Response to "Hungarian Foreign Minister DEMOLISHES triggered BBC reporter calling for open borders in Europe"

Actually, this is what the Hungarian Foreign Minister should have said:

Diversity works only within the EUROPEAN Union. In order for the EU to be European, it must be by Europeans and for Europeans. As it currently functions, the EU might as well be called the World Union, or especially the Afro-Islamo-European-Union. It says something about current EU that it is so hostile toward fellow whites in Russia and Hungary and Poland while being so celebratory and welcoming of Africans, Arabs, and Asians. So, basically, the current EU wages war on White Europe and tries to unite Europe with non-Europe. Furthermore, it wages war on the meaning of what it means to be European. According to EU, a 'European' is anyone who just comes to Europe and signs a piece of paper. So, history, culture, and blood no longer matter. A European with 10,000s of years of racial evolution in Europe and 1,000s of years of cultural history in Europe is NO MORE EUROPEAN than a newly arrived African or Arab who just learned the language and signed a citizenship paper. Basically, it means that the roots of a European has NO meaning. It doesn't matter if your roots in Europe racially go back eons and culturally go back millennia. You are NO MORE EUROPEAN than some Arab or African who just came for free gibs and to assimilate to globo-homo Hollywood-Rap culture.
Calling Africans, Arabs, and Asians the 'New Europeans' is a sleight-of-hand trick. It's like replacing orange juice with lime juice and labeling it as 'new orange juice'. Suppose I take over your house and call myself the 'new you'. That way, YOU didn't lose your house to me because I'm the 'new you'. So, the house still belongs to you because I am 'you', or the 'new you'. Isn't that ridiculous? It's all semantic BS.

Hungary joined the EUROPEAN Union to cooperate more fully with fellow Europeans. It didn't join to become one with Afro-Islamo-European Union. Also, Hungarians know what a real European is. He is a person with deep racial, historical, and cultural roots in Europe. But EU has changed rules so that ANYONE can become an Insta-European by signing a piece of paper. The rich stream of European blood has been replaced with the stamp of globo-homo ink. A true European has no more claim or birthright to Europe than billions of non-Europeans around the world. (This is the logic of colonialism and imperialism. Just like European imperialists tried to suppress the birthrights of the peoples they conquered, the globalist project of EU seeks to suppress any notion of ancestral claim and birthright among Europeans in their mother-continent.) EU will say dumb things like 'Europe was always a world of immigrants', but virtually all those peoples were fellow whites, fellow Europeans. Surely, a bunch of blacks going from one African nation to another is less jarring than a bunch of non-Africans settling in Africa. The same is true of Europe. A bunch of Poles going to Germany or UK is less jarring and disruptive than millions of black Africans and Arab Muslims taking over entire areas of Europe. Also, the history of Europe was about resistance against foreign invaders. Mongols invaded Russia and even reached Poland. They were eventually pushed out. Moors invaded Sicily and Spain. They were pushed back to North Africa eventually. Turks invaded Greece and parts of Balkans; they tried to invade more. Europeans rolled back the Turkish tide. Europe wasn't about inviting invasions by non-Europeans but about repelling them.

Anyway, it is not Hungary or Poland that violated the agreements of the European Union. It was the globo-homo elites of EU who've decided to collaborate with the Empire of Judea. They are not real leaders but comprador-collaborators. Their duty was to keep Europe European and to facilitate easier and more efficient cooperation among Europeans, but they undermined their own project by effectively uniting Europe with Africa and the Middle East(and even Asia). Meanwhile, they badmouth Russia because they're puppets of Jewish Supremacists filled with hatred for Putin who said NO to Homomania(as proxy of Jewish Domination).

Also, there is no greater human right than for a nation to survive as a people and culture. Demographic Imperialism that replaces the people and culture is a form of geo-ethnocide. It's obvious from the creation of Israel that massive movements of peoples can lead to a destruction of a people and culture. Massive Jewish demographic imperialism led to the eradication of Palestine. Palestinians live like animals in a zoo in Gaza. They live under Apartheid conditions in the West Bank.
After WWII, the anti-imperialist struggles of Third World peoples were all nationalist. Hindus in India told the British to go home because India is for Indians. Africans told Europeans to pack up and leave because black Africa belongs to black Africans. Anti-imperialism founded on the principle of universal nationalism was the most fundamental form of human rights. Before we can have individual rights and liberties, we must be free as a people from foreign or imperialist domination. For example, Palestinian individuals in Israel have many individual rights and liberties, but they are NOT free as a people. Their nation, Palestine, has been taken over by Jews, and all Palestinians, no matter how rich or free as individuals, don't have a nation because their land now belongs to Zionist overlords. If it happened to Palestinians, it can happen to anyone. Consider how Kosovo had once been the sacred homeland of Serbians. But over time, Albanian Muslims moved in and settled in Kosovo under Ottoman rule, and the Serbs lost their ancient homeland forever. But I suppose EU can advise Serbians to just see Albanian Muslims as 'New Serbians'. Of course, Albanians don't see themselves that way.

Also, Diversity has many meanings. The World is Diverse, after all. So, Diversity as a condition of the world isn't a problem. The world will always be diverse, made up of various races, ethnic groups, nations, cultures, religions, regions, and etc. But Diversity as PC formula is about forcing Demographic Imperialism on each nation(except Israel). Every nation must be made into a mini-world. But why? Hungary is Hungary, and it should be Hungarian. If you want to see China or Africa, visit China or Africa. Why bring China, Africa, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and etc. into your own nation, especially if it's small? If rising Diversity is such a huge headache for massive nations like the US and Brazil with so much space, imagine its impact on smaller nations like Hungary and Poland? At the very least, white Americans can flee from Diversity. In small European nations, you are stuck with it right outside your door.

The kind of Diversity pushed by EU is really a form of imperialism. Diversity as a condition of the world is just a reality. But Diversity as a formula is about coercing all nations(except Israel) to surrender to massive demographic imperialism and replacement. It's usually about higher-IQ prosperous nations with low-birthrates being demographically taken over by low-IQ peoples from poor nations with high birthrates. The result will be loss of entire civilizations. Just do the math. Over time, the current Diversity policy of EU will turn all of Europe into something like Morocco. Is Morocco a happy place? If diverse North Africa is so great, why do people there want to move to white Europe?

Also, EU's pontificating about Human Rights is so much BS. If EU really cares about non-whites, why doesn't it ever stand up to Jewish-run US neo-imperialist policy that destroyed so much of the Middle East and North Africa? For the most part, the EU didn't do anything about George W. Bush's illegal war on Iraq. EU was silent about Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright's sanctions that killed 100,000s of Iraqi women and children. The EU has continued to support Israeli occupation of West Bank. EU has gone along with US sanctions against Iran that hurt so many people. EU supported Obama-and-Hillary's destruction of Libya even though Gaddafi made peace with the West. EU worked with the US to aid terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart. 400,000 people died. EU never stood up to Jewish-run US empire that destroys millions of lives in the Muslim World.
Indeed, the so-called 'refugee' crisis is the result of Jewish-run US neo-imperialism in Middle East and North Africa. But the EU, that is gutless in standing up to Zionist-American power, huffs and puffs about Hungary and Poland whose only desire is to protect their nations. It is the Jewish-run US that is pushing the Invade-Invite Policy. It says the US should freely invade and destroy nations around the world(especially to serve Israel's interests), and as millions and millions of people will be displaced by such invasions, the white world must 'invite' those people as a 'humanitarian' gesture. So, Jews use Western Power to destroy all nations hated by Israel, and then, Jews morally pressure white nations to accept the 'refugees'. Of course, Israel takes none and won't even give back Golan Heights that was stolen from Syria. What a bunch of a**holes.

Finally, Diversity-as-Formula is a form of imperialism. Nazi Empire was about diversity. It was about many peoples being forced to live under the Nazi umbrella. Soviet Empire was diverse. It was about many peoples being forced to live under Soviet Hegemony. The EU is now about forcing demographic imperialism on every European nation to make them more diverse. Just like Nazi Empire forced Slavic lands to accept German settlers, the EU forces European nations to accept African and Muslim invaders displaced by Jewish globo-homo imperialist wars in the Middle East and North Africa. (Jews apparently want to use wars to empty the Middle East so that they can grab more territory.)

The EU project could have worked if it had remained European and respected the national rights of all European peoples. But it turned into an arm of Judeo-Globo-Homo project. As such, it went from a sunny project of uniting and preserving Europe to a stormy project uniting Europe with Africa, Muslim World, and South Asia. It came to be about forcing the Diversity Formula or the Demographic-Imperialist Agenda on each and every nation.

So, why did so many white people fall for this poison pill? Because Political Correctness imbues vain white people with a new kind of supremacism. If imperialist whites of the past were racial supremacists, today's whites are moral supremacists. They think they are soooooooo very goody-good and holier-than-others because they are so obedient to the Globo-Homo Agenda that demeans anything white and patriotic as 'racist' while extolling anything Diverse(usually black) as sacrosanct. So, just by mouthing sacramental platitudes about 'diversity' and 'human rights', these insufferably smug PC whites think they are superior to nationalists and patriots. But then, communists also felt morally superior by mouthing off platitudes about 'equality' and 'revolution'. Just another form of supremacism among people for whom every corner of the world must be made to cave to their dogmatically imbecile notion of right-and-wrong.

DIW or Diversity-in-the-West is simply the result of Non-White Preference for Whites — DIN or Diversity-in-the-Non-West is what Non-Whites want to get away from — Mind Experiment of Two Island-Nations: Homogenia and Diversitonia

We are told Diversity is so wonderful. But if that’s true, why do so many people want to get away from diverse nations? India is one of the most diverse nations on Earth in terms of religion, language, tribe, caste, race, and ethnicity. But the Indian government wouldn’t mind shaving 300 million people and sending them abroad out of the 1.3 billion. And many Indians want to move to other nations. Their top choices are usually white-majority nations that are less diverse than India. Indians favor Australia, the US, Canada, and New Zealand that are still white-majority than Latin America that are mostly white-minority. We are told Diversity is so great, but why do so many people in the diverse worlds of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East want to move elsewhere? Why the desire to flee from their own diverse worlds? And back in the 1960s, the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe were overwhelmingly white, far more so than today. If diversity is great and if homogeneity is bad, then non-whites in diverse nations should have stayed put in their own nations instead of moving to awful homogeneous white nations. But so many people wanted to flee from their own diverse worlds and move(usually permanently) to white worlds. So, all that immigration to the West was not about preference for Diversity. It was flight from diversity and/or non-whiteness toward what were mostly homogeneous white nations. Indeed, many non-whites came to prefer whites over their own kind. Lots of Pakistani Muslims prefer to live in white nations as minorities than in their own nations as the overwhelming dominant majority. (They find life more pleasant as minorities in white nations than as the majority in their own nation. They prefer white rule than rule by their own kind. They find white strangers more appealing than their own family members and friends in their own nations.) The result of all this Immigration(that soon turned into Mass Invasion or Mass Colonization) led to rising Diversity in the West. But that diversity was the product than the preference of the mass non-white flight to the white world, i.e. non-whites were not moving to the West to enjoy or celebrate Diversity but to be with white people, to work for white people, and even to marry white people(and have white-looking kids). Diversity was the end-product of this mass migration, but it was not the goal of the immigrants.

Do a little mind-experiment. Suppose the UK in the 1960s was only 5% white and 40% black Africa, 40% Hindu/Muslim, 10% Burmese, and 5% Turk. A very diverse nation, right? How many people around the world would have wanted to move there? Not many. Indeed, there are North African nations with very diverse mixtures of races and cultures. How many people want to move there? The reason why all those people opted to move to the West was because they wanted to be with white people who were more advanced, more successful, more just, more efficient, and (in many eyes)more attractive. Why do black Africans move to Europe? To holler, "Where da white women at?"

So, why has Mass Immigration/Invasion been marketed as a celebration of Diversity? It was because the non-white masses and the globalist elites needed some bogus excuse to rationalize the radical demographic transformation of the West. So, even though non-whites were moving to the West to be with white people and to gain access to great material wealth, they embraced the Diversity Narrative to lend an ennobling and self-justifying spin to their Flight-to-White. Even though they really chose to move to the West because they prefer white folks to their own kind and because white people do everything so much better, they invoked the BS about Diversity to pretend THEY were doing a favor to the White World by bringing the gift of Diversity. Even though some non-whites did come from relatively homogeneous nations, the majority of non-whites came from already diverse nations. In the 1960s when the great waves of global invasive-migration took off, most Western nations were far more homogeneous than the nations from which most non-whites came from. UK and Canada were far more homogeneous than Pakistan and India. In 1965, the US was 90% white whereas many immigrants came from highly diverse nations, especially from Latin America. So, if Diversity is a blessing and panacea for all problems, it made no sense for non-whites in diverse nations to move to relatively homogeneous Western nations. And if diversity is such a blessing, why was it that homogeneous white nations did so much better than virtually all diverse nations?
Consider: WWII was utterly devastating to Europe whereas Latin America was totally untouched by it. But Western Europe recovered almost overnight from the devastation and became the richest part of the world after the US. In contrast, Latin America, despite its vast size and resources, lagged behind. If diversity is such a blessing, shouldn’t diverse Latin America have done so much better than homogeneous European nations? One thing Latin America and Europe had in common was White Elites. Both domains were ruled by Europeans or people of European descent. But post-war Europe was homogeneous(even more so due to newly drawn national borders following the war) from top to bottom whereas Latin America was diverse(with white elites ruling over masses of mestizos and non-whites, even blacks from Africa). If diversity is a strength, then Latin America(that, like the US, was untouched by the devastation of war) should have done much better than Europe. But in fact, Europe recovered very fast, and things were so good there that most Europeans stayed put than emigrate elsewhere. Indeed, even the depressed communist nations of Europe had living standards above diverse Latin American nations. Even during the Cold War, an average person in Czechoslovakia or Hungary was better off than someone in Peru, Colombia, or Venezuela. If Diversity is so great, why did it repel so many people in Latin America? Why did they run from their own Diversity? And if Homogeneity is so awful, why did it attract so many people to the White West? Granted, homogeneity per se isn’t attractive. Black Africa is all-black, but who would want to move there to put down permanent roots? Surely, diverse North Africa is preferable to homogeneous black Africa. But then, a homogeneous white Europe would be preferable to diverse North Africa. The proof is in the paddling. People are paddling from North Africa to white Europe, not vice versa. And even though Europe is far more diverse now than in decades ago, the ONLY reason people still want to move there is to be with whites. Black Africans aren’t going from black Africa to Europe to be with black Africans. If they want to be with black Africans, they can stay home. They want to go to Europe and holler, "Where da white women at?"
Granted, many non-whites want to have it both ways. They want to move to the West and live under white rule, gain access to white wealth, and benefit from white productivity, efficiency, & ingenuity. But they also want a sense of their own community. So, we see the rise of non-white enclaves in the UK, Canada, and Australia. They benefit from membership in the White Domain with its Rule of Law and Property Rights, but they also maintain separation and sense of their own community. They want to have the cake and eat it too. We see this especially with Muslims who want to reside in the safer and wealthier West while maintaining their own Islamic laws and customs. The Muslim way in the Muslim world has led to corruption, backwardness, cruelty, and barbarism. Muslims want to flee from fellow Muslims who are prone to acting like this:

So, they come to the West to live under more properly administered Rule of Law. They find the conditions safer and more stable, less at the mercy of arbitrary whims of tyranny or hierarchy. But they also find the West soulless & decadent and don’t want to be ‘westernized’. So, they settle for material access to the West but do their utmost to maintain their own separate society and culture, lest their sons and daughters grow up to be stupid playboys or trashy whores(or insipid feminists). Also, Muslims are especially bound to have mixed feelings about coming to the West because it is now Zionist-controlled and Jews have used US and EU to rain down so much violence and mayhem on Muslim nations. While Muslims have much better material lives in the West, they have to live with the fact that much of the recent woes in their own nations are due to the West under the control of the vile Zionist-globalists. The so-called Gold Star dad used by Hillary Clinton in 2016 made for a tormented sight. On the one hand, he was a ‘proud Muslim-American’ whose son served in the US military and was killed in action. On the other hand, he’d betrayed his Muslim brethren by settling in core of the Zionist-US Imperium and raising his son to serve in the US military that, at the behest of wicked Zionists, has brought so much grief and tragedy to the Arab/Muslim world, especially since the end of the Cold War that left the Jew-run US as the sole superpower free to do as it pleases around the world. (US still continues to occupy much of Syria and lend aid to terrorists and Jihadis there. All because of Jewish supremacist power.)

Anyway, let’s carry out a simple mind-experiment to demonstrate that Diversity is NOT what all these non-white ‘immigrants’(mass invaders or mass colonizers) are after. Imagine there are two giant islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Suppose each is about the size of Iran. Suppose one island-nation is 100% white. Suppose the other island-nation is 0% white but the most diverse place on earth. Suppose it is 5% Turk, 5% Iranian, 5% Azeri, 5% Chinese, 5% Nigerian, 5% Somalian, 5% Mexican, 5% Kazak, 5% Syrian, 5% Moroccan, 5% Bolivian, 5% Cambodian, 5% Hindu Indian, 5% Indonesian, 5% Zimbabwean, 5% Angolan, 5% Hawaiian, 5% Nepalese, 5% Ceylonese, and 5% miscellany(but not white).
Now, if homogeneity(especially the white kind) is awful, then the 100% white island-nation must be hell on earth. In contrast, the very diverse non-white island-nation must be heaven on earth. So, if there must be a mass movement/migration of peoples, whites in awful 100% white island-nation should try to move to the diverse island-nation. And the people of the diverse island-nation should want to stay put as their world is heaven on earth. After all, we've been told that diversity is a strength, a blessing, something to celebrate, and the ultimate dream of man.

But if such two worlds existed, it’s pretty safe to bet that the 100% white island-nation will be prosperous, advanced, modern, safe & secure, trusting, efficient, and governed by rule of law. In contrast, the diverse island-nation with 0% white population but all kinds of non-whites will be a piss-poor place of confusion, distrust, ceaseless warfare, high crime, outrageous income inequality, and panic. It’d be pretty obvious that a homogeneous white world is far preferable to a diverse non-white world. Indeed, most whites would have NO interest in moving to the diverse island-nation whereas tons of people of Diversitonia will be doing everything possible to move to the 100% white Homogenia. Well, well, funny how that plays out, ain’t it? All those POD or People-of-Diversity will try to escape from their messy and confused world(made especially bad by the presence of blacks) and try to settle among white folks in Homogenia.
But there is the danger that white people of Homogenia will say NO. Why should white folks who have it so nice in their own homogeneous nation let in a bunch of POD(people of diversity) who made a mess of their own world? Now, if there were some white folks in Diversitonia, it’d be a decent thing for Homogenia to let them in... just like European nations took back their own peoples when non-white folks around the world rose up against Western Imperialism and told white colonizers to go back home. But since Diversitonia has NO WHITES, there would be no reason for 100% white Homogenia to take anyone in.

So, how could the folks of 100% white Homogenia be sold on the idea of taking in lots of people from Diversitonia? They would have to be told that Diversity is wonderful and that Homogenia sucks so bad because it lacks ‘vibrancy’ and ‘color’. Those are superficial reasons that hardly justify profound transformation of one’s own nation and culture, but if white folks in Homogenia have been weaned on toxic Political Correctness(that teaches white folks that white identity and white interests are the biggest evils in the world) and trashy Pop Culture(that severs a people from their sense of roots and serves the false idols of Mammon), there is a chance they might fall for trivial and flashy reasons such as ‘color’ and ‘vibrancy’, a kind of fashionable exoticism. Nation as a Gauguin painting.
Another way a people can be made to accept detrimental change is by animalization. An animalized people primarily judge worth by instant sensations. How did the white man lower the defense of American Indians? The Red Man was sold firewater. American Indians soon became alcoholics who were willing to trade anything for another bottle. How was the Chinese resolve to defend their realm from ‘foreign devils’ weakened by British Imperialism? The Empire used Jews to sell opium to the Chinese. In the end, such a strategy was far more effective with American Indians than with Chinese because Indians lacked a sophisticated culture & deep identity and were far less numerous. Anyway, alcohol and opium had a way of animalizing their users. The addicts soon lost self-control and were willing to surrender anything for another hit of bottle or pipe. Unlike humans, animals have no inhibitions when offered easy pleasure. It’s like monkeys and other creatures will mindlessly consume fermenting fruits and get knocked-out-drunk. Animals just gorge on whatever gives them pleasure(though, to be sure, rats have been evolutionarily-selected for cautionary trait in sampling food because they’ve been targeted by so many poisons).

When people have been animalized, they can easily lose sight of the bigger picture and deeper meaning in favor of momentary pleasure. It’s like Adam and Eve who lost their minds and ate from the Tree. Animalized people are most susceptible to the siren-call of drugs like meth, crack, and other terrible stuff. They are more prone to binge on alcohol and get wild just to have a good time. They are more likely to be potheads like the Brad Pitt character in TRUE ROMANCE. They become like the parents in Hayao Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY who forget EVERYTHING as they lose themselves to piggish animal appetite.


Animalized people have 'short-sighted' sensations that favor the here-and-now over the far-sighted vision of what really matters in the long-run. What excites them NOW trumps all other considerations. So, for those who couldn't be ideologically persuaded or morally browbeaten to go along with Diversity, there was the bait of aromas-and-flavors, aka More Restaurants.
So, why should the West let in tons of non-whites from the Third World who will forever alter the genetics, culture, and landscape of the West? Because more Diversity means More Restaurants, you silly! I mean, who cares about preserving a people and culture when you can sample more flavors at different kinds of eateries and troughs of diversity? Are you so ‘lame’ and ‘square’ as to favor your race, culture, history, and land over a dish of tandoori chicken, falafel, or couscous? Are you so ‘white bread’ and boring?

So, your people are supposed to trade away their sacred claim and title to their own nation for More Eats. How utterly stupid and beastly is that? And of course, there is an animalist bait of easy sex. White men are told that they will have more pickings of brown and yellow women with Diversity, especially as so many white women are either fat(due to animalist appetites) or bitterly feminist. Or gone over to Jungle Fever as Diversity also baits white women with opportunity with more sex with big-donged black African men. It’s no wonder so many British, Dutch, French, and German women have gone utterly jungle and welcome more black Africans because their animalist interracism has turned them into sluttons whose main topic of discussion in life with friends is "how many guys I fuc*ed". While civilization can become overly stuffy & repressive and has something to gain from vitality & spontaneity, it can veer off the cliff if it goes the animalist route and places short-term pleasure at the center of life. While animalism is most demonstrably vulgar among the lower masses, it can affect the elites too. Even though the West still has snobby institutions(filled with proggy snobs or Prognobs), the reigning sensibility at even the best of them has been degraded by Afromania, Homomania, Pornification, and New Feminism that is about little more than "more money" and "I’m so horny". What is truly ironic is that Donald Trump, a vulgarian who seemed to embody the crassest kind of animalism, has become the leading voice of certain sensible positions that may yet save the West from total destruction. Indeed, how amusing that the fancy-educated elites, who deride him as a boor and his vulgarians as ‘deplorables’, have Homomania as their neo-religion and thug-rappers and sluts like madonna & Miley Cyrus as their idols & heroes. Are the elites even self-aware? How can institutions that give us the likes of Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz really think themselves so above the rest?

Response to "Voters elect against dividing Koreatown to include Bangladesh Town"

http://abc7.com/politics/voters-elect-against-koreatown-split/3628714/

When US cities were white, non-white immigrants sought to assimilate with whiteness.

The idea was US is essentially a white nation but open to others as well.
The idea was that white people had the power, wealth, and good stuff. So, whiteness was the ideal, the standard. Quintessentially American. John Wayne stuff. After all, the immigrants left their own nations. And they didn't want to go to non-white nations but to white majority nations, especially America.

So, as long as whites had the numbers, prestige, and power, all non-white immigrant groups shared something in common: Respect for whiteness and wish to merge with whiteness. Whiteness lessened non-white vs non-white tensions because all non-white groups could ignore one another and move toward whiteness.

But over time in many cities, whites lost the numbers, the power, and the prestige(due to Jewish-controlled PC). So, in a city like LA, there are lots of non-white groups living alongside one another. But none of them represents something that all non-whites would want to move toward or merge with. Non-white groups once valued the movement-toward-whiteness as the process of 'Americanization', but the same cannot be said for movement-toward-non-whiteness(even though the official narrative is that 'American' is purely ideological and has nothing to do with race or even culture). (The exception is movement-toward-blackness in style and attitude but certainly not in jobs, schools, and residence.) It was once considered(and still is, albeit mutedly) prestigious for non-whites to merge with whiteness --- synonymous with becoming 'Americanized' --- , but the same cannot be said for merging with, say, Mexicans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Hindus, and etc. Even though the official ideology says Mexican-Americanism and Vietnamese-Americanism are just as American as white-Americanism, no one really feels this way in real life. Diversity really means the desire by non-whites to be included in the White or White-made world. Diversity without whiteness would be like building a model without glue. The structure wouldn't hold together. It's been said that Diversity means 'no more whites', but that'd be self-defeating like a model set without glue. Indeed, diversity without whiteness isn't appealing to most people. Latin America and North Africa are very diverse, but neither has enough whites. India is very diverse, but Hindus prefer to move to a white nation. Most people in diverse nations with no or few whites prefer to move to white nations. Ideal Diversity requires the White Magnet. Hindus don't want to be with blacks or even with fellow Hindus. Black Africans don't want to be with Hindus or even with fellow black Africans. Both want to be with whites, and the Diversity in UK is the result of non-whites preferring whites over non-whites(even their own kind).

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HICBc0vZL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg

If an Asian-American moves to a white community, he or she feels 'Americanized'. Indeed, he or she is willing to surrender his or her own identity to take up this new prestigious ersatz-white identity. But would Chinese-Americans want to give up their identity to merge with Mexican-Americanism, Hindu-Americanism, or even Korean-Americanism? I think not.

Indeed, it's interesting that Chinese have been in Southeast Asian nations for so very long BUT they've mostly retained their Chinese identity and pride. In contrast, so many East Asians in white nations instantly surrender everything about their race, culture, and language to merge with whiteness or 'westernness'. People will surrender their culture for something higher but not for something lower. Chinese will surrender Chineseness to become 'white' or 'western'(deemed superior to Chineseness) but not to become 'Filipino' or 'Indonesian'(considered lower than Chineseness). Maybe Sephardic Jews mixed more with Muslims and Arabs because they weren't all that smarter, whereas Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, being markedly smarter, were less willing to merge with goyim. I dunno.

If Los Angeles had lots of whites, this 'fancy' Asian vs 'jungle' Asian dichotomy wouldn't matter. Both the 'fancies' and 'junglies' would focus on merging with whiteness as the American Ideal. Indeed, Asian women find it most ideal to marry white and have white-looking kids. And even in Asia, lots of Asian women get plastic surgery and dye their hair brunette or blonde to look like cartoon-white-people.

But because whiteness is becoming a more precious commodity in places like LA, the 'fancies' and 'junglies' are becoming more ghettoized in their own identities. Vanishing of whiteness means less of something for which Asians(or other non-white groups) are willing to surrender their own identities in order to merge with something higher or more quintessentially American.

Non-Jewish Neocons will compromise or betray anything for Personal Position & Privilege. In contrast, Jewish Neocons pursue and wield Power & Position to serve a narrow Tribal Agenda they will NOT compromise or betray. Non-Jews betray their own kind for personal gain, whereas Jews seek personal power to serve their own kind.

Non-Jewish Neocons like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Nikki Haley are followers, not leaders, of the Neocon 'movement'. To lead, one has to have a sense of purpose and direction. For non-Jewish Neocons, the main interest is to move UP to where the power is. But they haven’t the idea as to which way to move once they’re perched at the top. It takes those with agenda and vision to suggest and insist the direction the power must take. For non-Jewish Neocons, position and prestige are enough.
Especially if they’re white, it’s difficult for them to have vision and direction because whiteness is now associated with ‘guilt’. It is taboo for whites to serve white interests. So, whites at the top find it difficult to use their power against others. Sure, some may invoke ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, but those rationales aren’t sufficient to summon mass support for neo-imperialism and new wars. So, while whites can move up to positions of power, they feel lost as to what to do with the power. In contrast, Jews not only move up to positions of power but feel justified in putting forth aggressive strategies for using the power. Once on top, they move sideways to threaten, invade, destroy, and/or dominate other domains. Jews, being the Holy Holocaust People, aren’t tainted with ‘guilt’ but armed with moral pride. It is then no wonder that non-Jewish Neocons and Jewish Neocons(the real Neocons) have developed a symbiotic relationship. Non-Jewish Neocons(white elites) have high positions and may want to use their power... but for what? Whites aren’t supposed to serve white interests. Whites are burdened with ‘white guilt’. It would be ‘racist’ for them to conquer and control other peoples.
But what if they’re allied with Jewish Neocons? After all, Jews are the ‘greatest victims of all time’ due to the Shoah Narrative. Also, poor little Israel is supposedly surrounded by all those quasi-nazi Muslim and/or Arab nations. Something has to be done to prevent Another Holocaust. Therefore, non-Jewish Neocons need Jewish directives to serve as the compass of power. Since whites cannot serve white interests, whites must ally with Jews who can serve Jewish interests. (Then, whites can enjoy the game of wielding power around the world.) Whereas white identity has grown shallow and vapid, Jewish identity still remains strong and proud. While Jews love position and privilege, their profound sense of identity compels them to bend the power to serve Jewish Tribal interests. Power for Jews must bend to identity. In contrast, whites are content to bend their identity to the power. It’s power for power’s sake for white goyim.
But then, what about those non-Jewish Neocons who seem so passionate and committed about their global strategy. Doesn’t the intensity of their conviction prove that they’re not just about power & privilege but a certain set of purpose and principles? Not really. The passion is about as meaningful as the ferocity of dogs barking loudly. While it’s true that dogs can get furious and fearsome in their aggression, they are only taking cues from the master. So, the very dogs who could bark at you like they want to maul you to death can be made to calm down and act friendly toward you IF the master tell them to shut up and act nice. In other words, whereas Jewish Neocon passions are deep and genuine, non-Jewish Neocon rage is mostly a put-on. They bark loudly because they take orders from their Jewish superiors. If Jewish power were to vanish in the US, non-Jewish Neocons would latch onto something else. If non-Jewish Neocons didn’t exist, Jewish Neocons would still be passionate about Jewish issues, but if Jewish Neocons were to vanish, non-Jewish Neocons would lose their Judeo-centric passions pretty quickly... just like Eastern European elites stopped singing hosannas to the Soviet Union once the Iron Curtain came down in 1989. If Jewish Neocons ordered non-Jewish Neocons to stop hating Russia & Iran and make nice with them, non-Jewish Neocons will obey. But if non-Jewish Neocons implored Jewish Neocons to stop hating Russia and Iran, it won’t have any effect as Jews have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Jews don’t take orders from OTHERS as to whom they should hate or not hate. They choose on their own and then try to impose those feelings on the rest of us. So, if Jews hate Russia, we must all hate Russia. If Jews hate Iran, we must all hate Iran. Our hate must follow their hate.

Non-Jewish Neocons jumped on the Neocon bandwagon precisely because Jews have so much power. Non-Jewish Neocons staked everything on latching onto the winning team. Jews were the winners in the post-Cold-War order, but most Jews were Democrats. So, what were non-Jewish Republicans to do? They couldn’t latch onto the Winning Jews of the Democratic Party, so they put all their eggs in the Neocon Jewish basket in the GOP. Though Neocon Jews were far less powerful than Liberal Jews of the Democratic Party, maybe they could pull off something so bold and spectacular that it might change the world(and especially the Middle East) for the better(especially for Jews). Then, Neocon Jews will gain prestige as the Premier Jews(above that of Liberal Jews), and then all the white Republicans will be partnered with the most winning-est bunch of Jews, the Super Jews. White Republicans could say with toady pride, "Our Jews are better than your Jews." And with prime Jewish prestige residing in the GOP, maybe many talented Liberal Jews might leave the Democratic Party and become Republicans. With the bulk of Jewish talent in the GOP, the Republicans could own the future. Of course, Jews would control the direction of the Party as they have tribal will and moral nobility(related to Shoah) lacking among whites. In any movement, there are those who lead, and those who follow. Even though Cheney and Rumsfeld held high offices, they were followers of Jews because they were tainted with 'white guilt', which could be laundered only through association with Jews or Israel.

Cheney never had ideology. He just wanted power, but power that only moves up is ultimately ineffectual. It's like holding a ceremonial post. Imagine you get into an attack helicopter and ascend up and up. You’re high above and top of the world, but what would be the purpose of such elevation UNLESS you can fly in a certain direction to attack others? Horizontal movement must follow vertical movement. After all, it is an ATTACK helicopter. Attacking means aggression, and that requires moral justification or tribal interest. As whites no longer have tribal identity or race-ist consciousness, they must rely on a powerful people who still have a strong tribal will. Jews, of course. Furthermore, Jews not only have tribal consciousness but moral sanctity because they’re perceived as the Holy Holocaust People. Tribal + Moral = Global.
Of course, non-Jewish Neocons and Jewish Neocons were using one another. They knew the rules of the game. Still, Jews had the upper-hand because they got to decide the direction of the power(mostly toward waging Wars for Israel) and, besides, if things went wrong, Jews could fix the blame on the more prominent non-Jewish faces of the Power such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, and the various goy clowns of the CIA. Like Cheney, Rumseld was never about ideology. He was just a suit. He executed agendas conceived by others who had the big picture. Jews came up with the grand prophetic plan for the Middle East, and the likes of Rumsfeld played the role of executives and managers. He was nothing but an Organization Man. In contrast, Jewish Neocons have an ideology rooted in identity and grand vision. Was it any surprise that US foreign policy continued in the same vein under Obama? Neocons were out of power, but Liberal Zionists shared the same identity and the same passionate affinities and hostilities.

For those who insist that many rank-and-file Neocons are neither Jewish nor slavish to Jewish interests, they need to explain why it is that ALL Neocons, Jewish or non-Jewish, are so virulently hostile to nations hated by Jews and/or Israel. Indeed, Jewishness trumps ideology among nearly all Jews. Liberal Zionist Jew or Neocon Jew, they remarkably share the same hatreds. For example, Liberal Zionist Jews hate Russia, and Neocon Jews hate Russia. Liberal Zionist Jews hate Iran, and Nneocon Jews hate Iran. Liberal Zionist Jews hate Syria, and Neocon Jews hate Syria. Liberal Zionist Jews used Obama to destroy Ukraine, Libya, and Syria just like Neocon Jews used Bush II to destroy Iraq.

If anything, State Department’s current philo-Semitism is far more problematic than its past ‘antisemitism’. When the State Department had been ‘antisemitic’(distrustful of Jewish interests and motives), ruthless and megalomaniacal Jews couldn't get everything they wanted. Pushy Jews got some pushback. And vile Jews like Jonathan Pollard got Life Sentence for their vile acts of treason and double-crossing. And let’s not forget that many Jews during the early years of the Cold War deeply compromised American security by spying for Soviets, even going so far as to pass Bomb secrets to communist tyrant Josef Stalin. Imagine if German-Americans slipped Bomb Secrets to Nazi regime. Imagine if Japanese Americans slipped Bomb secrets to Japanese militarists. Imagine if Muslim-Americans today slipped atom bomb secrets to a Muslim nation deemed as a terrorist state. It’d be a total outrage.
Indeed, the reason why Jews feigned so much hysteria about the ‘Red Scare’ was because they were trying to drown out the fact of Jewish vileness as Soviet agents and communist fellow-travelers. What Jews did to the US to aid and abet the USSR was so beyond the pale that a major political and social movement against Jewish Power and Networks would have been most justified in the 1950s. Try imagining an act of treason greater than slipping atomic bomb secrets to America’s biggest enemy following WWII. It’s impossible to imagine anything worse. Many Jews were involved in espionage and subversion, and the Jewish community deserved to come under close scrutiny and face a major purge because SO MANY Jews were up to no good against a nation that offered them sanctuary and a new life. Jews knew that their crimes were so grievous and extensive(throughout the Jewish networks) that no amount of apology or contrition on their part could prevent a major purge of Jewish figures from all walks of life. So, Jews used the media to spin a Narrative that made Jewish communists, radicals, and subversives as the Good Noble Guys targeted by a ‘witch-hunt’ when, in fact, there were lots of spies and traitors in the halls of power and influence. But then, we know from the bogus Russia Hacking Conspiracy Narrative that Jews will go to any length to spread lies and poison minds to hide their filth behind the smoke of false narratives. In retrospect, given that so many Jews were on the radical left, it made good sense for US government to be wary of Jews, or be ‘antisemitic’.

Look at the State Department in our time. It’s been totally dominated by Jewish Power, and what has it given the world? Insane ‘new cold war’ with Russia, and all because Jews hate Russian sovereignty that stands in the way of total Jewish takeover of Russia and its vast resources. Arrogant Jews believe that Russia belongs to them than to dummy Russians who should be used like cattle(like how pigs in Animal Farm use the big but dumb horse). And then, all these wars in the Middle East that destroyed millions of lives are essentially Wars for Israel. It will take many years for those nations to recover and rebuild, and why? Because Jewish globo-ego is willing to sacrifice any number of lives to serve the query, "Is it good for Jews?"

Given the carnage and mayhem caused by philo-Semitism(and Jewish supremacism) that informs so much of US foreign policy(since the Clinton Era), it is reasonable to argue that things were better in the past when Jews had been regarded with justifiable suspicion. Given the fact of troubled Jewish history and experience with various non-Jewish peoples, it made absolutely no sense for Americans, especially those at the top, to drop their guard against Jewish ambitions.

Response to a Comment on "Bullseye" by Steve Sailer. Jewish Scholarship vs Jewish Merchants.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/bullseye/

“Jews prioritize scholarship and have been widely persecuted, therefore Jews don’t really tend to have genes that correlate with intelligence.”

Jews were rarely persecuted for their scholarship, at least until the late modern era. It was usually for their business practices and promotion of vice in culture. This hatred of money-makers can be found in Jewish culture itself. Much of the Bible is about moralistic prophets condemning the materialist money-grubbing Jews. Greed eventually leads to decadence, and Prophets warn of God's wrath that descends upon Jews to teach them a lesson over and over and over. Much of the Bible is about the scholarly moralism of Jewish prophets vs wanton materialism of Jewish merchants who lose their way in favor of idolatry.

Same can be found in Chinese culture. Confucianism prized the scholar and hated the merchant, considered the lowest of the low. And anti-Chinese sentiments in Southeast Asia had little to do with Chinese-devotion-to-books. It's because they love money. I doubt if any Indonesian attacked Chinese because the latter was reading the Analects or Tao Te Ching. It was about Chinese business acumen and practices.

For much of Jewish history, there was a kind of understanding between the Rabbis and Merchants... just like the Saudi Royal Family(of tycoons) arrived at an understanding with the Wahabi sect.
Jewish merchants would make lots of money but donate generously to Rabbis who, in turn, would be less judgmental about avarice. Same kind of relationship existed between the Church, Aristocracy, and Merchants in Christian Europe.
And even though Confucianism officially condemned merchants, it was the business class that made the economy work, and so, it was tolerated and protected by the Power managed by the scholar class. And today, the rich class in the West maintains a wink-wink pact with the Prog-priesthood of PC. Homo Worship binds them together.

Still, there was a strain of Jewishness that was virulently anti-Jewish-profiteering. Christianity began this way, with Jesus condemning the close ties between Temple and Money. And Confucianism was anti-Chinese-profiteering. It favored scholars and peasants(at least in prestige) over the merchants.

This all came to a head with Marxism. He declared War on Greed. It was a new round of Jewish prophets vs Jewish merchants. But if this sort of thing was limited to the Jewish community in the past, it became international because Marx was a Christianized atheist German living in the center of World Power. If ancient Jewish prophets kept the debate within the community, Marx universalized the conflict within the Jewish Tribe between prophets and merchants(just like Jewish feminism later projected Jewish male/female neurosis on the rest of humanity). Unlike Christianity that has a passive and otherworldly element, Marxism said heaven could exist on earth.
This did make Jewish scholarship dangerous and threatening in ways that past Jewish scholarship hadn't been. For most of Jewish history in Europe, the main reason for the anti-Jewish hatred was Jewish 'merchantry'. Most Jewish intellectual ideas were for fellow Jews and remained in the community. So, Christians had little interest in Jewish learning or ideas. But Marxist scholarship spilled out into the larger sphere and affected all of humanity. Many goyim welcomed it as liberating and empowering. Many goyim opposed it as radical, repressive, and Jewish. Granted, it wasn't technically Jewish since Marx was irreligious, didn't consider himself Jewish, and called for World Revolution. But it was especially appealing to Jews just like Freudianism was. The prophetic style of Marx was very much in keeping with Jewish tradition.

Marxism spread to China, and Maoism was maybe the greatest war on greed in the name of virtue. But, both Jews and Chinese learned that you can't run a society on moralism and prophecy alone. So, both peoples have arrived at their own 'end of history' of coordinating moralism with materialism. This is maybe easier for the Chinese because China is about Chinese ruling Chinese. Chinese leaders figure that common and basic morality would be good for most Chinese. Wealth is good but must be built on the shoulders of virtuous people. Excessive capitalism has made Chinese overly materialistic and soulless, and the regime wants to change that.
In contrast, Jewish scholarship is more ambivalent about moralism. While goy majority moralism may make for a more orderly and sound society, it also cuts into Jewish profits in Vice Industries like gambling. Also, moralism makes the larger community feel proud and confident. Christian moralism certainly strengthened goy righteousness. To weaken the goy majority, Jewish merchants and Jewish scholars work together to theorize and market immorality-as-the-new-morality. The result, from stuff like 'gay marriage', is quite obvious.

Beware of Holocaust Nihilism — How Ultra-Moralism Paradoxically Leads to Ultra-Nihilism — Righteous Is Mighteous

The Shoah is one of the great horrors of the 20th or any century. It is understandable why it has become central to how Jews define themselves. It is all the more frightening to Jews because so much of the world was ambivalent and even silent about the horrors when they were happening. And if the world did eventually defeat Germany, it had little to do with Saving Jews than with geo-politics. USSR ended up fighting Germany because it was invaded. And the US dragged its heels in the war to spare its own troops while the Germans and Soviets slaughtered one another(and Jews got slaughtered in between). And as the mass bombing of civilians in Germany and Japan showed, the US and UK could be pretty ruthless in wiping out entire parts of cities. Jews feel that if the governments of UK and US had been somewhat more pro-German, the Nazi regime might have prevailed and even become allies of UK and US. Then Jews all over the world could have been in big trouble. After all, the US was allies with many bloody regimes that killed 100,000s or even millions of innocents. There never was much moral consideration in foreign policy. And Jews themselves often looked the other way as they allied the Empire of Judea with regimes ruled by mass-killers. In other words, contrary to the Jewish Moral Narrative of the 20th century, matters were far more complicated than it would have us believe. If the subject of Shoah seems so starkly about Good vs Evil, it’s because the Nazis were so outlandish in their murderous ambition. The scale, scope, and specs of Shoah were such that we believe only a total evil regime could have done something like that. And because Jews were victims of such ghastly evil, there’s been a tendency to see Jews as the most innocent lambs among mankind. After all, why wouldn’t an utterly evil regime target the most wonderful and saintly people? But then, to be sure, Jews have been prone to turning EVERYTHING in their history as a matter of Evil Goyim vs Good Jews. The pogroms, for example, were far less deadly than the Shoah. Indeed, such pogroms had been happening all around the world, people vs people, tribe vs tribe, nationality vs nationality. The pogroms against Jews were vicious and brutal, but the victims were in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands. And even though many innocent Jews got slaughtered, there were legitimate reasons as to why the Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians were angry with Jews. But Jews overlooked all of that... just like Jews have, until recently, generally overlooked the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Jews would have us believe, Israeli Jews are innocent lambs who want to avert Another Holocaust whereas Palestinians are wolves filled with quasi-nazi ‘hate’. Never mind the 1948 Nakba pogroms that expelled Palestinians from their homes and towns. Likewise, Jews have turned Israel vs Iran conflict into a cartoon. Though Iran has no nukes and has complied with international inspections, it has been accused of harboring an Evil Plan to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, a gross distortion of what the Iranian president actually said. Meanwhile, Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons and bans international inspections, but we are told that we must do everything to protect poor little Israel(with enough nukes to blow up Iran many times over) from Iran(that has zero nukes and, unlike Israel, didn’t attack or invade its neighbors). So, Jewish hyperbole isn’t limited to the Shoah. Jews flip out and foam at the mouth about everything. Take the anti-communist crusade of the late 40s and early 50s. Joseph McCarthy overplayed his hand, but it was far from a ‘witch-hunt’ as there were plenty of communist spies and fellow-travelers in the US government and institutions. But because many of them happened to be of the Tribe, the Jews circled the wagons and pushed the Narrative of the ‘Red Scare’, ‘anti-communist hysteria’, and ‘McCarthyism’. In other words, we're supposed to believe communists and their sympathizers were few and far between, and even if there were some, they were just well-meaning people whose civil liberties shouldn’t have been violated. Never mind that those Jewish leftists and communists had been totally supportive of War Hysteria during WWII and the ‘internment’ of over 100,000 Japanese-in-America. Jews have been no less hysterical about denial of membership to their grandfathers in WASP golf clubs. And Jews have also vastly exaggerated the lynchings of blacks. In the 100 yrs from the end of the Civil War to 1965, only a few thousand blacks were lynched(and many of them were rapists and murderers), but the Jew-run media would have believe that totally innocent blacks were hanging from trees like apples in an orchard. You’d think EVERY black family lost someone to lynching. And Jews flip out about the US turning away illegal ‘dreamers’ or the EU saying ‘enough is enough’ to mass invaders from Africa and Muslim World. All such constitute ‘nazism’. One might argue that the Shoah was so traumatic to Jews that they tend to frame everything in terms of ‘nazis’ and ‘holocaust’. But Jewish obnoxiousness has been around long before Shoah. The Jewish Way has always been ‘my way or the highway’. Their long experience with Monotheism and the Covenant conditioned them to believe that their Truth is the one-and-only truth and that they and only they have a special relationship with the Truth.

A closer inspection of the 20th century would have to consider that the great tragedies that befell Jews partly(and crucially) resulted from tragedies that befell other peoples at the hands or puppet-strings of Jews. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around. It’s like we can admit that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible and killed many innocents of all ages — it could have been far worse as the American Plan was to nuke 10 or 12 more cities until Japan surrendered — , but Japan-as-a-nation-and-world-power was hardly innocent in the events that led up to WWII. Because of the especially horrific nature of the nukings, there’s been a tendency among many Japanese(and some on the Western Left, especially in Europe) to see the event in terms of ‘white racist America’ mass-exterminating poor helpless Japanese. But even if one were to believe that the nukings were great war crimes and unnecessary(making them more evil), it still doesn’t exonerate Japan’s own role in WWII and its horrors, some of which were as evil and depraved as humankind could commit. Likewise, the destruction of Germany in WWII was so horrific and cost so many innocent lives that there’s been a tendency among those on the Far Right to make Germans out to be the misunderstood victims of WWII. But despite the fact that many innocent Germans(especially womenfolk and children) were killed or brutalized, there’s no getting around the fact that Germany had played a key role in triggering the biggest war of all time. What goes for Japan and Germany also goes for Jews. Because Jewish control the academia and media, people aren’t fully cognizant of the perfidious Jewish role in modern history. Also, because Jews didn’t have a nation of their own and instead operated through a world-wide network, a lot of bad Jewish behavior came to be associated with non-Jewish nations or empires. For example, Jews were the main sellers of opium in China, but most people just blame it on British Imperialism. Jews financed many slave ships and invested heavily in the Western colonization of the world. But because Jews remained in the shadows as financial puppet-masters, their power remained invisible. The Jewish world-wide-networks presented themselves as ‘British’, ‘French’, ‘German’, ‘American’, ‘Austrian’, ‘Russian’, etc.

Not having a nation of their own was both disadvantageous and advantageous to Jewish power. It was obviously disadvantageous because Jews had to operate as a minority in every nation. Even with all the money and success, Jewish power was precarious because Jews were vastly outnumbered by masses of goyim who might unite top-to-bottom as a force to contend with Jews, even expelling them for the umpteenth time. But the absence of their own nation was advantageous to Jews because they could have an Invisible Empire. Because the British had a nation of their own called Britain, theirs was known as the British Empire. And same logic applied to the French, Russian, Spanish, Ottoman, and other empires. But because Jews didn’t have a nation of their own, their Empire of Judea(or EOJ) latched onto and hid behind the empires of others. The Empire of Judea moved in the shadows of other empires. Unless one knew the details of who’s-who and the inner-workings of worldwide power, one could easily overlook and fail to detect the full extent of the Jewish Empire. It was a global Stealth Empire that evaded many political radars of awareness, all the more so because the EOJ bought up many goy politicians(to serve as fronts) and the (apparently ‘gentile’)media that seriously distorted public consciousness. Jews didn’t publish only distinctly Jewish journals but purchased Christian/pagan-created newspapers & magazines to use as fronts of Jewish Narratives. Anyway, prior to WWII and Shoah, the fact is the Empire of Judea in all its branches had sunk its claws into world affairs that led to unnecessary wars, communist revolution & mass killings, and cultural degeneration(that reached its heights in Weimar Germany) that understandably angered a lot of people. Thus, the idea that anti-Jewish violence was always about Big Nasty Goy beating on helpless innocent Jews is false. Rather, it was the result of Clash of Empires. Jewish Empire happened to be one of them, and for the most part, Jews gave as well as they got. Indeed, considering the number of Christians/pagans who died as the result of Jewish meddling in World Affairs, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say the Jewish Empire killed many more of the Other than was killed by the Other. Even though Jews weren’t the ONLY people responsible for World War I's spiraling out of control, communism, and financial robbery that led to the Great Depression, they were among the key movers and shakers of history. Thus, the victims of the Empire of Judea in the 20th century would have to count in the tens of millions. For one thing, Jews played an instrumental role in getting both UK and US into WWI. And Jews were the main financiers of the Bolshevik Revolution. And after the Cold War, Jews were the main operatives behind US involvement in the Middle East and North Africa that has destroyed millions of Arab and/or Muslim lives.
Of course, due to the rise of Israel as a Jewish state following WWII, it has been more difficult for Jews to maintain an Invisible or Stealth Empire. What with so many US politicians being bribed, blackmailed, and goaded into chanting, "Israel, Israel, Israel", people can’t help wake up to the extent of Jewish Power that is now linked to a particular geography and ethnicity.

But Jews will not settle for a complex reading of history in which they were as much perpetrators and aggressors as preys and victims. There are several reasons for this. Jewish personality tends toward self-righteous obnoxiousness. Jews fear that non-Jews are too childlike and dumb to understand complexity, and so, it’s better to push a children’s tale of history with Good Guys and Bad Guys(where Jews are the ultimate Good Guys and anyone or any people who counter Jewish hostility with hostility-in-kind are the Bad Guys). Jews are in supremacist mode despite their small numbers, and this means they must paralyze non-Jewish majority with a heavy dose of the Guilt Pill lest they wake up and stand up to Jewish Power. Also, the ebbing of anti-Jewish sentiments have made it easier for Jews to assimilate into the larger community, and certain Jewish elites fear the loss of Jewish identity as the result of Gentile Niceness. Since most Jews are secular and irreligious, the Shoah has become like a replacement covenant for Jews with History. For those reasons, Jews now define themselves mainly with the Holocaust. The Shoah Narrative informs Jews that they suffered more than any other people. Or, even if there had been comparable horrors around the world all throughout history, Shoah is still worse because (1) the victims were Jews, a very wise and wonderful people and (2) the perpetrators were Germans, among the most educated and advanced people on Earth at the time. It’s a matter of who/whom. Such is the reasoning why the Jew-run US media find it far more tragic for Jews to get killed by Palestinians than the other way around. Jews are special, Palestinians are not. Jews are a godly race of people, whereas Palestinians are humans-as-animals.

Of course, there’s an outrageous irony here. Jews say the Shoah was a great evil act because a certain people were killed by the bushel on the basis of racial supremacism. But the very notion that the Shoah was especially evil because JEWS were killed is premised on Jewish Supremacism. In other words, if Germans had been nice to Jews and killed millions of other people, it wouldn’t have been as bad because those victims, not being Jewish, weren't as precious. In keeping with such logic, Jewish Media have us believe that a bunch of Jewish Hollywood writers who were blacklisted for a few years suffered greater tragedy than over 100,000 Japanese-in-America who were sent to ‘internment’ camps. But such rationale can only be explained by a Jewish Supremacist worldview that posits that it’s worse to persecute Jews than other peoples. There wasn’t much outrage in the US about the 100,000s of Iraqis killed by US sanctions(under Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright). But imagine if the US had enforced sanctions on Israel that killed 100,000s of Jewish women and kids. Jews would freak out. So, Jews are indeed supremacist. Jews, religious and secular, believe that a single Jewish life is worth a million non-Jewish lives. Jews since the Shoah have acted like each and every one of them is a son-of-god or daughter-of-god. Better than the rest. And since Jews judge worth mainly by wit and intelligence, they were bound to grow contemptuous of other peoples as inferior and deserving to be ruled by Jews. Secular Leftist Jews suppressed such thoughts on the conscious level, but subconsciously they too harbored such feelings because, after all, when we assess Jewish attitudes by their actions than their words, they reek of supremacism and arrogance. In a similar vein, blacks are in supremacist mode because they judge worth according to the Junglometrics of fist, dong, booty, and volume.

Because Jews feel as they do, they’ve grown pathologically self-righteous, sickeningly sanctimonious, pompously holier-than-thou, nastily judgmental, and viciously inquisitional. Granted, Jews are not alone in being corrupted by moral arrogance. Those who are excessively moralistic tend to become blind to their own follies and hypocrisies. So full of themselves with an innate sense of nobility, they feel justified in all their hatreds, hostilities, and aggressions(as God is on their side). Christians and Muslims wre often like that. And of course, communists felt justified in wiping out millions in service to the Cult of Justice. People like Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and Pol Pot really thought they were the Avenging Angels on the right side of history. And the US and UK went to excesses too in WWII. Because they were at war with the vile empires of Germany and Japan, they felt justified in carrying out acts of destruction that could also be construed as evil. So, Jewish moral hypocrisy isn’t unique in history. But we need to worry about it more because (1) Jews rule the world through the Empire of Judea (2) Jews have ‘epigenetized’ the Shoah so that all Jews for all eternity shall be regarded as the Holy Holocaust People (3) Jews are carrying out the greatest acts of evil around the world — spread of Homomania, Wars for Israel(that has destroyed millions of lives), insane sanctions on Iran, ‘new cold war’ with Russia, push for Demographic Imperialism against the West, and spread of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Jews are behind all such. Jews are waging war on the white race, all of humanity, and the meaning of civilization itself. George Soros, a most vile and vicious mastermind of Globo-Chaos, isn’t alone. Too many Jews share his views and anti-values.
Worse, unlike Nazis who were at least honest in their supremacism, arrogance, and aggression, Jews would have us believe that their Judeo-Nazi globo-supremacism is about ‘human rights’ and ‘justice’. Yeah right, conflating homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting with Marriage, Morality, and Spirituality is what Justice is all about. Jews push such nonsense on the global scale, yet so many morons around the world have fallen for it.

At some point, Holocaust Moralism turned into Holocaust Nihilism. Perhaps, such could have been avoided IF Jews hadn’t sought globo-supremacist power and/or didn’t have the means to amass so much power and wealth. Following WWII, imagine if most Jews had been content to just lead normal lives and get along with others. They might have stuck with Holocaust Moralism, i.e. they would have led lives guided by moral lessons from Shoah, and they would have, honestly and with good-will, tried to impart those lessons to others. But Jews didn’t seek normality after WWII. They obsessively sought domination in industry, institutions, ideology, and everything. Whether they were capitalists, communists, Zionists, or whatever, they wanted more and more power and control. So, as Jewish Power and Wealth kept on expanding(often through nefarious means and methods), Jews needed to whitewash and launder more of their violations and transgressions through the washing machine of Shoah. As Jewish power got bigger and fouler, there was the likelihood of increasing anti-Jewish criticism. Jews suppressed it by waving the Holocaust Flag over and over and over.
Also, Jews knew that the Holocaust Cult could be effective ONLY IF the world accepted the Jewish Mythology of the Event. On the one hand, Jews wanted the world to never forget and look back again and again and again on what happened to Jews in WWII. Jews feared that the people would forget or not care anymore. So, every generation was placed on the Holocaust Carousel.
At the same time, Jews didn’t want the world to pry too deeply into what really happened and WHY. If people looked too closely, maybe it wasn’t 6 million who died. Maybe it was 5 million, 4 million, or 3 million. Maybe most Jews were killed by gunfire than by gassing, a more sinister-form of extermination. And if we look more closely as to WHY so many people came to hate Jews, maybe Jews weren’t such innocent victims and saints. Also, contrary to the Jewish Narrative that says innocent and saintly Jews had been terrorized & brutalized by irrational ‘anti-Semites’ all through the ages, maybe Jews repeatedly did things to piss off just about every people. So, as horrible and evil as Shoah was, maybe it wasn’t only the culmination of rabid & virulent anti-Jewish hatred that had been passed down over many centuries but also the culmination of rabid & virulent Jewish behavior that finally unleashed the most extreme kind of reaction. Indeed, odds suggest that Jews were more to blame for anti-Jewish attitudes among non-Jews through most of history. After all, just how is it that Jews got kicked out of so many places? Also, if not for the protective shield of Holocaust Cult, ‘antisemitism’ could well return to the West in no time because so much of Jewish behavior is so appalling and disgusting. To better clarify the point, imagine there is a guy named Bob. Suppose Bob comes to be hated and rejected by a 100 people. What are the odds that Bob is a nice guy or an innocent victim while all the people who've come to hate him as the real jerks? Now, if Bob were well-liked by 90 people and hated by 10, one might think the problem may be with the 10 who hate him. After all, if so many people like Bob, the odds are he is a swell guy. Or, suppose 50 people like Bob and 50 people hate Bob. The odds here would be more iffy. Who are right? The 50 who like him or 50 who hate him? But if Bob is disliked by all 100 people, the overwhelming odds are NOT in Bob’s favor. And this logic applies to Jews in relation to goyim. They came to be so universally distrusted, despised, and hated that it seems unlikely that it was never the Jews’ fault but everyone else’s. Imagine there’s someone on Ebay or Amazon who has a rating of 0 Positives and 100 Negatives. Now, there is an infinitesimal chance that the person is really a good guy and it’s the 100 people who gave him negative marks who are at fault. But what are the odds that such would be true? The overwhelming odds are that the guy is rotten seller/buyer and cheated lots of people who gave him a negative mark for good reasons. Then, the same logic applies to Jews. If 100 peoples who dealt with Jews found Jews to be pretty vile and rotten, the chances are the fault was with Jews than with all ONE HUNDRED of the peoples. And this isn’t difficult to understand when we consider many of the prominent Jewish personalities. Some of them were talented and did great work in their fields, but so many of them were A**HOLES: Susan Sontag, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Woody Allen, David Mamet, Philip Roth, Pauline Kael, John Simon(Jewish in ancestry), Gene Siskel, Harvey Weinstein, Paul Krugman, Stanley Kubrick, Bob Dylan, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Leon Trotsky, Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Savage, Rob Reiner, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Katha Pollit, Tony Kushner, Martin Peretz, Adam Sandler, Bernie Madoff, Jennifer Rubin, William, Kristol, David Remnick, Sandra Bernhard, Lena Dunham, Barbra Streisand, Darren Aronofsky, and the list goes on and on and on. They are like the passive/aggressive homo-Jew-kid in MIDNIGHT COWBOY who gets a free blowjob, cheats people, but plays the poor victim. Jews have lots of talent, but dealing with them is like working with cactus. In a way, it's understandable why Jews developed social instruments like quills on a porcupine. Vastly outnumbered by non-Jews, they needed to be tough and have strong defensive strategies. But just like a porcupine always has its quills, Jews always got their thorniness even when they aren't in danger. So, even a person who wants to be friendly with a porcupine can be harmed, and even a person who approaches Jews with no ill intent can get pricked badly.

Anyway, when a people become so cocksure of their moral grandeur, they take on godlike attitudes. They think in holier-than-thou terms. They believe they and all their deeds are morally justified because of their holiness. As such, they effectively become nihilists despite or especially because of the moral sanctimony. It’s like Christians in the Middle Ages who tortured and killed a lot of people were blind to their own evil because they were so sure that God was on their side. Since everything they did was in the name of Jesus, how could it be wrong? Thus, there were bouts of Christian Nihilism all throughout Western History. After all, how did the Christian West grow so powerful? By adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ? No, by wars, invasions, greed, slavery, exploitation, and etc. Now, other civilizations and peoples did the same thing as history is one long bloody mess, but in some ways, Christians were more blind to their own evil precisely because they were so morally and spiritually full of themselves. When Vikings and Mongols went around bashing heads, they knew very well morality had nothing to do with it. They were out for plunder and loot. But when Christians also acted out of greed and conquest, they often failed to see the baseness of their interests because they were wrapped in the sanctimony of God and Jesus. Morality can make us aware of our failings, but paradoxically, it can also make us even blinder to our failings. Because morality makes us feel justified and sanctimonious, we can fall into the trap of believing that our acts of wanton greed and domination are in the name of serving God, Jesus, or some higher truth. This is how communism became so utterly blind to the horrors it committed all around the world. The Cult of Justice blinded the True Believers to all the violence and bloodshed. And in time, the new communist elites were mainly in it for the Power and Privilege, but they maintained the myth they were all about serving the scientific laws of history. (Science being amoral, why would a scientific reading of history favor a form of justice based on certain moral precepts?) In our secular time, the New Cult is the Conceit of Intellect. The reason why so many PC-commissars in media and academia are utterly blind to their own deceptions, betrayals, corruption, and evils is because they’ve been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe that they are intellectually and ethically ‘more evolved’; after all, they conflate the image of the rainbow with homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting. It’s a conceit of intellect because PC relies so much more on idolatry-of-celebrities and iconography-of-false-gods(such as MLK) than on true intellect that should be rational, skeptical, and critical of all official truisms funded and pushed by globalist oligarchs and their tribalist overlords.

There are three ways a moral-thought-system can be used. It can be used as a rule-book, a reminder & restraint, or righteous weapon. For the ambitious, morality-as-rule-book is difficult because ambition implies aggression, conquest, and domination. It’s about winning, and that brings out the barbarian in everyone. Especially if the moral-thought-system is something like Christianity, it is difficult to use as rule-book because Jesus’ teachings are so idealistic and impractical. And it’s many times more difficult if a people’s ambition is to gain the world. The Imperial West decided to gain the world through voyages of discovery and wars of conquest. It couldn’t act very Christian.
If a moral-thought-system can’t be used as a rule-book, it can still have value as reminder-and-restraint. Christianity-as-reminder-and-restraint will not prevent wars and conquest. But it can still have value in limiting the levels of destruction and exploitation(and gradually leading to redemption and reform). It’s like Anglos, due to Christian ethos, pulled back from total extermination of the American Indians. And slavery eventually ended under Western Imperialism because of moral reminders of its unpleasantness and cruelty. Also, the US could have wiped Japan off the map in WWII but pulled back from total destruction, the kind Romans brought upon Carthage. There were Christian reminders and restraints that prevented the US from going all the way like Genghis Khan did(and Hitler planned to do, especially in Russia).
Finally, there is the morality-as-righteous-weapon, and this is the most problematic. Those who come under this spell have no use for morality as rule-book. They just feel blessed and anointed by the righteous creed. So, whatever they do is justified because their moral-thought-system makes them feel so self-righteous. Consider the Teutonic Knights who could be ultra-cruel and ruthless. Christianity for them wasn’t a rule-book but a righteous hammer. And because they felt so righteous in their violence, there were few reminders and restraints on their behavior.

And this is what has become of Jewish Power. To be sure, there are some Jews who believe Shoah should serve as a rule-book for the Tribe, i.e. because Jews suffered so horribly during WWII, they should never forget the main lessons of Shoah and act accordingly. People like Norman Finkelstein believe Jews should not oppress other peoples because Shoah taught Jews what it is like to be oppressed and exterminated. Then, there are other Jews who aren’t as idealistic but still believe that Jews should be more cautious and contemplative in their behavior. Maybe, Jews should work for some kind of mutual understanding with other peoples and arrive at some kind of compromise. These Jews believe that Jews cannot rely solely on the goodwill of others for security and survival. Jews need great power, and great power means Jews having to do some unsavory things. Still, these Jews believe there should be some limits to Jewish behavior. Jews must be mindful not to become like the Nazis, the very people who did Jews most harm. And then, you got Jews who are only interested in using Shoah as the righteous moral hammer of greed, power, and vengeance. According to people like Abe Foxman, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, Jennifer Rubin, Paul Krugman, Chuck Schumer, Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, and etc., the Holocaust Cult gives Jews the Righteous Moral License to do just about anything. By such logic, Jews are forever Holocaust Victims no matter what they do. And whomever Jews hate and kill are the ‘new nazis’ simply because they happen to be enemies or rivals of Righteous Jews. Since Jews are the Holocaust People, all their ‘enemies’ must be ‘new nazis’ or ‘new hitlers’. This is truly a form of nihilism, but Jews are blind to this truth because they are intoxicated with the moral-spiritual conceit of being Eternal-Holocaust-Children. So, we have a perverse phenomenon of Judeo-Nazi globo-supremacists destroying so much of humanity morally, culturally, demographically, or physically but drunk with the demented conceit that they are forever the Righteous-Avenging-Angels-of-Holocaust. We have Holocaust Nihilism. It's no wonder Jews could love a movie as ugly and demented as Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.

It is ironic that the profound moralism of Shoah eventually led to the perverse nihilism in its name, but it all makes sense because elevated moralism can lead to god-think, and god-think makes people feel holier-than-thou and above the conventional rules of humble humanity. After all, the Greeks gods aren’t bound by human rules of right/wrong and proper conduct. They cannot be judged like humans are judged. And this was an even bigger moral problem in Judaism. Because the Jewish God is the one and only God, the God of supreme power and of all things, He must be beyond human morality far more than any pagan god is. After all, many pagan gods are recognizably human, and they aren’t said to be all-powerful. In contrast, the Jewish God is said to be the only God and all-powerful. With such total power, He must truly be beyond the realm of man. Human morality must be a joke to Him. He must be the ultimate nihilist, one that may even demand endless human sacrifices. But even as Jews made their God so far beyond and above human dimensionality, they also made Him a most moral God. So, the Jewish God is most removed from humanness yet most committed to issues of human good and evil. This contradiction cropped up especially in the stories of Abraham & Isaac, Job, and Jesus. All three tried to reconcile a God so beyond humanity with a God so closely bound to human fate. One conception of God leads Him to ever greater feats of nihilism. In the Book of Job, God plays with the hapless fellow like a child tearing off wings of a dragonfly. And when Job asks why, God’s answer sounds awesomely nihilistic. He says mankind shall not judge Him by their own petty rules of right-and-wrong. The human heart-and-mind are too feeble to understand the true designs of God. And yet, there is also the other conception of God that makes Him ultimately responsive to Job and provides recompense for all the hardships done to an innocent person.

However one may interpret the Bible, one thing is for sure. Mankind should not play God. Jesus is the only one who got away with it but only because He offered Himself as the sacrifice. If a man were to gain godlike powers, the natural tendency would be to become above-the-law, wallow in nihilism, and feel really high-and-mighty, like Tetsuo in the anime work AKIRA. After all, to be godlike means to be amass huge powers like the character in SPLIT by M. Night Shyamalan. Jesus was tempted by such powers but chose humility and service to mankind.


It was troublesome enough for mankind to try to reconcile God’s higher powers with human morality. After all, what would be the point of being godlike if one has to stick to human standards? It’d be like having wings but still walking on legs. It’d be like being rich but still being thrifty. To have more power means more possibilities, and usually that means more freedom to indulge one’s desires. So, it’s understandable why Zeus acted the way he did. On the one hand, Greeks weren’t too keen on his promiscuity and sometimes unscrupulous use of power. On the other hand, Greeks admired his brazenness and egotism... just like lower-fratboys admiring the Big Man on Campus who gets more girls and gets out of trouble as a 'popular guy' as 'golden god'.
Many feel the same way about famous people, stars, and celebrities. On the one hand, we rebuke their self-indulgence and disdain for common morality. Yet, they are also objects of adulation for their means to fulfill their desires that are shared vicariously by ‘little people’. Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson had huge fan-bases to the very end despite or especially because they were above-the-norm in so many respects. With fame and money, they could live the dream life, and even when they did despicable things, there were always fans who either forgave them or loved them even more for breaking all the laws(that restrict the Little People). This is the dark side of the Randall McMurphy character in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. On the one hand, he brings life and spontaneity to the mental ward. But he soon becomes an object of cult worship, and others come to love him simply because he has the devil-may-care audacity to break all the rules. Because McMurphy, like Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE, is hemmed inside an 'oppressive' system, we tend to sympathize and cheer on his antics. But there is a streak of nihilism that grows ever more problematic.

Granted, there are People-of-Power who care about the Little People and prefer to use the considerable means at their disposal to make for a more just society for everyone. Not every person with great power or privilege wants to indulge himself and act like common morality doesn’t apply to him. Some People-of-Power find the antics of rich celebrities and pop stars to be childish and infantile. They want to do something truly noble and grand.
But then, there are many Little People whose only dream is to rise high and gain the means to act like total pigs. After all, most Little People didn’t choose to be ‘little’ out of goodness or meek humility. They were either born ‘little’ or forced to be ‘little’ by circumstances, limitations, or oppression. There is a tendency among some on the Left to consider ‘little people’ as inherently good, noble, and humble. But in fact, many ‘little people’ are just celebrity-wanna-be’s and indeed care more about celebrities than fellow ‘little people’. Look at all those low-income Negro thugs who, instead of working to make for a better community, emulate big-name rap celebrities and only care about bling and will even kill for it. Little People have many pigs among them.

This was one of the problems with Jews. Many Jews arrived in the US as huddled ‘little people’, and some well-meaning progressive Wasp elites took pity on Jews as humble folks who wanted to be Good Americans. Now, many Jews were like that. They were good people looking for a nice decent place to live and make ends meet. But there were also plenty of Jews who started on the bottom but had insatiable ambitions of greed, lust, pride, and arrogance. They arrived ‘little’ by circumstances but wanted to be the gods of America. This kind of Jewish mentality was in plain sight with Jordan Belfort of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET notoriety. To be sure, it’s a universal trait among all peoples, but it’s been more problematic with Jews because they have chutzpah, more obsessive personalities, and greater ability due to higher IQ. So, Jewish ‘little people’ rose to great heights of power with more resentment, chip-on-their-shoulders, and knives hid behind their backs. And when these people with gangster-prophet mentalities wrapped themselves in the shroud of the Holocaust Cult, they became nearly insufferable. They became like the Mafia + Gypsies + Jesuits. Their limitless ambition, manic greed, and insatiable lust became conflated with self-righteousness and self-worship. The Jewish Logic went as follows: "Because we suffered the Holocaust, the greatest tragedy of all time, every single one of us Jews is a neo-jesus-christ, and because we died for the sins of mankind, those damned goy anti-Semites, we are godlike and above the morality of stupid goy little people. We, as the god-race of neo-jesuses, can do anything we want because we are above and beyond the laws and morality of stupid goy little people who lack the ability, depth, comprehension, and tragic souls of us great noble saintly awesome Jews." So, ruthless Jewish ambitions and appetites are all justified by Holocaust Nihilism. The Shoah elevated Jews to godly status. They are holy because NO PEOPLE suffered like Jews, apparently. (Or even if other peoples did suffer comparably or worse, their suffering wasn't as tragic because they weren't as special as Jews. It's like so many people were crucified by the Romans, but they count for less than Jesus because only He was the Son of God.) And this holiness is ‘epigenetically’ passed down from generation to generation for all eternity. And we worthless goy Little People must all get down on our knees and love Jews like Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother. We must never judge Jews just like we are never supposed to judge God. God’s laws are beyond human understanding, and the Jewish Way is beyond us because Jews not only have superhuman intelligence and prophetic vision but because they’ve been elevated to higher planes of spiritual-morality due to their neo-crucifixion in the Holocaust.

So, there you have it. Shoah, which could have been a great moral guide for Jews in their understanding of morality and history, became a cult with which Jews made themselves into a race of holy god-men whose truth, morality, and laws are so high above ours that they don’t need to heed to rules that apply to the rest of us. To be sure, Negroes and Homos also have this megalomaniacal mind-set due to natural and socio-economic reasons. Blacks and Homos are naturally more self-centered and uninhibited in their self-glorification. But this natural tendency has been amplified by Jewish Power’s favoring them over other groups. So, blacks now believe it is their right to attend good schools even when they fail. They believe they shouldn’t be suspended even when the act rotten in school. They believe they shouldn’t be arrested for criminal acts. Even when blacks act bad, they get angry with people noticing bad black behavior. We are supposed to avert our gaze from black badness. Or, we are supposed to pretend black badness is really goodness. Or we are supposed to blame whites or other non-blacks for black badness on grounds that black badness is just the product of historical trauma because NO ONE suffered as much as blacks(with the exception of Jews). And it is truly amazing that Homos never got the blame they deserved for the HIV epidemic, just like Jewish radicals never got the blame they deserved for spying for the Soviet Union and doing other subversive things in the Cold War. We are not supposed to notice reality when it comes to Jews, blacks, and homos. We are just supposed to believe in the miracles of Jewishness, blackness, and Homo-ness. It’s like fraudulent Christian charlatans don’t want you to see the fakery behind their bogus miracles. Don’t look behind the curtain. Just look at the ‘miracle’ and believe. Believe in the myth of the Eternally saintly and innocent Jew who’d been wronged through the ages. Believe in the myth of the Noble Negro who only sought freedom and dignity and wanted a pet a little white mouse. And lives in Wakanda. Believe that homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting are all about the homo-rainbow that now drapes every other church in the US and nearly all the churches in EU.

Shoah was a great tragic event, and it needs to be remembered properly. But Holocaust Nihilism is one of the great soul-sicknesses of our age. Indeed, it is on par with Nazism itself. Because Holocaust Nihilism makes Jews feel so sanctimonious and morally holier-than-thou, it blinds them to the ugliness of their greed, lust, hatred, and contempt. They act like vile pigs but only see themselves as poor helpless Jews because epigenetics tell them the Holy Holocaust trauma-DNA will forever inform Jewish consciousness. Also, we are to believe that because Shoah was so unbelievably evil(the work of Satan himself), its victims didn't merely survive but came to radiate with the aura of messianic holiness. They became superhuman and immune to the norms of humanity.

So, it doesn’t matter what Jews do. They can spread the ugliest hatreds toward Palestinians, Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Christians, and white goyim. Jews believe that even their most immoral, vile, and disgusting emotions and actions are holy and justified because they are the Holy Holocaust People. Just as God felt justified in killing countless people in His name in the Bible, Jews(in their self-worship) feel they are justified in playing ruthless games with humanity and history because everything about them is holy schmoly.
Concerning God’s terrifying actions, we can at least theorize and rationalize because, after all, He is the all-knowing and all-seeing Master of All. So, maybe there is a mysterious rhyme and reason to the things He does that we sinners and Little People just can’t understand... in the way that a fish cannot understand the way of humans.
But such mindset, when applied to Jews-as-gods, is pure nihilism. No matter how smart & capable Jews are, no matter how bold & ambitious Jews are, and no matter how tragic & traumatic Jewish history has been, the fact remains that Jews are people like the rest of us. Even if they are smarter people, they are not a godlike people. When Jews indulge in Holocaust Nihilism, it goes far beyond pulling rank. An officer in the military may demand respect from a person of lower-rank, but he too is bound by strict codes, and the rules apply only in the military. In contrast, Jews aren’t merely pulling rank but pulling realm. They are saying their souls exist in a realm of higher dimensionality above and beyond the souls of us inferior goyim. They are saying that the Shoah revealed every member of the Jewish Race to be a messiah over and above the rest of us. Jews no longer need to await the Messiah. Every Jew is the messiah. Around the time Jews experienced Shoah, they also built the atomic bomb. Just like Jesus suffered greatly and died but then rose to Heaven and returned as the Son of God, the Jews who suffered so horribly in WWII arose from the war’s end with the most powerful technology mankind had ever seen. It's like the atomic explosion was the resurrection of the Jew. With it, Jews demonstrated their godly genius and capabilities.


Usually, a people with great power need to be self-critical and criticized by others. In the 20th century, Jews demonstrated that they have the means to gain more power than any other people. In pound-for-pound terms, no people come remotely close to Jews in their ability to make money, gain influence, and advance science & technology. So, Jews are a great people but also a potentially terrifying people who can use their power for great evil as well as for good. If the Jewish lesson from Shoah wasn’t simply, "We’d been greatly wronged" but also "We too could act like Nazis IF we lose our way", Jews could have been a great force for good. Instead, so many holders of Jewish Power became essentially Judeo-Nazis who are all the more dangerous because they believe that Shoah both absolves them of all guilt and justifies whatever they do as the Holy Holocaust People. Humanity must wake up and work together to counter Holocaust Nihilism. The world will be destroyed if it continues to be dictated by Neocons, Wall Street sharks, Hollywood degenerates, Homomaniacs, Mass-Invasion peddlers, Big Pharma, and pushers of Afro-Pornification of Culture(even down to young children).