Worthless Troll 'Violentacrez'
Worthless ConTroll Chen
Until a few days, I never heard of the internet troll who went by the name of 'Violentacrez' nor did I know anything about the internet site Reddit until I read an article referring to the controversy. Having checked out Reddit since, I've no desire to revisit what amounts to just another forum where users trade mostly images and gossip.
What really interests me is the media hounding and shaming of this 'notorious troll', especially following his outing by Adrian Chen in this Gawker article.
There's also an interview with Michael Brutsch(the man behind 'Violentacrez') in the CNN video below:
What interests me is not Brutsch himself. He is your typical 'loser', but I suspect there are many such people all over the world. In a way, he's Walter Mitty on steroids. Paradoxically, he'd been revealing his 'real side' over the years precisely because he was able to conceal his true identity. It's a kind of hidden exhibitionism. This sort of thing is, of course, nothing new. Sometimes, a person can say or express his or her true feelings only behind a mask. Joe Klein did this with his novel PRIMARY COLORS and eventually got in hot water when outed. As a Jewish liberal Democrat hanging with other liberal Democrats, he didn't want to come across as being too harsh on Bill Clinton. So, he wrote his novel under a pseudonym. Some scholars even argue that the real Shakespeare was actually someone else, most likely a nobleman who hid his identity lest his plays undermine his position among his peers—it’s not uncommon for the social peers of an artist to suspect that the works are really about them(and often at the expense of their reputations). And in the Soviet Union, many dissenters had to use pseudonyms to avoid being arrested by authorities.
But if some people hide their identities due to political oppression and/for a worthy or noble cause/endeavor, people like Brutsch just hanker for attention. Personally, I agree with most sane people that he's a jerk, dork, and loser. What is truly pathetic is not the nasty things he posted but the fact that he needed this kind of attention to feel alive. What a waste of life. There are so many things to do in life, and he spent his spare time posting garbage on the internet for morons to gawk at. Though I believe in the freedom of speech, what a waste of freedom of speech. According to the article by Chen, Brutsch's wife not only knew about his ‘hobby’ but was a fellow reddit addict or reddict. And his son seems to have known about his father's clown act too. Let us hope this is not the typical American family for it sounds almost like the SIMPSONS or FAMILY GUY come true. If Brutsch were in his teens, his clown act would be somewhat more understandable. If he were a total loser, he would have some kind of an excuse. But he's had a steady job over the years. He also claims to be part Jewish, so he must not be a total dummy. So, why waste his life this way?
Perhaps, all of us have wasted time on the internet one way or another. And before there was the internet, most Americans probably watched too much TV. And before there was the TV, Americans probably listened to too much radio. In highschool, I should have done more homework and reading instead of listening to pop music. (In my defense, I probably had better musical taste than most people.)
What we call 'wasting time' is probably normal. Lions hunt and eat 3 hrs a day and sleep 21 hours a day. It would be nice if we spent our spare time doing worthier stuff—like reading literary classics, developing an skilled hobby, gaining greater knowledge, getting involved in local politics, and etc.—, but most of us would rather relax or 'have fun', and 'fun' means not taking things too seriously. So, even college students stare at the TV set or facebook page for hours on end instead of doing their reading assignments. Kids get together and 'party', drinking and saying stupid things all through the night.
But not everyone is socially successful or popular, especially if one happens to be ugly, fat, and gross. Brutsch is ugly, fat, and gross. Such people probably feel resentment at the world, and a kind of 'revenge of the nerd' mindset develops within them. They are timid nerds in the social sphere, mice among men. But even beta-males have some repressed alpha male fantasies inside them, and their dynamics aren’t much different from the repression of sexual feelings. A timid beta male who cannot assert himself sexually in the social sphere may write fantasy porn stories. Or he might become a fan of Horror, and indeed, most horror film fanboys, writers, and directors are, as personality types, not much different from Brutsch.
It helps if you have talent whether it's visual, literary, dramatic, comedic, or whatever. Indeed, a lot of artists and 'critics'—it's hard to tell what is a real critic these days—tend to be (social)'losers' who happen to possess talent. Matt Groenig, Stephen King, David Cronenberg, George Romero, and Larry David are as gross a character as Brutsch, but they had the talent to make entertainment with great mass and even intellectual appeal. If they were without talent, they could very well be pathetic figures like Brutsch.
For the untalented like Brutsch, the only outlet for their frustrated resentment is the cult of outrage. And so, Brutsch went for the most obviously outrageous topics like 'underaged girls', Hitler, Jew-baiting, misogyny, and etc. He was a genuine troll in having no real interest in these topics—except for maybe scantily clad underaged girls—except to use them just to win plaudits(mostly from other dorks) and opprobrium(from the politically correct). As they say, "Don't feed the troll". Trolls are sado-masochistic. They not only bask in praise but gorge on attacks... at least until they're outed. In a way, the psychology of the troll is like Snoopy's in "The Mad Punter Strikes Again", albeit with far less innocence--though I suppose there are lots of G-rated trolls too, though I don’t see any point to that.
It's not always easy to say where honest criticism/expression ends and trolling begins. Armond White, the black film critic, has his champions but also detractors who insist he's just a mean-spirited troll. Roger Ebert, once a defender of White, concurred that White just loves to push buttons on people. To an extent, there's an element of troll-ism in much of journalism. If the essence of trollism is exaggeration, outrageous-ness, and/or sensationalism, most news headlines have an element of trollism for their main objective is to grab your attention. Headlines are often highly misleading on purpose. The news coverage of Amy Chua's book THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER was trollish in hyping her semi-satirical memoir into something like “Lady Fu Manchu Plans to Conquer the World.” And most accusations of 'racism', 'sexism', and 'homophobia' are no better than trolling. Indeed, they may even qualify as just another form of trolling even if the politically correct are to dim to realize it. If one of the hallmarks of trolling is to ignore the real subject at hand and turn the debate into a 'flame war', then some of the biggest trolls are on the so-called left. Accusing defenders of traditional marriage of suffering from a clinical ailment called 'homophobia' is hardly better than trolling. Indeed, most of political correctness is waging endless flame wars by telling people to shut up for their ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘antisemitic’, and ‘homophobic’ views. And people like Violentacrez are useful because their expression of political incorrectness is purely nonsensical. If Chen had real courage, he wouldn’t bother with goofy clowns like Violentacrez and challenge/argue with people with sincere politically incorrect views like Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, Robert Weissberg, and Paul Gottfried. But then, he would be confronted with politically incorrect views with real facts and logic behind them. Much easier go after a clown like Violentacrez and pretend that all ‘racist’ views are of such silly ilk as found on grungy forums on Reddit.
People like Chen should be called ConTrolls. Controlls are dorky closed-minded fussbudgets uninterested in the true meanings and implications of the serious issues. Though they fashion themselves to be open-minded and curious ‘liberal progressives’, they are actually pathologically intolerant of any views at odds with the politically correct lessons they soaked up in classrooms as teachers’ pets and from the Jewish-controlled mass media. (Of course, if one points out that the media are indeed controlled by Jews, one is summarily dismissed as an ‘anti-Semite’ though it is a irrefutable fact that the media are indeed owned by Jews. What an easy way to end and ban all debate with certain words used as witch-hunting cudgels. Political correctness is not an invitation to individual thought and free criticism but a set of rules that some people can attack others but not vice versa. So, Jews can piss on white gentiles but not the other way around. Jews can dump on Palestinians, but Jews tell us it’s ‘antisemitic’ for Americans to sympathize with Palestinians and take up their cause for freedom from Zionist oppression. While all Nazis and neo-Nazis are anti-Jewish, not all anti-Jewish people are Nazi or neo-Nazi. To say otherwise would be fallacious. But little pricks like Chen would rather draw public attention on someone like Violentacrez to imply that anyone with hostile views toward Jews are crazy Nazis. This is all the more amusing when Violentacrez’s political views weren’t even in earnest and he’s part Jewish himself.)
When conTrolls come upon certain politically incorrect thoughts or views, their simple-minded robotic programming kicks into gear and they go into panic mode and start spewing invectives to silence what they don’t want to hear as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or whatever.
They think they are always right, and they claim to really hate trolls. But their simple-minded outbursts and reduction of moral and social issues into flame-and-shame wars of hysterically accusing people of this-evil-ism or that-evil-ism makes them hardly different from trolls. In some ways, controlls are worse than trolls for trolls are at least honest about their need for ‘notoriety’. In contrast, controlls are no less hungry for attention and topical sensationalism but pretend to be heroic crusaders against all cosmic evil. But seriously, what true lover of truth and justice would waste his time stalking losers like Brutsch? Aren't there nobler and more urgent objectives in a world filled with so much misery and injustice?
Adrian Chen, a controll, is hardly better the troll he outed. In a way, his gleefully geeky bragging over his pathetic trophy betrays his pitifully dorky self. No real man would waste his time stalking and hunting trolls; no real man’s claim to fame would be having outed a loser posting garbage onto the internet; there are so many ‘notorious trolls’ on the internet that catching one is like catching a fly around a manure pile. Chen is surely no lady's man or any kind of dude that commands the respect and admiration of other dudes. So, the only way he could feel big about himself was to out the identity of some loser who wastes his time on Reddit. Unwittingly, all Chen really did was to out himself as an attention-hungry dork. Though it’s a case of a politically correct loser geek bagging a politically incorrect loser geek, Chen would have us believe he’s George Smiley or something. His pathetically exaggerated bragging rights suggests he think he accomplished something on the order of Adolf Eichmann’s capture. You can just imagine dorky Chen sitting in a restaurant acting big and important—mostly around guys even geekier than him—because he outed the identity of a totally useless dime-a-dozen internet troll.
It's all the more ironic considering that Gawker, the online rag that Chen writes for, is nothing but a source of trash news and trollish gossip, but hey, at least most of the garbage it serves up is of the 'liberal' and 'progressive' variety.
I suspect that the real problem that guys like Chen and other politically correct dorks have with Violentacrez was not so much the trolling as the 'rightist' aspect of some of his forums. In other words, had Violentacrez set up forums praising Stalin, New Black Panthers, Mao, Chomsky, and such ilk, there would have been little fuss about his trolllish behavior. (Consider the affection that the liberal community has for Roman Polanski, an anal-rapist of a twelve year old girl who escaped justice by fleeing to Europe. Chen and his ilk want to ruin the lives of losers like Violentacrez—though most of them never broke the law—but they heap praises on guys like Polanski who ran from the law. A politically correct liberal is someone who would take away the right of free speech from trolls but demands that Polanski be pardoned, protected from American laws, and be allowed to keep working.) Violentacrez’s real sin was that he created forums that attracted Jew-haters and the like. That and not the other filth he posted was the reason why he became the special target of Jewish-controlled MSM and politically correct drones like Chen. After all, the internet is filled with extreme Zionists—sincere ones or mere trolls—who post horrible stuff about Palestinians and Muslims—some even call for mass killing of all Arabs—, but what is the chance that Gawker or CNN going after them? And surely, there are Zionist trolls who not only spew anti-Palestinian invective but dabble in racy pictures of underaged girls, but again, what is the chance that Chen and his ilk will try to expose them? Surely, consciously or subconsciously, Chen understands that it’s a poor career choice to be critical of Jewish abuses and Jewish power, and so he went for the easy game of outing some ‘Nazi troll’.
Now, I'm not defending Violentacrez and his forums. I haven't checked them and don't want to, and based on what I've read about him, he seems to be a worthless idiot. Also, even though I loathe Hitler-admirers, I can at least acknowledge the sincerity and conviction of their views. But, guys like Violentacrez who post stuff just to draw attention simply aren’t worth anyone's time. He’s like the kid in school who pulls out his boogers and eats them. The sensible thing is to ignore booger-eating losers and not give them the time of day, and that is precisely most winners do. But some losers can only feel superior and good about themselves by putting down even bigger losers, and Chen seems to be that kind of loser. He’s life is so empty and devoid of reason to live that he elevates himself by picking on a loser who picks his nose on the internet.
So, Adrian Chen is equally pathetic. Violentacrez may have been something of a sensation in the trashy world of Reddit, but MOST people with better things to do with their lives never knew or cared about the likes of Violentacrez who infest the sewage areas of the internet. For all I know, the internet could be filled with videos of fat bald-headed Mexican dwarfs having food sex with grossly obese ugly women. I don’t know and I don’t want to know, and I’ll leave it to Chen and his ilk to hunt down freaks who upload such videos and out their identities. If that’s the sort of thing that makes Chen and other geeks feel like ‘real men’, what can I say?
What attention Violentacrez may have garnered among losers at Reddit, the fact is most Americans knew nothing about him or his existence. If anything, it was CNN that turned him into a household name. Just consider the sheer number of forums, blogs, comment sites, and etc. are on the internet. There must be tens of millions of blogs, and among them, there must be lots of garbage. To illustrate my point, simply by Googling, “Nazi Jew fuc*er suck my dick”, I got , I got over 6 million links. In other words, losers like Violentacrez are dime-a-dozen and all-too-easy to find. I’ll leave it to Chen to check each of the 6 million links to smoke out more ‘notorious trolls’. He can be the great hero as most Americans have better things to do.
On the internet, there are all sorts of sites run by communists, neo-Nazis, homosexuals, pedophiles, religious nuts, and just about every other creature under the sun. There are who-knows-how-many porn sites featuring everything from hardcore videos to salacious stories. But why should they bother anyone since we can all choose to ignore them? Whatever Violentacrez did or didn’t do, he had no power to force others to read or share in his stuff, any more than Marilyn Manson can force us to listen to his trashy music. I loathe shows like FAMILY GUY, and I just choose not to watch them. Would our world be a better place without people like Violentacrez and the obscene creators of FAMILY GUY? Yes, but in a free society, people are freely allowed to create content and people are freely allowed to consume them.
Most TV shows, most movies, most pop music, most gossip, and most of everything are pretty awful, and most of us, having good sense, ignore most of them. Who cares who's a troll? The only people who care are controlls like Adrian Chen who desperately search for excuses to justify their empty lives. For Chen, the great meaning of his life derives from troll-hunting, which is like someone devoting his life to going down into the sewer to catch rats.
Judging by the tone of Chen's article, it's obvious that he's rubbing his hands with the gleeful prospect of being patted on the back by the cooler and hipper members of society. In this age of political correctness, there is no greater sin than 'racism' and 'antisemitism', and Chen bagged a 'racist and antisemitic' troll, and wow, that means he’s a very good boy.
Indeed, what is most off-putting about the whole affair is the utter blindness of Chen and his ilk to their own hypocrisies. Chen mocks defenders of free speech for rallying around Brutsch, but isn't it free speech that allows Chen to write whatever he wants? Politically correct goons like Chen almost certainly agree with the likes of Elena Kagan who invoke 'hate speech' to control who gets to say what, but then, who is to determine what is 'hate'? And why should 'hate' be outlawed when it's a natural emotion? The whole noting of repressing ‘hate’ is the new Victorianism. If people in the Victorian age couldn’t discuss sex—there was the fear that any frank discussion of sex would lead to social chaos and mass rape—, today’s politically correct gang wants to stamp out ‘hate’ lest a ‘noxious’ and ‘odious’ thought lead to WWIII and another Holocaust!
But if Chen is really angry with what he calls 'racism'--defined as racial hostility or hatred toward other groups--, should he be wasting his time on losers like Brutsch who have no power or influence? Chen makes Brutsch out to be some grand conspirator/conqueror of the internet, but Reddit was just one site among millions of others. And even if Brutsch had lots of fans on what happened to be a popular site, whoever took his ‘shock jock’ antics seriously as politics or ideology? And was he ever showered with millions rewarded to the likes of Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, and David Chapelle whose stardom came with full mainstream institutional backing? The only reward Brutsch ever got from Reddit was a little toy.
If Chen is really outraged by 'racism', why doesn't he write something about the power of Zionism? About how Zionism dispossessed and ethnically cleansed Palestinians from their ancestral land. Why doesn't he write about Zionists control both American parties and our foreign policy? Why doesn't he write about Israel, a nation with 300 illegal nukes and violator of every international nuclear treaty, keeps receiving American foreign aid--indeed more than any other nation though Israel is the richest nation in the Middle East--while Iran, a nation that possesses not even a single nuke and is a signer of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty--is being economically strangulated to death by Zionist-controlled America? Why doesn't Chen mention that the mass media in America is 95% owned and/or controlled by Jews, and Zionist lies have spread the false rumor that the Iranian president said he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' when he never said anything of the kind. Who has the real power in the media? Are the likes of Michael Brutsch really that important? Did anyone take anything he posted seriously? Did he have any influence on Wall Street, education, American military, American foreign policy, Hollywood, media policy, and etc? Did he have the power to elect presidents, start wars and invade other countries, and open American borders to hordes of illegal immigrants who drag down our economy? No, he’s some loser who played king among losers on some internet forum most people knew nothing about. At least Roman Polanski has tons of defenders who say he should remain free and continue to make movies and live high on the hog. And, Howard Stern gets to say whatever he likes—no matter how offensive—and rake in over a hundred million dollars. What power did Brutsch ever have?
If Brutsch has caused harm to anyone, it is to the champions of free speech. Through his ridiculous antics, he’s given controlls like Chen an opportunity to smear the principle of free speech with filth and garbage on the internet. (Though to be sure, Chen seems to be selectively allergic to filth spewed by ‘white conservative males’ while having no problems with the endless barrage of filth that comes from the movie, TV, music, and porn industry controlled mostly by liberal Jews. Yay for Larry David, Ron Jeremy, and Sarah Silverman but boo to ‘angry white males’ filled with ‘hate’. Yay to fans of Che Guevara—the man who wanted to nuke the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis—but shame on those with critical views of Jewish power. Shame on you if you’re offended by ‘progressives’ like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, but do join the cause of shutting down ‘hate speech’ of people on the Right—though, to be sure, it could very well be Brutsch isn’t any kind of ideologue but someone like Silverman and Stern who just loves to push the buttons to stir up as much as trollish controversy as possible. When Stern wrote his first book and ragged on Filipinos, that was supposed to be FUNNY—and made Stern even richer than he already was. But if someone like Brutsch creates a forum on the internet where people trade gay jokes, why that is ‘homophobic’ and must be shut down and the man must be fired from work!) As far as I can tell, MSM's main objective in outing and shaming Brutsch was to associate free speech with losers and 'haters', thereby suggesting that we need some kind of regulation of speech--especially on the internet--in order to end the 'hate'. (This is rather ironic considering that liberals praise the closet-communists of the 40s and 50s who took the fifth and refused to come out of the closet and admit their ties to the Communist Party. The very liberals who say it was wrong to ‘out’ communists via McCarthyite ‘witch hunts’ now say that America must root out and destroy people on the internet whose views are ‘intolerable’ to the politically correct ‘progressive’ community.) Of course, the politically correct jerks like Chen are utterly blind to or even approving of all the hate spewed against whites--especially white males--by Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and the like. La Raza, which means 'the race', is an all-out Chicano nationalist group. Obama was a member of Wright's crazed church for 20 yrs, but the mainstream media--that shows so much interest in utterly powerless losers like Brutsch--tried to suppress the truth about Obama’s connections to Wright as long as possible(even though it pertained to a man who might be president one day). And following the 2012 election, just look at the vitriol expressed by Jewish pundits and commentators on TV and MSM. Few yrs ago, Tim Wise hailed the death of old white people, especially the Greatest Generation, but he's still invited to TV shows and high schools to give speeches. At Harvard, a woman named Stephanie Grace sent a PRIVATE email explaining her belief in IQ differences among races, but she was not only 'outed' by the girl who received the email but hounded by the university president and MSM for her thought crimes. And if the likes of Elena Kagan--and surely Adrian Chen--can help it, certain views would be outlawed, and people who express them would be destroyed by being fired and shunned. These are the very people who condemn Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade in the 1950s. According to their logic, an American communist admirer of Stalin the mass-killer should have had the full protection of rights guaranteed by the Constitution—and shouldn’t even have been blacklisted from government positions with access to state secrets—, but if anyone today says anything that smacks of 'controversy' about race, sexuality, or nationality, that person should be fired from his or her job and tarred-and-feathered by MSM.
Personally, I don't much care what happened to Brutsch. In a way, he was asking for it by playing this cat-and-mouse game in the internet community, indeed even daring people to out him. Nor do I care if idiot clowns like him are mocked and derided for they are really nothing but attention hogs.
But there are many people on the internet who do harbor and express controversial, contrarian, unpopular, unorthodox, and 'dangerous' views. They are sincere about their beliefs or creeds, and they should never lose the freedom to express and share their views. The real outrage is when a teacher gets fired from his or her school because he or she posted a comment that is critical of the gay agenda. When such things happen, so-called 'progressives' and 'liberals' never come to the defense of the person who freely expressed his or her views. If anything, they celebrate the fact that someone was punished or had his life destroyed simply for having certain views. This is deeply disturbing because most of the media and academia, which are supposed to be on the side of freedom and liberty, are controlled by liberals and 'progressives'. If liberals won't defend free speech, who will? Conservatives don't have a good record on free speech as they've tended to favor social pressure and even censorship in the name of patriotism, Christian values, community values, and anti-obscenity laws. Traditionally, it was the liberals who argued for more freedom of expression, for the airing of views that might upset community standards—as during the Scopes-Monkey Trial. But a sea-change took place in liberalism since the 1960s. The very radicals who fought for and championed more free speech in the 50s and 60s, having gained power in the 80s and 90s, now want to control what others can say. And this radical generation indoctrinated entire generations of children to submit to the politically correct orthodoxy than think their own thoughts and ask their own questions. Chen is clearly of the generation that grew up under the influence of the radical boomers. Just as the Bolshevik communists, when they didn’t have power, championed free speech against the the Russian Tsar and the provisional government but then banned free speech once they got the power, many American leftists adopted free speech in the 1960s as a strategy to challenge the powers-that-be and gain power. They wanted free speech for themselves to overthrow the Establishment--and therefore pretended to be for the principle of free speech for all--, but once they gained control of the Establishment with their 'long march through the institutions', they've used their power and influence to suppress this thing called 'hate speech'--as if they themselves are without this thing called ‘hate’ that supposedly exists only among white heterosexual conservative males.
As it stands, the new Establishment doesn't even need 'hate speech' laws to control and suppress speech. They can just have people fired left and right or exert pressure on businesses and institutions to not hire or promote people of certain ideological views. Fire people for what? For personal views EVEN OUTSIDE the job or institution. So, if a teacher on her personal facebook page condemns 'gay marriage', that is grounds for dismissal, and liberals approve of it. Now, imagine if a teacher were fired for praising Lenin or Mao on facebook. The liberal community would foam at the mouth and scream 'McCarthyism'. It would say a person's Constitutional rights have been violated, a person's life has been destroyed by 'paranoid' character assassination and the like. Imagine if a librarian had been fired for comparing George W. Bush with Hitler or Jack D. Ripper. Liberals would tear out their hair in fury and scream 'fascism!' So, Bill Ayers can step on the American flag and still be a professor at a college. But if student at Harvard sends a PRIVATE email expounding her personal views on racial differences, she must be outed and shamed by the entire community, beginning with the powerful president of the university. It’s not sufficient for so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ to express their own views to challenging the views of people they disagree with. Instead, the ‘hater’ must be hounded and warned not to even express his or her views because they are simply INTOLERABLE in a university, which is rather odd since the academic institution is supposed to promote free and open exchange of ideas.
As I recall Gawker and similar sites all piled on Stephanie Grace for those private emails. Though Grace was no troll and sincere in her views--right or wrong--, the only message from the liberal community was 'You better shut up because we will destroy you.' It is this kind of neo-Orwellianism that is the real danger to America, but dorks like Chen obsess about some loser like Brutsch who posted trash for other idiots at some forum site called Reddit.
We live in a country where the corrupt MSM colluded with the administration in pushing the American public toward supporting an illegal war against Iraq. Why? Because the media happen to be overwhelmingly controlled by Zionist interests, and both liberal and neocon Zionists saw an invasion of Iraq as a useful ‘War for Israel’. And more disturbing than any amount of trolling by losers on sites like Reddit has been the cult of personality around Obama promoted and disseminated by none other than the so-called free media that are supposed to serve as a check on political power. The media are supposed to be the Fourth Estate working to scrutinize the powers-that-be, but what is to be said of the MSM that function essentially as the propaganda wing of the White House and the Jewish oligarchy?
And if the media are really interested in going after destructive and evil people, what about all those Wall Street banksters who played a key role in bringing down the economy but got rewarded with huge so-called 'bailouts' from both political parties(controlled largely by global Zionist money)? A truly independent media would have gone after Wall Street tooth and nail, but it just so happens that the oligarchs who own the big media have the same tribal loyalties as the guys who run Wall Street. In other words, the globalist Jewish elites get to do just about anything and get away with it, but fools like Chen think the greatest threat to truth, beauty, and civilization comes from the likes of Brutsch whose only reward for trolling on Reddit was a little doll given to him as an award.
Perhaps, deep down inside, Chen and his ilk know what cowards and phonies they really are. They are status seekers, and to make the social climb, they know they must show off their politically correct 'anti-racist', 'anti-homophobic' and 'anti-whatever' credentials, and what easier way than to expose some 'notorious troll'? I mean there is no shortage of 'notorious trolls' on the internet. Just google "I love Hitler" or "I wanna fuc* grandma", and you get tons of searches. Yes, there are lots of losers all over the internet who'll say anything just to grab attention, but that's like looking for degenerate gamblers in Las Vegas or drunken bums on Skid Row. It's too easy!
Chen, being Asian, is likely a drone. If Jewish radicals in the 50s and 60s at least had the chutzpah and individuality to challenge their professors and other establishment figures, most of these Asian-American 'liberals' and 'progressives' sound like they’ve been programmed by their white or Jewish 'progressive' teachers and professors. The boomer generation went against their professors, but today's generation of kids, especially the Asian-Americans, think and do as their professors tell them. In the 60s, campus protests were against the university. Today, the protests are initiated by the professotariat that claims to be 'radical' when, in fact, it is peddling stale politically correct orthodoxy. And there are no better drones than Asian-Americans. They lack chutzpah, and their rage and anger are totally in tune with politically correct dogma fed to them by white/Jewish 'progressive' instructors. They have about as independence of mind as the Red Guards under Mao. Basically, Chen the geek is saying in his article that he's a very good boy--very politically correct in outing an 'evil white male'--and is therefore deserving of higher status in the social hierarchy. He acts like an independent journalist, but he really wants to impress his social superiors in the PC class order. He's a silly little running dog. Though he makes himself out to be a maverick, the fact is he would never ever challenge the real power in American politics, economics, academics, and media. Indeed, I dare him to question his Jewish friends why Israel is allowed to get away with so much abuse against Palestinians. I dare him to write an article about the new American elite dominated by the Jewish overclass that uses its privileges and advantages for narrow tribal interests at the expense of everyone else.
I dare him to expose how the MSM willfully distorted the facts of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case to spread anti-white lies. Yes, this is the true nature of the Jewish-controlled media, but the cowardly Asian drone Chen only wants to 'do the correct thing' so as to win plaudits and be favored for promotion in the world of politically correct 'creative' class.
People like Chen have no interest in truth. They prefer to see the world through insta-formulas of political correctness. Everything is mindlessly and summarily judged, dismissed, and condemned as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘antisemitic’, or whatever. These are used as one-word-arguments that are no arguments at all. It’s no different from Christian fanatics in the Medieval Ages condemning someone as a ‘heretic’ or ‘witch’. It’s no different from some Christian Fundamentalists today who say stuff like ‘God hates fags’. It’s no different from certain cynical anti-communists in the 50s who attacked anyone or anything they didn’t like as ‘communist’. Ironically, the very people who condemn the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’—which was actually too short-lived to call an ‘era’—are using the same tricks.
Do people like Chen have any real curiosity as to why some people disagree with him and feel and think the way they do? If Chen had a genuine journalistic mind, he would show curiosity and empathy, but he’s just another Asian-American drone who thinks and acts according to the programming of liberal Jewish political correctness. If Chen were genuinely curious, he would realize that issues of race and sex aren’t as simple as dreary and ideologically conformist political correctness would have us all believe. You cannot understand the depth and complexity of the world with the silly habit of yelling ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘homophobic’, or etc. at the drop of the hat. That is not thinking. It is following the program.
This isn’t to suggest that anyone should take Violentacrez forums on Nazism, Jews, blacks, and etc, seriously. They were clearly NOT intended for meaningful discourse but meant to wallow in what might be called ‘ironic’ or ‘hipster’ ‘racism’. As far as I can tell, Brutsch has no particular interest in the subjects he toyed with. He simply knew that certain topics were more likely to stir ‘controversy’ than others. As Hitler and the so-called N-word are easy magnets of ‘controversy’, it certainly helps to set up a forum about Nazis and ‘niggers’ than about Stalin or Pol Pot—whom most Americans don’t even know. So, even as Brutsch was keeping his identity secret, he was playing by the rules of popularity, and notoriety is a grubby form of popularity. He wasn’t as talented at it as Don Rickles or Eddie Murphy was, but it was the same logic.
So, only a disingenuous weasel would claim that politically correct speech on race, sex, and other matters shouldn’t be tolerated because of the kind of filth found on Violentacrez’s forums. The fact is Brutsch was never serious about the views and ‘ideas’ that he shared.
Americans need to understand that there are many valuable lessons to learn from ‘politically incorrect’ but genuinely serious views on race, sex, national borders, Jewish power, and revisionist history. Also, even people who are loathsome and despicable in certain respects may have something important to say, and therefore their views shouldn’t be entirely discounted—never throw the baby out with the bathwater—, and they certainly shouldn’t be denied the freedom of speech.
Brutsch is really a red herring in the debate on free speech. He willfully played with fire by playing the ‘bad boy’ and then got caught. Though Chen could have spent his time more constructively, it’s difficult to feel sorry for Brutsch who kept on pouring gasoline to the fire of his notoriety. All I can say is in Brutsch’s defense is that if he didn’t do anything illegal, he should NOT have been fired from his job since a man’s personal views and actions OUTSIDE WORK should have no bearing on his employment. If it’s wrong to fire someone for having communist, pro-gay views, atheist views, religious views, pro-Zionist views, pro-Muslim views, pro-porn views, and etc, then it is also wrong to fire someone for having pro-Nazi, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-black, or whatever views. A person at work should only be judged by his or her professionalism. What he or she does outside work is his or her own business and shouldn’t be a determinant in whether he or she remains employed or not. Suppose Adrian Chen personally likes to read incest pornography laced with sadism in his own time; suppose he even likes to write such stories and post them online under an alias. Now, I’m not saying he’s into that sort of thing, but suppose he is. Should he be fired from his work? No, not in a free society, not under the Constitution that says no one should be discriminated on the basis of RACE, COLOR, OR CREED. Creed means belief, convictions, views, opinions, values, faiths, ideology, and etc. Everyone is entitled to his own personal views on politics, values, philosophy, lifestyles, society, and etc. A person should be fired for messing up at work, not acting professional at work, and so on. But outside work, a person is in his personal environment, and what he or she feels, thinks, or says shouldn’t decide whether one gets to work or not.
Imagine a overwhelmingly Fundamentalist Christian community saying a teacher should be fired because he or she believes in evolution and is an atheist to boot. Imagine a neighborhood that is heavily Muslim-American and the community demands the local librarian be fired for posting ‘hateful’ pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim views on her pro-Israeli blog. Imagine a conservative community arguing that anyone suspected of Marxist sympathies should be dismissed from work. Liberals and ‘progressives’ would argue that all such would amount to violation of Constitutional rights. But if a liberal community were to say a person should be fired for opposing ‘gay marriage’ on his or her personal facebook page, liberals seem to have no problem with that. Or, if Jewish liberals say a librarian should be fired for running a blog that is sympathetic to Hitler, ‘progressives’ would likely come down on the side of community pressure. And I’ll bet so would Adrian Chen. Of course, ‘progressives’ will disingenuously say not all freedom of speech is the same since certain speech isn’t merely controversial but hateful and therefore should be banned. But isn’t communism hateful of certain classes, religion, traditional cultures, and national identities? Aren’t all religions hateful of something? Aren’t many atheists—especially radical ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens—hysterical in their radical hatred of anything that is even faintly religious? And from the viewpoint of Palestinians, couldn’t Zionism—a Jewish nationalist ideology that justifies the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the right of Israel to use whatever means to maintain the second-class citizenship of Arabs—be construed as a form of ‘hate’? So, who decides what is hate, what is not? If Chen had an independent mind, he would ask such questions, but being a typical Asian-American drone, he barks like dog, sounding off cliches like ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘sexist’.
As long as we’re on the subject of sensitivity, why is Brutsch’s kind of ugliness worse than what we find in popular culture? At least Brutsch’s filth—and it is mindless trash—was shared only in some corner of the internet and ignored by most people who have better thing to do. (Apparently, there are too many people like Chen with too much time on their hands.) But what about the open filth of rap music promoted by the major music companies? How are all those songs about ‘skanky bitchass hos’, ‘mothafackin niggaz’, ‘punkass faggoty ass white boys’, and etc. any less obscene and filthy? And what about stuff like ‘Girls Gone Wild’ videos? What about TV shows like ‘Flava of the Month’ where women are reduced to sex animals? What about all the dirty filthy porn that uses white women as cumbuckets in a sex industry controlled by liberal Jews? What about shows like FAMILY GUY and THE SIMPSONS where degeneracy of all kind rules the day? What about the pathological, disturbed, and sadistic movies of Quentin Tarantino who encourages millions of people to laugh at mayhem and bloodbath? What about children’s entertainment that encourage young girls to use makeup and dress like hookers? What about Hollywood movies that have depicted Muslims as nothing but subhuman terrorists whose only purpose in life is to be blown away by American bombs and weaponry? What about the constant filth that pours out of the mouths of stand-up comics? What about the stuff like VAGINA MONOLOGUES that would have idiot women—as well as some idiot guys—believe that telling pussy jokes is ‘empowering’? What about all those horror movies by Eli Roth and his ilk that wallow in torture, gore, and cruelty? What about the films of Sacha Cohen that mock Muslims, Central Asians, and Christian Americans? (Cohen, who is so sensitive about ‘anti-Semites’, seem to be fully supportive of the ongoing Zionist oppression and dispossession of Palestinians.) What about the state of black churches in America where little else happens them but wild dancing, screaming and shouting, and anti-white invective? What about Jewish-controlled MSM that rigs the news so that Zionists can do as they please to the long-suffering Palestinians whose oppression and deaths are cheered by most dumb Americans brainwashed by the Zionist media? And the list goes on and on. So many celebrities involved in the creation of such filth have been hyped, praised, rewarded, awarded, and elevated to near-god-status. But Chen is blind to all that. Instead, he targets some loser whose only claim to fame is playing shock-troll on Reddit. Chen isn’t bothered by Bill Maher spouting his filth on TV. He’s not disturbed the movies of Tarantino that are becoming sicker with every new installment. No, he acts as though the source of all evil is some loser on reddit who posts stupid filth for other losers.
In a way, today’s Nazi-Scare is many times more pathetic than the Red Scare of the 50s. In a way, Chen’s hysteria like an Asian geek version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO that fantasizes some grand neo-Nazi conspiracy taking place in Sweden, a nation that is totally controlled by politically correct liberals and globalist Jews and is filling up with tons of unskilled and criminal elements from the Middle East and Africa. But never mind reality, just fan the fears of Nazi Scare and make all those goody-good ‘progressives’ believe that Nazis are about to take over the entire world. Some loser like Brutsch creates some dumb ‘Nazi’ forum on Reddit, and Chen the dummy goes into ‘They Saved Hitler’s Brains’ mode.
While men like McCarthy did overplay the communist threat, the post-war era was indeed a scary time. Stalin, the mass killer of perhaps 20 million people, had swallowed all of Eastern Europe. China fell to the murderous Mao regime in 1949, and communists pushed for war in Korea in 1950. There was the danger of communism spreading in the Third World, and there were many radical leftists in all levels of government, arts and culture, media, and entertainment. For proof, consider that the most carefully guarded secret in the United States—the formula for the atomic bomb—was stolen by Jewish agents like Rosenberg and handed over to Stalin, the mass-murderer of so many innocents. Leftist Jews in American government gave a communist tyrant the secret to building a bomb that could murder hundreds of millions of people in Europe and America. If that wasn’t scary, what is? And in the early 60s, Khrushchev decided to install nukes in Cuba. But according to liberals, it was all just ‘hysteria’ and mindless ‘paranoia’. No, there was nothing to worry about in regards to Stalin, Mao, and Jewish spies working in the US government. No, the real danger comes from guys like Brutsch who post ‘hate’ in some corner of the internet! Of course, this is absurd, but Chen, being a typical Asian-American drone, just goes along with the grand narrative fed to him by his Jewish teachers, controllers, and bosses.
It made sense to be scared of communism during the Cold War. It must also be said that the anti-communist ‘hysteria’ was no more extreme than anti-Nazi, anti-Japanese, and anti-Fascist ‘hysteria’ during WWII. If anything, it was far less so. When US was at war with Germany and Japan(and Italy), powerful institutions in America did everything to scare the American public as much as possible. So, even though the American elite knew that Japan had no intention of invading the US—Pearl Harbor attack was to keep US out of Asia, not to conquer the US—, it used the media power to spread the ridiculous notion that the Japanese were planning to attack the American heartland. This hysteria even led to the rounding up of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans, dispossessing them, and herding them into ‘internment camps’. And even though Germany declared war on US following the attack on Pearl Harbor, American elites knew full well that Hitler had no plan to attack or invade the US. Hitler declared war on US to send a message that America should stay out of the European war. It was an attempt to scare Americans than to fight them. And American elites knew this, but they still spread the hysteria that German spies were all over America and that the American coastlines were teeming with Nazi subs.
(Of course, the main hysteria today is the notion that Iran is about to develop the nuclear weapon in order to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. According to Jews, it made no sense for Americans to be worried about a communist tyrant like Stalin conquering all of Eastern Europe and stealing American atomic secrets with the help of Jewish agents. It made no sense for Americans to be worried about the fall of China to Mao and the spread of communist wildfire all throughout the Third World, culminating in nuclear weapons planted on Cuban soil and aimed right at America. HOWEVER, we must all be shaking in our boots about Iran using the nuke to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, even though Iran has complied with everything in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nukes while the rogue state of Israel has over 300 illegal nukes. Both political parties are totally committed to destroying the entire economy of Iran just to prevent it from ‘wiping Israel off the map’ though Iran has no nukes and its president NEVER SAID he intends to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. If liberal Jews really hate the culture of political hysteria, why do they either fan the flames of anti-Iranian hysteria or ignore it despite all the damage it’s causing to the United States in foreign affairs? Because for most Jews, liberal or neocon, what always comes first is Jewish Power and Jewish Interests. Doesn’t Chen find something strange about all this? Of course not. Since he’s just an Asian drone, he’s happy to play a nice running dog to his Jewish bosses in the media. The stupid idiot doesn’t even know that liberal Jews in Hollywood, when they not ragging on Muslims, often use the Evil China card to make Americans hate his yellow kind.) So, FDR and liberals spread all sorts of hysteria—as well as crude racial stereotypes of Teutonic Germans and slanty-eyed Japs—during WWII, and this sort of thing served as the template for the Red Scare in the first round of the Cold War, but liberals have conveniently suppressed all memory of their Nazi-and-Jap-Scare during WWII and convinced so many gullible Americans that the politics of scare-mongering was begun by the American Right and anti-communist McCarthy. And Jews have been especially invested in pushing such a view since many people who came under suspicion during the Red Scare were Jewish communists and Jewish communist-sympathizers. Since Jews control the academia and media, they get to decide what we remember and what we don’t. Similarly, because of the Jewish control of the media, American sheeple root for Israel that oppresses Palestinians while sneering at the suffering of the latter. Because of Jewish control of the media, we hear so much about how China is mistreating Tibetans, but we hear nothing about how Israelis are oppressing Palestinians—and indeed how Israel was founded by massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Because of the Jewish control of the media, we think some Jewish communist screenwriters had a harder time during the ‘McCarthy Era’ than over 100,000 Japanese-Americans targeted, dispossessed, and imprisoned by FDR and his liberal regime. They say the winners get to write history, and in America, liberal Jews are the winners and controllers of the media, and so they get to frame the terms of the debate and indeed the terminologies themselves. Since drones like Chen have been raised with the politically correct regimen, they never bothers to ask, “what is ‘antisemitism’?”, “what does it really mean to be a ‘racist’?” “What exactly is ‘homophobia’?” Instead, the likes of him just see the world in terms of good and evil, black and white, us vs them, and etc. So, anyone who criticizes Jewish power is an ‘anti-Semite’. Anyone who dares to speak the truth about blacks is simply this monster called ‘racist’. Anyone who questions the biological and moral worth of two men sticking their sexual organs into each other’s fecal holes—fecal penetration—is denigrated as clinically suffering from ‘homophobia’. So, if you believe that the anus is for defecating and not for sex, YOU are the mentally sick one. And if you believe that the homosexuality is unworthy of moral recognition for marriage, you are some kind of ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’ ‘hater’. Never mind that the very notion of ‘gay marriage’ is hateful to the normal definition of real marriage. Saying that ‘gay marriage’ is the bio-moral equivalent of real marriage is like saying Creationism is the scientific equivalent of the true biological theory of evolution. ‘Gay marriage’ and Creationist advocates may invoke the cult of tolerance and ‘inclusiveness’, but when something of genuine value is forced to accept something of no value as an equal, it is a form of contempt against truth. But the likes of Chen, having been drummed since childhood that gays are angels and that rainbow is a gay color, simply cannot think outside the box. They cannot think beyond one-word-argument-judgmental cliches that goes something like “gay good, homophobia bad”, “blacks good, racists bad”, “Jews good, anti-Semites bad.” It’s all black and white, this vs that, ‘us’ vs ‘them’.
What can we say about a generation that learned about racial reality from trash like GREEN MILE, which in its lies and manipulation, is actually far more evil than Violentacrez’s crap? What can we say about generation—such as Chen’s—that seems to equate the miraculous color of the rainbow with two guys sticking their sexual organs into holes designed by nature to serve as fecal organs? People are so easily manipulated, and Chen is prime example of this. I’ll bet he’s actually a fan of lots of snarky, filthy, obscene, and violent videogames, movies, TV shows, and etc. And he must know that almost all of popular culture are dominated and controlled by liberals, and that Jews control the media. He must know that our culture often depicts women as skankyass ho’s, blacks are cool badass ape-like thugs, Mexicans as short and tubby clowns, Asians are geeky nerds who can’t get a girl, Muslims as terrorist scum who should be blown away, southern white males as dimwit numbskulls, and etc. And yet, Chen is blind to the racial stereotyping perpetuated by liberals and Jews 24/7. Instead, he finds the culprit and the source of all evil in some internet geek loser whose only claim to fame was posting stupid trash in some site called Reddit. Was it Brutsch or David Geffen who offered all those million dollar contracts to black thug rappers whose idea of music is to spew anti-human nursery rhymes from morning to night? Was it the Weinstein brothers or Brutsch who signed Tarantino to make a series of movies where 90% of what happens is filth and sadistic violence? Was it Brutsch or Tarantino who wrote the scene in PULP FICTION where the running joke is that some “nigger’s brains splattered all over the car window”? But of course, Tarantino is a ‘hipster racist’ like Howard Stern and Sarah Silverman, and so that sort of thing is okay.
Like so many of his generation, Chen surely indulges in all this filth and garbage in his choice of popular culture. So, why is he so offended by the antics of Violentacrez? What Brutsch did was essentially a third-rate imitation of mainstream culture. So, Brutsch used some racial epithets like so many pop culture personalities. Why attack him having the sensibility of ‘hipster racists’, horror genre fanboys, and other vulgarians who are celebrated all year round in shows like FAMILY GUY?
Who made TAKEN and TAKEN II where Muslims are depicted as white-slaver-scum who should be killed like cockroaches? Who made all those movies that depict religious people—especially Christians—as a bunch of cartoonish mental retards? And if American sports is so ‘progressive’, how come it confirms just about every racial stereotype? Many of the teams are owned by Jews, confirming the stereotype that Jews are smart, cunning, rich, and clever. Many of the power positions are dominated by blacks, confirming the stereotype that blacks are stronger and more aggressive than other races. And where are the Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans in NFL and NBA? Their virtual absence confirms the stereotype that Asians are geeks—like whiny and dorky Chen—and that Mexicans are mostly too stubby and short to win in sports. And if liberals are into ‘diversity’, how come so much of popular culture—especially the now mainstream-ized industry of porn—is governed by racial stereotyping? I thought liberals were supposed to disdain all such stereotypes as ‘social constructs’ created by ‘evil patriarchal white males’.
According to many feminists, sex—what they often refer to as ‘gender’—is really just a ‘social construct’, but homosexuality is not. So, the differences between men and women are mostly based on social and cultural factors—and can be altered or ‘corrected’ through sensitivity training and politically correct indoctrination—, but the differences between straight men and homosexual men are so profound that nothing can turn homosexual men into straight men—though it must be said it’s rather easy to turn lots of straight men into a bunch of pansy ‘metrosexuals’ like Adrian Chen. In a nutshell, the so-called ‘Left’—‘so-called’ because what goes by the label of ‘leftism’ today really caters to SWPL hipster snobbery than serves the economic interests of the working masses—has no use for principles, logic, or truth. All it cares for is power as it sees the world in terms of ‘will to power’, a notion that ‘progressives’ lifted from Nietzsche. Why did ‘progressives’ come to forgo principles? Because principles, rooted in theory and logic, often don’t turn out the way you want them to. Marx predicted the first communist revolutions to take place in advanced capitalist societies like the UK, Germany, and the US, but communists came to power in the most backward great European power, Russia. Since Marxist theoretical prophecy proved to be wrong, Marxists had to play loose with its rules. Even so, Russian communists tried to remain faithful to communist ideology to the best of their ability, but communism didn’t turn out as predicted. In the end, it was not a sound economic system. As for the liberal principles of individual liberty and free enterprise, they led to rise of powerful groups who came to exert tremendous influence on government and other institutions, which is true to this day—perhaps even more, as the Jewish elite that rules America is untouchable: If the Wasp elites of yesteryear openly displayed their power/influence and exposed themselves to criticism, today’s Jewish elites still carry on like they are victims of the Forever Holocaust while the rest of us are too scared to call out on Jewish power and its abuses and hypocrisies lest we be accused of ‘antisemitism’ and lose our jobs. Just as Israel gets to break every international law and still be rewarded by the international community—largely dominated by the US and EU that are essentially controlled by globalist Zionists—, Iran is punished with endless rounds of sanctions and embargos even though it has obeyed every international law on nuclear energy. American Jews not only get to do as they please and get away with it, but they’re praised night and day by both sides of the political aisle as it’s impossible for any politician to get anywhere without Jewish approval and support. Jews can destroy you through the media, government, laws and courts, and scare-tactic hysteria cooked up groups like ADL and SPLC. Abe Foxman is the new-and-Jew McCarthy, but unlike the anti-communist Joe of old, Foxman is well-protected by his fellow Jewish goons in high places.
Liberalism was supposed to lead to greater freedom and equality, but it didn’t happen that way.
Since neither communism nor liberalism worked according to their principles, promises, and theories, the New Left beginning in the 60s adopted Nietzschean ideas and came to regard everything in terms of Power. So, whatever gained more power for your side was good and whatever gained more power to the other side was bad. Even if your side violated principles, it was okay as long as your side got more power. As Malcolm X said, ‘by any means necessary’, a kind of crude version of ‘will to power’ or ‘ends justify means’. The New Left argued—with some validity—that their enemies had exploited principles to justify and conceal their power-lust all along. So, Christian Europe used God and Salvation as justification to rule over the sheeplike masses and then later as a cover for imperialism and colonialism. And Founding Fathers invoked freedom and liberty to take control of the colonies away from the King of England. It had less to do with principles than the desire for power. Since Founding Fathers needed some moral justification to wage war on Imperial Britain, they cooked up high-minded -sounding rhetoric about the ‘rights of man’, but they were slave-owners and waged wars on the Indians. The New Left saw even the American Civil War as a conflict of economic interests than a morally Manichean clash between freedom and slavery. So, everything was really a matter of power, and so, the thing is to win more power for your side.
Of course, using the logic of the New Left, we can argue that even liberal Jews and so-called ‘progressives’ are just a bunch of cynical operators who will play fast and loose with rhetoric, rules, principles, and values to maximize their own power. Why else would Jews be for tight selective immigration for Israel but open immigration in the US? In both cases, it’s about increasing Jewish security and power. And why would blacks call for equal rights in the 50s but then later call for racial favoritism for blacks? It serves black interests. And why would even white Hispanics—whose ancestors conquered and ‘raped’ South America—wear the mask of ‘people of color’ and gain favors as an ‘oppressed minority group’? Why would liberals who invoked the US Constitution to condemn the policies of George W. Bush remain silent when Obama not only extended but strengthened those policies? Of course, there’s hypocrisy galore on the Right as well.
So, principles be damned. Principles no longer stand above or as a corrective to narrow tribal/special interests but are merely just another bag of tricks in the struggle for power. In a way, one could argue that White America lost so much ground because, at least more than any other group, it tried to live by high-minded principles since the 1950s. Even American conservatism came around to adopting the high-minded principles of ‘equality’ and ‘color-blindness’, but as it turned out, their rivals didn’t play by the same rules. Led by the feisty and devious Jews, the ‘progressive’ strategy became ‘Principles for whites but Power for us’. And this hypocrisy was defended on the basis that ‘whites have ALL the power’ and ‘people of color have NO power’. Thus, only white people can be ‘racist’ since only white people have the power. ‘Racism’ has no bite unless it’s backed with power. So, if a Nazi German in a death camp hates a Jew and the Jew hates the German, the only hate that really matters is that of the German since he has the power of life-and-death over the Jew. If one wolf has fangs while the other wolf is toothless, the rage of the toothy wolf matters more than the rage of the toothless wolf.
The logic of “Only white people can be ‘racist’ since white people have all the power” has translated in a political reality where white people must serve as a ‘model majority’ that sticks to the principles of ‘color-blindness’ whereas non-whites can so whatever they want to gain power.
You’d think that non-whites would have gained some power by now—especially with the likes of Bill Maher popping champagne bottles over how White America is over and the GOP is finished forever and the Old White Guy is history(as the Newsweek cover declared)—, but old habits die hard. Even if white power is dead, Jews and their allies must prop up the Frankenstein monster of ‘evil white power’ in order to justify their hunger for more power at the expense of the diminishing power of whites. As long as Jews can steal from the white middle class to ‘bail’ themselves out or to shower blacks and browns with bread-and-circuses, Jews will keep alive the trope of ‘evil white power’. (Jews also welcome increased Asian immigration since Asians tend to work hard and will likely pay the disproportionate amount of taxes—as the white tax base grows ever smaller—, and so, Jewish in high places will look to milking the growing Asian-American community to take care of browns and blacks, many of whom remain pathologically dependent on government handouts seemingly forever. Jews also know that Asians make nice drones, nice running dogs. So, even as Jews will exploit the Asian-American community, most yellows will just be nice little politically correct toyboys of Jewish power, just like Chen is.)
The notion that ‘only white people can be racist’ is predicated on the notion that power relations remain fixed forever. So, we are to believe that whites will always be the powerful and privileged groups forever itching to oppress the peoples-of-color. So, even though Jews are now the most powerful elites in America, we must pretend that Jews are still powerless and white gentiles have great power over Jews—when in fact, most white gentiles now grovel before Jews. We are supposed to pretend that something like ‘gay marriage’ is about equal justice when it means changing the core meaning of marriage just to satiate an extremely privileged bunch of gays in high places. The notion of ‘only white people can racist because they have all the power’ also misses the true nature of power. There is no monolithic power bloc called ‘white folks’, especially when the white elite in America have such contempt for their less fortunate brethren. Since when do rich white elites care about poor whites being raped, robbed, beaten, or murdered by black thugs. Since when do white elites care about the white working class losing their jobs and wages to cheaper illegal and foreign labor? Also, there are all kinds of power. There is economic power wielded by Wall Street—which is Jewish-dominated by the way—, but there is also public power wielded by black thugs on buses, schools, parks, and etc. Why is it that so many places in big cities have become no-go areas? Because tough black thugs act like it’s their private fiefdoms and routinely attack anyone who enters their turf.
Anyway, given the nature of today’s politics, what the White Right must do is go into Corleone or Corleonist mode in THE GODFATHER. Jews and the so-called ‘people of color’ are now acting like gangsters. So are the devious neocons who’ve manipulated the GOP for narrow Zionist purposes. It’s time to say farewell to principles and fight for white power, especially as the demographic, economic, and sexual future of the white race appears grim due to the manipulations of the Jewish elites.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Friday, November 23, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Irrational Propaganda Is the Best Weapon of 'Rational' Liberals.
Liberals often complain that irrationality is rife on the American Right, and they are not entirely wrong. American Right has many elements that tend to disdain rational thought, empiricism, science, and intellectualism. Indeed, the cult of anti-intellectualism is one reason why the GOP has failed to attract sufficient numbers of very smart people. While American conservatism has its share of smart people, it has few intellectual giants. Worse, in the name of MLK worship and fighting 'racism', American conservatism has been more outspoken against men like Arthur Jensen and James Watson than against people on the Left. (Remember how Rich Lowry thanked Al Sharpton and Mother Jones magazine for alerting him about 'white racists' at the National Review.) And there is no love lost between 'rightist' Darwinists and Evangelicals(and other believers in Biblical Truth).
There is the libertarian wing of the American conservative movement, but libertarians are accidental 'conservatives', i.e. they happen to be the conservative camp because they oppose Democratic big-government-ism. People who write for publications like REASON have little in common with most American social, cultural, and religious conservatives. They are even often at odds with American 'crony capitalists' of the GOP. Libertarians are such purists in their convictions that they live in their own bubble.
Though many affluent and well-educated conservatives have no time for Evangelical nonsense, they've been muted in their criticism of Fundamentalist Christian ignoramuses because they need 'social conservative' numbers to win elections. Just like the global capitalists of the BJP struck a bargain with the Hindu nationalists to form a mass voting bloc, the rich secular conservatives of the GOP have pandered to the irrational ignorance of religious conservatives in order to win votes. Of course in the South, race is the bigger factor, but then, its voting patterns are really no different from voting patterns in places like Boston, Chicago, NY, St. Louis, and etc. Where there's a lot of racial 'diversity', tribal politics tend to rule. So, even if big cities tend to be dominated by Democrats, whites will vote for the white Democrat and blacks will vote for the black Democrat. And in NY and Chicago, whites, Jews, and gays have formed alliances to keep the power among themselves than give it up to blacks or Hispanics. So, all this stuff about 'racist white Southern voters' is really just a case of projection on the part of 'liberal' Jews, whites, and gays. What chance of Democratic Jews voting for a Muslim-American candidate in NY even if the latter were a true blue Democrat? How many NYers really want another Dinkins? How many white Chicagoans really want to hand over the city to the likes of Luis Guiterrez or Bobby Rush? How much do white liberals in Cincinnati really love their black neighbors?
Anyway, we tend to associate Reason with liberals, not least because, especially since the French Revolution, the political debate has been seen as one between secular rational universalist egalitarians vs religious sacramental particularist hierarcheans. This was more the case in the Old World than in the New World of America as religious freedom and mass religiosity became a part of the American democratic process. As America didn't have a state religion, churches weren't seen as part of the Establishment. (Though the Catholic Church was part of the Establishment in Italy, it wasn't as reviled by the Left as in other European nations because of its extensive involvement in charity and its anti-capitalist ideology. Indeed, many leading Italian artists and intellectuals were both Catholic and Marxist. Anti-religious feelings were stronger in Spain and France because of the Church's alliance with Franco in the former and because the French Revolution had ideologically laid the foundations of anti-clericalism, a hostility that never went away.)
The Left vs Right dichotomy couldn't be easily resolved in the West because both sides were rife with all manner of inner contradictions. For example, the Left was said to stand for reason/rationalism, universalism, equality, and secularism. But reason/rationality meant the primacy of intelligence, and that meant the intelligent people would rise way above the less intelligent. It could end up creating inequalities even wider than before, something Marx understood about capitalism. Capitalism was a rationalist/materialist ideology, but it favored the ruthless, resourceful, and intelligent: the bourgeoisie, the elite class that would use its formidable skills and privileges to gain ever more wealth and power while the rest of population got poorer and poorer. Marx's main enemy wasn't the old aristocracy/monarchy. He firmly believed that the old order would be wiped away by the new order of capitalism dominated by the ruthless bourgeoisie. The real battle would be between the pauperized proletariat and the privileged bourgeoisie. Marx saw the bourgeoisie as far more dangerous than the old aristocracy. If the old elites inherited their power and privilege, the bourgeoisie rose through cunning, talent, and intelligence. Though the old aristocracy had lots of power, it didn't necessarily have much talent or intelligence. In contrast, the bourgeoisie rose to great heights with their high intelligence and ruthless ambition. It is no wonder that Marx closely associated bourgeois power with the rise of Jews and believed that the Jewish Problem could only be resolved by the extermination of capitalism. It was capitalism that allowed smart, cunning, and ruthless Jews to rise about others. Get rid of capitalism--a form of ruthless meritocracy--and, Jews will be like anyone else. And Soviet Union and Iron Curtain nations were proof of this. Though Jews played an instrumental role in the creation of communism, they were eventually sidelined by less intelligent gentiles. And without the ability to accumulate great wealth, Jewish talent and skills went untapped in communist nations. Jews were forced to be like everyone else.
This contradiction on the Left hasn't been resolved to this day; if anything, it seems to be getting more intense. As yrs go by, Jews and smart white gentiles get richer and richer while the rest get poorer and poorer. Charles Murray wrote extensively about this in COMING APART. More freedom and mobility among Americans hasn't led to more equality but to more divisions and hierarchies. Places like NY, Chicago,and San Francisco are economically more divided than ever. Working class dwindles and middle class feels the pinch, but the affluent 'creative' globalist class gets richer and richer. Even during the 'Great Recession', there's lots of good times in the core gentrified downtown areas of big cities. We've also seen the rise of 'whitopias' in places like Portland and Seattle. White, Jewish, and gay liberals who speak for 'equality' have themselves become less and less equal and more and more privileged. American politics is funny business where the 'egalitarian' superrich liberals lecture non-rich white conservatives about the evils of 'greed'.
Or consider higher education. What are among the most exclusive educational institutions in America? Harvard and Yale. And yet, they are the ideological bastions of 'equality'. There is 'affirmative action' for blacks and Hispanics, but who are the sacrificial lamb to make room for the likes of Barack and Michelle Obama? Middle class whites, lower middle class whites, working class whites, and poor whites. Rich and affluent Jewish and white liberals maintain their grip on higher education by sacrificing the less privileged whites in the game of 'diversity'. But even with 'affirmative action' for blacks and browns, Harvard and Yale favors the creme of the crop of the black and brown community. So, rationalism and equality have never been bosom buddies. At best, there's the ideal of equality of opportunity, but given the biological differences among individuals and groups, this only creates new hierarchies. When blacks were given equal opportunity in sports, they dominated many of them and indeed many races are defacto banned or biologically discriminated in certain sports such as basketball. When the L.A. Lakers win the championship, countless Mexican-Americans pour into the streets to celebrate, but how many Mexicans are there in the NBA? Lots of Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans love the NFL, but how many Mexicans and Asians are there in football?
The ideal of universalism hasn't worked out for the Rational Left either. Universalism means common/shared truth for all people in the world, but greater the universalist/globalist reach, greater the problems of diversity. The Soviet Union and Communist Yugoslavia, by creating multi-ethnic states, laid the foundations of all sorts of cultural and ethnic strife. Though the conflicts were suppressed under the iron heel of communism, they never went away and exploded with the end of communism. The fires still burn in many former republics of the USSR. And in the West, the leftist ideal of universalism has morphed or surrendered to the ideology of 'multi-culturalism' and the cult of 'diversity'. The Left used to see diversity as an obstacle to the universal truth. Indeed, 'culture' was critiqued mostly as superstitions and 'atavistic' customs standing in the way of progress of universal truth. So, Soviets smashed countless churches, and in Red China, most Chinese had to wear the same blue Mao suits. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao sent Red Guards to wage a war on Old Reactionary Culture. And in the Spanish Civil War, the radical Left waged wars of destruction on all symbols of Old Spain.
But in time, the Left came to realize that culture and race don't simply don't go away. So, the new leftist politics was increasing racial and ethnic consciousness--called Identity Politics--among non-white groups and turning it into a united anti-white force. Leftism also came to disdain universalism because European Imperialism had often used the 'universalist' argument to rationalize and justify their invasive actions around the world. Europeans would claim to be spreading the universal truth of God and Jesus or the universal values of human rights that were, oddly enough, unique to the West. And communist record of cultural violence and suppression in non-European nations also disgusted the Left with radical universalism. There was also the romanticism of anthropology that romanticized non-Western cultures--more primitive the better--as Edens that shouldn't be spoiled by the 'cancer' of white rationality and modernity. (That is one reason why only whites get blamed for slavery. It is assumed that since black Africans were primitive, their lived in a kind of Eden, and therefore, even their practice of slavery was very warm and loving.) And it dawned on the white leftists in the 60s that blacks couldn't be recruited to become colorblind warriors of progress. Black Panthers and other such groups insisted on their own racial or ethnic pride. They weren't just gonna lock arms with white liberals and sing 'We Shall Overcome'. And so, the new mode became radical cult of 'diversity'-ism where cultural identities would be encouraged but as a weapon against white power and privilege. (But this has created new contradictions within the Left that is now a coalition of self-loathing white ethnophobes and non-white ethnocentrists.)
Also, rational science of the human mind and behavior hase uncovered the strong possibility that humans are irrational and 'spiritual' by nature. Some liberal scientists now say that some people are born with 'liberal' genes and some are born with 'conservative' genes. Ironically, anti-religious Reason has discovered that man--or at least most people--cannot be rid of their 'religious nature'. So, if religion is banned, mankind will merely find something else to worship. It's no wonder why people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lennon, Oprah, and Obama have been revered and worshiped as substitute gods. You will notice that their greatest devotees are 'secularists' or those who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious'. In the absence of God or some spiritual figure to worship in their lives, they worship new 'gods'. And people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, in their refusal to worship 'new gods' simply worship their own egos with an arrogance worthy of the old gods. If Reason proves that human nature is not rational, what is to be done? Perhaps, it means that the 'progressive' elites must manipulate the masses as if they're little children or Pavlovian dogs. This is markedly different from behaviorism of B.F. Skinner who focused on human action, or outward behavior. The new manipulation seeks to manipulate the 'ghost in the shell', or the 'soul'.
Of course, communists understood this. Though the ideal of Marxism was to use rational appeals to win over the Proletariat to the 'scientific' truth of class struggle, it became quite apparent to communist intellectuals that most of the unwashed were pretty dumb and hopeless. Lenin had no respect for the Russian masses. Trotsky had even less. Stalin saw most people as 'the horse'--like in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM. And in truth, Marx was able to pontificate about his fantasy idealism because he lived in his own intellectual bubble and refused to rub shoulders with the real members of the Proletariat. When Engelsl offered him a tour of a factory, Marx declined and refused to see reality that might undermine his theoretical view of everything.
So, how were most people won over to communism? Same way most people were won over to Christianity. Throughout Christian history, most converts were illiterates who never read the actual words in the Old and New Testaments. And even most people who could read weren't exactly thinkers or intellectuals.
Most people were won over by the pageantry, the songs and music, the rituals and ceremonies, the hype and taboos, the feeling of rapture that came with conversion. And their children were raised into Christianity as the 'one and only' True Faith.
Similarly, very few people who became communists read DAS KAPITAL or other works by Marx. A good number may have read THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, but that was communist theory boiled down to cops-n-robbers. What really won over most people were the parades, the songs, the pageantry, the marches and rallies, the iconography of the 'great prophets of progress', the endless propaganda, the slogans about 'land, peace, and bread', the feel-good easy scapegoating or demonization of the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils, and its new set of sacramental taboos that made the movement seem almost holy and 'spiritual'. Most communists never read much of the COLLECTED WORKS OF LENIN, indeed not even the much shorter COLLECTED WORKS OF STALIN. Though communism was anti-capitalist, it was more 'sold' than told.
Same goes for Nazism. How many Germans really read MEIN KAMPF? Indeed, if more had read it, more would have opposed Nazism or would have seen it as a crazy and crashing bore. Nazism kept gaining popularity because Hitler, along with Albert Speer and Joseph Goebbels, had a keen understanding of the power of hype and 'marketing'. So, National Socialists came up with slogans, parades, pageantry, iconography, songs, rituals, and sacramentics to match those of communists. National Socialists also intentionally appropriated the color red on their flags to steal fire from the communists. This is what turned on the Germans. Faced with economic depression, national humiliation, and an uncertain future, Germans needed something to inspire them, and for a growing number of Germans, the pageantry of National Socialism was irresistible. Also, just as communism has the arch-demon-villain in the 'bourgeoisie', the National Socialists had the easy scapegoat in the International Jew. We know from the popularity of action movies--and countless legends and myths through the ages--that people love to see the world in terms of 'us versus them' and 'good vs evil'. This was equally true of Marx and Hitler. For communists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the bourgeois capitalist, the oppressor of honest working men of the world. For National Socialists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the subversive Jew, the mortal enemy of the Aryan Race. (Incidentally, National Socialism could have triumphed if it hadn't such a hostile view of Slavs. If Hitler's view had been more like that of Mussolini, he could have gotten rid of leftist Jews while winning the loyalty of patriotic German Jews. And he wouldn't have waged on the USSR, and even if he had, he would have summoned and welcomed the support of Slavic anti-communists. But the moment his invading armies convinced the Slavs that Nazis were gonna be even worse than the communists, Hitler's fate was sealed.)
Though 'intelligent' and 'rational' liberals today laugh at dumb conservative morons who believe every word in the Bible--and though liberals warn of the theocratic danger posed by the Christian Right--, the fact is America is moving towards a secular theocracy ruled by liberals. Though there are plenty of sane rational liberals, those who hunger for power don't care about telling the truth or even knowing the truth. They want to own and control the 'Truth' that is to be propped up with pageantry, hype, iconography, ritualism, sacramentalism, and taboos.The whole MLK myth is a pernicious and obnoxious means of social control. Smart liberals know the truth about MLK. They know that he was NOT a man of peace but only used the cult of peace to fool Americans. Jewish liberals who used and manipulated him know this. So, why the hype and why the taboo? Because such are effective as means of social control of the masses. If a rational argument was made for MLK, it could be countered by rational arguments against him. To forbid any such argument, King is turned into a godman, and so, it becomes taboo to even say anything negative or critical about him. As even American conservatives have succumbed to this myth, MLK is the new religion of the land. Of course, embracing irrational superstitions comes naturally to many conservatives. What is truly sad is that so many so-called secular liberals have fallen for it as well.
Liberals say they are for open debate, open discussion, and free argument, but they are lying. They are for open debate only on issues of their preference and approval. So, we can have an open debate on 'why white privilege is evil' but we cannot have an open debate on 'why physically stronger blacks are attacking whites' or 'why smarter Jews have hogged so much power and wealth in America'. Any criticism of black evils would be counter to the spirit of MLK faith, and so, it must be taboo! And since the bigger modern faith is Holocaustianity, Jews are never to be criticized or opposed. Though America still allows free speech, we have defacto 'hate speech' regulations against honest discussion of black problems and Jewish power because anyone who dares to do so is effectively blacklisted, shunned, disgraced, shamed, and destroyed.
The new habit among liberals is not to open up more debates and discussions but to tell conservatives what can be discussed and what cannot. Instead of Political Argument, we have the new cult of Political Silence. Of course, liberals say they're advising conservatives for the own good, i.e. liberals are the smart doctor and conservatives are the sick patient, and so, liberals should apply anesthetics to 'relax' the patient in order to draw out the toxic blood within the conservative vein. It's the new political medical treatment of 'bleeding' the patient. The last I heard, 'bleeding' killed George Washington.
The most obnoxious use of pageantry and iconography in recent times has been with Obama and 'gay marriage'. How some political pimp from Chicago got elevated to messianic status may seem outrageous to some, but it's hardly surprising. Most people are easily manipulated, and it's easier now than ever. With the erosion of traditional values and bedrock certitudes, we all live in a world of flux. Especially among white people, there is no racial identity, racial pride, national identity, national pride. Christianity as a Western tradition has faded away among many white people. Instead of pride and identity, there's likely to be shame and anti-identity for white Americans and Europeans. Having being severed from their roots, the Western tree is wobbly and shaky. And so, it looks for new causes and commitments and mistakenly sees the very ropes pulling it down as new supports. Jews are committed to felling the Western family and cultural tree, but when Jews toss ropes at the White Tree, it thinks Jews are lending a hand to make the Tree better. The White Tree doesn't know that the ropes are being tied to the trunk and branches to be pulled down--like the Tsar statue in Sergei Eisenstein's OCTOBER.
White liberals--and even white conservatives--are easy targets for Jewish liberal manipulation because they have no core values. They only have peripheral values like Tolerance and Cult of Diversity. My point is not that we should doggedly remain rooted in a fixed set of ideas. We should be open to new ideas and listen to all sorts of arguments and discussions. And if some old ideas or values are proven to lack real value, we should discard them and adopt new ideas and new values.
Traditionally, liberalism at its best sought to do just that: put forth new ideas and new arguments in an open-minded way. Who can deny with Clarence Darrow's fight for freedom of speech for the teacher who wanted to teach evolution? In the past, liberals were indeed on the side of progress and social improvement. For greater liberty and freedom. For more civil liberties. And as rationalists and secularists, they argued for logic and empirical proof. Of course, there were also plenty of dumb and deceitful liberals, but there was indeed a golden age of liberalism when smart and serious liberals did put forth logical and fact-based arguments for greater freedom and truth.
That ideal is gone for good. While there are genuinely scientific liberals in the media and academia, the liberals in power in all institutions have a dual attitude when it comes to truth. They now feel that there is 'elite truth' and 'mass truth'. It's like in the Soviet Union, the elites had the freedom to discuss all sorts of topics and had access to Western media, but the Soviets masses were denied such freedom and access since they were deemed too stupid and dumb. What was okay for the elites was not okay for the masses. Elites could access and discuss certain truths but the masses had to stick to official propaganda and official news. Though communist elites justified such restrictions on the basis that the masses are too dumb and gullible, therefore liable to fall for capitalist-bourgeois lies and propaganda, the real fact of the matter was the elites feared that the masses weren't so dumb after all and might realize that capitalism and freedom are better than communism and totalitarianism(the basis of elite communist power).
The liberal ideal used to be that the educated and intelligent elites should have faith in the masses and use reason, logic, facts, and open-minded exchange of ideas/opinions to raise the knowledge level among the people. Thus, truth--and I mean real truth--would spread out across the populace.
Today, elite liberals think entirely differently. They believe that certain truths are just too dangerous, and therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to even know about them or discuss them. Since most of the media and academia are controlled by liberals, liberals now have the power to restrict information and news they don't want the masses to know about. Also, even the so-called conservative media mostly go along with this since it will be economically destroyed by the liberal elite.
There is still freedom on the internet, but liberals are working overtime to end free debate and open discussion by pushing for 'hate speech' laws. In Europe, people can be fined or jailed for writing things on the internet that are deemed 'hateful' and 'intolerant'. Elite liberals are pushing such laws in the US on the basis of protecting minorities like blacks and gays. This is very funny since most of the 'hate crimes' in the US are actually committed by blacks. Since blacks are stronger than other races, almost no one goes up to blacks and says, "Hey nigger". Not only will the black guy beat up the offender but our cult of MLK will ostracize and condemn the 'racist'. Just look what happened to Don Imus for joking about 'nappy-headed hos'. And gays are among the most powerful people in America, and they have the power to intolerantly destroy the lives of people who don't bend over to the gay agenda. The real reason for 'hate speech' control is not to protect the powerless but to shield the powerful. Jews control America, and what Jews fear most is that there will come a day when gentiles--of all color--will call out on Jewish power, Jewish privilege, Jewish influence, Jewish abuses, Jewish oppression, Jewish history of exploitation, Jewish mendacity, and etc. This is what 'hate speech laws' are really about. It is to protect Jewish Supremacism from criticism.
Jewish intellectuals once used to call for open debate and freedom of speech. Even Jewish communists who supported all manner of tyranny and mass murder taking place in the Soviet Union wrapped themselves around the American flag and the Constitution and demanded total freedom of speech. Had liberals, leftists, and Democrats held political power all throughout the 1950s, these liberal Jews would not have called for free speech and civil liberties for all. They would have called for government and institutional clampdown and purge of all 'hateful' and 'reactionary' elements. How do I know this? Did Jewish liberals and leftists care one bit about the 100,000+ Japanese-Americans locked up by FDR? Did Jewish liberals show any disdain for the movie MISSION TO MOSCOW by Michael Curtiz(the Jew who directed CASABLANCA) that rationalized and justified every one of Stalin's crimes? No. The Jewish support of Civil Liberties was purely accidental and tactical.
With the rise of anti-communism(and return of Republican power) in the late 40s and early 50s, many Jewish radicals came under pressure and some were blacklisted for a few yrs. This is why Jews embraced total freedom of speech. It was to serve tribal interests. Under the guise of total commitment to freedom of speech, Jews were able to outmaneuver McCarthy and pose as defenders of civil liberties of ALL Americans.
But it's been some time since anyone or any group dared to take on Jewish power. Jews have control over all the elite institutions. They can do whatever and get away with it. They no longer need the protection of civil liberties and freedom of speech since they have control over media, academia, law firms, courts, Wall Street, Hollywood, both political parties, advertising, government, and etc. What Jews fear is the awakening of gentile consciousness against this Jewish power, and so the Jews are trying to prevent/preempt any such phenomenon by enforcing 'hate speech laws' that will prevent anyone from speaking out about Jewish Power. Such is the nature of the Jew.
So, we now live in the era of 'dual truths'. Jewish elites are good enough to access, know, and discuss the truth, but WE are not good enough. We must stick with the Official Truth. So, elite Jews in their own clubs and societies will discuss racial differences and the nature of their power--and what they must do to expand it and keep it forever--, but we are not supposed to know or think anything about it. To be sure, some Jews are just so goofy and filled with chutzpah that they accidentally spill the beans.
One of the funniest is Joel Stein's HOW JEWISH IS HOLLYWOOD?
The article starts:
"I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe 'the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,' down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood."
Though Jewish control of the media/Hollywood/Wall Street has exponentially increased since 1964, Americans today believe Jews don't control the media. It goes to show that truth is less important than the medium of truth. Those who control the flow of information, the symbols of inspiration, the dogma of official truth, and the fear of taboos control what is and isn't "truth". Though Jewish power increased since the 60s, Americans today think Jews are less powerful!!
Yes, this sort of thing can happen in a so-called democracy where information is supposed to flow freely and teach people the truth. Joel Stein, a clownish character, probably thought he was just being funny, but ever since that article has been picked up by 'anti-Semites' like Kevin MacDonald and David Duke, it appears he's been disciplined and pressured to lay low and remain silent; he's been effectively disappeared as a 'bad boy Jew'. On the other hand, maybe some Jews thought Stein's way of breaking the news in a funny matter could be beneficial to Jewish power. If Jewish power is sold as something funny and hilarious, maybe people will laugh about it than fear it--even though it has tremendous impact on all facets of their lives, from information to education to finance to foreign policy.
Anyway, the fact that Jewish power increased from 1964 to 2008 but Americans thinks Jews are less powerful today says something about the the problem of 'dual truth' in America. Jews are allowed to discuss and work to increase Jewish power in their elite inner circles, BUT we are not supposed to know about it, and even if we did know, we are not supposed to discuss it openly lest we lose our jobs.
The failure of American conservatism can be glimpsed in this too. Conservatism cannot exist without memory, yet American conservatives--most of them anyway--seem to have no knowledge of the change in Jewish behavior and strategy since the 50s. If American conservatives had a real sense of memory, they'd know that Jews argued for government censorship during the FDR yrs but then argued for civil liberties when Jewish leftists came under attack by anti-communists--and today, they are arguing for 'hate speech' laws that would effectively silence all criticism of Jewish power. In other words, Jews have no principles, only strategies. Their own principle is tribal power. Most elite Jews believe that most of us 'cannot handle the truth', which really means we'll handle it TOO WELL and realize that Jews have been behind white deracination, dispossession, and demise. Jews see us as stupid little children. We are to live with the 'noble lie' while Jews in their closed elite institutions get to secretly discuss issues about racial differences. It's just like ANIMAL FARM with smart pigs owning the house and us working in the fields.
Now, some of you may think that my assessment of Jewish power is exaggerated. After all, there are lots of superrich non-Jews. But huge wealth isn't sufficient power to challenge Jewish power. After all, there are many very rich people in China, but their wealth and status can be destroyed overnight by the Communist Party. No matter how rich you are in China, the fact is the law courts, media, police, and military are dominated by Communist Party oligarchs. You don't mess with the real overlords with control over the institutions. Similarly, no matter how rich you are in America, if you cross Jews, Jews can use their institutional power to destroy you almost overnight. Jews get to decide who is okay and who is not okay. Plenty of black rappers and white rockers have said and done outrageous things, but they get millionaire dollar contracts from the Jewish-controlled entertainment industry. But when Mel Gibson got drunk one time and said, "Jews start all wars", he was effectively blacklisted from the film industry. If you're a filthy Zionist and support Israel's right to possess 300 illegal nuclear weapons, you're A-okay and given all sorts of favors. But no matter how rich you are, if you argued for Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons, you're gonna lose a lot of powerful friends and connections--and protections--right away. Jews have such a lock on the key levers of power that even the superrich who dare challenge Jewish power are toast overnight. Suppose George Lucas made a film about the oppression of Palestinians. Think of all the friends and connections in the film industry he would lose almost immediately. And Jews in government will send an army of goons to audit Lucas's tax files and prosecute him for the most minor infraction--while the grand Jewish crooks on Wall Street get to do as they please.
Returning to the matter of irrational appeals, just consider how 'gay marriage' became such a hot issue. It wasn't through rational debate, reasoned discourse, morally logical appeals, or any kind of real sense. It was through the power of pageantry, iconography, hype and sensationalism, sanctification of gays and lesbians and even cross-dressers as holy angels, the vilification of decent people as 'odious, noxious, and toxic homophobes'--yes, so-called 'tolerant' people use such strong adjectives against people they don't agree with--, parades, rallies, advertising, sacred threats, and veiled threats, and etc. I say 'veiled threats' because brazen threats give the game away that we are being pressured and brow-beaten to bend over to the Jewish-supported radical gay agenda. People don't like to feel that they are being forced to do something. So, Jews and gays come to you with a smile and ask you to support 'gay marriage' while hinting that if you don't comply, you're gonna go down. Since you fear being shunned, shamed, and destroyed, you support 'gay marriage' and in order to convince yourself and others that you did it out of conviction than cowardice, you express an overly zealous support of the gay agenda. It's like a dog barking extra-loud while serving its master. Though being ordered by its master to attack, it makes believe that it's in control of its own emotions by barking like crazy. But no matter how much all these converts express their support for 'gay marriage', we know they acted out of cowardice. They really had no choice since if they don't support it, they'll be disgraced, shunned, and rejected from polite, hipster, and cool society. And so they hide their shame of cowardice with rabid support of 'gay marriage'.
Bullies come to you and shake their fist at you. But not all bullies are so brazen. In AGE OF INNOCENCE, we see how polite society with fine manners could use all sorts of subtle pressures to force a man to marry a woman he doesn't love and abandon the woman he really loves. Similarly, the neo-haute society of today has all sorts of ways to make you go along 'reasonably' by applying all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle pressures. Jews and gays don't want us to think that we've been forced to go along with their agenda. And so, they employ all sorts of nudges and appeals to our irrational emotions to make them go along with the 'gay agenda'. As many people are dumb and ignorant, they are pushovers for such manipulation. Even so, many people still resist the ridiculous gay agenda. What to do with such people? Since they can't be fooled, they must be pressured. One way is with money and bribery, and this is especially effective with politicians. Notice how NY Republicans were bought over to voting for 'gay marriage'. Politicians should really be called prostitucians. Even so, there are still people who refuse to fall for the bogus bullshit of 'gay marriage' that says it's healthy and wonderful for men to practice fecal penetration and insert male sexual organs into organs meant for defecation of waste material. Since Jews and gays don't want to be exposed as brazen bullies, they use all sorts of hidden bully tactics. They use all sorts of hints and send all sorts of signals that if certain people are not with the gay agenda, their reputations will be smeared, they may lose 'friends', they may not get promotion, they may be turned into the butt of jokes and mockery. And if there are still holdouts to accepting 'gay marriage', there is the looming 'hate speech' law that aims to fine or imprison anyone who speaks out against such filth.
'Gay marriage' is of course the real hate crime against real marriage. It offends the fundamental dignity of the meaning of marriage. The idea that a penis entering a fecal hole is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex is vile, hateful, and disgusting. It's like saying eating a plateful of feces is the same as eating a plate of pizza.
There never was a sane rational argument for 'gay marriage'. Indeed, all arguments made for 'gay marriage' could just as easily be used to champion polygamy, group marriage, and same-family marriage or incest marriage. If marriage should allow anything demanded by adults of consenting age, it can be just be just about anything. Indeed even 'friend marriage' between two heterosexuals who wanna get married ONLY to share benefits from work. It's ridiculous.
Jews and gays are the neo-aristocrats, and just like the upper classes in AGE OF INNOCENCE, they are really out for their own privilege. Gays are so vain and greedy that they are willing to subvert the entire meaning of marriage just to serve their own perverse ego. And that isn't enough. Gays and Jews are working to ban any speech that is 'hateful' or 'contemptuous' of gays or the homosexual act. So, if you say 'gay sex is unnatural and gross', you should be fined, sent to sensitivity training, or locked up. Just like aristocrats used 'polite power' to get their way, Jews and gays use all sorts of subtle ways to send a message that we better not mess with their agenda or challenge them since they have the power to destroy reputations, careers, and lives.
So many Americans are such pushovers or bendovers. Think of the rainbow flag and homosexuality. Now, what does the beautiful and miraculous rainbow have to do with two men sticking their penises into fecal holes or with fat hairy guys who put on lipstick and wear dresses? NOTHING. But by hyping and advertising homosexuality as a kind of rainbow, so many Americans have been made to feel that there's nothing more heavenly and wonderful than homosexuality. Gee whiz, gays must be angels, and that being true, who are we to deny them 'gay marriage'?
Just like most Christians were converted to the Faith through emotional appeals, many Americans have been won over to 'gay marriage' through irrational appeals that sanctified and beautified the gay world. Just like most Americans think Jews don't control Hollywood due to Jewish manipulation of truth, many Americans associate gayness with rainbow colors, cool/hip/funny characters on TV, and all the other crap we see due to media manipulation. And of course, just like movies have good guys and bad guys, the Jewish media present opponents of 'gay marriage' in the most unflattering and demeaning manner. While the media suppresses all the unpleasant facts of gays and show only their nice side, the media ignores all the positive side of supporting real marriage against 'gay marriage' and feature only the most deranged voices that denounce 'gay marriage'. So, the impression that Americans get is "gays are so perfect and angelic, and their enemies are so ugly, old, and vile."
But we see the same thing with Israel and Iran. Both nations have their good sides and bad sides, but Israel is featured as some perfect democracy in the Middle East whereas Iran is featured as a totally crazy nation that 'wants to wipe Israel off the map'. And we hear so often that tiny little Israel, as the outpost of Western values, is surrounded by all those barbaric and hostile Muslim nations that want to destroy it. Using that logic, why didn't the West support apartheid South Africa as the final tiny outpost of Western Civilization on a Dark Continent filled with murderous black savages out to rob, rape, and murder whites? Well, it just so happens to be the case that Jews control the media in the West and get to decide what is what.
Unless American patriots take on Jewish power, nothing is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



