, George W. Bush, of course, sought praise from the liberal establishment by contributing tens of billions of US tax payer dollars to the African HIV treatment.) But did Johnson show any appreciation? No, he soon quit the panel by complaining that Bush wasn’t doing enough about HIV. Here’s a gazillionaire basketball star who contracted HIV due to his out-of-control sexual behavior, but he took no responsibility but instead blamed Bush. By the simple virtue that he’s black and contracted HIV--the holy disease affecting and anointing mostly gays and Negroes according to the ‘progressive’ community--, he was a saint than a scumbag.
Johnson was different from blacks of the past who really didn’t have full freedom and equality. He came to prominence when blacks could rise as high as possible, and he reached the top in his profession. He was adulated by millions of fans. He made lots of fame and fortune. Yet, when he abused his power and freedom and ended up with HIV, he didn’t point the finger of blame at himself, and the mass media dominated by Jews and gays played along. As long as he belonged to the ‘victim race’ and got the ‘preferential victim disease’, he was perceived as a powerless saint-hero whom all decent people should admire. As long as blacks feel a part of some Eternal Powerless Group, they will never acknowledge their power/freedom(and abuses of that power/freedom). Even when blacks in Africa carry out horrendous genocides in places like Rwanda, the first reaction is to blame it on ‘European racism’, as if ethnic and tribal genocides were alien to African history. I suppose the expanding domination of Bantus over Khoisan in southern Africa over 100,000s of years didn’t entail massive killings and slavery but only love and kisses. Using the logic that blames Belgians for the genocide in Rwanda, we might as well blame Jews for the Nazi German Holocaust. After all, Jews created the notion of the One and Only God, the intolerant religion of monotheism, and the concept of the Chosen People with pure blood. So, maybe this Jewish sickness came to infect Germans through the religion of Christianity, which, after all, grew out of Judaism. And maybe we should blame Darwin for placing biology on the map in human discourse. So, Germans during the Nazi era weren’t really responsible for their actions. They were just victims of ideas that arose from Judeo-Christian heritage and the Anglo science of Darwinism. (Pat Buchanan does make an argument along that line, making a total fool of himself.)

There is no doubt that some groups are more powerful than others, collectively speaking. But, the nature and character of power are different among various groups, and these differences need to be both acknowledged and appreciated if we are to understand what is really going on and to formulate policies to solve problems--if they can be solved at all. Some groups are powerful due to their numbers. Mexican-Americans aren’t particularly powerful in business, culture, sports, and creativity, but they have a sizable and growing presence in sheer number. Jews, with their high IQ, social networking, and wily personalities, are powerful in many elite fields; but Jews are not powerful in terms of numbers. Blacks are powerful in the streets and public places as the members of the strongest and most feared race. Many places in cities and towns are practically owned by blacks even if blacks don’t legally own the properties on the block. They own the streets, which is why most non-blacks and some decent blacks stay clear of black dominated areas. And blacks also have immense power in sports because of their athleticism. Blacks are also prominent in popular culture for their charisma, funky personality, rhythm, and sexuality. (Increasing numbers of white women are flocking to Negro men in the spirit of ‘go black, you can’t go back’. The pussification of the white male is happening at rapid pace while black males are being sexually empowered with each passing day.) Blacks are also big in numbers: almost 50 million in America and growing. With big numbers came considerable political clout, especially in big cities. Also, the issue of slavery has given blacks ‘moral capital’ or ‘moral power’ with which to guilt-bait white Americans--oddly enough, even white people who had nothing to do with slavery. (In America, recent Polish-Americans are penalized by ‘affirmative action’ while recent African immigrants--whose ancestors surely sold blacks to white slavers--are beneficiaries of racial preference.) With such clout, blacks have been favored for many government positions and jobs. But, certain forms of black power have ironically undermined black power. Consider this: thanks to their athleticism, blacks have gained mythic-iconic status among many Americans. White boys and girls alike worship black athletes. White boys watch college and professional football and pee in their pants; their big dream is having their footballs autographed by Negro stars. And white girls’ big dream in life is to put out to Negro studs. But, for every star Negro athlete, there are many more thousands of black thugs with big muscles. Black thuggery has alienated many non-blacks(and decent blacks), who’ve chosen to move away from blacks. Thus, many blacks have been isolated and ‘neglected’ precisely because of their physical power. Non-blacks don’t want to live in a neighborhood filled with the likes of Mike Tyson? It’s be like living with wild gorillas.
Cuban-Americans are powerful because they are prominent in Florida, a key swing state. If the Cuban-American population weren’t thus concentrated, it’d be far less powerful. Asian-American power derives from a certain dependable diligence. Asian-Indians and Chinese-Americans have been known for their work ethic and devotion to family. Asians are not particularly intelligent or wily(and creative)like the Jews, and so they tend to be successful than truly powerful. And they don’t have the numbers like Hispanics and blacks do.

Even among whites, there’s a wide variance of power(and the nature of power)among regions. Certain white groups--Christian Right Evangelicals and Seattle liberals--don’t see eye-to-eye on much of anything. In sheer numbers, whites are the most powerful in America. Even when whites no longer become the outright majority, they will be the biggest ‘minority’ for quite some time. And many whites are rich and influential. But the white middle class has been eroding, and the rich whites who keep getting richer don’t care a damn about fellow white people who have less. If black elites serve as leaders of blacks, Jewish elites serve as leaders of Jews, Asian elites serve as leaders of Asians, Mexican elites serve as leaders of Mexicans, and etc, white elites do NOT serve as leaders of whites. So, there’s a divide between white elites--mostly liberal and globalist--and the white masses who still believe in the bonds of the nation-state.
Whites are also more divided along ideological lines than other groups. Most Jews are Democratic, most blacks are Democratic, a large majority of Hispanics are Democratic, a decisive majority of Asians are Democratic, but whites are still fatally divided between Democratic and Republican.
There is also a powerful regional divide between North and South. The divide between white North and white South is deeper than the divide between black North and black South, or between brown Northeast and brown Southwest. Why would this be so? One reason is that minority groups tend to stick together. Since blacks in both the North and South feel ‘oppressed’, there is a more powerful sense of blackness. But the other reason is history. Though there are many blacks in the North, almost ALL blacks in America have roots in the South(as slaves). So, even Northern blacks share in the narrative of Southern slavery and Emancipation. And even Mexican-Americans in Chicago and New York share with Mexican-Americans in the Southwest the narrative of originating from Mexico and the dream of ‘reconquista’. So, there is a common historical thread among all blacks and among all Mexican-Americans. But many white Southerners only know the South. Their ancestors settled in the South long ago, and they remained rooted in Dixieland. And many Northern whites only know the North. Their ancestors settled in the North and only know the North. If Northern whites moved, it was likely westward than southward. And most of the immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe settled in the North and moved out westward from Northern cities like New York without ever having set a foot in the South(which is one reason why the Wasp-dominated KKK in the South came to be so anti-white-ethnic-and-Catholic). So, many Northern whites ONLY know the North while many Southern whites ONLY know the South. Also, if the slavery narrative unites blacks because it imbues them with the nobility of suffering, the history of slavery and the Civil War divides whites in the North and South. Northern whites don’t want to identify, in any shape or fashion, with Southern slavery maintained by Southern whites. If anything, white Northerners are repelled by it. Rather, they want to emphasize the fact they courageously took a stand against Southern white evil and even waged a war on the behalf of the blacks to free them from ‘racist’ white Southerners.
The Civil War narrative and WWII narrative are used as parallels by American liberals--and dearly exploited by Jews. In both cases, relatively ‘good’ whites took a stand against ‘evil’ whites and fought for the higher good by coming to the rescue of non-whites(if we count Jews as non-whites). In WWII, Anglos and Anglo-Americans allied with the ‘Asiatic’ Russian hordes against the pure ‘Aryan’ Germans in the name of combating the evil of white supremacism--or at least that’s how the story came to be interpreted and remembered. This has been a sticking point for some on the Right. The real message of Pat Buchanan’s UNNECESSARY WAR is Wasps should have sided with their racial cousins Germans against Jews and Russians. And neo-Confederates curse the damn Yankees as ‘race traitors’ who waged war on fellow whites for the sake of the Negro and some abstract notion of ‘higher justice’. (Ironically, Germans sided with the fully Asiatic Japanese and the Italians, whom Hitler derided as inferior due to their mixture of Negro blood, in his war for conquest. And in WWI, Germans sided with Muslim Ottomans who would end up killing over a million Christian Armenians. Though Buchanan attacks Churchill and Roosevelt for siding with non-whites or lesser-whites against pure-blooded whites, the Germans, it seems to escape his notice that Germans opportunistically did much the same for their own national interests. During WWI, German militarists lent aid to Bolsheviks in the hope that a communist revolution in Russia would lead to German victory on the Eastern Front. The Germans helped send Lenin back into Russia.)
However, Jews stress that Northern whites, though better than Southern whites, were also guilt of oppression of black since all of America profited from the slave economy. Besides, the North wasn’t all that hospitable to blacks either, and there was that business with taking the land from the Indians. (By the way, if Jews are so appalled by what white Americans did, why did they come to America, an evil nation founded on slavery and genocide, to make their fortune? Why profit from a political and social order created by ‘evil racists’?) So, Northern Whites must also share in the historical guilt. Eager to cleanse themselves of this guilt, Northern whites go out of their way to attack Southern whites. Southern whites, surrounded by millions of vicious Negroes, naturally have much more to fear from the Negro and aren’t so generous and/or naive in their racial sympathies. Of course, this is rather amusing since some of the most racially segregated places are actually in the North(and most of this segregation is the result of black crime and violence, which Northern white liberals are scared to death of as well). Though all whites are made to share in the guilt, Northern whites are less guilty, and so they cling to this ‘better than Southern whites’ status zealously.
Similarly, though white Americans fought bravely to defeat Nazi Germany and saved many Jews, Jews stress that America did NOT do enough. Jews also tirelessly remind Americans that groups such as America First had argued against non-intervention because of their crypto-German-or-even-Nazi sympathies. (But did American Jews call for war on the Soviet Union when millions of Ukrainians were being murdered by Stalin and his Jewish henchmen? Did American Jews care when two million Cambodians were being murdered by the Khmer Rouge? If I call, most American Jews were cheering for communist victory in Southeast Asia. Though Noam Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, he is much admired by the leftist Jewish community. Some say he’s anti-Zionist, but the dirty Jew blames the problems of Zionism on white Americans and would have believe that Israelis are mere puppets of American goyim! Did American Jews demand something must be done to save Tutsis from the Hutus in the Rwandan genocide? Did any Jew volunteer to go fight to save people from being slaughtered in other parts of the world? I don’t think so. So, why do Jews think it was some special moral obligation for white American parents to send their kids to die in foreign wars to save the hideous Jews? Given the nature of Jewish power in America and its vicious anti-white agenda, it seems rather obvious that no sane white person should risk his life for the sake of Jews. It’s like chickens going to war to save foxes and then bringing the foxes into the henhouse.) So, even though white Americans were better than Nazi Germans, Jews still insist that white Americans too have been guilty of antisemitism, even if their strain of the virus wasn’t as virulent as one that affected Germany. So, white Americans are not really good but only ‘gooder’ than Nazi Germans. The only truly GOOD people are noble and saintly Jews and Negroes, and all white people must do everything to show that they love every Jew and every Negro. (This mentality has taken such deep root in the American consciousness that conservatives are, in some way, more Philosemitic than American liberals. Since they cannot hate or criticize Jews, they’ve turned their newfound love-of-Jews into a new version of right-wing nationalism. By supporting Zionism and Israel, they’ve woven a new narrative of Western Judeo-Christian peoples and values at war with those vile barbarian Muslims. What white conservatives used to say about Jews have been transferred to Muslims. And Jews, whom white conservatives used to dislike and even hate but can’t hate anymore due to the religion of Holocaustianity, have been turned into the banner of Western values and decency against ‘evil antisemitism’. Never mind that Jews don’t play along with this New Conservative fantasy scenario--with the exception of Neocons who pay lip service only to garner dumb white goy support for Israel. Never mind that Palestinian resistance to Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitic ideology and everything to do with the fact that they lost their land to Jew imperialist-conquerors. But alas, Palestinians are not Jews or Negroes. ‘Who, whom’ is all important in world politics. In South Africa, we were told Negroes were the good guys because they were oppressed by whites. In Israel, we are told Palestinians are the bad guys even though they are the oppressed. Dirty disgusting white conservatives have projected the guilt of Nazi mass-murder onto Palestinians who had NOTHING to do with the horrors. Another outrageous example of ‘who, whom’ hypocrisy was when New York Times reported the mass rape of a 11 yr old Hispanic girl by nearly 20 blacks. The news report tried to ‘understand’ the blacks. When blacks commit an obviously foul act, the Jew-controlled media go for empathy-to-sympathy than judgement. Of course, NY Times and rest of Jew-run media flipped out over the bogus story of the Duke Lacrosse case when some nappy-headed black ho accused rich white boys of raping and beating her. This double-standard shows the Jew-controlled liberal media still wants us to see the world in terms of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. One of main Liberal tropes during the Civil Rights Era was that black men were not sexual predators but nice Negroes railroaded into rape charges by evil white men and women. In truth, blacks are indeed the biggest rapists in the world, and the case of black gang rape of an 11 yr old was clear evidence of a real sickness among disgusting jive-ass blacks. But since we’ve been conditioned to permanently think of blacks in terms of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and since the gang-rape of the 11 yr old Hispanic girl didn’t fit into this ridiculous liberal narrative, NY Times spun a weird apologia for black rottenness. Similarly, when Omar Thorton the thieving Negro thug shot dead eight white people at a beer packing plant, the New York Times treated rampaging Omar as the victim of the narrative. The story went from ‘black thug kills eight whites’ to something like ‘did eight racist whites deserve to die for oppressing a noble Negro who just couldn’t take it no mo?’ Given the vileness of Jews who run this country, it is NOT difficult to understand why ‘antisemitism’ has been around for so long. Most American Jews agree with the New York Times, which means that the majority of Jews are a foul and disgusting people. And Jews throughout history shared the same attitudes and personalities. Thought not all Jews are like Abe Foxman or the Neumann character on SEINFELD, enough of them are. Jewish hideousness and vileness know no bounds, no shame, no limit.)

Anyway, the fact that one people are collectively more powerful than other groups doesn’t mean that other groups should merely play ‘victim’. Such cops-and-robber victim mentality exists on both the Right and Left, though it’s the Left that turned it into a state ideology. But it’s there on the Right too, especially on the Far Right. Consider three examples of ultra-rightism: Neo-Nazi Right, Nation of Islam, and Ultra-nationalist Japanese. Neo-Nazis think that just because Jews are very powerful, Jews must be all-powerful. So, everything wrong with the world is blamed on Jews. While it’s true that Jews run the exploitative porn industry, it’s not like Jews go around capturing white girls. No, the kinds of white girls who go into porn have been abused by their ‘white trash’ relatives. Many come from broken homes and some have been molested from a young age by lecherous uncles or boyfriends of their idiot mothers. Jews are hideous in their exploitation of white misery, but much of white misery is caused by whites, and whites need to blame themselves when it comes to the socio-cultural rot and idiocies in their own communities. Another reason for white failure is the rise of an idiotic strain of Evangelicalism. If you raise your kids to believe in stuff like Creationism, you’re telling them to be DUMB AND STOOOPID. Stupid people don’t succeed in the world. Much of white idiocy is self-inflicted. There’s something very wrong with a political culture that produces the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Of course, white liberals have their own idiocies, but as they say, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Neo-Nazis, because of their view of all-powerful Jews and all-innocent ‘Aryans’, cannot even accept the truth of Hitler’s genocide of Jews. In their idiot minds, it’s just not possible that good decent Germans could have killed all those super-powerful Jews. (Oddly enough, Neo-Nazis who insist that Hitler didn’t kill millions of Jews say he should have killed all those Jews. They are moral degenerates as well as hypocrites.)
Then there is Nation of Islam as led by Farrakhan. Now, Farrakhan pays lip-service to criticizing the black community and stressing responsibility, especially among black males. That was supposedly what the Million Man March was all about. But, Farrakhan’s real message is blacks must wake up and unite precisely because whites and Jews are the Devil and out to hurt the naturally wonderful black race who’ve been torn out of their idyllic Edenic paradise. Also, his idea of responsibility is blacks sucking up to his megalomaniacal self as a kind of black Muhammad, the prophet of the brothers, or brophet. And his criticism of blacks always portrays blacks as innocent lambs whose minds have been corrupted by evil whites and Jews. So, blacks are not really responsible for their bad ways but merely victims of other peoples’ machinations. Farrakhan admits blacks are naturally partial to ‘silly things’ like blings and funkiness, but he makes it all out to be childlike and innocent instead of ugly and disgusting. So, when blacks act like lunatics and ruin entire neighborhoods, the problem rests less with blacks than with Jews and whites who’ve corrupted black childlike innocence into savage soulless materialism. There is some truth to the charge that Jews and the consumerist-hedonist economy have made fools and clowns of all of us, but black problems simply cannot be explained in terms of natural black spontaneity perverted by the profiteers of sleaze. If anything, white people had long worried about the rise of wild ‘niggerishness’ among blacks and urged blacks to be more sober. The rise of black lunacy was largely the creation of blacks themselves. Whites, after all, didn’t like Jack Johnson. Whites, after all, had tried to tame Africans brought to America and wean them from ugaguba jungle savagery. It was blacks who turned more militant and wild and then just plain crazy. As long as black problems and failure are explained in terms of “what had been done to blacks by whites and Jews”, blacks will never take responsibility for what has gone wrong. (It must be said, however, that Jews would have no problem with Farrakhan if he only blamed whites. The problem is he blames Jews as well as whites, thereby upsetting the Jewish narrative that Jews and blacks are noble victim allies resisting evil white power.)

One of the most acute examples of the Iron Law of Leftist Victimology was seen in the London Riots of 2011. It began with a bunch of blacks running around looting and burning. Yet, the overwhelming narrative was about the need to ‘understand’ why this happened.
The powers-that-be refused to recognize and understand the real reason why this happened. Instead, they tried to fit the events into their Procrustean doctrine of political correctness. So, all those black kids were merely ‘youths’ or ‘teens’. We were told the ‘youths’ were rebelling against government cutbacks or out of frustration because they had ‘nothing’. On the rare occasion that a commentator did mention that blacks led the riots, the idea was floated that blacks turned out this way because of past ‘racism’, i.e. the first waves of blacks arriving after WWII were very decent and peaceful but white ‘racists’ gave them a hard time, and that’s why British blacks became mired in poverty and rage. (Following this logic, shouldn’t Jews be rioting all over Europe since they’d been treated hostilely by gentile populations? Though black hostility toward whites may owe something to history, the manner in which it plays out(violent riots)--whereas Jewish hostility plays out in Jewish control of media and governments--speaks volumes about the truth of racial differences. Blacks, being less intelligent, vent their rage with fists and fire. Jews, being more intelligent, vent their resentment and rage by controlling institutions of information and governance.) While blacks may have reasons to feel a certain anger toward whites, that simply doesn’t explain, let alone justify, their recent behavior. American Indians, Chinese-Americans, and Japanese-Americans were treated badly too by white Americans at one time--indeed much worse than Carribean blacks were treated in UK in the 50s and 60s. Yet, how many Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Japanese-Americans riot in America? For all we know, Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans may be seething with rage, but their style of rage is different from that of blacks because of racial differences.
But because of the Iron Leftist Law of Victimology, blacks are always seen as powerless victims rebelling against powerful whites. During the London Riots, much of the violence was black against Asian-Indian and black against poor whites. Why was this? It was not because of black sense of powerlessness but because of their power-lusting contempt for whites and Asian-Indians. Blacks know that they are tougher, rougher, and stronger. So, black thugs look down on ‘faggoty ass, pussy ass whiteboys.’ Blacks know that whites are afraid of them. Blacks grow up beating up white boys, intimidating white boys, stealing white girls from white boys(with white boys sheepishly walking away without a fight). Blacks see that white boys are so awed by Negroes that many white boys ape black culture. And interracism between black males and white females is among the highest in England. So, it was not about black powerlessness rebelling against white power. It was black arrogance and impatience over the fact that mere thug-power isn’t enough for them to dominate all of society. In their own communities, black thugs dominate by sheer thuggery alone. They push people around, intimidate teachers, bully white kids, and walk around like they own the streets. But a community run by thugs is going to be a poor one. And thugs who don’t do well in school don’t do well in life, and that means widespread poverty. Animal thuggery only goes so far. This is what frustrates many blacks. In their idiot fantasies, the dude with the loudest voice, hardest punch, biggest dick, and firmest muscles rule everything. That’s what they see in sports, hear in rap music, watch in porn, and see on the streets(and at school, where even teachers are afraid of Negro kids). Yet, thugs go nowhere in life because they aren’t good for anything but acting criminal and stupid--unless they have a gift for foul-mouthed nursery rhymes, in which case they can rake in millions in the rap music industry, but then they’d only be spreading more idiocy in their community(and in the so-called ‘chav’ white community as well, which, since the age of punk music, has rotted in its own special way.)
Blacks, like everyone else, have legitimate grievances in both the US and UK, but the narrative of ‘blacks as utterly powerless victims’ obfuscates the a far more complex reality. (One constructive thing about the Obama presidency is it undermines the notion that blacks cannot do anything in America because white people are so utterly ‘racist’. I suspect some whites subconsciously voted for him just for this reason.)
Many people refuse to face the fact that blacks are naturally better fighters than whites. Many blacks won’t say so publicly because it might raise alarm bells in the white community that blacks are indeed a racial danger to whites. Whites will finally have a good moral argument against the whole notion of ‘racial equality’ since the races are naturally unequal. If white males had faced up to the truth in the 19th century or even early 20th century, the black danger would have been acknowledged and justify the removal of blacks from white communities and nations.
Jews are allergic to any notion of racial differences because once you open that can of worms, people will begin to discuss the real reason for Jewish wealth and power over non-Jews: higher Jewish intelligence.
And the some members of the White Right, especially the males, cannot accept the reality of black physical advantage because of white male vanity and pride. Alternative Right still runs idiotic(and therapeutic) articles saying that black dominance in the 100 m sprint is just a self-perpetuating myth. Or, some white guy will admit that blacks are indeed better in the 100 m sprint, but since whites dominate the walking competition, one cannot say blacks are athletically superior to whites but merely different. I suppose one could likewise say Germans are not better athletes than Singaporeans since the latter are better at badminton. Germans can only jump, swim, run, punch, wrestle, and lift better, but hey, they aren’t as good at swatting the birdie. This is rather like saying blacks aren’t less intelligent than whites but merely have a different kind of ‘intelligence’, such as more rhythmic ability to shake their booties.
But if we cut the bullshit and have the courage to face the truth, there is no question that the black man naturally has superior fighting abilities over the white man--of course, not in every case but generally speaking. Why is it that even small number of blacks will go into white areas to terrorize whites while a small number of whites would never even think of doing the opposite in a black community? Imagine a bunch of white guys in Harlem terrorizing blacks.
In the summer of this year, there was news report that Oak Street Beach in Chicago was closed due to excessive heat. The real reason was black thuggery. Oak Street Beach is in the heart of luxurious Chicago, and most of its patrons are whites. Yet, gangs of black thugs felt no fear in randomly attacking whites in a mostly white beach. Blacks knew that they were tougher and white folks were too afraid to do anything about it. It’s like hyenas or lions will run into an area with hundreds of wildebeests. Wildebeests, afraid of predators, just run even though they outnumber lions and hyenas. Similarly, though whites vastly outnumbered blacks at the Oak Street Beach, the sight of blacks acting thugs paralyzed most white people. White guys didn’t go to help white people being attacked by blacks. Instead their dicks shriveled up and their balls turned into size of pinto beans, and they just watched helplessly.
In the past, whites would have acted collectively to fight back and throw out the ‘fucking niggers’. After all, even a grizzly bear will lose to a wolf pack. If whites aren’t individually as tough as blacks, they can still counter black thuggery with white unity. But Oak Street Beach is the heart of Chicago yuppie liberalism, and of course, the SWPL or swipple crowd are not supposed to think in terms of white identity, white unity, white security. Though white people saw black thugs attacking white people, they repressed the fact that their own kind was being attacked by thug elements of another race. Instead, most white Chicagoans settled for the narrative that ‘teens’ or ‘youths’ went wild at the Chicago beach.
Anyway, imagine a bunch of white thugs randomly attacking blacks at a black dominated beach. For starters, even before whites could pick on blacks, blacks would have picked on whites. And if whites attacked blacks, the very blacks who’d been attacked would have fought back and whupped the white thugs. And most likely, whole bunch of blacks on the beach would have gone wild and joined in on whupping the faggoty-ass white boys. This is why we don’t see white thugs randomly attacking blacks in black areas--or even in white areas.
Of course, if whites were to unite to fight against black thuggery, they would be accused of ‘racism’. On the other hand, if blacks were to unite to fight white thuggery, they would be commended for working together to fight ‘racism’. Whites can never win in a Jew-dominated world.

The Left is especially confused on race because it employs double-standard and double-logic, especially when pertaining to blacks and Jews. When blacks are perceived to be the victim, the Left emphasizes blackness and remind us that, “blacks are suffering, blacks have been targeted by ‘racism’.” But when blacks do wrong, the Left pretends either that it’s not a black thing or that blacks were merely responding to ‘racism’. So, when black mobs go around robbing and looting, the media tell us it’s ‘teen mobs’. (By the way, if it’s unfair to associate all blacks with criminal black mobs, why is it okay to associate all youths with criminal youth mobs? Is profiling by age any better than profiling by race? This raises the question, is it right for insurance companies to charge more for young males than for any other group? Isn’t that both ‘age-ist’ and ‘sexist’ profiling?) Half the time, the Left emphasizes, “it’s black, black, black” but other half the time, the Left says, “what, who, or why is it black?”
While it’s true that many whites took part in the British riots in 2011, there is no mistaking a particularly black nature to the violence--and that many white kids were aping blacks. On the other hand, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the decline of white working class culture in Britain precedes the arrival of Rap music and culture. The foul Punk culture had a disastrous impact on the British working class. Marxism was evil, but it instilled pride and dignity in work and sobriety, and in that sense, it was trying to redeem the Proletariat via liberation from ‘exploitative’ labor.
In contrast, for all its ideological conceits, Punk culture’s only purpose was to corrupt poor and working class whites into a foul-mouthed and retarded morons, and it succeeded all too well. That the intellectual class took up Punk culture as something worthy to promote and emulate speaks volumes about the corruption permeating every corner of modern society. And today, the cultural and intellectual elites are treating Rap music and culture as something ‘innovative’, worthy of ‘emulation’, messenger of ‘truth’, vehicle of rebellion, and etc. when it’s nothing more than thug-porn. Many people think Rap has great value since it’s popular all over the world. But then, so is soda pop, but how good is sugary drink for one’s health? Billions of people would love cocaine too if it were legal, but how good is that? Chinese took to opium like crazy, but was that good for society? Porn is more popular than ‘art films’, so does that mean porn has greater cultural value? McDonalds is the most popular eatery in the world, but how healthy are Big Mac and McFries? Syphilis was once common all over the world. So, does that mean it was good to be infected with the syphilis virus? HIV is prevalent all over Africa. Does that make it good? Rats and roaches are found everywhere. So, are they good?
Rap is everywhere because it has spread like junk food and germs. Rap music has direct appeal for its pornography and instant-will-to-power thuggery. And like rats, roaches, and germs, it feeds on the degradation of the human soul, which is common enough around the world. Yet, this garbage musical form is hailed by intellectuals and commentators all over the world. Why? Jews makes lots of money by controlling the music industry, and rap is a formula that sells. Leftist narrative of ‘blacks as eternal victims’ has added a cachet of political relevance to rap rage. People, including intellectuals, are addicted to the pornographic imagination and will-to-power-lust. There is also the interracist jungle feverism among both white males and females. White female wanna have sex with muscular Negroes while pussifed white boys want to whank off to it via porn. White males have lost their alpha male status vis-a-vis black males. Though white nationalist males resist this landmark change in cultural psychology, they are at the losing end of history. They have absolutely no power in the media, academia, and etc. Most white males have accepted their loss of status as alpha males of the West. Especially in our sports/pop music/porn-obsessed culture, white males worship Negro males. As such, white males feel that they are women-in-relation-to-the-Negro. Negro male is the man, white boy is the girl. Since the white man no longer has primary claim to white female, he is sexually confused. White girl, as the primary sexual prize in the West, now belongs to Negroes--at least in the popular imagination(which is having a real impact on society as a whole, what with more interracist coupling happening all over the place.) So, when a white boy fantasizes about or watches interracist sex/porn involving black male and white female, he identifies with both the black male and white female. He wishes he too were as big and strong like the Negro male who seems to be giving the white woman an orgasm that no white man could give her. But the white boy also identifies with the white woman. Since he is now a pussyboy or a boy-girl, he is awed by the idea of being sexually dominated by a Negro. This may explain why interracist porn is most popular among white males. Having been pussified, they get something like a double-orgasm: they share in the orgasm of the Negro stud and in the orgasm of the white girl. He gets off fantasy-identifying with both the big dominant Negro and with the ravished white girl. Jews, of course, know all about this psychology. The pussification of the white male has essentially bi-sexualized and gay-ized all white men into honorary ‘faggots’ whose minds are toyed by Jews and whose manhood has been raped by Negroes. What Jack Johnson did to Jim Jeffries has been done to all of white male kind. White man is now the bitch of the black man and the hideous Jew.

But we cannot discuss this truth because political correctness and the Iron Law of Leftist Victimology only allow us to see reality in terms of ‘powerful whites’ and ‘powerless blacks’. So, whenever blacks run wild in acts of violence, we are told it’s up to whites to understand why blacks or ‘teens’ act this way. When the Katrina fiasco hit New Orleans, all the blame was placed on whites, especially George W. Bush. Bush was an idiot, but how was he to blame for the full extent of the disaster? Meanwhile, blacks who just sat around on their ass or ran around robbing, looting, raping, and murdering were presented as mere victims. Some commentators said blacks were unable to cope because they’d been ‘neglected’ by white community for too long.
Well, it’d be nice if blacks neglected other races too. Blacks, as you may have noticed, do not neglect other people. Instead, blacks like to involve themselves in other peoples’ lives by robbing, howling, raping, murdering, looting, acting rude and stupid, etc. Of course, black people ignore and neglect naively idealistic white teachers who go to teach in inner-city schools. Students never listen to lessons or do homework. And on the occasion that blacks do pay attention to white teachers, it’s to hurl insults or to beat him or her up. But again, the media will have us believe that the fault is not with blacks. After all, they are ‘powerless’. So, if blacks run wild and free and beat up white people in the streets, it’s a case of ‘powerless’ Negroes rebelling against the ‘powerful’ whites who are either ‘racist’ or ‘overly privileged’--though NY Times never mentions the fact no people are as privileged in America as the damn Jews. And if white people flee from crazy and violent Negroes and choose to settle in a safe white community, they are ‘neglecting’ wonderful Negroes who need a helping hand.
I do not say this to ignore or whitewash the real history of black suffering and humiliation throughout American history. Rather, the point is that when a certain historical narrative is turned into a Iron Law by which we must explain and judge everything, it makes not only for stupidity but insanity that may prove far worse than the earlier history. For example, it was this failure to see reality as reality that led to the current South Africa. I do not argue that Apartheid should still exist. But based on racial differences between blacks and whites, I do argue that South African whites should have called for racial separation than a one-state solution where whites and blacks are supposed to co-exist peacefully together. Such ‘dreams’ turn to nightmares. Michael King(aka Martin L. King) pontificated about his dream, but white South Afrikaners have a nightmare in their hands. But even as empowered black thugs rape and murder whites, globalist Jews who control the world media only see the situation in terms of ‘powerless blacks’ and ‘powerful whites’. So, even when a black thug rapes and kills a white woman, NY TIMES sees it as a powerless Negro acting against a powerful white person.

The problem of blacks is bad enough but when mixed with the problem of youth, it becomes downright maddening. Eternal Black Victim mentality mixed with Eternal Youth Victim mentality has become one of the most toxic bio-cultural brews in the West. Because blacks feel forever ‘oppressed’, they never take responsibility for their idiotic actions. Because young people feel forever ‘suppressed’, they don’t realize how stupid and destructive they often act. Blacks are naturally more aggressive and wilder than other races. Young people--especially males--tend to be the most aggressive and reckless. With young black males feeling that they are the most oppressed people in the world by the simple virtue of being black and young, they do as they please, justify their actions as ‘rebellion against oppression’, and take no responsibility. Ironically, the favorite cultural expression of these moronic thugs is Rap music, which is all about arrogantly flaunting one’s power. Rap music says, “I’m the baddest motherfuc*er in the world and I can whup your ass!!” So, one would think Rap music is a Black-Youth-Male supremacist song, and of course it is in a way. But the historical context of ‘white racism’ would have us believe that even when young black thugs scream and howl about their badass power, they are really resisting against The Man. So, the music of black male arrogance and power has been interpreted and justified as righteous rage and rebellion-for-justice music of the powerless. Thuggery has been ideologicalized and sanctified as something noble and good--just like thug Jack Johnson has been rehabilitated as an icon of black nobility and pride.

When the two most dangerous elements of society, black males + youth, have thus been ideologicalized and ennobled, it’s no wonder we’re seeing the trouble we’re seeing. Young black males, by their very nature, are bound to cause most problems because (1) blacks are more aggressive and stronger than other races (2) young males are most wild and reckless. But instead of sending a message to young black males to watch themselves, we not only encourage but morally reward them when they act most crazy. Even as white people vote with their feet to move away from dangerous blacks, in the fields of pop culture and politics, the crazy aggressive wild black male has been into a noble and glorious icon. Though young black males act the thug in Rap culture, the media spin the thug as ‘noble hero of the black community combating racism and promoting racial pride.’ It’s like a case of ‘hug the thug’, at least symbolically. (Maybe conservatives will take to this narrative too and cook up something like Atlas Thugged.)

Rap culture is a contradictory phenomenon, and its success owes something more than to thuggery alone. If Rap music had remained only in its street thug formula, it might have died as a fad. If it had stuck only to the narrow ideology of socio-political rebellion--as punk had done--, it would have fizzled. But street thug rappers, once they made a lot of money, put on the slick shiny mega-rich attire and attitude. Rappers began to flaunt their wealth and naked materialism--and their harems of women. Whatever one thinks of the Sex Pistols or the Clash, they stuck to their ‘ideology’, which wasn’t very appealing to consumerist masses. Sex Pistols were anarchists pissing on everything and going out of their way to be as unpleasant as possible. The Clash promoted a kind of pop-Marxism thick in its own twisted kind of puritanism.
Rap had a wider appeal in the long run because, even as rappers-turned-rich continued to bitch and taunt, they were also into rich-and-flaunt. There was the narrative of rap-to-riches. Though rap styles are cheesy and trashy, rappers flaunted their limos, expensive clothes and jewelry, women swarming all over them, and the naked materialism of the glitzy gangster lifestyle. Punk rebellion was ideological, gangster rebellion was criminal. And in pop culture, the criminal is more appealing than the revolutionary. Would you rather see SCARFACE or CHE? Would you rather see HEAT or LUMUMBA? Pop music is about fantasy, and it’s more fun to fantasize about money, power, women, guns, jewelry, fancy clothes, big mansions, etc. than sacrificing everything for the cause Though early rap may have been more ideological--more into politics of ‘black rage--later rap became more nakedly materialistic.
Sure, rappers continued to bitch about The Man, the Powers-that-be, and all that, but the main appeal of Rap was the fantasy that any hood could become a badass big boss mofo with limos, mansions, Tony Montana suits, lots of guns, and tons of women sucking his dick.
Yet, despite all this, Rap music still has a cachet among Mr. Jonesy(“Ballad of a Thin Man” by Bob Dylan)white liberals as the ‘music of the powerless and disenfranchised’. This may be true to the extent that many poor black kids listen to rap--and rap is also the favorite music of many oppressed peoples around the world, like Palestinians--and rap originated among the black underclass, but Rap Culture has been less about fighting-for-justice than fighting-for-my-chunk-of-cash-and-my-harem-of-hos-to-suck-my-dick-all-night. It’s not about Robin Hood but Robbin’ Hoodlum.
Though not all rap music is alike, all rap share the similar spirit. Even rap songs that don’t blatantly call for violence convey emotions that open the Pandora’s Box of arrogance, contempt, hostility, savagery, ugabugary, etc. Rap is the fullest expression of black thuggery + young male thuggery. Regardless of its lyrics, its expression is one of hostility, arrogance, contempt(especially for the weak), and stupidity.
It is ironic that the most power-mad and megalomaniacal form of music has come to be associated with the ‘powerless fighting for social justice against the powerful’. Now, one may argue that the exaggerated power-madness in rap actually betrays the real powerlessness of the black underclass. Maybe, black rappers act so power-mad to compensate for their lack of real power. It could be fantasy power for those without real power, rather like geeks reading and writing superhero comic books. Similarly, one might say Jews created the all-powerful God precisely because they felt weak as a people compared to other tribes with greater military might. And why is rap music such a big deal to Palestinian youths? They are powerless, and so they sing rap to FEEL the power, something they don’t possess in real terms. Similarly, one could say loser guys without women watch extreme porn to feel a degree of sexual power(and this seems to be the case in Japan especially, what with series such as RAPE MAN). Also, the riches flaunted by famous rappers is something most young black males don’t have. Most underclass black males relish in the vulgar fantasy of riches, just like poor Mexican housewives watch soap operas about rich beautiful blonde women.
But again, it would be foolish to say blacks are ENTIRELY powerless. Nor should we confuse the fact of having-less-wealth with having less power. A person with lots of wealth is certainly more powerful than those who have much less. But those who have more are not necessarily more powerful than those who have less. It’s like civilized man has supremacy over nature; almost no one in America is endangered by dangerous animals. But being human in and of itself is insufficient for a person to be safe from dangerous animals. Many people still are killed by wild animals in India and Africa. While all men are more intelligent than animals, that alone doesn’t ensure safety of all men. For man to be safe from wild animals, he has to be lived in an advanced civilization.
Similarly, if you’re very rich, you can afford to be safe from all sorts of crime. You can choose to live in a nice place, travel around safely, hire security guards, etc. Thus, it could be said you have a lot more power than poor people. This is true of most Jews.

But if you’re a middle class person, that doesn’t necessarily mean you have more power than a poor person. In fact, the poor thug could have power over the middle class person. A middle class person has more money than a poor person, but he may not be sufficiently rich to remove himself threats from criminal elements. He may have to share the same streets with the criminal poor. His house may be only blocks away from the poor person’s house(especially thanks to Section 8, which brought tons of blacks into working class and middle class white communities). Bill Gates is many times more powerful than any Negro thug, but this cannot be said for some white working class guy. He may have more wealth than a Negro, but he may still have to encounter Negroes in his neighborhood; or his kids may have to attend schools with some asshole Negro kids. So, if you have a lot of money(like the damn Jews), you are indeed more powerful than poor people. But if you’re middle class or working class, poor people can have power over you. Look at most integrated schools, and most violent incidents involve poorer blacks attacking better-off whites or other poor whites.
But, we tend to ignore all that and focus on ridiculous generalities where ‘whites are powerful and privileged’ and ‘blacks are powerless and poor’. Even after Zimbabwe has brutalized most white farmers and driven them away, the Western world still cannot think in terms of blacks-doing-harm-to-whites. Even when blacks in South Africa are raping and murdering whites all over, we cannot think in terms of black power hurting white people.
As I’ve said earlier, this has roots in Christianity. Even after Christians gained power and destroyed pagan temples and rounded up and killed ‘heretics’, Christians would only see themselves as ‘victims’. Even as they threw pagans--as ‘witches’--into bonfires, they could only see themselves as helpless victims fed to lions by pagan Romans. Even as they beat up and killed Jews, they only thought in terms of Oppressive Jewish Killers of Christ. Even when Jews became victims of Christians, Christians only could think in terms of Jews as persecutors of Christians(in the early days of Christianity). This is what happens when Victim-hood turns into a spiritualized ideology and sanctified narrative. Even when the ‘enemy’ is no longer dominant, it is perceived as all-powerful. And even when one’s own side has gained great power, one only thinks of one’s own group as Eternal Victims.
And so, Jews today act as though they themselves are utterly powerless while the KKK is on the loose all over America. Or $PLC would have you believe that Neo-Nazism is on the rise. And Zionists still act as though Muslims have dominance over Jews when, in fact, Israel is the big bully in the Middle East and the oppressor of Palestinians. In the ‘war’ between Israel and Gaza, Israel’s mass killing of thousands of Gazans was seen as necessary to counter a MORTAL THREAT from Palestinians. This isn’t to say Israelis had no right to retaliate but only to point out that the permanent fixture of Jews in the Pantheons of Victimhood blinds us to the fact that today’s Jews are far from the Jews who staggered out of the Nazi death camps. (Also, it’s not like all Jews suffered the Holocaust experience. While many Eastern European Jews were dying, American Jews were having the time of their lives. Also, Soviet Jews had collaborated with Lenin and Stalin in the mass murder of Christian Slavs. Also, Jews wouldn’t have been so hated if they hadn’t acted so hateful, which they continue to do to this day. Just look at hideous Jews like Frank Rich, Tim Wise, and James Toback.)
Jews today are the most powerful people in the world. But Jews, being smart, know that power is all the more effective when wielded behind the curtain of powerlessness. When Romans owned the power, they couldn’t flaunt it enough. They declared to the world that they were the mightiest, the greatest, and the most powerful. Thus, Romans justified their power on might. They were feared and even respected; but they were also envied and resented because of their great power. Jews want the wealth, influence, and power but don’t wanna attract attention as having wealth, influence, and power. On the occasion that they do admit that they are rich and powerful, they cleverly emphasize that Jews use their power to help the powerless because Jews understand what it mean to be oppressed due to their long history of suffering.
But if one observes Jews closely enough, Jewish sympathy is never genuine but selective depending on “what is in it for us?” When Israel was close to Turkey, Jews certainly didn’t make much a fuss about the mass killing of Armenians. As far as Jews were concerned, Turkish-Israel partnership was more important. Jews express concern over the people of Darfur but nothing about the mass killings in the Congo. Why? Could it be to emphasize the Arab vs Black violence so as to turn American blacks against sympathizing with Arabs? Or to morally humiliate China, a heavy investor in Sudan and a challenger to Jewish-controlled America-centered globalism? Jews say nothing about how Mexico treats its illegal aliens but profess sympathy for Mexican Illegals in the US and use their control of media to depict all white Americans opposed to ‘illegal immigration’ as crypto-Nazi ‘xenophobes’. Jews didn’t much care about the horrors in East Timor, but they suddenly got interested in human rights violations in North Korea. Because Jews really care about the plight of North Koreans? No, because North Korea sold missiles to enemies of Israel. Jews profess deep sympathies with the Chinese victims of Japanese imperialism, but is this sympathy genuine or is it a means to justify their own moral blackmailing of Germany to fork over ever more Holocaust payments? After all, if other peoples demand historical redress from a former ally of Nazi Germany, Jews will continue to feel justified in needling Germany(and rest of Europe)for more cash, more reparations, more apologies. But if Jews are so sympathetic and sensitive about historical injustices, why are they mostly silent on what happened to Ukrainians under Bolshevism? Or the destruction of 50,000 churches in the Soviet Union? Or the vast Jewish role in the communist horrors of Soviet Russia? How amusing that Jews want us to remember certain events as having an Eternal significance and value while they want us to conveniently forget other horrors, especially where Jews were the villains.
Jews shape our collective memories and our collective amnesias, and the logic behind both is “what is good for the Jew?” And dumb Christians, who can’t face up to the fact of Christianity’s hostility toward Jews over the millennia, make believe that Christians and Jews are the best of friends by bending over backwards to do everything for Zionism and by calling for mass murder of Muslims in the name of ‘defending Israel’. Is there anyone as demented as Michelle Bachmann in mainstream politics? Anyone as pathetic? Most Jews despise her while a few neocons dickslap and cum on her ONLY BECAUSE she’s a running dog to Israel, but she lives in her own fantasy world where Christians and Jews are the best of friend united against evil Muslims.

It used to be freedom meant responsibility. Kids are not free, and so they are not entirely responsible for what they do. This is why when young kids do wrong, parents have to take the responsibility. Parents have power over kids, which means parents must raise the kids right and teach them the right values. Gradually, kids grow older and gain more freedom. But they also realize that having more freedom means taking on more responsibility. If your parent drives you places, it’s the parent’s responsibility to drive the car safely. But once a young person gets behind the wheel, he or she must be responsible for safe driving. Freedom means more power, and power means responsibility. So, more freedom means more power. And that means more responsibility. And this used to the core value system of the American republic. But something went wrong in the 60s. Suddenly, young people not only demanded more freedom but shirked their responsibilities. They said they wanted to have lots of sex and use all sorts of drugs. But when things went badly, they didn’t take any responsibility. They just went to their parents and asked for more money. Or when drug users ended up diseased and homeless, leftists said it was OUR responsibility to take care of them. And when black teens began to have wild sex and have kids out of wedlock, it was not their responsibility but ours to take care of them and their kids. And when gays went crazy and buggered one another in endless orgies and spread disease all over, they didn’t do anything wrong; they weren’t responsible for anything. No, it was OUR responsibility to find a cure for AIDS and provide everything to gays who were depicted as saintly victims. Though the AIDS epidemic spread like a wildfire through the gay community due to gay lifestyles, it was as if Jerry Falwell killed all those gays in what amounted to a Homocaust.

It’s bad enough that so many freedoms were abused by young people, Negroes, leftists, and gays since the 60s. What’s worse is that we are not even supposed to comment on this fact. .
The reasons for the silence are five-fold. (1) Politics of Guilt (2) Politics of Influence (3) Politics of Fear (4) Politics of Power and (5) Politics of Hipness.
In the case of politics of guilt, white people are simply not supposed to criticize blacks.
In the case of politics of influence, the powers-that-be(mostly Jews in the media and academia) spun the bullshit narrative that gays aren’t responsible for the AIDS epidemic that killed so many gays(and cost the rest of us dearly).
In the case of politics of power, a giant bureaucracy and industry have grown around nanny-statism catering to ‘victim groups’. There are millions of ‘leaders’, managers, agents, and workers whose very power and livelihoods depend on doling out services to the ‘needy’--of course at the expense of the rest of us.
In the case of politics of fear, critics--especially conservatives--are afraid of being labeled as ‘callous’, ‘divisive’, ‘uncaring’, and ‘bigoted’ if they condemn rather than sympathize with the ‘victims’--even if the so-called ‘victims’ victimized themselves.
In the case of the politics of hipness, the educated elites believe it’s cool to tolerate and even encourage certain lifestyles no matter how stupid and destructive they are. So, despite the problem of single-motherhood, the 90s TV show MURPHY BROWN promoted single-motherhood as a form of liberated lifestyle for the modern women. It appears rich privileged people in a cocooned world of their own.

In a nutshell, leftists have been promoting and apologizing for dangerous lifestyles, destructive attitudes, and reckless actions in the name of greater freedom, liberation, and justice, but when such things have led to serious social problems, the leftist explanation is that people in trouble are ‘victims’ who deserve not criticism but our love, compassion, and money.
So, if black males wanna listen to rap and act the thug, wonderful. If gays wanna bugger a hundred fecal holes, wonderful. If women wanna have children out of wedlock, wonderful. If kids wanna dress and act like porn stars, sluts, and prostitutes, that’s wonderful too--even according to today’s neo-feminists.

This social sickness cannot simply be blamed on the lower elements or the dregs of society. Many of these news ideas originated from higher institutions in the academia and media funded by superrich elites. It was not the Negroes who cooked up Great Society but the so-called Best and the Brightest intellectuals from Ivy League schools. Not every gay person is as demented as the members of the gay elite who control the so-called ‘gay agenda’. And young people listen to music and follow fashions marketed to them by movers and shakers of the industry dominated by well-educated cynical Ivy Leaguers(many of whom are hideous Jews).
There’s been a strange and sickening convergence between intellectual corruption at the top and populist corruption at the bottom. When the well-educated elites of Great Britain speak of Rap music--at least the ‘good kind’--as a positive, creative, and transformative force for young people, what is there to say? So, you see, we must not be too quick to judge. Ah yes, the real problem with the London Riots was that black kids were listening to the ‘wrong kind of rap music’. There is ‘good positive rap music’ that might heal British society--presumably about how black males should be humping white ho’s than thumping white bros. You see, there is ‘good’ mindless black rage and vulgarity in rap as opposed to ‘bad’ mindless black rage and vulgarity in rap. If blacks were only to go with the ‘good’ kind of mindless rage and vulgarity, racial tensions may finally go away. Sounds like a Monty Python skit, doesn’t it?

Similarly, Mexicans aren’t really blamed for all the problems they cause in Mexico. Mexicans too have a habit of blaming gringo for all their problems. Mexicans too have jumped on the victimology bandwagon. So, never mind Mexicans have been illegally crossing into America for all sorts of free public services(as well as opportunities to commit crime)--and never mind Mexico treats illegal aliens in Mexico very harshly. No, the blame falls completely on Americans, especially white Americans. When a Mexican van loaded with illegals crashed into police cars to break through the American border, the Jew-run media’s focus was on the American police using violence to stop and arrest illegal Mexicans, NOT on the fact that Mexicans had violently entered into America by endangering the lives of American police officers and border patrol guards. There is something ridiculous when millions of illegal aliens march in open daylight waving Mexican flags and demanding ‘justice’. We didn’t force them to come here illegally. They broke into America; they broke American laws. Yet, they demand that they be recognized as legal residents and be given equal rights under the protection of the law, the very thing they violated to enter America illegally. And the hideous and dirty Jews are on the side of the illegals against American citizens and the American Constitution, for which Jews have little use EXCEPT WHEN it protects Jewish interests. Principles mean nothing to Jews though no people make as much noise about principles. Anyone who has listened to Alan Dershowitz on a few occasions know this, but the vile famous Jew lawyer continues to yammer on as if he’s the most principled person in the world when all he’s ever done is manipulate principles to serve the interests of filthy Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Leon Wieseltier is hardly different from Dershowitz, though his low-key style may fool some people. Weasel-tier is for using Americans against Muslims in the Middle East and using Muslims against American Christians in America. This way, Jews sacrifice Christian life and limb in the interests of Israel, all the while supporting Muslims--as yet another ‘victim group’--against white American Christians, whom Jews still see as the main obstacle to total Jewish power. So, Jews, through their control of foreign policy and control of media, rile up white Christian anger at the Muslim world and send our boys to fight wars for Israel. White Christians bark at Muslims because they’ve been thus trained by Jews, but then Jews say white Christians are rabidly ‘Islamophobic’ and therefore American Muslims need to be protected from vicious Christians by the wonderful Jews. So, Jews create idiot rabid dogs like Sarah Palin(who sent her son to fight Wars for Israel) and John McCain to bark in the name of Zionism, but then Jews complain the dogs are barking mad and need to be restrained.

In the end, the only thing that matters with Jews is ‘what is good for us?’ This is what the Wasps never really understood. When the up-and-coming Jews criticized Wasps for not playing by the rules, Wasps looked in the mirror squarely at their own hypocrisies. They accepted Jewish criticism as fair and principled and moved aside to make room for the worthier Jew in the naive faith that the newly empowered Jews would truly live up to the principles of America, something Wasps had failed to do due to their ‘racism’ and ‘white privilege’. But in reality, Jews don’t have a principled bone in their body. What Jews today have and enjoy is the giddy feeling that they are so powerful, influential, cunning, and clever that they can fool all of goyim forever and ever. That is what makes the Jew feel orgasmic. Remember the scene in JURASSIC PARK when the fat Jew(Neumann on SEINFELD) looks at the shaving cream can designed to conceal dinosaur embryos? The fat Jew cackles and giggles like crazy. He takes pleasure in fooling others. Similarly, Jews are privately giggling with joy about how easy it is to manipulate and fool the goy idiots. If the relatively intelligent wasps were so easily duped by Jews, imagine how simpler and easier it must be to fool Negroes, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, etc.

That’s how things stand today. It doesn’t matter what young people, blacks, illegals, gays, Jews, feminists, and other groups stamped with the approval of ‘victimhood’ do to make things worse for themselves or everyone else. They are always to be perceived and treated as poor helpless victims never to be held accountable for their misuse and abuse of freedom, power, and influence. So, if black males use freedom to run wild and beat up people, let’s either ignore the crime or pretend ‘teens’ did it. If we do, on occasion, do admit that blacks did it, let’s spin it as ‘the powerless rebelling against the powers-that-be’.
If gays continue with their dangerous massive fecal penetrative life-styles and spread deadly diseases, let’s never ever say that gay sex is dangerous or less worthy than real sex. That would be so square, reactionary, and ‘homophobic’. If gay men do get sick from their form of ‘sex’, let’s not blame them but blame ourselves for not doing enough to take for the wonderful gay community. Indeed, let’s even award ‘gay parents’ with children produced by normal (hetero)sex and pretend that two gay fathers or two lesbian mothers produced the kids through fecal penetration or poon-grinding.
If Jews use their financial power to rob us blind, let’s never say that Jews are responsible for what amounts to highway robbery. Instead, let’s spin the massive heist so as to make Jews the main victims of the economic disasters that they themselves created; indeed, let’s convince ourselves that Jewish Wall Street banksters are victims deserving of sympathy and bailouts paid for by the rest of us. And if we need a scapegoat, let’s blame it all on Bernie Madoff and pretend Jews were the main victims of his financial malfeasance. Or let’s round up a bunch of Asian-Indians and make them the posterchildren of the greed on Wall Street.

And let’s tell girls to act like sluts, but if they’re treated like sluts because they act like sluts, let’s not blame the sluts but the men who sexually harass sluts by calling them ‘sluts’. It is this kind of socio-political-moral retardation, especially given that the West is now ruled by hideous Jews and teeming with violent Negroes(and corrupted by degenerate gays), that will bring about the downfall of civilization. But the problem goes deeper. Today’s consumer-capitalism follows the same logic. In the past, capitalism meant ‘work, save, pay for what you can afford, manage your money well’. Today, consumer-capitalism means, ‘Work and spend and spend and spend and borrow to spend some more. If you don’t work, have government give you money and force banks to lend you money to spend and spend and then demand more money to spend more and more.’ In other words, we went from responsible worker-saver-spender capitalism to irresponsible spender-borrower capitalism. People without financial responsibility are going to end up in bad straits. When they get burned, the lesson should ideally be the realization that they’d behaved like idiots. But according to the current logic of consumer-victimology, you never blame yourself for your debts, bankruptcy, or terrible credit-rating. No, plenty of companies and ‘consumer rights’ agencies encourage you to see yourself as a victim who is being ‘hassled’ and ‘harassed’ by credit companies and collection agencies. So, no matter how irresponsibly you’ve borrowed and spent, you didn’t do anything wrong; YOU are the poor victim. This victim mentality exists from high to low in the our consumer-capitalist victimology. So, all those idiots who couldn’t afford homes but got ninja loans to buy McMansions are said to be victims of ‘predatory lenders’. Meanwhile, the very banks that pushed those crazy loans are supposed to be victims of ‘predatory borrowers’. So, under Obama, there’s been massive welfare for the predatory borrowing class and massive bailouts for the predatory lending class. You see, everyone is a poor poor victim.
The GOP may be less into victimology than the Left... except when it comes to Wall Street bankers. So, there’s Rush Limbaugh acting like Wall Street bankers are innocent lambs who were hoodwinked to lending all that money to poor people to buy homes because of the Community Reinvestment Act. But, wasn’t Rush one of the biggest fans of the housing boom when it was happening under Bush II? As for Michael Moore, the fat slob of the Left, it never occurs to him that one of the problems with health care costs in this country is there are too many disgusting fat pigs like him who cannot control what they eat. Many American problems are the product of excessive gluttony. But then, I suppose fat people are just victims too. One black father tried to sue McDonalds for his fatassness of his daughter. Yeah, just blame the corporations for one’s own corpulence. What do you expect from a shameless society where too many people eat like pigs, growing grossly fat, getting sick, and demanding that their doctors do something about it. But if the doctors point out that the ‘patient’ has health problems because he or she is a big fat gross pig, he or she plays victim and threatens him with a lawsuit. No shame for me but all blame for you. Freedom used to be something sacred, something worth fighting and dying for. Because it was valuable, people didn’t take it for granted. Freedom wasn’t free and freedom meant responsibility. But for the merchants of consumerism, peddlers of guilt, and brewers of blame, freedom means no responsibility at all, especially if it stands in the way of profits. Since 70% of the American economy depends on consumer spending and since big media--part of big business--cares for nothing but profits, the message is ‘spend and spend and then borrow to spend.’ In the current state of quick profits and boundless greed, virtues such as responsibility and restraint(and modesty) stand in the way of ‘economic growth’ and ‘creation of wealth’. So, Paul Krugman attacks people who dare save their money instead of going out to SPEND it as soon as they earn it. Whatever you have, just spend. Buy something, even if it’s something you don’t need or might actually do you harm--morally, health-wise, or financially. If the GOP and Donkey Party are agreed on one thing, it is the importance of making people spend as much as money as fast as possible. But what if massive credit leads to massive debt and what if the whole thing busts? Ah, there is the government to bail everyone out, so go on spending--especially since we can rely on dirt cheap Chinese and Indian labor to keep supplying us with cheap goods and services. And not to worry when we can’t pay back our debts to China or India. Clever Jews will cook up some excuse to squeeze out of it.

Similarly, Rights used to mean the right to certain liberties and to use them properly. Now, Rights have been degenerated into ‘right to own a TV set’. We went from America the land of the free to America where the lunch is free. I’m afraid the conservative value system may be lost forever, and part of the blame must fall on conservatives who’ve come to worship at the altar of the Almighty Market--even most conservative churches are now megamall affairs. For example, conservatives decry liberal attempts to ban sugary drinks and candy bars from public schools. Now, conservatives have a point about freedom of individual choice. The problem is the freedom of choice works properly only in a community of responsible people. If kids have been raised to be responsible and to feel shame for being excessively fat, then social pressures work to counter the misuse of individual freedom. Though kids have the freedom to drink and eat junk, community values would serve to counterbalance their piggish appetites. But ours is a shameless society where kids think it’s perfectly okay to be slobby, fat, lazy, moronic, infantile, and idiotic. So, if you allow kids to eat like shit, they will eat like shit.
So, the conservative defense of freedom must work in tandem with conservative support of virtues and values. But what is the face of modern conservatism? Rush Limbaugh, the fat disgusting pig. Rush’s conservatism is NOT about the freedom to carry the burden of one’s own responsibility. At the very least, William F. Buckley was devoted to his wife and watched his weight. Limbaugh has been nothing but a gluttonous playboy who sits on his fatass five days a week and dishes out babytalk to millions of morons whose only vocabulary is ‘dittos, Rush’.

The recent Occupy Wall Street protest divided Americans into 1% and the 99%. I don’t doubt that the superrich in this country have gotten fabulously richer while most Americans have economically stagnated. And many of the superrich got superricher through nefarious means, made all the easier by globalism that made it easier to move one’s money and capital all around the world. So yes, the top 1% rich must be specially held accountable for the things they do. But the 1% vs 99% dichotomy is just another grand victimological narrative which would have us believe that 1% is all-powerful(therefore entirely responsible for all that is wrong with the world) while the 99% are all-powerless(therefore not even responsible for their own stupid actions; just look at those stupid college students who’ve taken out loans to get degrees in bullshit majors but now demand that their debts be forgiven and they be provided with decent jobs and decent wages though they have no talent for anything but wearing Che Guevara t-shirts ).
While I’m all for bringing bankster crooks to justice, the fact remains that many Americans face problems and cause problems for other people because they’re louts and punks within their own sphere of personal power. If a Negro steals, he’s a thief. It would be absurd to say, “well, he’s one of the 99%, so he has ‘nothing’ and what he stole is peanuts compared to what the banksters stole.” It was such logic that turned entire black communities into blighted zones of under-investment. Who wants to invest in a community where everyone feels owed because he or she is a ‘permanent victim’ who has ‘nothing’ and is owed everything--and will even get it through theft? So, employees steal, government workers steal, neighbor steals from neighbor, and everyone has an excuse as righteous ‘victim’. It’s not long before the black community turns into a hellhole.
So, while more power means more responsibility, any power--even if it’s not much--should be held responsible for its own actions. And it is only thus that poor people can hope to be make any social gain. After all, the sort of poor people who improve their own lives tend to be those with a strong sense of shame and responsibility. It’s too bad--and ironic--that Jews, a people who rapidly rose through the ranks of American society due to many positive traits--work ethic, family cohesiveness, intellectual seriousness, diligence, and etc--are now peddling some of the worst values and attitudes among poor blacks and whites. The agenda of Jews in the popular entertainment industry is to turn masses of white and black gentiles into whores, sluts, thugs, morons, idiots, and buffoons. If Jews are truly a decent people--which they claim to be--, they would share their positive values and secrets of their success with the goy population instead of turning masses of goyim into Oprah drones, Jerry Springer dolts, Maury Povich idiots, MTV retards, etc. But Jews are Jews, a people who, across the millennia, have despised and held goyim in utter contempt. It would be most foolish to expect Jews to ever admit they have The Power and to treat us goyim as humans of equal worth, respect, and consideration.