‘Antisemitism’ Is Normal

Jewish thinkers and activists would like all of us to believe that there are few things in the world that is as irrational, deranged, rabid, virulent, odious, noxious, poisonous, toxic, abnormal, unnatural, and cuckoo-bananas as antisemitism. According to Jews, antisemitism has been a kind of collective, near-eternal, and almost-universal sickness that afflicted the mind, body, and soul of the Christian West — or all gentile civilizations that came in contact with Jews — over thousands of years. And to prove this, Jews often point to the Medieval Age with its many superstitions regarding Jews, the Christian doctrine of the Jewish murder of Christ, conspiracy mongering such as the THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, and of course, the Holocaust.
Of course, Jews are absolutely correct in arguing that antisemitism has had its radical, murderous, and deranged manifestations and aspects; and indeed, only some serious nut would argue Adolf Hitler was some kind of hero or that the Holocaust was nothing special — or didn’t even happen.

But there’s a problem with that line of argument. If anything, it is as deranged as the most deranged forms of antisemitism that blame Jews for everything and/or suspect every Jew of harboring some dark wickedness in his or her heart. After all, just because there have been many hideous Jews throughout history and in the current socio-political order doesn’t mean that every Jew is some kind of lowlife weasel out to subvert and undermine other peoples.
To be sure, there are many such heinous Jews, and unfortunately, the majority of Jews support the Jewish elites who are committed to the destruction and enslavement of the white race, but it would still be wrong to conclude, as did the Nazis, that all Jews are vermin and cannot be reformed. Also, even Jews who support the vile and hideous Jewish elites may do so out of semi-justifiable fear given the history of persecution experienced by Jews through certain dark episodes of European history. Similarly, not all Germans who supported the vile and hideous Nazi elites did so out of a deranged agreement with every foul nonsense that spewed out of Hitler’s lips. After the tragic defeat in World War I and the traumatic depression yrs that marked the Weimar Period, many Germans simply wanted stability, order, prosperity, and national renewal. For many of them, Hitler seemed the lesser of several evils that included communism, Jewish supremacism, cutthroat finance-capitalism, and etc. And indeed, if Hitler hadn’t embarked on crazy wars, the German people would have had, more or less, made the right choice for National Socialism was pretty good for most Germans. Of course, many Germans became rabidly ecstatic about Hitler; and today, many Jews are fully supportive of the Jewish supremacist agendas being hatched in places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, Kiev, Miami, and Jerusalem, and such Jews tend to look upon gentiles with contempt, derision, and arrogance that are comparable to the emotions of diehard Nazi supporters toward ‘subhuman’ elements; the difference is Jews hide their hatred and pretend to be working for ‘equality and diversity’ for all, whereas Nazis were very open and honest about their radical racist goals. But, there are many Jews who, though well aware of the wickedness of the Jewish ruling class, figure that the elites of their own kind constitute a lesser evil than gentile elites that might — just might — slip into crazy antisemitic mode once again.

Anyway, any attitude, agenda, or ideology can be made crazy. We know from the cult of Political Correctness that a call for more sensitivity and tolerance can lead to pathological episodes of seeing ‘hate’ everywhere, indeed even KKK stalking the campus of Oberlin College. We know socialism can birth totalitarian communism. We know that racial science can turn cancerous and lead to stuff like Nazism. We know that nationalism can go from healthy to stupid, as with the Argentinian generals who risked everything with a rather meaningless and risky war with Britain over the Falkland Islands. (Whether Argentinians had a rightful claim to the islands isn’t the issue. Rather, it’s the foolishness of Argentinian generals who used nationalism in a reckless manner that only brought shame and ruination to Argentina. After all, even if your side may be morally or politically justified, politics is about working in the realm of the possible and the pragmatic than merely being passionate and/or idealistic.) But just as it’d be wrong to denounce every aspect of socialism because Stalinism and Maoism were extreme & destructive or to denounce every aspect of race-ism (belief in existence of races and racial differences and/or racial consciousness) because Nazism, the KKK, the Nation of Islam, and Jewish Defense League have harbored nutball ideas about race, it’s similarly wrong to denounce all of antisemitism simply because there have been extreme anti-Semites who pushed criticism of Jewish power to extremes, even to the point where an evil Jew was behind every problem in the world.
Perhaps, we should limit the use of ‘anti-Semite’ to denote the deranged Jew hater. Such Jew-haters not only blame Jews for just about everything but deny the great contributions by Jews to human culture, science, art, literature, spirituality, and history. Perhaps, the more responsible critics of Jewish power could be called ‘Counter-Semites’. There’s an element of knee-jerk hostility in the concept of ‘anti’, i.e. an ‘anti’ person feels compelled to be against everything of a certain nation, people, creed, or whatever. So, an ‘anti-American’ tends to be hostile to just about every aspect of Americanism, and an anti-Islamite sees nothing but wickedness and foulness in Muslim history, culture, and people. And anti-Sinites see China as little more than a nation of cruel and villainous dog-eaters, which is way to simplistic for a great civilization.

But to keep things simple, I will stick to ‘anti-Semite’ and use it to mean an observant critic of and/or activist against Jewish power and influence. In my definition, an ‘anti-Semite’ need not be deranged, extreme, irrational, pathological, or unduly hateful. For crazy ‘anti-Semites’, I will use the term ‘radical anti-Semites’. We need to make such distinctions since the Jewish elites are dominated by radical anti-Europites, and these folks seek to weed out any and every instance of gentile criticism of Jewish power and influence. To do this, they’ve associated — and redefined via associative smearing — all forms of antisemitism with radical antisemitism. So, even current critics of Israeli policy against Palestinians are associated with Nazis who shot Jewish children, Medieval witch hunters who burned Jews, and lunatics who believed every word of THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION(which might have been intended as a satire of Jewish power). Ironically, these radical anti-Europites are just like the bogeyman they never tire of baiting and attacking. If radical anti-Semites saw some grand evil plot in every Jewish utterance, action, or influence, the radical anti-Europite Jews freak out over even the slightest criticism of Jews as some grand evil strategy to round up the Jews and gas them. Of course, the cretin who has led such a mind-set is Abe Foxman of the ADL, an organization that says criticism of Jews invariably leads to hatred of Jews that then leads to another Holocaust. And yet, these Jews bitch and whine about the derangement syndrome of Christians in the Middle Ages! (Furthermore, notice how selective Jews are in their denunciation of the Middle Ages. While we modern people cringe at some of the religious practices of people who lived back then, such superstitiousness was the norm among all peoples in the past. Christian peoples not only had strange delusions about Jews but about just about everything else. If anything, the people who were most persecuted during those times were pagan folks who were accused of witchcraft. And such ‘intolerance’ of Christians came from Jewish tradition that firmly posited that there is only one God and all other gods and spirits are false and must be destroyed. As we all know, the Torah of the Original or Old Testament is filled with how such-and-such person must be killed for reasons that seem totally ludicrous to us today. So, Christian superstitions and prejudices about Jews and pagans were hardly any more deranged than the kinds of beliefs held by Jews who passed down their knowledge, wisdom, and biases through the Torah and Talmud, the scroll that said Jesus will boil in excrement for all eternity and admonished Jews to regard gentiles as cattle to be exploited and milked, like what the pigs do to the horse in ANIMAL FARM. The Ancient and Medieval minds were filled with all kinds of superstitions, ignorance, fears, and anxieties that might seem ridiculous, comical, and deranged to us, but this was a universal fact of life. After all, Christians had very hostile views of Muslims and other heathens as well as of Jews. And Jews themselves were filled with deep-rooted prejudices and delusions about non-Jews. And pagans of all stripes were filled with all sorts of superstitions. If Christianity achieved one positive thing in the West, it was in replacing so many superstition with just one — if all religions, even the great ones, are really superstitions at their core. Though Christians used horrible methods to torture and kill pagans and other heathens, it must be remembered that Christians adopted those methods from pagans who’d been using them forever — and without any guilt conscience. Romans and Germanic Barbarians were extremely cruel and felt hardly any remorse for their blood-letting or much pity for their victims. Christians continued such practices that were carried over from pagan times, but they eventually — albeit gradually — got rid of them. That Medieval Christian folks had strange ideas about Jews has to be seen in the context of the times because, after all, Jews themselves had very strange views and ideas — if seen from modern perspective — about non-Jews. Indeed, Medievalist-minded Jews still exert influence in parts of Israel and boroughs of New York and neighborhoods of Chicago, and their attitude toward goyim isn’t much different from their distant ancestors. To single out Medieval Christian superstitions about Jews and then to judge them by modern values is a lot of crock. After all, we can do the same thing to Medieval Jews, and they’d come off no better. Suppose we pore over and pass judgement on Medieval Jewish attitudes with our modern values. Wouldn’t Jews back then seem crazy, deranged, and superstitious to us today? There’s a lot about Jewish Faith and Laws that seem just as ludicrous to the modern mind as the Christian notion that Jews were tainted with the blood of Christ — after all, doesn’t the Bible say that the children of Ham deserve to enslaved by the children of whoozits because Ham saw Noah in the nude? If anything, the current mania about ‘antisemitism’ suggests that even our so-called ‘modern’ views aren’t so enlightened after all but, instead, just another kind of superstition, the difference being that modern Jews get to play the role of witch-hunting inquisitioners. According to the modern Jewish culture-police priesthood that proselytize the new religion of Holocaustianity, anyone who notices Jewish power and influence — and finds such to be hostile to the interests of his or her own people — is a deranged lunatic who’s like a Medieval Christian fanatic who went around burning Jews as sons of Satan or some such. So much for modern-and-enlightened thinking.)

Anyway, Jews would have us believe that any form of antisemitism is a kind of hatred-of-Jews-derangement-syndrome. This is like saying that if some guy expresses sexual interest in a woman, he’s the same as a rapist. It’s like arguing that if a woman spends time and money to make herself look good, she’s a narcissist psycho, and of course, some feminist neo-puritans in the 1970s and early 80s rabidly denounced any woman who used makeup as a sell-out slut prostitute to patriarchy(even though the fashion industry is dominated by fruitkins), and John Lennon even sang a song — "Woman is the Nigger of the World" — about it under the influence of Yoko Ono. Much of anti-anti-semitism is truly irrational, deranged, hyperbolic, paranoid, hysterical, odious-and-noxious, rabid, and virulent. Jews reek of paranoia in their denunciation of non-existing or exaggerated paranoia among others.

And yet, paradoxically, Jewish paranoia of (often mis-perceived)antisemitism has a rational basis precisely because so much of antisemitism is the natural and normal default condition of mankind. Many Jews who scream fire privately know that many who are accused of ‘antisemitism’ are not mindless Jew-haters but mindful observers and critics. But they fear that if such criticism of Jewish power and influence is allowed, it will serve as green light for many more people with many legitimate grievances against Jews. Since goyim outnumber Jews by a huge margin, Jews fear cracks in the dam and go about patching them as soon as possible to keep the dam of Jewish power standing.
Though Jews argue that anti-Semites are all crazy or deranged, they privately know that many anti-Semites are all-too-sane, all-too-rational, and all-too-responsible — and that it’s the sincere philo-Semites who are the truly deranged ones. What Jews fear most about antisemitism is not that so many anti-Semites are crazy and have it so wrong but that so many of them are sane and have it so right. If anything, Jews would prefer all anti-Semites being morons like members of the KKK or some half-wit chapter of the American Nazi Party. Such clowns would be easy to mock, ridicule, discredit, and flush down the toilet. The real problem is that more and more people are beginning to notice and see Jewish power for what it is without crazy exaggeration or denials of Nazi crimes. And since Jewish elites are so dominant and corrupt in America and around the world, such anti-Semites are among the most honest, courageous, factual, and rational individuals today. This is what really frightens Jews the most, and this explains why Jews try to associate ‘new outbursts of antisemitism’ around the world — especially in Europe — with Nazism and Medieval Christians. Since many of today’s anti-Semites make too much sense and speak too much truth, Jews try to distract the public by associating any kind of criticism of Jewish power with the most rabid and virulent forms of antisemitism in the past. This is rather like some libertarian nut screaming ‘Stalinism’ whenever someone proposes expanding some government programs, indeed as if a refurbished local library is tantamount to rounding up millions of people to be worked to death in the Gulag.

So, even though Jews are deranged and paranoid about antisemitism, there’s an element of rational fear among Jews because neo-antisemitism makes too much rational sense and, as such, could pose a genuine threat to Jewish power and privilege. Therefore, Jews have to be especially aggressive and virulent in insisting that the neo-antisemitism is no different from the radical forms of antisemitism that slandered entire Jewish communities and even led to mass killings of Jews. After all, if Jews rationally and responsibly engaged the rational observations and valid criticism by neo-anti-Semites, such an open and fair discourse could expose Jewish power to the same kind of scrutiny and opposition faced by other elite groups in the West. Since Jews have become so powerful, so abusive, so corrupt, and so rotten of late, the last thing Jews want is for non-Jews to speak frankly and candidly about the Jewish Power.

The issue is no longer the ‘Jewish Problem’ since Jews now control the West. The notion of the Jewish Problem was an urgent theme when European gentile elites had ruled their own societies. They had the power, so they discussed the problem of fast-rising Jews in relation to their own interests. But now that Jews have the power, it is the Jews who ponder the ‘Gentile Problem’, especially the ‘White Gentile Problem’ as the white gentiles still pose the biggest challenge to Jews in the West. If white gentiles were to wake up and act in their own rational and national interest, they alone would have the power to topple the Jewish elites. Of course, Jews will not admit that they ponder the Gentile Problem since that would give the game away that Jews do have the power to decide on the fates of other peoples. But what happens when rich and powerful Jews get together? Through code words and tribal signals, they weigh all options on the Gentile Problem so that Jews will keep growing stronger, wealthier, and more privileged while white gentiles will become weaker, more dissipated, more divided, and more browbeaten. Given what is happening in the West right now and given the leading role played by Jews in the demise of the white race, Jews have every political reason to fear the rise of rational antisemitism.

So, why is antisemitism natural, normal, and even healthy? This question becomes easier to answer if we consider Thomas Sowell’s argument in his piece "Are Jews Generic?" One could argue that feelings such as anti-Jewish sentiments were a universal constant around the world, i.e. Jews were not so much hated for being Jewish as being an alien elite. Sowell argues that in many places around the world, there’s distrust, resentment, and envy in regards to the minority elites who gain disproportionate power, wealth, and influence in communities whose majority populations are of another group. A certain African tribe may come to dislike, even hate, another African tribe that is but a small minority in the community but one that happens to be far more adept at accumulating wealth, privilege, influence, and even power. German elites were resented, even hated, in many parts of Europe where they controlled disproportionate wealth and wielded what the locals considered to be an inordinate degree of influence. Chinese businessmen have been booted out of communist Vietnam and capitalist South Korea through means ranging from brutish to bloody. Greek and Armenian businessmen came to be much resented in the Ottoman Empire, especially as Turkish power began to wane and Christian minorities began to form secret alliances with the great Western powers and Russia.
Though certain minority elites have been tolerated and even allowed to prosper without major disruptions of violence, there has always been an uneasy relationship in communities where a minority is considerably more successful and/or powerful than the people who comprise the vast majority. This was especially the case when the minority elites were not merely ‘more privileged’ but even served as the ruling elites. And it became especially problematic with the rise of modern nationalism, which is why the British were kicked out of India in the 20th century. For much of British rule over India, the lack of a modern sense of national identity and unity made it unlikely for Indians to rise up against the British. Though all throughout history the majority resented rule by foreign elites, it was also true that the great majority were dirt poor, ignorant, apolitical, and just eking out a living. Indeed, even when ruled by their own kind, the elites made sure that most people remained docile and servile and didn’t have strong political passions since such mass passions could explode and rise up against the elites. So, even the traditional French and Japanese elites wanted most Frenchmen and Japanese to just shut up, work the fields, and shut up some more. It was with the French Revolution that the French elites and French masses became together as one. The elites came to represent the will of the people — at least in theory — , and so it was of great importance that the elites and the masses were on the same page, and this was all the easier if the elites and the masses were racially, culturally, and spiritually homogeneous.

With the rise of modern nationalism, the people demanded that they be heard, be represented, be led for their own interests and well-being. Naturally, such a people wanted their own kind to control the power and lead the nation.

The French wanted to be ruled by French elites since, ideally, the French elites and the French masses would see eye-to-eye on many things. If the French masses were ruled by, say, Turkish or Greek elites, how could the people be sure that the alien elites shared their values and aspirations? Theoretically, one could argue that Turkish elites and Greek elites in France might do their utmost to serve the interests of the French nation and people, but in the real world, such usually isn’t the case. Also, even if the hypothetical Turkish or Greek elites in France were sincere in their devotion to doing right by the French masses, did they truly understand the French spirit? Did they really understand what it meant to be French? Besides, are the French so stupid and dumb that they cannot produce elites of their own to shape and guide their own destiny? Though it’s natural for the majority of any community to prefer being ruled by their own kind, such an ideal became a political reality only with the rise of modern nationalism, especially with the birth of Revolutionary France. Traditionally, the elites(domestic or foreign) were focused on keeping the masses in their place through ignorance and servility, and therefore, the masses hardly developed a political consciousness that insisted on their right to be heard, right to be represented, and right to be answered by the elites. Once such a political ideal became the norm in the modern world, most people naturally wanted to be ruled by their own kind. Of course, there were exceptions in certain times and places. When Mao was acting crazy in China, many Chinese escaped to British-ruled Hong Kong for a better life. Many Italians preferred to live under Allied Occupation than under Mussolini’s Fascist rule. But all things being equal, it is the eventual wish of all peoples to be ruled by their own kind. Filipinos were grateful to Americans for driving out the Spanish but soon tired of American domination, and the ensuing war devoured possibly 100,000s of lives.
Political psychology works through identification, which is why even poor people feel empowered when their own kind is perceived to be wealthy or powerful. Even a poor Negro feels richer and more empowered when they see rich black folks like Oprah, rappers, basketball players, and Obama. They themselves may have little or nothing, but they feel empowered in a psycho-political sense. Such feelings, rational or irrational, are natural and normal among all peoples around the world. Consider that even though Hong Kong-ese were anxious about the end of British Rule, they were also filled with pride that the last vestige of British Imperialism would come to an end in the Middle Kingdom. Russians in Crimea were happy to be reunited with Russia, and the Albanian majority in Kosovo were glad to be rid of the Serbian minority elites. The Irish resented British rule despite all the wonderful things the Brits had done for a people whose lives revolved around whiskey, potatoes, and wife-beating.

Most peoples don’t mind minorities as long as minorities are well-behaved and don’t threaten the power structure of the majority. Majorities generally resent, even hate, three kinds of minorities: the truly untalented and stupid, the truly talented and intelligent, and the truly nasty and aggressive. The untalented stupid minorities are treated with contempt and derided for their criminality and/or dependence on the tax payers. The talented and intelligent elites are eyed with envy and even fear, especially as those with more money and privilege gain access to greater power and influence over the entire society. Then, there are the nasty and aggressive minorities regardless of their intelligence or lack thereof. The three nastiest minority groups are Jews, Gypsies(aka Roma), and Negroes. Jews are pushy, arrogant, cunning, and devious — and intelligent. Gypsies are vulgar, trashy, cutthroat, and lowdown — and stupid. Negroes are just plain crazy, not least because they got the ‘ugabuga jungle’ gene and can whup all other races due to their superior physical strength. You’re more likely to come across a Radio Raheem than a Radio Ramirez or Radio Ramen.

Given that it’s natural and normal for the majority of any community to be ruled by their own kind, the whole stuff about the antisemitic-derangement-syndrome got it all upside-down and backward. What is truly deranged about current America is that so many gentiles have been duped via endless propaganda, indoctrination, taboo-enforcement, and hysteria(almost on par with nonsensical mind-control in North Korea) into believing that there’s nothing more normal and natural for masses of goyim than to be ruled by Jews who comprise only 2% of the American population. What is truly deranged — especially among American whites — is their self-loathing notion that there is something sick and wrong for white gentiles to notice Jewish power and speak truth to its power. How could Jews have achieved such near-total control over white mind? The body follows the head, and it just so happens that the modern media technology, the modern system of mass education, federal control of judiciary in all fifty states, and Jewish control of big money mean that Jews don’t have to control much to control just about everything. Most people are like arms or legs. They move or act in accordance to signals sent by the brains, and Jews control the brain centers of America. If a hand comes near a fire, it naturally turns away due to pain reflex. But what if the Jewish-controlled brain wants to destroy the white hand? Suppose the Jewish power directs the hand over the fire and then severs the nerve connection between the burning hand and other parts of the body. That way, the hand will burn while the brains and rest of the body goes about their own ways oblivious, consciously or not, to the damage being done to the hand. White elites should be feeling and sharing the pain felt by whites masses who are suffering from Jewish, homo, and black power, but Jews have severed the pain nerves between the white masses and white elites. Jews have connected the nerves of white elites to the pain nerves of black masses and other ‘victim’ groups. So, if black thugs go around beating up white folks, the pain felt by white masses don’t register on the white elites. Since Jews control the media, they control the eyes and ears of America. Since Jews control the academia, they get to decide which social signals are turned into grand narratives and social theories/policies. Since Jews suppress the pain and suffering of the white masses and instead make a big stink of black suffering — even though much of it is self-inflicted by crazy blacks — , white elites believe it’s their moral duty to sympathize with blacks while feeling only contempt for white ‘racist’ working class folks despite the fact that it’s the black thugs who are beating up, wussifying, and intimidating the white masses.

And even though white masses are calling for help along the Southwest border that is being flooded with illegal aliens, the Jewish elites have used their media, academia, and judicial control to prevent the cries of white masses from being heard by white gentile elites. White elites don’t lead the white masses. They are collaborationist sell-outs brainwashed by Jewish elites, and they dutifully serve the likes of George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, and other hideous Jews.

The fat pig Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, got tough with some local teacher during a town hall meeting, but he groveled before Sheldon Adelson, and why? Because he’d used the term ‘Occupied Territories’ in the presence of a man who once said US should drop a nuke on Iran. Never mind that Christie was praising Israel and the Jewish occupation of the West Bank, but it didn’t matter to his Jewish bosses. They were offended that he dared to refer to Jewish takeover of Palestinian territories as an ‘occupation’. I guess if Adelson ever rapes a woman or murders a man, it should be called something other than ‘rape’ or ‘murder’ since, of course, whatever Jews do is always wonderful and never brutish and nasty. Christie seems to be less sensitive to a local school teacher than to some Jewish casino mogul worth billions. What a fat whore. And the likes of Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are no better. They are white elite traitor scumbags who collaborate with the Jewish elites while ignoring the muted cries of their own people. The Romneys would rather adopt some African baby — I guess that means they are not ‘racist’ — , and Bushes seem to think all Meso-American aliens are wonderful people since the kinds of Hispanics the Bush clan shmooze with shower them with respect.
White elites are vain this way. As they have power and money, they meet the kinds of blacks, browns, yellows, and others who treat them with fawning politeness and faux-respectfulness. Never mind that such minority groups may really be acting in their own ethnic interest to win favors from white elites. What matters is that they’re clever enough to know that if they convert the white elites — and effectively sever them from the white masses — , the white masses will be without leadership and will die a slow death. (And since ‘racism’ has become the greatest of all evils, white elites wet their pants at every opportunity to be seen as the ‘friends of and with diversity’.) This is why so many homosexuals have treated Conservative elites with such politeness and hospitality. Despite all the public rancor between Conservatives and Liberals, homos have a two-pronged strategy of power. They rail at the unwashed masses who are ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, and ‘homophobic’, but they gingerly approach rich Conservatives with politeness, kindness, and friendliness. Since Conservative elites feel so flattered by kindly and friendly homos, they begin to sympathize with homos and feel emotionally pressured to please their newfound homo friends — who happen to be very chummy with all-powerful Jews. When Rush Limbaugh goes to cocktail parties, homos there treat him so nice, share jokes with him, and pat him on the back. As Michael Corleone said, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." Homos and Jews know what this is all about. They see Conservative elites as enemies but try to win them over with faux-friendliness, and Conservative elites fall for this. Consider how William F. Buckley fell for the Neocon Ziocon charm offensive hook, line, and sinker. So, while homos loudly revile the ‘homophobic’ masses, they will go easy on the Conservative elites. Since the full brunt of Jewish media power attacks the ‘homophobic’ masses and since homos approach Conservative elites with kindness, the Conservative elites figure it’s better for themselves to make friends with homos(who are allied with powerful Jews) than stick up for the ‘homophobic’ masses. Since Conservative elites would seem cowardly and unprincipled to reverse themselves on the homo issue overnight, they say they still oppose the homo agenda on principle, but oh well, there’s nothing that can be done about it, so all of us might as well just accept it. But if we accept garbage like ‘gay marriage’, what is the meaning of conservatism? Is it only about tax cuts for the super-rich, worship of MLK the woman-beating ape, reverence for Jews, cheering for interracism where black men conquer white women while cuckolded white boys whank off to porn, welcoming a Jewish-operated casino in every town that steals more money from local yokels, and blabbering about Ayn Rand? When conservatism surrenders deep-rooted passion for what is right in favor of dipshit fashion for what is trite, it has no value.

Anyway, to prove the case that ‘antisemitism’ is natural and normal, consider a hypothetical case for Israel. Suppose by some chance, Israel became 2% Mormon-Mexican. Never mind how, it’s just a hypothesis. Suppose the 2% of Israel that is Mormon-Mexican has an average IQ of 130, is known for its ultra-chutzpah(known as chutzpez) that makes Jewish chutzpah look like choirboy stuff, harbors a great deal of hostility and contempt against Jews, and is committed to tribal networking. Suppose within 50 yrs, they come to gain wealth, privilege, and power in Israel that is comparable to the kind of power Jews have in the US. Suppose 90% of Israeli media are owned by Mormon-Mexicans. Suppose 40% of professors at elite Israeli universities are Mormon-Mexican. Suppose all the presidents and deans of such institutions are Mormon-Mexican. Suppose the Israeli movie industry is owned by Mormon-Mexicans. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans have control over Jewish finance and have bought up the politicians. Suppose the top law firms and top judges are controlled by Mormon-Mexicans. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans use their power of media to push ‘incest marriage’ and ‘polygamy’(that are associated with the rainbow) and denounce Jewish opponents of such an agenda as mentally ill with ‘incest-phobia’ and ‘polygamophobia’. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans argue that all Israeli citizens should give up all their guns and only the government and police — controlled by Mormon-Mexican elites — should have control over guns and other weapons. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans say it’s ‘racist’ and wrong to say Israel is a Jewish state and pressure politicians to declare Israel as a nation committed to multi-culturalism. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans control porn and hire Jewish women to be banged in their various orifices by tough Arab, Muslim, and African men. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans make tons of movies and TV shows that encourage Jewish women to abandon Jewish men and go with non-Jewish men, especially Muslims, Arabs, and Africans. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans incite Jewish women to hate Jewish men as oppressive, tyrannical, patriarchal, and exploitative creeps who’ve exploited all of mankind and womankind. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans make endless movies about Jewish role in slave trade, Jewish Nakba against Palestinians, Jewish use of finance to rob the entire world, Jewish role in communist mass-killing that exterminated millions of Christian Slavs. Suppose Mormon-Mexicans enforce political correctness that deems any pro-Jewish sentiment as ‘hate speech’ or ‘Jewish supremacism’. And I can go on and on, but you get the point. Now, how would Jews feel if they came under the rule of such a minority elite? Would it be natural and normal for them to get on their knees and suckle the toes of the Mormon-Mexican elites — like white gentiles in America do with their Jewish masters — , or would it be natural and normal for Jews in Israel to be ‘antisemitic’ against the hostile alien elite that is committed to subverting, undermining, enslaving, and destroying the Jewish people as a race, culture, and people? Wouldn’t it be natural, indeed even healthy, for many Jews to be ‘antisemitic’ — or anti-Mormexicanic — against the alien elite that is so obviously committed to their destruction?

Would any honest person argue that a Jew who resists the New Order being imposed on Israel by the Mormon-Mexican elite is irrational, deranged, rabid, virulent, insane, phobic, and cuckoo-bananas? Sure, some Jews might become unhinged and go way beyond being sanely and rationally anti-Mormexicanic. Like the Nazis, they might say all Mormon-Mexicans are subhuman and deserve to be killed. But would the problem of such radical anti-Mormexicanism nullify and invalidate the meaning and purpose of a natural, normal, and healthy anti-Mormexicanism that speaks truth to Mormon-Mexican elite power and stands up for the pride and survival of the Jewish people as a culture, race, and nation? Of course, if such a thing were to happen to Israel, Jews would the first one to argue that a Jewish nation should be ruled by the Jewish people. But when it comes to US, Canada, Australia, and all European nations — even Russia — , Jews seem to think it’s natural and normal for all them gentiles to take orders from hideous Jews and that it’s somehow deranged, irrational, abnormal, unnatural, and sick for white gentiles to want to take control of their own racial, cultural, and national destinies in the lands founded, settled, and built by their own ancestors.

As Thomas Sowell noted, there is something ‘generic’ feelings surrounding minority middlemen and/or elites. Not only Jews but most minority elites have been resented in all places and all times. This has especially been the case when the minority elites refused to assimilate in any meaningful way and instead adamantly clung to their own identities, cultures, values, and historical narratives(instead of taking on the narrative of the majority). So, if there’s something generic about minority elites, there’s also something generic about majority masses. If we broaden the meaning of ‘Jews’ and ‘antisemitism’, we could say the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were the ‘Jews’ and that the Turks were(or eventually came to be) ‘antisemitic’ against the Armenians. We can say Chinese in Vietnam were the ‘Jews’ and the angry Vietnamese communists who forced them out to sea were the ‘antisemitic goyim’. The Boat People fiasco, like the Armenian massacre by Turks, wasn’t technically a genocide since there was no attempt on the part of the Vietnamese to wipe out the Chinese as a race. Turks came to fear Armenians when their empire was falling apart and when Christian Armenians were forming alliances with Russians to take a huge chunk of remaining Turkey. And Vietnamese communists — and even non-communist Vietnamese — had long resented both China as a nation and the Chinese as a successful and ethnocentric minority group. So, lots of Armenians and Chinese were expelled in huge numbers, and many came to a tragic end. By some estimates, 40% of the Boat People perished at sea, and some estimates put the toll of Armenian dead at 1.5 million(or even higher). Needless to say, Jews never felt any sympathy for Armenians, and Obama, the pet monkey of the Jews, reneged on his promise to the Armenian community to recognize the Armenian ‘genocide’. Obviously, his Jewish masters figured good relations with Turkey was more important than historical reckoning(unless it involves some Jewish tragedy). And recall that Jewish-Americans greeted the fall of Saigon and cheered for North Vietnamese communist takeover of all of Vietnam. When the Boat People fiasco happened — and the killing fields in Cambodia — , most Jews just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Don’t look at me", even though Jewish activists had done most to undermine US effort to contain the communists in Indochina. It’s amusing that Jews who bitch and whine endlessly about how they’d been targeted and persecuted as a minority elite through the ages feel almost no sympathy for other minority elites all over the world. When Soviet communists were rounding up and killing German minorities in Russia, Jews celebrated with blood-curdling lust — and this was before Hitler’s wars. And of course, when the successful Cuban business elites and middle classes were being driven out of Communist Cuba, Jewish-Americans sided with Castro and defamed Cuban exiles as blood-sucking capitalist leeches. Jewish hypocrisy knows no bounds. A middle class Cuban store-owner is a bloodsucking leech according to Jews, but none of us better say anything about billionaire Jewish tycoons who rob the entire world.

Jews are truly a rotten bunch(though, of course, this doesn’t apply to all Jews as there are some like Brother Nathanael. It’s wrong for anyone to be radically antisemitic). Jews are hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical, and hyper-suspicious about how others see them, but if others voiced criticism of Jewish attitudes, they would be attacked as ‘mentally sick’, ‘paranoid’, and ‘rabid and virulent’.

Neil Steinberg - Hideous Jew

Consider the loathsome Neil Steinberg and his worthless YOU WERE NEVER IN CHICAGO (CHICAGO VISIONS AND REVISIONS). In the book, he says the German-American community was pro-Nazi in the 1930s. Of course, there were elements within the German-American community that did have Nazi sympathies — more often for patriotic and ethnic than ideological reasons — , but most German-Americans were not pro-Nazi, and during World War II, they fought for America against the Germans. But notice how Steinberg paints with a broad brush and defames an entire community. Now, suppose someone were to say the Jewish-American community in much of the 20th century sided with the USSR, sympathized with communism, aided and abetted in Stalinism and Maoism, and etc. Jews would, of course, flip out and scream McCarthyism even though a far greater proportion of Jews supported the communist cause than German-Americans supported the Nazi cause. Also, whereas German-Americans loyally served America during World War II, so many Jewish-Americans did much to subvert US national security for the advantage of the USSR during WWII and the Cold War. After all, it was a network of nasty Jews who slipped atomic secrets to mass killer Stalin who’d just swallowed up all of Eastern Europe where Jewish communist agents were rounding up patriots and hanging them or locking them up in prisons or labor camps. (Steinberg also bitches about how Wasp golf clubs used to exclude Jews, but he never asks why Jews wanted to join an exclusive club in the the first place. If indeed so many successful Jews were so 'progressive', why did they want join a club distinguished for its privilege? And once Jews formed their own clubs, didn't they exclude blacks, browns, and yellows? I recall a Jewish golf club in Chicago even denied an application by Michael Jordan who was worth gazillions and the most famous athlete in America at the time. This was in the 1990s! So, Jordan was good enough to play for a Jewish-owned team but wasn't good enough to tee off with elite Jews. It's like Jews bitch about anti-immigration voices in Europe, but they have no problem with anti-gentile-immigration policies of Israel. One rule for themselves, another rule for everyone else. And with Jews using the homo-agenda as their proxy, they are going to become even more powerful and privileged. Jews who run the government, courts, media, and academia are now making it nearly impossible for anyone to succeed unless he or she signs onto the 'gay' agenda, especially nonsense like 'gay marriage'. This means that white conservatives and non-whites who are more traditional in their view of morality will have a harder time succeeding while remaining true to their creeds and convictions. They can either succeed by betraying their own values and bowing down to Jewish-Homo power, OR they can choose to remain in the margins since pro-normal people are no longer allowed to rise very high. The homo agenda is also useful to Jewish elites in driving a wedge between the white Left and the Third World that is pro-normal and anti-homo-agenda. If the 'gay agenda' becomes the defining theme of Western progressivism, it means that white 'leftists' will come to vilify and hate Third World folks such as Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Asian Christians, Hindus, Iranians, Africans, and South American Catholics who refuse to sign onto such lunacy. In the 60s and 70s, many Western leftists sympathized with the Third World against the rich West, even against Israel. But if the homo agenda becomes the core tenet of the new 'left' in the West and if homos are closely allied with the Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, then it means that the new 'left' will essentially be corporate-owned since both big money and the new 'progressivism' are mainly committed to pushing, above all else, the agenda of neo-aristocratic homos very closely allied with Jews. Thus, Western 'leftists' are now far less likely to sympathize with Palestinians solely on the basis that the latter don't support 'gay marriage'. Jews are indeed very clever, indeed like the sly general in PATHS OF GLORY.) But of course, we better not notice or remember all the dirty things done by Jews. Later in the book, Steinberg writes of his trip to Japan where his brother was working for some Japanese company. He concludes that the Japanese ‘hate, hate, and hate us’. His evidence? At a train station, some Japanese guy made a nasty remark about white folks, unaware that Steinberg’s brother understands Japanese. Of course, Japanese are known for their insularity and suspicious attitudes toward foreigners. But is it fair to say all Japanese ‘hate, hate, and hate us’ based on some anecdotal evidence? Is it right to characterize an entire people based on such a personal encounter? After all, haven’t Jews been lecturing to us about how it’s wrong to jump to conclusions about an entire people based on limited facts and personal experiences/biases? And yet, Jews feel free to draw such conclusions about everyone else. Now, suppose a Japanese-American went to Israel and had a few unpleasant encounters with Jews. Or suppose she grew up in a community with a large number of Jewish-Americans and was treated rather nastily by some JAPS, Jewish American Princesses in this case. Suppose she writes a book saying that Jews ‘hate, hate, and hate us’. How would Jews react to such a book? Would Jews who dominate publishing in this country even allow such a book to be printed? Would the newspaper that hires the Japanese-American journalist even keep her on? I think not. So, Jews can shit on others, but others better just suck up to Jews. Steinberg also bitches that the Japanese company that hired his brother didn’t keep him on for long. But if anyone were to complain that many elite institutions dominated by Jews do everything to keep the power in Jewish hands, of course, he or she would be accused of ‘rabid and virulent antisemitism’. I mean Jews are so fair-minded and inclusive, which is why the Fed is now run by Mexican-Americans and why Hollywood elites are made up of blacks and southern white Baptists. (Interestingly enough, the politics of giving and taking offense is fraught with all kinds of problems. In the most obvious sense, giving offense involves physical violence and naked aggression. But even among animals, the psychology of offense often deviates from obvious physicality. Even when an animal intends no harm, offense may be taken by other animals that either misread the signals or live by different signals. So, a signal that might be non-aggressive in one species or a pack might be seen as offensive by another species or pack. And between humans and animals, we see such ‘misunderstandings’ all the time. Humans may mean no harm, but animals — even household pets like dogs and cats — may take it as harmful. Or animals may intend no harm, but humans may see it take it offensively. Consider when cats capture animals and bring them inside the house. The cat may actually ‘think’ it’s doing a favor for the family by bringing it food, but humans may react to horror and punish the cat. Different cultures have different modes of behavior, manners, customs, conduct, propriety, etiquette, and taboos. So, what might be ordinary in one culture or clique may be offensive in another culture or clique. And then, there’s the matter of ideology. So, even though human ideas and values are meant to unite people, they can just as easily divide people along so many lines. A Negro who acts loud and brash may just be acting natural, but many cultures are bound to find that sort of thing offensive. An Americanized Hindu who goes back to India and talks like an American might offend Hindus who expect different behavior from younger folks. A Westernized Muslim might give offense to traditional Muslims back home. A Japanese who lived in Brazil for many years might be thought of as boorish and strange by Japanese who only know Japanese-ness. So, much of what is considered ‘offensive’ is particular, strange, and irrational. And consider the power of words. Why should a word like ‘nigger’, ‘kike’, ‘raghead’, ‘chink’, ‘dothead’, and ‘Polack’ be offensive? They are just sounds, and they mean nothing. What is the difference between a ‘black person’ and a ‘nigger’? And yet, certain words are considered to be slurs and do strike people as offensive. Some words are meant to be objective and neutral whereas some words are taken as caricature-ish and exaggerated. So, a ‘black person’ denotes a person of sub-Saharan African ancestry but ‘nigger’ suggest some jive-ass funky ‘coon’ mofo who be running wild like an ape and acting like Mike Tyson. And yet, this causes problems among blacks because blacks find neutrality and objectivity to be so white, vanilla, flavorless, bland, and dull. Blacks like to define their essence in terms of its expressiveness, wildness, funkiness, charismatics, colorfulness, and etc. So, blackness is often featured even by blacks themselves in a manner that is spicy, wild, funky, and jigger-jiverish. But such expressions and attitudes tend to be caricature-ish and overlap with caricatures of ‘niggerishness’. Jews feel this way too in many ways. After all, the objective and standard image of man in the Western man tends to be Greco-Roman-Aryan whereas Semitic Jews, like their Arab cousins, have funny big noses and curly hair. Also, the standard white manner of behavior is straightness whereas the Jewish style tends to be haggly-waggly and hagada-nagada, with all the hand-gesturing and nastiness. In Marx Brothers movies, the Wasps are presented as straight, upright, and objective characters — which much hypocrisy, of course — whereas the essence of Jewishness is presented as wildly caricature-ish and colorful. It could be that many whites, both Liberal and Conservative, are being won over to the homos since fruitkins, more than blacks and Jews, have gone furthest to suppress their caricature-ish side and act ‘white-bread’. The ‘gay community’ used to be defined by its flaming fruiters who were shameless in their strutting and prancing around. While flaming homos were acting in such manner in the 70s and 80s, many closeted homos were working ‘silently’ and diligently to gain access to the elite positions of power. Once they came out of the closet, they acted more respectable than the flaming homos, and these out-of-closet homos have replaced the flaming fruitcake queer style with the ‘white bread’ or ‘white buns’ style that could almost be mistaken for ‘conservative’. Indeed, some such homos even find the entire tranny-transvestite-or-whatever culture embarrassing. Indeed, there’s a concerted effort to turn ‘trans-gender’ folks into respectable straight-laced folks than embarrassing flaming caricatures that so many transvestites in the past played to the hilt without shame. If middle class Negroes lost the culture war to the jive ass ‘ghetto’ blacks and if Rap culture came to define even middle class black culture, out-of-the-closet respectable upper-middle-class homos seem to have won the culture war against the flaming queers who openly and shamelessly embraced the caricatured styles of homosexuality and transvestitism in street theater politics. Indeed, homos use political correctness like the Catholic Church once used censorship to keep everyone in line. They are fussy than hussy. So, oddly enough, homos are the minority group that most fully embraced the ‘objective’ style of the white mainstream community, and this may be due to the fact that most of the powerful homos are white. When one looks at fruitkins like Tim Cook of Apple, one could almost mistake him for a Mormon. Anyway, the politics of giving and taking offense is thorny and troubled since so much of human reality is about perceptions, and perceptions are shaped by emotions, and emotions are shaped by cultural influences and indoctrination. Consider how ‘Negro’ used to be a standard words for blacks, and blacks were not offended. But now, it’s become sort of a ‘slur’. Consider a time when ‘Oriental’ didn’t mean anything nasty, but ever since Edward Said wrote ORIENTALISM, every dumbass Asian idiot is saying it’s offensive to use that word. The force of slurs is also shaped by the self-image of various groups. Why is ‘honkey’ deemed less offensive than ‘nigger’, ‘kike’, ‘Jap’, or ‘spick’? Ironically, it’s based on the unspoken assumption — even among Liberals on the subconscious level — that whites are superior to other races. So, if non-whites make fun of whites, it’s not so offensive since it’s assumed that whites look better than non-whites. As whiteness has become the standard image of humanness, it doesn’t seem very offensive to caricature white looks. But since it’s assumed that blacks, yellows, Jews, and Meso-Americans are uglier, it seems more hurtful for a white person to make fun of their looks and call them bad names. It’s like if a midget made fun of a normal person, it’d hardly be offensive since a normal person looks normal. But if a normal person made fun of a midget, it seems cruel since it’s assumed that the midget is misshapen and should be the object of pity than cruelty. Of course, standards change over time. What with blacks being so dominant in sports and the sex game, it could be that black maleness has become the new standard of optimum and ideal manhood. That being the case, it may be more offensive for a black guy to call a white guy a ‘white boy’ than for a white guy to call a black guy a ‘nigger’, especially since ‘niggaz’ are the super-dude-stud-thugs of Rap culture that has the attention and devotion of kids of all color. Indeed, increasing numbers of white women go with black men and want to have mulatto children since they now believe that black malehood is superior to white malehood. They’d rather have babies with the likes of Kanye West than with the likes of Bono. This is why the white race is doomed if it doesn’t do something about Jews and Negroes who are working in tandem to undermine, conquer, and subjugate the white race culturally, politically, economically, morally, and sexually. But as Ramzpaul eloquently argues in his video, too many white Conservatives are too dumb to know who their real enemies are. They are too addicted to Jew-worship, MLK-worship, Rap music worship, and sports dominated by black athletes and owned by Jewish tycoons. Anyway, given the psycho-politics of offensiveness, anything can be potentially offensive or construed as offensive. Furthermore, some people have a compulsive need to feel offended since it justifies their own view of the world. It makes them feel justified as victims, as the persecuted, as the wronged, as the hated, and etc. If some people want to break off a relationship, they provoke others into saying or doing things that could be construed as ‘offensive’. That way, the other side can be blamed than oneself. It’s like the guy in AFTERHOURS provokes the Rosanne Arquette character into being nasty to him so he could end their affair. Consider the David Mamet film OLEANNA where some deranged dimwit young woman who can’t keep up academically tries to justify herself by acting the victim of the sexual harassment of the professor. Morality is necessary, but like anything else, it can become cancerous and metastize out-of-control. It’s like it’s natural for human cells to duplicate and multiply since new cells have to replace old ones, but this natural and necessary mechanism can go out-of-whack and start growing and growing, turning into a cancerous tumor that proves fatal. Similarly, human emotions, perceptions, and ideas can become cancerous. Even good ideas can become cancerous when they lose their sense of balance and limits. Diversity is a good idea, and every society has something to gain from some degree of diversity. But when diversity becomes cancerous, the mechanism goes out of control like the brooms and mops in THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE in FANTASIA. A good idea can become a monomaniacal idea that dominate every aspect of discourse and policy. So, the body politic begins to sniff around for lack of sufficient ‘diversity’ in various fields and insists on more and more diversity even when it’s doing far more harm than good. In the NFL, there’s no shortage of blacks, but the cult of ‘diversity’ always looks for new evidence of ‘not enough blacks’, thus ‘not enough diversity’. So, never mind that many positions are all-black. Instead, the bitching is about not-enough-black-quarterbacks, though there doesn’t seem to be any bitching about not-enough-black-kickers. Socialism had some good ideas but turned cancerous with communism. Race-ism had many valid truths but turned cancerous in the minds of men like Adolf Hitler. Just as the radical disease of cancer must be met with drastic means, radical movements must be met with drastic resistance. But what kind of ‘conservatives’ do we have in America? Boneheads who bow down to the radical agendas of Jewish supremacists and homo-narcissist-neo-aristocrats. And then, there’s the cancerous ‘support the troops’ mentality among Conservatives, as if it’s some great patriotic duty to wave Old Glory whenever a bunch of Zionist weasels in Washington cook up another war for gentiles to fight and kill and die in. The current mania about ‘micro-aggressions’ and ‘trigger warnings’ are cases of offenditis, a form of psycho-cultural cancer where so many people, having been indoctrinated with victimological political correctness, feel a compulsive need to feel offended and victimized. So, if they find no obvious offense in society, they must take the microscope to society and find ‘micro-aggressions’ that may be ‘racist’ in nature. Or they fret about possible ‘triggers’ that might ‘traumatize’ people. Homos are convinced that people who refuse to bend over to ‘gay marriage’ are mentally ill phobic lunatics who are out to round up the homos. Among American Conservatives, there’s this crazy need to believe that Sharia Law is just around the corner. This ludicrous fantasy also has the added fantasy-advantage of making Conservatives believe that a Jewish-Christian alliance may be in the making since Israel also has problems with Muslims. And of course, Jews, especially via ADL, $PLC, and New York Times, see ‘anti-Semites’ everywhere who are conspiring to set off another Holocaust. If anything, what is truly astounding about America is that so many Americans love and worship Jews — like Winston Smith loved Big Brother — when, in fact, Jews have done so much to undermine and destroy the power and interests of white America. So, there’s no clear rule as to what is and isn’t offensive. If someone bites your ears and punches you in the face, he has clearly offended you. But depending on shifting/varying cultural norms and political correctness, just about anything can be construed as hateful or offensive depending on who controls the media, academia, courts, and government. Consider the journalist who was fired because he used the word ‘homo’. There was a time when such a term wasn’t offensive at all, but now, some homos are saying even the word ‘homosexual’ is offensive. Homos wanna be called ‘gay’. This is all very confusing since homos — who should be called inversexuals — insist that homosexuality is biologically rooted and not a cultural/lifestyle choice. And yet, many homos don’t like the term ‘homosexuals’ because it emphasizes the biology of homosexuality. Homos want to pretend that their identity is essentially cultural. Very confusing, but such is the essence of aristocratic logic or ‘aristogic’. Aristocrats in the past played all sorts of nuanced and subtle games with manners, words, and norms so that anything could be anything depending on how they spun it. Consider Martin Scoresese’s film of AGE OF INNOCENCE based on the Edith Wharton novel. To the naked eye, the characters just seem like rich folks having a good time. But the voice-over narration keys us into the unspoken but indispensable rules that govern the elite community of rich wasps — though, some of the actors are actually Jewish or half-Jewish. Depending how the rules are spun and fashions are imposed, any gesture or word can be good or bad. Homos play the same kind of game. They play funny games with the rules with their dainty fingers so that we are, on the one hand, led to believe that homosexuality is biologically rooted and cannot be altered by culture, and yet, on the other hand, we are to think of homos as a cultural community.)

Anyway, ‘antisemitism’ is normal and natural. It is the default attitude and outlook of any majority population that wants to be in control of their own social realm under the rule of elites who come from their own communities. Indeed, isn’t that the essence of representative democracy and republic? To run for office for a certain district, province, state, region, or whatever, the politician must come from that community and must be of that community. Wisconsin folks want someone who is from Wisconsin to represent Wisconsin. Texans want their own kind to represent Texas. Jews, of course, know and fear this, and this is why Jews prefer oligarchy to democracy. Since Jews control the big money and big media, they can make or break any politician in all fifty states. So, even though American politicians come from their local communities, they come to serve the interests of Jewish elites in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and even in places like Tel Aviv and London. Like Sal went over to Barzini — perceived to be the new boss in town — in THE GODFATHER, most politicians go over to the kinds of people who run ADL, AIPAC, and New York Times. Is it any surprise that Orrin Hatch the Mormon recently said ‘gay marriage’ is law of the land and nothing can be done about it? Who does he represent? Fellow Mormons in Utah or the Jewish-Homo or Jomo elites who run New York and San Francisco? By the way, when ‘gay marriage’ was banned in all 50 states, did Jews and homos just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, that’s just the law of the land, so we might as just quit."? No, they stuck to their agenda and kept fighting. But how come American Conservatives are such craven cowards who just resign themselves to Jomo supremacy and act like Sal in THE GODFATHER? They are ‘Conservatives’, not true conservatives. They are scum prostitutes.

Anyway, what is truly sick and deranged in America is the absence of antisemitism. Though we must be careful to not allow antisemitism metastize into something as sinister as Nazism, it is only natural, normal, and healthy for us to notice Jewish power and see it for what it is. We must be willing to fight back. One thing for sure, if any gentile minority community in Israel sought to gain the kind of power in Israel that Jews have over US and EU — and are seeking to gain in Russia — , the Jewish majority would most certainly unite and be vociferously ‘antisemitic’ against the hostile gentile minority would-be-elites. Jews are not stupid. But so many white gentiles seem to be downright retarded. After WWII and the Holocaust, it made good sense to feel sympathy for Jews. But this sympathy, a good thing in and of itself, has turned cancerous. It has turned into blind, mindless, and obedient worship of a people who are hellbent on destroying white power, white interests, and white survival. White folks need to stop being dumb and wake up. They need to think their own thoughts and see their own reality instead of relying on hideous Jews to control their hearts, minds, and bodies.

Scum whore Sarah Palin with Jewish Star even though Jews endlessly dickslap her dumb goy self.

The Conspiratorial Style in American Politics

Richard Hofstadter wrote a famous essay — followed by a book — on the ‘Paranoid Style of American Politics’. Of course, being a good Jewish liberal, his target was the American Right, but in reality, the ‘paranoid style’ was no less prevalent on the American Left as on the American Right. But the powers-that-be in the academia and media decide what is ‘extreme’ and ‘paranoid’ and what isn’t. One’s man paranoia is another’s truth, and vice versa. Though Hofstadter wasn’t wrong about problems of the American Right, the term ‘paranoia’, like ‘phobia’, has a way of shutting off than expanding debate. After all, who wants to be accused of ‘paranoia’ and ‘extremism’? When the powers-that-be in the academia and media label some people thus, most ‘respectable’ people distance themselves from the reviled group regardless of whether the charge is true or false. One might call this the ‘hysteric style of American politics’.

While there were undoubtedly elements of the American Right that were indeed paranoid and partial to outlandish theories of hidden international plots, it also needs to be asked why such mind-sets existed in the first place. Also, we must remind ourselves that the ‘paranoid style’ can accompany the telling of hard facts. Style isn’t the same thing as substance. After all, one can tell the truth hysterically and stupidly, and one can tell the lie soberly and intelligently. Within that context, Hofstadter’s essay hints as to why the American Right became so disreputable in intellectual circles in the post-war era. It wasn’t so much what they said but how — the style — with which they said it. And the posterboy of this style was Joseph McCarthy — and then the grumpy-looking Barry Goldwater. History would prove many of McCarthy’s allegations to have been true, but his style was so often boorish and extreme that he even made the truth sound ‘hysterical’ and outlandish, not to mention ugly. Style matters in politics as in boxing and dancing. Politics isn’t just about the what but the how. In contrast, many radical and extreme Jewish intellectuals of the post-war era tended to have an intelligent and sober styles. Though some were stooges of the USSR while others adopted all kinds of paranoid and conspiratorial stances against American society and power, they put forth the image of diligent and thoughtful intellectualism. And indeed, despite their radical ideologies, some of them were diligent and sober, at least in their role as cultural and social critics. The counterpart of such people in Britain was the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm who was a hardline Stalinist radical but carried out his duty as professor and historian with great dedication and commitment. So, even when the substance of Jewish ideologues may be radical and extreme, they’ve earned great respect by playing the role of genuine thinkers and intellectuals. In contrast, many ideologues of the American Right in the post-war era seemed stupid and extreme because they lacked intellectual credentials and manners. Even if they were right about the communist threat, they came across as know-nothing philistines whose ideology was little more than Old Glory and Apple Pie. Their entire creed seemed to little more than ‘better dead than red’. (Of course, the 60s saw the rise of the firebrand radicals who turned off much of America. If not for the hippies and yippies in 1968, Humphrey probably would have won the election. The crazy style of leftist politics in the late 60s certainly offended Middle America and paved the wave of Republican victories for the Presidency until 1992. Carter won in 1976 — just barely — thanks only to Watergate and Ford’s pardoning of Nixon. Because of the mess created by the crazy style of leftist politics in the 60s, damage control had to be carried out by an older radical who believed in the effectiveness of the sober and respectable style. That man was. of course, Saul Alinsky, who was already middle aged when the young radicals of the 60s were calling the police ‘pigs’ and flashing the middle finger at Middle America. He taught the youngsters to stop acting crazy and to put on three piece suits and gradually normalize and mainstream-ize radicalism by wrapping socialism and anti-white-ism with the American flag. And he proved to be one of the architects of the revival of the Left in the late 80s through today. To be sure, the notion of the ‘long march through the institutions’ is somewhat misleading. Though traditional liberals didn’t see eye to eye with many boomer radicals, the fact remains that the liberal establishment in the media and academia were nevertheless more sympathetic to boomer radicals than to boomer conservatives. And so, boomer radicals didn’t have to struggle much to take over the institutional thrones in the 80s and 90s. Traditional liberals had long warmed the seats for them. A show like WILL & GRACE is pure Alinksyism mixed with Gramsci-ism in action. On the other hand, one can argue that the Left didn’t win the war either. As is so often the case, when something tries to take power by pretending to be something else, it essentially becomes that something else, though the synthesis is far from pure. A good example of this would be modern Japan. Japanese originally Westernized to use Western ways to preserve and strengthen the Japanese way, but Japan become a Westernized, if not Western, nation. Even Japan’s mad efforts to ward off the West and ‘protect Asia’ was by Western means of aggressive imperialism, especially against China. In the 80s, Deng in China and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union sought to adopt elements of capitalism to strengthen their communist systems, but China eventually became more capitalist than communist, and the structures of Soviet Union buckled under the reforms and soon collapsed until communist ideology effectively became moot. Similarly, the American Left isn’t really truly leftist anymore. In attempting to use mainstream symbols and styles to take power, it took the power and merged far too much with the mainstream to effect revolutionary change in the name of the masses. Leftists who sought to practice and use capitalism against capitalism found themselves raking in so much cash, power, and influence via capitalism that they became addicted to capitalism. The ropes with which they were going to hang the capitalists were tailored into neckties by homos and hangs around their own necks. To be sure, the new mainstream isn’t the old mainstream, but the new-new ‘left’ isn’t the old left or even the New Left of the 60s. Do Jewish radicals with billions in cash really want a revolution to overthrow the capitalist class? Do they really want social-democracy that taxes them at 90%? Do affluent urban Jews and homos really want to see the masses of white poor & working class, black underclass, and Hispanic poor rise up in anger? Anyway, if the sober and respectable style did wonders for the Left in institutional circles — where drudgery and diligence are of great importance, as much of academics and bureaucratic culture is about grinding away through stacks of papers — , it didn’t suit the Liberals so much in national politics. Adlai Stevenson may have been more intelligent and knowledgeable than General Eisenhower, but Americans during the Cold War felt safer with a manly general than some egghead. Kennedy won in 1960 thanks to his freshness and charisma, and the memory of his passing won the election for Johnson in 1964. But as the Cold War heated up and American streets were on fire and filling up with criminal thugs, Americans wanted commanders, not nice guys. Humphrey was a nice guy. McGovern was a nice guy. Carter was a nice guy and just barely won in 1976 because of Nixon scandals and Ford being even a nicer guy than Carter. But Carter was handily defeated by Reagan the tough guy, who then easily defeated Mondale the super-nice guy. And Dukakis the nice guy got throttled by Bush the nasty guy. Clinton finally figured out that the nice style of national Democratic politics wasn’t a winner and played the tough guy, and he won twice. Gore was not a nice guy, but he made the same mistake that Nixon and Goldwater made respectively in 1960 and 1964. Americans like tough guys with nice smiles, not frigid frowns. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama perfected the tough-guy-with-the-nice-smile style. Gore was hampered in 2000 by Clinton fatigue and stock market slump, but he would have won if he didn’t come across as such a mean tough guy. His toughness seemed of a bullying kind, and people sympathized with Bush the nice guy. Bush won in 2004 because Kerry was even a nicer guy. By ‘nice’, of course we don’t mean that all these politicians are nice people. We are talking of styles. John Edwards is a sleazebag, but his problem was he came across as too nice and bland, rather like the Jack Tripper character on THREE’S COMPANY.)

Why is the paranoid style so appealing to large segments of the population? It is due to the nature of power in a complex system. If we all lived in a tribal-communal village, there would be little need for the paranoid style. Everyone would take part in and be part of the political process, which would be transparent in terms of why this guy is chief and that guy isn’t. Everyone would know everyone, and indeed they could all be related one way or another by blood. Even the lowest member of the village would greet the tribal chief everyday and even go on hunts with him. In such a world, paranoia would be useless. In such communities, there’s more likely to be paranoia about the mysterious forces of nature and diseases, about which primitive folks know little. In this sense, religions first arose as paranoia about nature. Why did earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and etc. happen? Primitive man had no way of knowing, and so he imagined dark and mysterious forces governing the world around them. Since these forces were thought to be supernatural, paranoia turned to worship and plea for mercy.

Things are different in the modern world. While we still fear natural disasters, we don’t fear the mechanisms of nature(as dark mysterious forces) since we have a pretty good scientific understanding of why it rains and why volcanos sometimes erupt. It’s all due to the laws of nature, i.e. there is no mysterious force, almighty or sinister, behind them. Even religious people accept the facts of geology and the scientific understanding of hurricanes and the like.
But if we no longer feel paranoia about the ways of nature, we experiences pangs of paranoia when it comes to the power of man because we live in complex social, economic, and political systems. Though we can see the official faces of power in the media, it’s only natural and even smart of us to wonder what is the real power behind those faces. Are the talking heads who read the news on TV the real controllers of the media? Are Hollywood movie stars the real power-holders in Hollywood? Are pop scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson really the best scientists in the world? Are politicians and elected officials really the most powerful people in America? Is the American president really the most powerful man in the world? Of course, to some extent, the official faces of power wield real power and influence.
But is it foolish or wrong for us to wonder as to the real nature of power given that our socio-economic and political world is such a complex system of networks and associations? So, who has the real power in America? Though such query can lead to genuine paranoia and ridiculous theories, is the Naive or Gullible Style of American Politics what we really want? Do we really want to take at face value all the truisms and factoids fed to us by the official organs of the media and government? Was it really the modest summer heat that shut down the Oak Street beach a few yrs back as reported by Chicago Tribune and the Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office? Or was it ‘youths’ attacking white people at random? Is it true that ‘youths’ and ‘teens’ — euphemisms for blacks thugs — are wreaking havoc on some streets all across America? Is it true that the KKK is lurking around Oberlin University? Is our system really meritocratic? What is the true nature and extent of Jewish power in America? Why do Jews seem so powerful but deny they are powerful? What was the truth about MLK and how did he become a sacred icon in American culture and politics, and who made it so?

Though many people still believe in God and His control over nature, the kind of power that most modern people are concerned about is the power of man, and the most powerful men happen to reside in the metropolises of the most advanced and complex societies. They are so complex that we can only learn of their true nature after years of study, but then, even study and research in the modern West are directed and guided by the powers-that-be, e.g. most top journalism students are taught by Liberal Jewish professors who prefer to push agendas than pursue any kind of ‘objective’ truth.
So, given all these complexities, everyone is bound to feel some degree of ‘paranoid style’ when it comes to his or her thoughts about the nature of power. In some systems, it’s pretty clear who had the real power. Stalin ruled the USSR, Hitler consolidated control of Nazi Germany by the late 30s, and Mao had a firm grip on China from 1949 to his death in 1976.
Of course, paranoia isn’t only what the people feel about the powers-that-be but what the powers-that-be feel about the people and other spheres of power. Stalin to his dying day was a paranoid, but his paranoia was as necessary as it was crazy. He often suspected the wrong people and had ‘innocent’ people killed, but he also never forgot that the Bolsheviks came to power through subversion, intrigue, and terror. And he knew that, in the absence of rule of law in the USSR, the power struggle had to be won largely through conspiracies and secret alliances and coalitions. He knew he had to outmaneuver those who might be trying to do the same thing to him. In this game, the most cunning and ruthless would win, and Stalin won. But he made a lot of enemies along the way and was surrounded by men who might potentially stab him in the back, just as Julius Caesar was killed by his ‘friends’. In a game of zero-sum power-struggle — where the losing side could be annihilated without mercy — , it was always better to be paranoid and safe than trusting and sorry. The mentality was that of gangsters, the kind we see in GOODFELLAS and CASINO where the various personalities outwardly act like they’re all friends but secretly make moves to gain an extra inch. Excessive paranoia can be paralytic — as with the case of Howard Hughes — , but no one survives or gets anywhere in a world of gangsters without being at least semi-paranoid. In a dog-eat-dog world, obsessive sniffing is as important as constant barking.

While the world of democratic politics and civil society may work according to the Rule of Law and the freedom of information, those factors can paradoxically lead to even more paranoia. Whether one likes Hitler, Stalin, and Mao or not, one could at least be sure in Nazi Germany, USSR of the 30s and 40s, and China of the 50s to mid 70s that, respectively, the Hitler regime, Stalin regime, and Mao regime were in power. But who’s really in power in America? The president and other politicians? Big businessmen? Big media? Academia and the intellectual class? The high-tech industry? Of course, there is no single locus of power in America. Instead, American power is the sum of all the networks and interconnections of various powers. So, all groups have some degree of power and influence, and they must all rely on alliances and coalitions with other groups. Even so, we know that not all groups are equally powerful or influential. American Buddhists aren’t as powerful as American Christians. There are many more Christians than Buddhists obviously. And there are many more white Americans than American Indians. But not all power is quantitative. Some groups, especially Jews and homos, have power far beyond their numbers. Jews control much of Wall Street, Big Media, top law firms, elite colleges, Washington, Silicon Valley, Big retail, and etc. Homos have their place in elite business circles, creative pursuits, and upper echelons of government as either bureaucrats or aids to big-name politicians. Whispering into the ears of a big time politician may be more of a penetrative act for a homosexual than buggering some guy in the ass.

Paranoids see conspiracies everywhere, and oftentimes, they fantasize about conspiracies that simply don’t exist and never existed. But, in a way, it’s natural for us to imagine being surrounded by conspiracies since we live a complex world that seems, on the one hand, so atomized and alienated, and on the other hand, so united and harmonic. The rise of modern individualism and self-centrism has cut many or even most of us from our roots, from a sense of organic community. We are all strangers, especially in big cities. But non-stop stream of popular culture and much hyped ideological causes bring masses of people together to push for ‘gay marriage’ and participate in ‘gay pride’ — even if they are not homos themselves. Fans of a movie star will flock to the same place to catch a glimpse of him or her. Many people watch the same TV shows and feel part of the same community, and fictional characters can seem almost like real friends. This accounts for the success of HARRY POTTER, TWILIGHT, and other such series. Social networking has greatly expanded this sense of shared community. Facebook, for example, has redefined the meaning of ‘friend’ and has even turned it into a verb. A friend is no longer a fixed person you know personally but a cyber-presence that can slip in and out of your circle of networks. The atomized and alienated part of us feels paranoid because we wonder, as Joseph K did in THE TRIAL, about the true nature of the system that we live in. But the united and harmonic side of us is also liable to feel bouts of paranoia because we know that the entire communities formed by popular culture and social networking can’t really be real. There’s something weird about so many people so obsessed with celebrities who don’t know them or care about them. And as those celebrities ‘perform stunts’ in music and movies — strutting around as sexy thugs or running around with big guns — , we know it’s all fantasy. Yet, many people really seem to be taken in by this power of fantasy, and there are many devious social scientists and psychologists who eagerly tap into this facet of mass psychology to formulate more effective means of social and public manipulation. Thus, there is a conspiratorial nature to power in America.

Of course, we need to be careful about what we mean by ‘conspiracy’. If it means small groups of ‘sinister’ people coming together secretly behind closed doors to hatch an ‘evil’ plot, we know such things happen all the time in business and politics(and also within religious organizations), but we also know that it’s not always easy to define what is and isn’t a conspiracy. Must conspiracies violate the Rule of Law? Or can conspiracies be perfectly legal? After all, one can argue that there was a hidden and concerted effort on the part of the MSM to vilify Sarah Palin and lionize Barack Obama. Since such bias was perfectly legal, was it or wasn’t it a conspiracy? Also, people can also conspire to do what they believe to be goo(though others may disagree as to the goodness of the objective in question). In a way, the Rosa Parks story was a conspiracy. The official narrative was that a tired black woman just wanted a seat on the bus but a white redneck harassed her, and she proudly stood, or sat, her ground. But in fact, Rosa Parks had planned the whole incident ahead of time with MLK and members of the communist party. One can say it was morally justified, but the real story was something other than what many people were led to believe. And MLK phenomenon could also said to have been a conspiracy. He was favored by liberal and leftist professors who overlooked his plagiarism. He was put on the fast-track to lead the Civil Rights Movement. His boorish and thug-like ways were suppressed and hidden by the big media, indeed even by the government that had the dirt on him, which was considerable. He was used as a Trojan or Brojan Horse to fool the white public into thinking that blacks only wanted peace and harmony. It was rather like the Peace Movements in the West that was secretly funded by the Soviet Union in order to disarm Western resistance against communist aggression; notice that while US was condemned for its ‘aggression’ in Vietnam, the peace-mongers applauded the aggression of North Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge. While promoting communist agitation and revolution around the world, the Soviets used Western front groups to spread the message of Peace. So, even though communists were being aggressive in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the liberal and ‘progressive’ people of the West were used as useful idiots marching for Peace. So, if communists come charging, don’t fight back but just throw flowers at the conquerors. This culminated in the communist victory in Vietnam. Though North Vietnam and its sponsor nation China and USSR were the aggressors while US was trying to defend South Vietnam and Cambodia, the narrative of the Peace Movement made Americans the aggressors and the Vietnamese people, of North and South, as hapless victims of ‘American Imperialism’. And in the 80s, the so-called Peace Movement groups in the US marched for reducing military spending and hands-off approach in Latin America where Marxist rebels were planning to topple governments. Again, the Peace Movement overlooked the aggression of the Marxists and placed all the burden of Peace on America. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it finally came to light that most of these Peace groups had indeed been fronts for the USSR. Of course, the issue was complicated by the possibility that most people who joined the movement were sincere in their support. Indeed, not everyone involved in a conspiracy are IN on the conspiracy. Consider the movie MEET JOHN DOE where so many people sincerely come to embrace the virtues of Doe-ism and are utterly ignorant of the machinations of the whole thing by a rich fat guy. Capra also worked in paranoid anti-conspiracy mode in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. Of course, one could also argue that those films themselves were part of the conspiracy by the powers-that-be in order to assure the American public that America is indeed a good nation when push comes to shove, i.e. the good guys do finally win in the end, and America is saved from tyranny and corruption. It’s possible that most people — especially at the lower levels — who worked for Bernie Madoff had no idea of what was really happening. And all of this happened for so long in the cultural and financial capital of America and the ‘free world’. Madoff got away with so much for so long in partnership with so many famous and respected people while running what was nothing more than a massive ponzi-pyramid scheme; as long as he was stuffing billions into Jewish pockets and causes, he was a much-liked guy. And there was the Enron scandal in which many Republicans were involved. If Enron crooks finally ended up behind bars, it seems most Wall Street crooks — many of them Jews — got off the hook. We’ve all heard the phrase, ‘Too big to fail’. But isn’t such a rationale part of the conspiracy? Could it mean ‘too Jewish to fail’? Doesn’t it mean that Jewish Wall Street has its claws so deeply inside Washington that there is nothing the latter can do about it? Worse, especially pertaining to the collapse of the housing/financial bubble, it seems that the legal, extra-legal, and illegal are so closely bound together in Wall Street and Washington that it’s no longer possible to tell which is the healthy tissue, which is the cancerous tumor; what is the conspiracy and what is the clean-up operation?
In most movie conspiracies, there is a specific cabal of evildoers with fiendish smirks who need to be defeated in order for the system to be restored to health. But in reality, we are no longer sure what is good and what is bad, what is truth and what is a lie. When Wasps held much of the upper echelons of power and Jews were rapidly making their climb, the tension between Wasp power/privilege and Jewish ambition/ferocity may have produced the golden age of journalism and intellectual seriousness. Not that people in the 60s and 70s were all a bunch of shining idealists, but Jews and their allies really did ask big questions about the nature of power in America. Wasps held sway over much of the government and even academia whereas Jews had control of much of the media and was gaining in academia. But today, it’s Jews controlling Wall Street, law firms, big media, Washington, high-tech, big pharma, Hollywood, and much else. Long ago, Jews were anxious about rocking the boat(at least too hard) because they didn’t want to stir up ‘antisemitism’. But Jews gained the courage in the 60s and made a lot of noise, much of it obnoxious and crazy but much of it informative, insightful, and necessary. Today, Jews again don’t wanna rock the boat, but this time, because they themselves have most of the power. Is this a kind of conspiracy? Not in the strict technical sense, but when there’s a wink-wink understanding among the various power centers in America networked along tribal lines, we can’t help but suspect a kind of low-burner world of secret power all around us. Indeed, when a group holds so much power, even silence and lack of action can be part of the coordination if not of an outright conspiracy. For example, suppose Rick Sanchez was attacked as a ‘communist’ and fired from his job. The mass media would have gone into a tizzy and brought up the ghosts of McCarthyism, and there would have been a massive counter-red-baiting campaign. But when Rick Sanchez was accused of ‘antisemitism’ for speaking truth to Jewish power and lost his job, much of the mass media just gave him the cold shoulder, the silent treatment. The media have the power to both stir up controversies and to bury them. Rick Sanchez was effectively blacklisted, and there was a minor controversy, but the story gained no ‘traction’ because the media just decided to forget that he was gone. He was ‘disappeared’, as if without a trace, as if he’d never worked for MSM and been one of the big ‘brown’ hopes. The current climate of blacklisting and ‘disappearing’ people is far more dangerous than the so-called ‘red scare’ during the McCarthy Era. Joe McCarthy at least openly declared war on communists and over-extended his reach. Though McCarthy didn’t always play fair and made some outlandish accusations, he never hid what he was trying to do. In contrast, Jews who silence, demote, fire, and blacklist politically incorrect voices never declared a war on free speech, free inquiry, and controversy. They just stick in the knife and bleed their victims in silence. Or, they orchestrate outrage in such a way that the demand to have someone fired or blacklisted materializes from the ‘good people with good conscience’ than from the actual powers that be. This is where punditocracy is very useful, indeed more so than politicians in some cases. If you don’t wanna seem the tyrant by acting nasty, train the dogs to do the barking for you. McCarthy was a politician who barked, so it seemed as if the government itself was going after free speech and civil liberties. In contrast, when powerful Jews shame someone via their control of punditocracy and celebrity culture, what is generated is popular outrage among the masses of sheep and barking/running dogs, and the overall public impression will be that the fallen(the blacklisted) was rejected by the People.

Perhaps, there is a need for us to think paranoid-istically since so much of power is carried out conspiratorially. We cannot be entirely free of ‘paranoia’ since the powers-that-be can never be free of conspiratoriality. In a democracy, it’s foolish for us to stupidly and naively trust the power-that-be. Nor can we simply rely on the mainstream media, which should really be called the Jewish media, to report the news honestly. When Jews rule finance and government and when Jews control the media, why would Jews air out their dirty Jewish laundry? If US were 90% to 100% Jewish, I suppose angry Jews in the media would call foul on rotten Jews in government and finance. But Jews are only 2% of the US population. Even or especially because of all the power they have, they feel anxious and vulnerable as an elite minority. Even if some Jews in the media want to blow the whistle on rotten Jews in Wall Street and Washington, they are afraid that such a revelation will lead to the rise of ‘antisemitism’ and lend fuel to masses of goyim who might finally wake up and boldly challenge Jewish power. Even decent and idealistic Jews are Jews first and idealists second. (Charles Lindbergh led an organization called America First. Jewish power might as well be called Jews First.) And even the most liberal Jew is tribally proud of the fact that his/her kind has come to own and control the most powerful nation in the world. They are so stunned by their achievement that they don’t wanna do anything to undermine it. And they still see the white majority as their main rival.

Thus, more than ever, much of the power machinations in this nation happens conspiratorially. In the past, when Wasps had the power, Jews were heavily into investigative journalism mode and trying to dig out as much dirt on wasps as possible. Jews are no longer in that mode, and this change can be seen in a film like LINCOLN by Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner. Though I haven’t seen it yet — having only read about it — , it seems that Spielberg and Kushner are relishing the fact that Lincoln acted in conspiratorial mode. It’s as if Jews feel that most Americans don’t know what is good for them and that most politicians have to be bought and sold like whores or horses. And this is what Lincoln is shown to be masterly at. There is the ‘paranoid style’ in American politics, but there has also been the ‘subversive’ and ‘conspiratorial’ style. Andrew Jackson lost his first bid at the presidency due to a conspiracy of sorts in the inner circles of power held by the heirs of the Founding natural aristocracy. Lincoln was a very devious figure who used all sorts of tricks to manipulate public opinion, form coalitions, betray allies, wage war, and etc. But he got things done. And the same could be said for FDR, a man whose deviousness was much written about by Gore Vidal.
And of course, Obama has been a lying machine who made all the Alinsky-ite promises that appealed to Middle America, only to make the switch in government and hand over economic policy to Wall Street Jewish sharks, nominate people like Sotomayor and Kagan who hate the Constitution, come out for ‘gay marriage’, and maneuver to take guns away from white people. Indeed, Obama is himself a conspiratorial tool of the Jews. When we consider the number of political scandals and the media’s silence about them, we have to ask as to what is really going on — or otherwise, we will become like the Japanese or Russian public who’ve become politically and socially docile. Whom can we trust? How could the media have been asleep all those years when Jesse Jackson Jr. was stuffing his own pocket? How did Blagojevich win governorship twice though it was clear as day that he was a lousy crook from day one? We can understand political crooks making deals, but what good are the media if they can’t even blow the whistle on government rot? And what about lies about having achieved racial parity in New York schools a few years back? And the conspiracy of black teachers to mess with student scores in Philadelphia and Atlanta? Granted, some of these stories eventually came to light, but how could so many people get away with so much before it finally became news? And will most of the people involved get what they deserve? We blame Blagojevich, but who were the enablers of Blagojevich? Who were the sponsors and patrons? Where did all the money come from that Obama was able to spend over a billion dollars in 2012? Where are the media on this issue when, not long ago, they were all for campaign finance reform to clean up electoral politics? To what extent have Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have brought into Chinese influence? What are the Chinese doing to undermine the US, and vice versa? And what are the Jewish moves in this game? All these questions need to be asked. But we must be careful to ward off the crazy paranoid style, the kind that has the government planting micro-chips into our butts or Pentagon blowing up in 9/11 from the inside.

As long as the powers-that-be work ever more in conspiratorial mode — and journalism has become mostly a politically correct exercise in enforcing taboos, pushing Jewish and gay agendas, and trading celebrity news for real news, indeed so much so that journalists should now be called propagandists — , we need to be wary and suspicious of what is going on, and we need ever more channels of information, and we need to be ever more vigilant. How did the Iraq War happen? Were Bush and the rest of the gang merely mistaken about WMD? Even if they really thought WMD would be found, surely that wasn’t the reason US was dragged into war. It’s very likely that neocon Jews used George W. Bush the way Liberal Zionists are using Obama. No people are more conspiratorial than Jews and for good reason. Having survived for 1000s of years as a ‘hostile minority’ in gentile lands, Jews have learned how to be secretive, subversive, devious, and cunning. In a way, Richard Hofstadter was worried about the ‘paranoid style’ because it stood in the way of the Jewish subversive style. Whenever cunning and sneaky Jews sought to push an agenda that would favor their kind, the ‘paranoid’ right would sound the alarm and say Jews were up to no good. Jews wanted to fool the American public that they were working in good faith, with good will, and with the purest of intentions, i.e they weren’t hiding anything. But it’s natural for adults to question the ulterior motives of a people who are pushing certain agendas. Only stupid children accept at face value what they hear from politicians, public intellectuals, and other men of power and influence. Jews had ulterior motives in pushing leftist politics, Civil Rights Movement, Holocaust Cult, Open Immigration, and the Peace Movement. And the ‘paranoid’ right suspected that something was up, and this suspicion is what the likes of Hofstadter were trying to neutralize. They wanted Middle America to totally accept at face value the notion that Jews were working only for the good of all Americans and in accordance with the Constitution. Jews wanted Middle America to see the American Right as a hotbed of paranoids who saw ‘conspiracies’ everywhere. But from the perspective of 2013, what has become of this country thanks to the machinations of Jewish power? What did massive immigration do to America? What happened to our economy with the Jewish takeover of Wall Street? What happened to academic freedom once Jews consolidated their hold on the universities? What have become of the free media that now do little but serve as propaganda machines for AIPAC and GAYPAC?

Jews cherished William. F. Buckley Jr. because he promised to do away with the ‘paranoid style’ of American politics and accept professed Jewish intentions at face value. So, Buckley opened up American conservatism to neoconservatives, whose real agenda was nothing more than to use dimwit gentiles to support Israel. Also, even though Buckley disagreed and debated with Liberal Jews, he accepted the assertion that Liberal Jew, even if benighted and misguided, had the best intentions of the nation at stake and weren’t secretively working to boost Jewish power uber alles. If anything, Buckley became one of the biggest whores for Zionism. To be sure, in his own personally conspiratorial way, being so pro-Jewish masked his own ‘crypto-Nazism’ as Gore Vidal put it, i.e. how can he be ‘racist’ when some of his best friends are the People of the Holocaust? Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, he was outplayed by the Jews. Jews were aiming for Jewish Supremacism all along, and they achieved it at the expense of white power, white interests, and white America.
But then, the ‘paranoid’ style of American politics in the 50s and 60s did have serious problems. McCarthy was a drunken boor who made anti-communism look stupid — and he unwittingly played right into the hands of the liberal establishment. And the John Birch Society could only come across as cuckoo with its Eisenhower-is-a-communist nonsense. There is smart ‘paranoia’ and dumb ‘paranoia’, just like there is smart conspiracy — what Jews pulled off with Obama — and there is dumb conspiracy — what Blagojevich tried to profit from Obama’s vacated Senate seat.