Sunday, March 31, 2019

Commentary on "Why Is ‘Cultural Marxism’ So Offensive?"(by GILAD ATZMON)

One may wonder why ‘Cultural Marxism’ is so offensive to some?
Because ‘Cultural Marxism’ is obviously truthful and precise in its capacity to encapsulate a crucial and disastrous transition in the evolvement of 20th century Left thinking.
As opposed to traditional Marxism that theorizes over the necessary condition toward social change by means of class struggle, ‘Cultural Marxism’ aims to introduce a change by cultural shift. At a certain stage some (neo) marxists and socialists were clever and honest enough to accept that the revolution wasn’t going to happen. The working class couldn’t be bothered and even if they could, they were too busy attending their jobs. The revolution had to be facilitated by different means.

Meaning of Cultural Marxism has changed over the years. There's a lot of misunderstanding because people conflate today's brand of 'Cultural Marxism' with Antonio Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony. Such is misleading.

The fact is Gramsci was a genuine communist. He believed control of culture would play a significant role in the revolution, and this revolution would ultimately lead to prole victory.

As for the Frankfurt School, they were more about Marxian possibilities than certainties. They preferred Marx's earlier works when he was searching for an answer in 'critique' mode than his later works when Marx the Prophet pontificated as if he'd figured it all out. Frankfurters wanted to return to the spirit of the early Marx when socialist radicalism hadn't yet hardened into dogma and decree.
And they were increasingly sure that the Soviet Union wasn't the answer and maybe communism wasn't either. But one thing for sure, they were ANTI-CAPITALIST and seeking out new social theories and experimentation to arrive at what they hoped would be a better future.

Fast forward to today, and what goes by the name 'cultural marxism' has NOTHING to do with Gramsci and little to do with the Frankfurt School. Gramsci was a real communist, whereas today's 'cultural marxists' aren't. The Frankfurters and today's so-called 'cultural marxists' may have something in common in their fixation with psychology, esp of the sexual kind. But the decidedly anti-capitalist stance of the Frankfurters made them hostile to much of popular culture and advertising, which were deemed to be 'commoditizing' and cheapening the true meaning of humanity. Their idea of sexual liberation was more on the personal level, not something to be mass-marketed into pornography or vice industry.

Also, Gramsci and Frankfurters were first-rank intellectuals, agree with them or not. The book about German cinema, FROM CALIGARI TO HITLER(by Siegfried Kracauer, affiliated with the 'School'), is very impressive even if you disagree with its conclusions.

In contrast, today's 'cultural marxists' are superficial and infantile. In some ways, the higher quality of past intellectuals owed to bourgeois repression and the fact that Jews and women didn't have it so good back then. Bourgeois norms pressured people to be mature and serious about stuff and grow up. If Pauline Kael and Susan Sontag had been raised as millennials, they could have ended up like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. Also, the fact that many Jews weren't so privileged back then meant that they had really had to work hard and prove their worth. And women back then had to really prove their mettle in men-dominated fields. No one coddled them, and they had to be tough, like female characters played by Katharine Hepburn, Rosalind Russell, and Barbara Stanwyck. There was no OLEANNA-ish bullshi* back then. In contrast, so many of today's Jewish elites and women writers have been coddled all their lives in rich homes and/or by PC culture. They are easily triggered princelings who can't fight for themselves and immersed in precious bratriarchy.

Also, there is no interest in communism among today's 'left'. Rachel Maddow and her ilk incessantly badmouth Russia's communist past. They also side with right-wing Israel while denouncing left-wing Venezuela. (In the past, many liberal and certainly leftist media people at least sympathized with Cuba and China and faulted the US for making the Cold War worse than it needed to be.) Some college professors do claim to be communists, but it's all a joke because their MAIN obsession is 'man with a wig is a woman' and 'we must work with uber-capitalists to destroy the white working class'. Gramsci was a communist, and the Frankfurters were, if not hardline communists, at least anti-capitalist and deeply troubled by materialism and pop culture.

Today's 'cultural marxists' are totally with capitalism, oligarchy, materialistic decadence, commodification of humanity via advertising & pornography, gluttonous infantilism(of piggery, tattoos, piercing, and etc), neo-aristo self-indulgence with homo-celebration, narcissism(with slut pride), racial supremacism(worship the badass Negro), deep state & pro-imperialism(calling for more Wars for Israel) via the military-industrial complex, and etc.

Now, some on the Right use the term 'cultural marxism' to imply that today's 'leftists' gave up on economics(socialism or communism) in favor of 'culture wars', but such has to be seen as a deviation from(and even betrayal of) the original intent of both Gramsci and Frankfurters, for whom the culture war was a means to either bring about communism or to seriously undermine capitalism. In contrast, today's so-called 'cultural marxists' are immersed in trashy pop culture(concocted by super-capitalists), vanity & narcissism, spoiled-brat tantrums, and celebrity worship. They are not communists or Marxists. And their feeble idea of 'socialism' is NOT about justice for workers but "Give us free stuff so that we can lead happy hipster lives sipping starbucks and listening to reggae & hiphop(and a tattoo on my arse)." Their idea of justice has less to do with ideology or principles than idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos as propped up by media and academia mostly controlled by Jews. (Jews are having some troubles though because they count as white and are rich as hell. Also, PC psychology is getting awfully neurotic on the issue of holy Jews beating up on POC Palestinians. So, even some Jewish 'leftists' are beginning to denounce Zionism and Israel because the contradiction between Jewish abuse of power and Jewish image of victimhood is getting more problematic.)

When Gramsci and Frankfurters were devising cultural strategies, they weren't about wallowing in pop culture but offering a counter-culture to the dominant one controlled by the 'bourgeoisie'. But today's so-called 'cultural marxist' are delighted with junk-trash culture. For them, pop culture is the END than the means. (For many, pop culture is their only real passion.) Now, they do believe that pop culture must be politicized to serve the 'resistance', but what are the 'values' and 'dream's that they aspire to most? Stuff that are loved by oligarchs, capitalists, privileged decadents, deep state goons, and etc. They love homomania, a tool of rich Jewish capitalist hegemonists. Their reverence for blacks has less to do with Civil Rights Movement than rap music, sports, and sex. And they blabber about platitudes like 'diversity' and 'inclusion' via endless immigration-invasion without understanding that such actually undermine mass unity(to take on elite power). They fail to see that 'diversity' is a ploy used by elites to shift moral advantage from the working class to the elite class. Because working class types tend to be more tribal(by instinct if not necessarily by ideology), the 'compassionate' privileged elites can hug immigrants and minorities and morally condemn the native masses of 'racism'. Thus in the UK, the moral advantage went from white masses making demands on white elites to white elites sneering at white masses as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. Of course, the elites get 'good diversity', whereas masses get 'bad diversity'. Rich whites are more likely to rub shoulders with the Obamas, whereas poor whites are more likely to be punched by Mike Tysons. Elites the get the prime cut of diversity whereas the masses get the entrails.
And naturally, there isn't much CRITICAL discussion of Jewish power(that is so supremacist, hegemonic, and ultra-capitalist) since the controllers of the elite institutions are largely Jewish.

Naomi Wolf is a ditz, but she was good enough to notice that today's 'cultural marxists' are actually working with the War Department to conflate 'empowerment of women' with US imperialism. Today, many 'cultural marxists' are totally on the side of US war-making because their idea of the highest value is globo-homo stuff. Since the US is now homo-metropole of the world, hell yeah, US should seek hegemony to spread hegehomony. And 'cultural marxists' support new cold war with Russia cuz... Russians won't bend over to 'gay pride' stuff(funded by super capitalists and Hollywood and Wall Street).

Today's 'cultural marxists' should really be called 'cultural capitalists'. It wasn't so much that Marxists took over the culture of capitalism but that capitalism totally transformed or subsumed the character of the Left so that there was no longer any real left left anymore. A 'cultural marxism' that is at home in the pages of Us and People magazines hardly has any moral value as an ideology.

A typical face of 'cultural marxism' is the atrocious Laura Dern in the latest STAR WARS fiasco. You see, the new rebellion is in a life-and-death struggle with the new empire, but notice she obviously spent many hours on her hair and dress to take command of the starship in the most crucial of times during the battle. It's all fantasy. The difference is when STAR WARS and SUPERMAN came out in the 70s, people took them for fantasy and nothing else. But now, we have 'cultural marxists' acting as if the real future of humanity hangs in the balance of what happens in STAR WARS, which is why it is so heavily politicized. It used to be, people got serious ideas from books(and some serious movies) and treated pop culture as escapist fantasy. Now, pop culture fantasyland is regarded as the main battleground of politics. As Chris Hedges said, we live in an empire of illusion where idolatry reigns over ideology. As 'cultural marxists' rule most of pop culture, it is said they have won the 'culture war'. But they won it for super-capitalists, neo-aristo homo narcissists, and tribal Jewish supremacists. The victory has nothing to do with real culture or anything resembling Marxism(or even classical progressivism).

In the radical films I AM CUBA and BATTLE OF ALGIERS, we see real revolutionaries putting their lives on the line for real world struggles. For them, it was not a game of Peter-Pan-ish fantasy. But what passes for 'cultural marxism' today is about taking control of Archie's Comics and STAR WARS franchise to churn out fantasies where the 'good guys(and gals and million other genders and intergalactic species)' come together to fight the 'bad guys' who look like MAGA people. And notice that the STAR WARS universe isn't so much about ragtag rebels vs the empire than about empire vs empire. So, the ultimate message is that militarism and blowing up the world is AWESOME and EXCELLENT as long as it's 'woke' according to Hollywood, Pentagon, Deep State, and the homo-hegemonic community.

The state of today's 'cultural marxism':

Friday, March 29, 2019

A Response to "Must the West Beg the World for Forgiveness?" by PAT BUCHANAN — The Special Tragedy of Indigenous Folks of Mexico & South America — Why Latin Whites are utterly Useless as allies of White American National Liberationists

Pat Buchanan: 
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador(El Presidente de Mexico) has written Pope Francis I and King Felipe VI to demand their apologies for the Spanish conquest of Mexico that began 500 years ago with the “invasion” of Hernando Cortez... “One culture, one civilization was imposed upon another... There were massacres and oppression... They built their churches on top of the temples.”
...Now no one denies that great sins and crimes were committed in that conquest. But are not the Mexican people, 130 million of them, far better off because the Spanish came and overthrew the Aztec Empire? Did not 300 years of Spanish rule... lead to enormous advances for its civilization and human rights? Or is there never a justification for one nation to invade another, conquer its people, impose its rule, and uproot and replace its culture and civilization? ...Did the Aztecs have a right to be left alone by the European world? If so, whence came that right?

All throughout history and all around the world, people have been conquering each other. Demanding apology for past imperialism is stupid. The entire world was about small imperialism and big imperialism. Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia before the French arrived. Zulus conquered other tribes in southern Africa. Even before the Europeans arrived in the New World or some non-white part of the world, the native peoples had been bashing and invading one another. Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans(though gone before the Europeans arrived) were imperialists in their own right. American Indians of the Great Plains were no strangers to ceaseless warfare. Mongols were among the greatest conquerors. Ottoman Turks controlled much of Southern Europe for centuries.
Now, not all peoples at all times were into imperialist mode, and there were long stretches of history in certain areas of the world when certain peoples mainly kept to themselves. Japanese were perhaps the most famous example of this. After Hideyoshi's failed attempt to conquer China by the way of Korea, Japan mostly looked inward and shut itself from the bigger world. Finally, it was pried open by the West. And even though China was more of an imperial power, it had no interest in expanding across the seas. (Even Chinese territorial expansions were oftentimes less the work of Chinese themselves than of peoples who'd conquered the Chinese and then pushed beyond existing borders. In time, as the conquerors themselves were absorbed into China, their conquests ended up in Chinese hands.) Still, the concept of respecting borders and sovereignty of nation-states is a relatively recent idea, at least as a 'right' as an ethical principle. Therefore, it should be morally applied only to the world after World War II when most peoples came to an agreement of national independence and sovereignty. It's like condemnation of past slavery makes little sense because most of the world not only practiced it but didn't find it particularly evil.

For most of history, borders always shifted like the scrimmage line in a football game. Polish-Lithuanian Empire was once huge and, if sustained, might have rivaled the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But the petty Poles were too divided among themselves and failed to generate sufficient central authority to make it work... unlike Moscow or Vienna. And so, the once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Empire grew ever smaller until it was all gone, followed by Poland and Lithuania being swallowed by bigger empires.
That said, even in the Ages of Empires, there was a crude sense of blood-and-soil national consciousness even among conquered peoples. This was evident in Judea vs Rome. Romans conquered and ruled, but Jews still regarded themselves as the true owners of the land. Roman blood-and-spoil vs Jewish blood-and-soil. While empires constantly fluctuated in reach and size, there was nevertheless a sense among the conquered/occupied that a foreign people were ruling over them. Even when Poland was wiped off the map(like Palestine much later) by Russian and Prussian empires, many Poles in their ancestral territory dreamed of restoration of Polish nationhood on the soil that the Poles stood. Poles aspired to end to foreign rule, just like Cossacks in Ukraine had once risen up against Polish imperial domination. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and it is now Israel. And Zionist imperialists are looking to annex West Bank, but Palestinians still dream of their own nationhood. Jews are the New Romans, Palestinians are the New Judaeans.... though one difference is Jews have a somewhat legitimate claim of blood-and-soil connection to Judea, something Romans lacked when they scattered Jews to the winds. And of course, Greeks lived under Ottoman rule for centuries but clung to Greek-Christian identity and hoped for liberation one day. It finally came though at bloody cost to both sides.

Given the history of mankind, it makes no sense for people to apologize for past 'wrongs'. Should Mongols apologize to Persians and Romans? Jews sure ain't apologizing to Palestinians. And when will Turks apologize to Greeks and Balkan folks? Chinese aren't apologizing to Tibetans and Uighurs, nor for its cynical role in propping up the insane Khmer Rouge... though Chinese do make a big stink about how Japan needs to grovel more for what it did to China. Due to the complexities of history, it's difficult to ascertain collective guilt, especially for descendants who weren't even around when the tragedies happened. Furthermore, apologies are rarely taken in good faith. Instead, it is abused as a political weapon to squeeze out more apologies, more groveling, and more concessions from the 'apologizer'. Look how Jews milk the Holocaust to no end. Norman Finkelstein wrote about Shoah Industry as a never-ending cash cow, a kind of Holocasino. It doesn't matter how much Germans prostrate themselves and hand over more cash, build more monuments, imprison more 90 yr old camp guards, and censor more speech. Jews just see cucky weakness and demand GIMME MORE, GIMME MORE. And not just to 'holocaust survivors'(a very loose term as just about ANY Jew who lived in areas of German Occupation is designated as a Holocaust Survivor EVEN IF he or she was never sent to a concentration camp) but to their children and grandchildren and so on. Also, Jews have used Holocaust Guilt as moral shield for their Nazi-like behavior in crushing Palestinians, spreading Wars for Israel, and economically raping entire nations.

So, how should nations deal with dark chapters of their histories(and all nations have dark chapters aplenty). They should honestly and truthfully acknowledge what happened and draw useful lessons and make comparisons with other civilizations. Comparative Tragedies. It should be like Alcoholics Anonymous where everyone takes HIS turn to confess problems with addiction. The fact is ALL OF HUMANITY has been drenched in blood, and if some spilled more than others, it generally had less to do with more evil but with more power. Now, one can argue that some peoples at certain times were especially cruel, even by the standards of the times. It seems fair to say that Assyrians, Mongols, Vikings, Aztecs, Nazis(at least in imperialist mode), Khmer Rouge, Japanese in Nanking, and Idi Amin were especially ruthless and bloody. But then, just about all civilizations had their extreme periods and extreme figures... like Ivan the Terrible of Russia and the utterly ruthless first emperor Chin of China. The best way to understand history is through Comparative Studies. Just like there is comparative literature, we need more sensible use of comparative history. But too much of 'comparative' discourse in history is to make white civilizations seem especially evil while whitewashing non-white ones.

Now, there is ONE reason why there is more pressure on white civilizations to apologize, and it owes to something inherent to white civilization itself. It has to do with Christianity, the faith of Pat Buchanan. What's the difference between Christianity and Islam? Jesus told His flock to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor and forgive enemies. In contrast, Muhammad, like Moses, was a warrior-prophet who commanded his followers to wage Jihad to spread the faith. Now, both Christians and Muslims expanded their powers thee same way: War, violence, and terror.
However, Muslims need not feel sorry for what they did according to their sacred text of the Koran. Muhammad was a fighter and urged the faithful to use the sword as well as the word to spread the message of Allah. In contrast, Christian civilization was vulnerable to pangs of doubt, hypocrisy, and guilt because Christian expansion(fueled by greed, violence, and ambition) went so much against what Jesus had preached. Christians often found themselves apologizing to God in prayer for having gone against Jesus' teachings in their victories in His name. Muslims saw their violence as an act of virtue. Christians saw their violence as, at best, a 'necessary evil' to defeat the greater evil of heathen darkness. Muslims did 'good', whereas Christians did 'lesser bad' to defeat the 'bigger bad'. This is why it's much more difficult for Jews to toy with Muslim psychology than with Christian psychology. Try to guilt-bait a Muslim, and he will laugh in your face. Try to guilt-bait a Christian, and it's so easy. For most of Western history, white Christians controlled the narrative and dogma; therefore, they could suppress matters exposing their hypocrisy and guilt. But once Jews took over the media and academia, they've been having a field day in guilt-baiting white Christians for their betrayal of their own ethos. Jews left whites feeling like hypocristians.

If Muslims had conquered South America and Mexico, there wouldn't be this issue of 'apology' or 'guilt'. Islam would be the dominant culture, and that'd be that. Muhammad told his flock to kick butt if they must. Enslave infidels if they must. Whatever it takes to spread Islam. Now, Islam did have a theory of justice and called for just treatment of fellow Muslims(and to some extent the fellow peoples of the Book, Jews and Christians), but violence was okay if a bunch of infidels could be crushed and converted.
But, even after 2000 yrs of Catholic theological discourse, the fact remains that it isn't very persuasive to argue that Jesus(and the Christian God) would ever have blessed the use of violence to spread the faith. In a way, Christianity was morally compromised in the moment it forged a pact with the Roman Empire. It began as a faith among Jews resisting the Roman Empire but then re-branded itself as the faith of a militarist behemoth maintained by endless blood-letting. (Perhaps, another reason why Islam has been more resilient is it spread Arabic far and wide as the sacred language of the Koran. As a result, many peoples in the Near East and North Africa abandoned their own languages and adopted Arabic. In contrast, Latin, the language of the Catholic Church, remained only among the elites, and furthermore, various European folks kept their own languages.)

On the matter of South America and Mexico, we need to deviate from the general standards of history. It is because what happened there is especially tragic, indeed far beyond anything that happened to other peoples. While it's true that all peoples were caught up in one form of imperialism or another -- indeed, all organisms, everything from bacteria to weeds to ants to fish to wolves and etc. vie for domination and expansion -- , the scale of devastation in South America and Mexico was unprecedented. Now, this is morally complicated because most of the natives died from diseases for which they had no immunity. In other words, EVEN IF the Spanish and Portuguese had come with the best of intentions and meant NO harm, it's likely that tens of millions(the great majority) of the natives would have died just the same. If the natives had had immunity to Old World diseases, it's likely that their fate would have been more like that of Asian Indians, Russians, and black Africans. Asian Indians were under British rule for a few centuries, but Anglos simply couldn't rule forever. There were too many native browns. And even though Mongols conquered Russia, the far greater number of Russians eventually reclaimed independence and pushed out or absorbed the Mongols. And Blacks still own and control black Africa.
In contrast, Old World diseases were so devastating and debilitating to the native population in South America and Mexico that the Spanish and Portuguese effectively gained permanent dominance. The natives had little chance of retaking their territories like most other peoples were able to eventually. Perhaps, if British diseases had wiped out 95% of Asian Indians or Chinese, it's possible that India or China today would still be an Anglo-dominated civilization. All peoples came under imperialist rule at one time or another, but most of them eventually reclaimed their land and gained autonomy. Romans eventually left Britain. Mongols eventually left Russia. Turks eventually left Greece. Imperialism is violent and destructive but also liberates and opens up new channels by loosening or destroying the native-conservative power structure. While the Chinese in Hong Kong did collaborate with British Imperialists, they gained lots of first-rate knowledge and wealth. However, the thing is the British eventually left, and Hong Kong is now part of China again.

So, when Buchanan argues that the Spanish and Portuguese imperialism in South America and Mexico did a lot of good as well as bad, that's all very true. Indeed, many native folks sided with the Europeans because they loathed the monstrous Aztecs. It's like if space aliens had come to Earth during World War II and declared war on Germany, Poles and Czechs would have allied with space aliens against the German foe. Poles and Czechs would have been grateful to the space aliens for coming to their rescue. But then, what if the aliens refuse to leave? What if they decide to stay and, in doing so, spread diseases that wipe out 90% of Poles and Czechs. And suppose they demographically take over Poland & Czech-land and rule as the New Boss. And just like Simon Mol the African Negro nearly turned Poland into Moland by humping tons of Polish girls, what if space aliens enslave the Polish and Czech men while having sex with Polish and Czech women to create mestizos who look like creatures in STAR TREK?

While it's true that Aztecs were demented and their defeat was a good thing, it wasn't as if EVERYTHING about their civilization was evil. While it's true that the native civilizations of South America and Mexico practiced horrid rituals like human sacrifice, they also built cities and had their own impressive bodies of knowledge and arts. But nearly all of that were wiped out by the Europeans. They threw out the baby along with the bathwater. We know Nazi Germany was evil, and it deserved to be defeated(even though Nazism was less defeated by communism and liberal democracy than by its own over-weaning ambition; any power, regardless of ideology, will destroy itself with excessive hubris or preserve itself with caution and moderation). But, the thing is Germany was allowed to survive as a civilization. Germans still had Germany(even if reduced in territory). Even the Soviets who occupied East Germany didn't deny Germans the right of people-hood and culture. But suppose the victors of World War II decided to destroy ALL of German identity and culture by conflating everything German with Nazism. Would that have been justified?

While imperialism has its pros and cons and even though subject peoples can gain something from imperialism -- Roman imperialism certainly spread civilization to the Germanic Barbarians -- , its positives can be justified ONLY WHEN the empire finally recedes and the native folks regain their lands. India and China are two cases of civilizations that were both victims and beneficiaries of European Imperialism. They did undergo stages of defeat, humiliation, and exploitation, but they also learned a great deal from the West and made remarkable advances because of revolutions in values and organization unleashed by Western influence. (Unless pried open by an outside force, their internal conservatism wasn't going to budge for new possibilities.) But the thing is neither Chinese nor Indians lost their land or culture in the long run. The imperialists eventually went home, and the natives reclaimed their land. Sadly, this cannot be said of the natives of Mexico and South America. Even though India was ruled by the Brits for couple of centuries, we don't call it Anglo-India. And Brits ruled parts of China, but we don't call it Anglo-China. But both 'Latin' and 'America' are permanent fixtures in a world that had once belonged to non-European civilizations.

Now, imagine Europe in barbarian times. Suppose Vikings are going around pillaging and raping and committing human sacrifice. Suppose the more civilized Arabs or Chinese arrive with deadly diseases and superior technology. Suppose they defeat the cruel Vikings and create a superior moral order premised on Islam or Confucianism. And since most whites died by diseases introduced by Arabs and Chinese, the newcomers get to stay and rule. And suppose they promote massive race-mixing, whereby most white women have children of Arab or Chinese men. And suppose to this very day, Europe is called Arabo-Europe or Sino-Europe.
Would Buchanan say it was worth it because, after all, the cruel pagan Vikings were defeated and a new order was founded on the estimable wisdom of Islam or Confucianism? I think not. Pat Buchanan has been a race-ist(a term of praise in my book), and I would think he'd prefer even a barbarian Europe that is white than a civilized Europe that is overrun and ruled by non-whites. Indeed, if Buchanan had to choose between an all-white Germany that is ruled by Germanic barbarian ax-lords who act like Big-Boss-Man AND a race-mixed Germany that is ruled by Chinese Christians who impose Christo-Confucian theocracy and encourage race-mixing on a massive scale, which one would he choose? The latter might be more orderly and civilized, but the core of any people and culture is blood-and-soil and must be above all. Surely, even an all-white Communist Germany is preferable to race-mixed multi-culti capitalist Germany that will end up looking like Morocco.

South America and Mexico are especially tragic because they had impressive civilizations, all the more remarkable for having been created in utter isolation from the Old World. Also, there were huge population centers. In contrast, as tragic as the fate of North American Indians was, they simply had no chance against the white invasion, no more than primitive Aborigines of Australia or the Eskimo-like tribes of Siberia. Once Anglos and French set foot on North America, they were going to take it, just like Russians were bound to grab all of Siberia(as long as Chinese failed to do so). Primitive folks sparsely spread out over vast territories will have to yield to the force of Macro-History.
In contrast, according to general historical patterns, what happened to the peoples of Mexico and South America is almost unprecedented, of course mainly because of the lack of immunity to Old World diseases. Had the natives had been disease-resistance, their fate would likely have been more like that of the peoples of India or Indonesia. They would have been under white rule for a time but would have eventually gained independence and autonomy. And if they adopted Christianity, it would have been on their own terms. It's like the spread of Christianity to Europe didn't necessitate Near Eastern demographic takeover. Even though Christianity originated among tribes in the Middle East, it spread far and wide as an idea and creed. Europeans remained European and kept their own lands even as they adopted the new faith(though one could argue that the 'cultural genocide' by Christianity did grave harm to pagan cultures of Europe; also, it could be argued Byzantine Orthodoxy destroyed or buried much of pagan science and math, leading to kind of Christo-Platonic hibernation of the mind).
In contrast, it wasn't only Christianity that spread to peoples of South America and Mexico. It was Christian Europeans who took over demographically as well and sexually colonized the native folks. (Now, some people might say that race-mixing was good for the natives because it made them taller and better-looking because Europeans are considered to be more desirable and robust. But then, one could use the same logic to argue for massive African invasion of Europe and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. After all, mixed-raced kids will be tougher and more macho than pure-white males.)
It's one thing for a people to gain something by coming in contact with another people. Whether it happens peacefully or violently, there is bound to be some kind of gain. This was certainly true with the Moorish conquest of Spain. Moorish Arabs at the time were more sophisticated and advanced in learning and the arts, and their contributions altered the fate of Spain. That said, Spanish Europeans finally did defeat and expel the Moors and regained control of their territory. This dream has been permanently quashed for the native brown folks of South America and Mexico. Their anger, if such exists, is understandable.
Indeed, why are white nationalist so angry about mass-immigration. It's one thing for white folks to try other foods, watch films from around the world, listen to all sorts of music, pop and folk, from all parts of the world, and learn from the ideas of other cultures. But, it's an entirely different matter for white lands to be demographically and genetically transformed by massive third world invasions and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Adopting foreign ideas and cultures can do much good. Japan certainly gained much by Westernization beginning in the 19th century. But Japanese were still in command of their own nation.

Buchanan says Christianity and Western Civilization did much good for the natives of South America and Mexico, and that is true. But is moral and spiritual progress worth the loss of one's homeland? Was Christianity a fair exchange for permanent subjugation to a foreign people from another continent? Indians and Chinese gained a lot from Western ideas and sciences that came with Western Imperialism, BUT they kept their own lands. Black Africans gained a lot from Western Imperialism, but Sub-Saharan Africa is still theirs. Middle Eastern folks also gained a lot from Western Imperialism. Think of the oil fields and all that wealth gushing from the ground. Arabs and Persians still own and control the Middle East.
In contrast, the peoples of South America and Mexico not only fell like flies in the tens of millions to European diseases but were mass-'raped' into 'mestizos' and came under what looks to be like permanent rule by imperialists(who never went home) who labeled the land of Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs as 'Latin American', with both 'Latin' and 'American' being of European origin.
Furthermore, the native folks weren't a bunch of crude savages like Aborigines in Australia or Eskimos in Alaska but a people who'd created remarkable civilizations all on their own. On that note, what befell the native peoples of South America and Mexico was the greatest tragedy in human history. But, such view isn't part of a dominant narrative because browns tend to be rather inarticulate and inexpressive, unlike Jews who are verbally gifted and blacks who are vocally rambunctious. Being of a servile and slavish mentality, most native brown folks just go along with the Narrative formed by Others. (Just look at the sight of idiot brown radicals demanding that 'Latino' be changed to 'Latinx'. First, do these browns not know that 'Latin' is an imposed European identity on the Americas? Second, don't they know that this globo-homo gender-bending crap is Western cultural-imperialist degeneracy at its worst?) One dominant Narrative of Diversity-Worship gushes that a wonderfully unique civilization was created by the fusion of Latin and Native traditions. This narrative is presented as a kind of love story of various colors, flavors, and spices, a global Romeo-and-Juliet Story. It utterly overlooks the fact that Diversity is a product of imperialism and was forcibly imposed on the native folks through wars, 'rape', 'genocide', and slavery. It's like Che Guevara's laughable bullshit that 'Latino' is a wonder to behold as a happy blend of all of humanity. Or Orson Welles waxing romantic about Brazil as a joyous cocktail of so many races, colors, and cultures. Now, while it's true that such blend of many peoples and cultures did lead to something new(and even wonderful & inspired) in Latin America, it was also a bloody process of endless violence and mayhem(that goes on to this very day).

If we deconstruct the celebration of Diversity, and it is really an apologia of imperialism. After all, why did South America and Mexico become racially diverse? Because whites conquered and took over. And why did it become even more diverse? Because of the slave trade that brought over millions of black Africans to the New World. So, the brown natives didn't just lose out to whites but to ghastly Negroes who were even worse. It was bad enough that whites took the land and the women, but then the stupid jerks had to import tons of black savages for short-term profit. (And Jews played a considerable role in Latin American slave trade.) Natives didn't just lose out to whites but to blacks brought over by whites. Imagine a barbarian Germany that is conquered by the Confucian Chinese who choose to stay, race-mix, and rule forever. That'd be bad enough, but suppose those a**holes decide to bring over millions of black Africans as slaves to Germany as well. Then, whites would not only have to deal with yellow peril but with black lunacy.

This is why anyone who claims to be for both 'indigeneity' and Diversity is full of crap. DIVERSITY is what destroys 'indigeneity'. 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' imply that the native folks who have blood-and-soil claim to their own land MUST be 'inclusive' of invasions by foreign peoples in order to increase DIVERSITY to the point where the native folks end up strangers in their own homeland. Look what 'inclusion' and 'diversity' did to Palestine. Palestinians were forced to 'include' all those Jews, and guess what happened?. And West Bank is currently forced to 'include' more Jews as well. The result has been Diversity alright, that of Palestinians having to live with more and more Jews who demand endless 'inclusion' of Jewish immigrants.
Any people who adopt Diversity and Inclusion will end up like Palestinians or Native Hawaiians who are outnumbered in their ancestral homeland by whites and Asians. Now, it would take a special kind of lowlife to tell native Hawaiians to celebrate Diversity, which is akin to celebrating their own loss of land and demographic demise. But then, as most native Hawaiians are rather stupid like the brown masses of 'Latin America', I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been hoodwinked with the idea that Diversity is good for 'indigeneity'. Why? Because Diversity is often invoked as an anti-white agenda, native browns of Latin America and native folks of Hawaii may well think it empowers them against White Privilege. They overlook the fact that Diversity means white globalism has opened up immigration floodgates to the point where EVEN MORE foreigners keep streaming into Latin America and Hawaii. People who don't control their terminology and narrative are mental putty in the hands of others.
Smart people invoke Diversity and Inclusion to conquer and take from others, BUT THEN invoke Nation and Culture to keep what they have for themselves. Jews are smart, which is why they push Diversity and Inclusion on goyim(whom they see as More Palestinians) while they themselves emphasize Nation and Culture to defend and preserve Israel as a Jewish State, one that allows only Jewish Immigration.

Now, there is an aspect of this recent controversy that Buchanan is overlooking. The demand by the Mexican president is totally disingenuous. Unlike Anglo, Germanic, and Scandinavian progs who really cuck hard -- look at that worthless Joe Biden denouncing English Law -- , Hispanic 'leftists' bitch about whiteness to actually keep their white power. Look at the Mexican president. He is white or mostly white, as are most leaders of Latin American nations. Then, why is he denouncing the Catholic Church and Spain? Because he wants to fool the native browns that he is with them, that people like himself are really part of 'people of color' than European. It's a dirty trick. After all, if the Mex Prez is really sincere, how about calling for whites in Latin America to GO BACK HOME or handing all political power to the browns?
While native folks have a historical reason to blame Spain and the Church as the source of their problems, white and mostly white peoples in Latin America have no such right. They've been the main beneficiaries of imperialism. They've been ruling over the natives, and nothing much changed with Latin America's independence from Spain. If anything, independence led to continued white rule and even more importation of black slaves. White Latinos blaming Spain and the Catholic Church for Latin American problems is like Anglo-Americans blaming Great Britain and the Anglican Church for all the problems in North America. (Maybe there is something more to Biden blaming 'English' law, a way of blaming the Old World for New World problems.)

Latin whites are among the scummiest people on Earth. Now, if Latin whites honestly acknowledged the tragic aspects of history and sought an understanding whereby all sides could bury the hatchet and move forward, that'd be ideal and good for everyone. But these lowlife scum don't play fair. Though white and privileged themselves, they pretend to be 'people of color' and, just like Jews, try to blame Anglo-Germanic whites for ALL THE PROBLEMS. Latin Whites are like Greeks in having no sense of honor or principles. It's all talk, no walk. Take the loathsome Guillermo Del Toro who looks about as white as a white person can be. He's the kind of Latin turd-person who've been hogging all the wealth, privilege, and opportunities in Latin America. Latin whites have been far more corrupt, violent, and oppressive than gringos in the North. But these lowlife scum are always pretending to be People of Color and always hectoring gringos for stuff like Selma and 'racism'. These Latin White scum(who spread diseases and killed tens of millions, committed massive 'rapes', and enslaved many more blacks than North America ever did) are always pontificating about how they are full of tolerance and love. They sermonize about how Trump's proposed WALL is so evil while conveniently overlooking the fact that their intrusion into the New World led to untold misery for the native folks, for whom things got even worse when Latin whites decided to bring over hordes of crazy black Africans to carry bananas.

This is why people like Buchanan have failed in the Culture War. Buchanan is sticking up for Latin whites even though Latin whites, being the weasels that they are, go out of their way to form alliances with Jews, blacks, and any POC(even Muslims) to bash gringo and yanqui. Why defend Latin whites from POC when Latin whites use POC against northern whites? It's as stupid as whites siding with Jews against Palestinians when Jews are using POC and Muslims against whites. (And if Jews are capable of doing what they did to Palestinians, why would they not do it to your people as well? If Bob steals from Bill, what makes you think he won't steal from you? Oh, because you helped Bob steal from Bill? Well, if Bob has a sense of gratitude, maybe he will go easy on you. But is Bob capable of gratitude? If not, you will be the next victim for sure. People like Max Boot and William Kristol do not inspire trust. When have they ever said Thank You to America?) Furthermore, Latin whites side with POC against northern whites mainly to keep their own white privilege. It's a game of misdirection. Just like Jews want people to focus on 'white privilege' as distraction from Jewish Power(an 'antisemitic trope'), Latin whites manipulate the brown masses in Latin America into hating and blaming 'gringos' or 'yanquis'(or European Spain or Catholic Church) than take notice of the all-too-obvious fact that Latin America is mostly ruled by white Latin elites(often allied with globo-homo Jewry).

White Americans should return the favor. Two can play that game. If Latin whites want to rouse up POC against whites in the US, whites should rouse up POC in Latin America against Latin whites. Latin whites are too sleazy and slimy to come to a mutual understanding with Northern whites. They are like Greeks, a people that simply cannot be trusted with honor and principles. White Americans should go tit-for-tat and denounce Diversity in Latin America as the product of imperialism. White Americans should call for restoration of Aztec Rule and reopening of the temple for massive human sacrifices(of Latin whites). All Latin whites like Guillermo Del Toro should be led up the steps for crude heart-transplant operations. And the brown Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show) should be renamed Moctezuma II and made ruler-for-life of Mexico(as he looks more native than European). Mexican white elites are the scum of the Earth who champion POC for the most cynical and self-serving reasons. It isn't really to favor browns over whites but to ensure that Latin whites will keep the power by directing brown rage against the OTHER whites(Anglos, Germanic, and Europeans).

These Latin whites are dirtbags, and white Americans must give up any hope of alliance on good faith. Just look at scumbags like Jorge Ramos, Ana Navarro, Jim Acosta, and etc. What total filth. Though their ancestors messed up South America and Mexico, they never accept any blame. If anything, they take pride that Hispanic imperialism, slave trade, and mass 'rape' of natives led to so much vibrant Diversity in Latin America. That one magic word 'Diversity' redeems all the horrors. And of course, Jews indulge Latin whites and let them carry on as honorary POC because Jews figure Latinos are currently useful in the POC coalition against white goyim. These Latin whites messed up their own nations and ran from their own problems, but they are always accusing gringo and yanqui of being 'racist' and 'not caring'. Instead of going back home and fixing the problems, they come to the US to leech off gringo, and they expect gringos to let in endless waves of 'Latinos'(many of whom are not Latin at all) and bear all the responsibilities of solving the problems of humanity. Latin white's idea of panacea is "Let us go to gringoland, let's take stuff, and let's blame gringo for everything" and "Gringo, if you don't let us in, you are racismo." Adios Rule of Law.
There is no honest discussion as to why Latin America is messed up so bad. No mention of Latin white culture of corruption, vanity, and superficiality. No mention of the problems of Diversity that seriously undermines social trust. No mention of black problems due to Hispanic and Jewish slave trade. No mention of problems of somewhat lower IQ of browns and their lackluster personality. Instead, all the burden is on gringos to keep taking in more and more peoples from Latin America. Now, won't too many 'Latinos' lead to degradation of America into something more like Latin America? Won't they be killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg? But Latin whites don't care because they've long eyed the Anglo-Germanic success in the US with burning envy and resentment. They want to leech off it, and if it is finally destroyed with excessive diversity, what do they care? Just like barbarians pillaged civilizations out of envy and resentment(as well as greed), Latin whites hate the very existence of the US because it stands as stark reminder of the failure of Latin whites in the South.

Justin Trudeau has apologized for Canada’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples. France’s Emmanuel Macron has apologized for the torture of rebels in Algeria’s war for independence.

This is all BS. If Trudeau really cares about Canada's indigenous peoples, why is he allowing mass immigration? If white people are guilt-ridden for having stolen Indian lands, shouldn't they try to revive the indigenous communities and return some of the land? Instead, Trudeau lets in tons of Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, and Africans who have ZERO ancestral or historical claim to the land. With globo-homo scum like Trudeau, it's all horseplay. He's a Muslim, Hindu, Indian, Homo, Chinese, African, and etc, etc. The man for all costumes, all hipster-dipter larping. Besides, how can anyone who truly respects indigenous culture go about spreading Homomania all around, the product of Western decadence, Jewish subversion, 'gay' vanity, and capitalism-gone-cancerous? So much for defending native cultures.

As for Macron, he's just another BS artist and globo-homo shill. If indeed Macron truly feels guilty for what the French did in Algeria, why is he supportive of all these Wars for Israel that have decimated entire parts of the Middle East? Why is he blind to the plight of Palestinians who are far worse off than Algerians under the French? Syria has some of the greatest ancient treasures and artifacts, but so many have been blown up sky-high by US-Israel-Saudi backed terrorist Jihadis labeled as 'moderate rebels'. Do people like Macron even care or voice criticism? And France worked closely with US in the utter destruction of Libya. It's all talk. Macron talks of 'human rights' and uses it as moral cover for his collaboration with Jewish supremacist imperialism. It's like scummy Hillary and Madeline Albright spout sentiments about 'saving Muslim refugees' while overlooking the fact that those refugees are the result of Wars for Israel in which they had a hand.

Also, it's about time Algeria and rest of them apologized to the French for colonizing France. And it is about time the French patriots got resistance mode as depicted in the film BATTLE OF ALGIERS. At this point, unless there is a BATTLE OF FRANCE, it is game over for a nation that is being colonized demographically and sexually by Muslims and Africans. In the coming decades, France will be even darker than Algeria and Morocco. North Africans generally disdain black sub-Saharan Africans and use harsh means to keep them under control. This is why black Africans don't stick around in North Africa and make it to Europe, esp France-UK-Germany-Sweden where they treated as Magic Negroes. In 'liberal' Europe, blacks are celebrated and allowed to run jungle wild.

Anyway, Pat Buchanan is stuck in Old Think. The paradigms he refers to are gone. We need new paradigms in dealing with stuff like Diversity. We must spell out that Diversity is the product of imperialism, genocide, slavery, and replacement immigration-invasion. And it's about time to give up on the alliance of North American whites and South American whites. It might have worked if South American whites had a sense of honor and if North American whites fended off Jewish takeover of elite power and stuck to their noble race-ist principles. But Latin whites are a bunch of weasels who try to keep their white privilege by directing brown rage at Europe and 'gringo', and most Northern white elites are a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks who bend over to homomania and roll over before their Jewish supremacist masters and wet their pants in joy over their daughter marrying a Negro. Utterly worthless.

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Jewish Facebook to Ban White Nationalism. Imperialism Hates Nationalism — Then, It’s No Wonder Why Jewish Imperialism Hates, Defames, & Attacks White Nationalism, aka White National Liberation

Black nationalism’s alleged hatred for whites is described as a “predictable reaction to white supremacy” while its reported antipathy towards Jews isn’t quasi-rationalized in a similar manner.

I can accept the justification of black nationalism as a reaction to white imperialism that conquered the Americas and shipped over slaves from Africa.

Nationalism has been a reaction to Imperialism, and for most of modern history, whites were the leading imperialists. Granted, white imperialism led to great discoveries, integrated the entire world, spread knowledge far and wide, inspired revolutions, and created vast new wealth & opportunities.
But it was also destructive and devastating to many peoples and cultures on every continent.

Naturally, the weaker peoples whose lands, cultures, and autonomy are threatened or crushed by an imperialist power are going to move into nationalist mode to defend and preserve what they have. That much the whole world must respect of all nationalisms.

As blacks were under white imperialist domination in the US, it’s understandable that there was a movement to define, preserve, and protect blackness as something other than a tool of the white power structure. Black nationalism was one aspect of this struggle by blacks to define their own identity and history.

But times change. White Imperialism came to be usurped by Jews around the time of the End of the Cold War. In time, the US became less a superpower nation than a super-colony or super-puppet of an even greater power, the Empire of Judea, a worldwide network. And this Jewish supremacist imperialist power has been compelling white people to participate in Judeo-centric hegemonic ventures to destroy Russia & Iran, wage Wars for Israel, support Israel’s eradication of all vestiges of Palestinian nationhood, and etc. Because the dominant world power is now Jewish Imperialism, we need white nationalism or, more precisely, white national liberation movement to break free from this supremacist bondage.
The world may regard white Americans as having immense power and wealth, and it is true that many white Americans have much more of everything than most peoples of the world. Still, there are even greater powers over the power. Just like prosperous Japan and Western Europe, despite their great wealth and considerable power, are under the thumb of the even more powerful USA, prosperous white Americans, despite being the most successful and powerful gentile group in America, are under the thumb of even more powerful Jews. Just because someone or some people are rich and powerful doesn't mean that they are dominant and independent. It's all relative. The rich and powerful have to be mindful of those who are even richer and more powerful. Donald Trump is a very rich man but nothing compared to true oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and others. Also, the power of the President isn't much compared to the combined force of the Deep State and its connections in Media and Courts.

It has been a Constant in History: Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). British Empire promoted British nationalism and patriotism but crushed the nationalist aspirations of subject peoples. It said NO to Indian nationalism, even resorting to ruthless means on occasion to suppress it. French empire suppressed Vietnamese and Algerian nationalisms, and it took prolonged bloody wars for the French Empire to finally recede from those parts.
Feudal Japan found itself in nationalist mode when threatened by British and American imperialism, but as it modernized into a major power(and was accepted into the imperialist club as ‘honorary whites’), the Japanese made imperialist moves on continental Asia. Japanese empire did all it could do to suppress Chinese and Korean nationalism(and then Filipino and Vietnamese nationalism as the empire expanded). Nazi Empire trampled on Polish and Czech nationalism and sought to crush Russia nationalism. Soviet Imperialism suppressed Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
Hungarian National Liberationist Uprising against Soviet Imperialism. It was also a rebellion against Jewish Communists who'd been installed by Stalin.
Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Roman imperialists ruthlessly suppressed Jewish nationalism. Of course, Romans took pride in Roman power and glory, but non-Romans had to suppress their own pride of identity and instead serve & honor Rome as the metropole of the empire. Soviet Empire was somewhat different because it suppressed Russian nationalism along with other nationalisms… though, over time, Russian national component of the empire did come to the fore.

Why do Jews hate white nationalism? Jews vehemently conflate white nationalism with white supremacism, but that’s mostly BS. White nationalism has actually been far less aggressive than White imperialist Liberalism. Throughout American history, white nationalism emphasized America’s need to mind its own borders and affairs(at least once the continent was taken and tamed). It was white liberalism and white progressivism that wanted to expand and dominate the world. Since late 19th century, US began to shift increasingly into imperialist mode as all the US continent was united and settled. White Imperialism came to dominate over white nationalism. But because the world was dominated by great European empires, American imperialism pretended to be for self-determination for all nations. In truth, American imperialism was only trying to invalidate existing empires so that it would gain hegemony over the ‘liberated’ nations. The US defeated the Spanish Empire in the name of liberating its exploited subjects, but the US essentially acted as the New Boss in Cuba and Philippines.
However, sour feelings after the failure of the world order in the aftermath of World War I made Americans look inward. For a time, it seemed as 'isolationism' would prevail over 'expansionism'. Then, the double whammy of WWII and the Cold War turned the US into a full-fledged world empire, though in counterbalance to another empire, the ‘evil’ one of the Soviets.

With the end of the Cold War, US could have retreated from imperialism and minded its own business, but the business opportunities of Free Trade and spectacular rise of Jewish power changed all that. Jews preferred expanded imperialist-globalism over nationalism because Jewish power owes more to horizontal networks around the world than vertical elite-mass unity in any nation(except in Israel). The main loyalty of Jews was to the Network, the Empire of Judea, than to the US or any particular nation(except Israel). As Jews gained dominant power in the US, the so-called lone superpower essentially became a colony of the Jewish Empire, like India was the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire.

Precisely because Jews don’t have the numbers, they need gentile support and obeisance to Jewish supremacist imperialist power. And among all the goyim, whites are most crucial because they are most numerous, capable, and talented. Jews may be the overlords, but they need white managers, engineers, generals, negotiators, lawmen, and etc. to do the heavy lifting to keep the empire going. But the ONLY WAY to ensure that whites will do as told is IF they are denied white identity and white nationalism, aka white agency. After all, if whites think as white nationalists, they will focus on ‘what is good for whites in our white nation’ than serve the identity and interests of another people(especially one that feels so much hatred and contempt toward whites). They will be less likely to support Jewish supremacist agendas around the world such as hatred toward Russia, Iran, Syria, and endless Wars for Israel. And this is why Jewish Imperialism must suppress white nationalism or white national liberation. Nationalism tends to be rebellious, defiant, and uppity against the empire, especially if it’s of an alien people.
Imperialism hates all nationalisms except for its own(in certain cases). Jews love Zionism and Israeli nationalism. Jews love to promote and glorify Jewish identity(as synonymous with nobility). Jews, who’d once been nationalist resisters against Roman imperialism in ancient times, are now the New Romans, and they regard whites as the ‘new Jews’ to suppress and control(or threaten to destroy and scatter to the winds if they disobey Jewish Neo-Roman power).
Just like Jewish Imperialism can’t abide by Palestinian nationalism, it can’t tolerate white nationalism. Both threaten Jewish imperialist hegemony, the Jew World Order. Palestinians in West Bank demand independence from Zionist Imperialist Occupation. And white nationalists want white liberation and emancipation from Jewish imperialist globalism. White national liberationists want OUT from the globo-homo empire and more Wars for Israel. This is what Jews fear. This is why Jews smear white nationalism as ‘white supremacism’ when, if anything, it is anti-supremacist in its call for collective white disobedience to Jewish Imperialism. What Jews really want is for white cuck-collaborators to keep supporting Jewish imperialist hegemony around the world. Jews are projecting their own supremacism onto white nationalists. But then, Jews, who'd created Israel through use of extensive terror, blame Palestinians as a race of terrorists. (It's also interesting that, even as Jewish Imperialists deny agency to white collaborators, they blame whites for everything wrong in the world as if whites are the ONLY ONES with agency. Even the disaster of the Iraq War was dumped entirely on gentiles Dick Cheney and George W. Bush by Jewish Hollywood in VICE. Just pretend it was War for Oil than War for Israel.)

Now, why are Jews okay with black or non-white nationalism in the US? Because they don’t really see it as a threat. Black nationalism is mostly angry noise. Browns are too mediocre to gain dominant power. Yellows hardly exhibit any nationalist sentiment in the West. (If anything, they are more likely to stick up for other peoples such as Jews, blacks, homos, or blurred mass called 'immigrants'. Even though the US has gotten incredibly diverse as the result of mass-immigration-invasion, only a few identities matter, and most groups rally around those few tent-pole groups who happen to be Jews, blacks, and Homos, aka the Holy Three.) Besides, Jewish Empire relies far less on black ability and talent. While black success in sports and music is very profitable to Jews, it is white talent and ability that are crucial in managing and running the Empire as engine and warship. So, it is far more important for Jews to make whites submit and obey.

Also, black nationalism can be used to guilt-bait or morally condemn whites for past history. White guilt paralyzes white pride, and an ashamed people are more likely to cuck. Indeed, even as imperialism generally hates nationalisms, it may tactically support one nationalism against another nationalism(deemed a bigger threat) or a rival empire. It’s like the Empire of Judea is supportive of Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism(which is seen as a bigger obstacle to total Jewish world hegemony). Jews regard black nationalism as akin to Ukrainian nationalism. A useful tool for the moment against white identity and pride. (Jews do fear black nationalism in South Africa however because blacks are the overwhelming majority and can burn down the entire system if things get out of hand, especially in opposition to Jewish economic imperialism. One problem with black national liberation is that, once the imperialists are gone, blacks are unable to run or build an economy of their own.) Remember that Japanese imperialism supported Manchurian nationalism(through puppet 'emperor' Puyi) against Chinese nationalism that began to resist Japan and demand the return of  Manchuria.

Now, was there a history of white nationalism that was supremacist? In a way, yes, but it was still less belligerent and dangerous than white liberal imperialism and Jewish imperialism. White nationalist rule in the past did treat non-whites as second-class citizens or worse, BUT white nationalism had a limiting effect on the despoilment of America by the Whole World. By limiting immigration mostly to whites, American Indians lost their land mainly only to Europeans(and to blacks brought over by whites). Had America not been white nationalist and allowed open door immigration from the very outset, American Indians would have lost all their lands to all the world in no time. And much more of nature would have been destroyed. White nationalists did defeat and conquer the indigenous folks, but their noble race-ism still allowed some space for Indians and their narrative.
Furthermore, white nationalist race-ism served as a check on black biological supremacism and imperialism. As blacks were brought as slaves, they were socially oppressed by whites. But because of their superior muscle power, greater natural aggression, rowdier butt energy, and bigger dongs, they could easily become biological imperialists and supremacists over the weaker white race. In a state of nature, blacks will dominate over whites. If you take 200 whites and 200 blacks and strip them naked and put them on an island, blacks will beat up white guys and hump white girls. So, white race-ism and nationalism against blacks were both supremacist and defensive against black natural supremacism.

Anyway, the most destructive, evil, and venal power in the world today is Jewish Imperialism. Look what it did to Russia in the 90s. Look at its spread of demented globo-homomania. Look at its Wars that leveled so many nations in Middle East and North Africa. Look at its economic destruction of Iran. Look at its demographic policies against US and EU. Look at how it makes white soldiers wreck Muslim nations and then pushes Muslims into the West. Look at how it spreads anti-white hatred in media and academia and Hollywood. Look at how the Sacklers acted like Sassoons who sold opium to the Chinese.

Indeed, if white nationalists could pry themselves free of Jewish imperialism, the world would be a much nicer place. After all, without white cuck-collaboration with Jewish imperialist power, Jewish power and influence would do far less harm to the world. Suppose if whites(in national liberationist mode) had said NO to all these imperialist Wars for Israel. Middle East would be in one piece, and millions would have been spared death and displacement into other nations(esp in the West). And, there could be justice for Palestinians finally. US would not be in another ridiculous and immoral ‘cold war’ with Russia. And back in the 90s, the US(one that is free of Jewish power) might have been constructive and helpful toward Russia than merely rapacious as the ‘shock doctrine’ turned out to be the shylock doctrine of looting the entire economy to enrich the Tribe. Anglo-elites were somewhat more honorable than Jewish elites.
The world should welcome white nationalist liberation from Jewish Globalist Imperialism like the world celebrated the national liberation of India from the British Empire. 'Ding Dong, the witch is dead.' To Jews, a white national liberationist who refuses conscription into the Jewish Empire is like an uppity slave who says NO. He must be whipped. White National Liberationists must say “Hell No, We won’t go” and “Globalists suck, we won’t cuck.”

But then, the reason why so many in the non-white world participate with Jewish Imperialism against white nationalism is because white nationalism says “We want our white nations to remain white”, whereas Jewish imperialism says, “We will hand out free tickets to you non-whites to come to white nations IF you, as ‘new Europeans’ or ‘new Americans’, support OUR agenda.” Non-whites will do ANYTHING to come to richer and nicer white nations. So, they collaborate with Jewish Imperialism in the demographic imperialism against the West. Non-whites want access to white riches and to have sex with fairer whites. Black African males want white women, and Asian females want white men.

Imperialism produces resisters but also collaborators. When the British empire ruled quarter of the world, many Hindus and Chinese took advantage of Anglo hegemony to spread out across the globe for business opportunities. Most people will do JUST ABOUT ANYTHING for whatever that improves their lives materially. Materialism often trumps tribalism.

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Some Thoughts on Colin Liddell's Criticism of the Alt Right and His Need to Rebrand as Affirmative Right — The Usefulness for Politics of Irreverence — The Need for the Left-Right

Colin Liddell of Affirmative Right

Colin Liddell:

As for the original banner itself—loaded with all the mistakes and bad karma of the movement, and an easy target for our enemies—it is now more of hindrance than a help.
It has entered Normiespace and the offices of Big Tech merely as a reason to avoid us and not listen to our invincible arguments or engage with our unbeatable ideas. It has become nothing more than a ticket to deplatforming. I therefore choose to toss it aside and to adhere to the true spiritual banner of the movement—the quest for truth, honour, morality, and life.
For this purpose, I have chosen to rename this site Affirmative Right and to redefine what we do here with a set of principles designed to avoid the mistakes of the past (more on that later).

Will changing the label to 'affirmative' do the trick? What if Andrew Anglin and others take up that banner as well? After all, chameleon Anglin initially attacked the Alt Right but later labeled himself as such(and even trolled that he's with the GOP and Trump).

One problem with Colin Liddell and others like him(expatriates) is they are too far removed from ground zero of The Action to lodge legitimate complaints. Many Alt Right figures are in Hungary, Georgia, Ukraine, India, Japan, Philippines, or some other part of the world. Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch got to define the Alt Right because they are in the US. As such, they could organize where The Action is. If Liddell were in the US or EU(two areas most crucial to the fate of the white race), he could have led a counter-movement to define the Alt Right in his manner. But, like too many expatriates, all he can offer are words and criticism. Granted, many radical leaders throughout history spent many years in exile. Vladimir Lenin moved around Western Europe as he was regarded as public enemy #1 in Russia. Still, he eventually returned to lead the movement IN Russia.

Maybe Affirmative Right blog does some good work, but words alone cannot define a movement. If Liddell really wants to define the future of the alternative-affirmative movement, he has to do more than talk or write. He has to form an organization and lead people. I don't see him being up for the job. And Andy Nowicki is more writer-novelist-critic by temperament than a man of action.
In contrast, Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch did bring people together and did organize a movement. Now, I agree with many of Liddell's criticisms of them. When Spencer ran Alternative Right website with Alex Kurtagic as his main henchman, I posted many comments warning about the dangers of the Alt Right getting too cozy with Neo-Nazi types. And there is no doubt that Kurtagic has the outlook(and looks) of Heinrich Himmler.

Richard Spencer is a spent force. (He should be called Richard Spender.) With his looks and charm, he could have done much for the movement. And I'll give him credit where it's due. He could have had a plush job in Conservatism Inc. if he'd played along and went by the script like most whores in the GOP. He did not and instead staked out a rather courageous path for himself. Still, there is smart courage and dumb courage. Also, just because you're anti-stupid doesn't mean you're smart or wise. One form of stupidity can be against another form of stupidity. And Spencer is ultimately a stupid person whose ideology is composed of Darth-Vaderian Nietzscheanism and James-Bondian Tomfoolery. He loves to clench his fist and talk about power and struggle, and blah blah, but he's really a spoiled brat who thinks everyone should make everything 'fun' for him. When the Power effectively shut down his college tour, he sniffled that it wasn't panning out. Gee whiz, he thought it would be 'fun'. What did he expect from the repercussions of a radical movement that really threatens the Power? The Power is just gonna sit back and roll out the red carpet for Spencer to have 'fun' with? Is that how Jews treat Palestinians? It sure ain't fun for Palestinians there and here(whose BDS movement has effectively been criminalized by Jewish Power). How childish and naive can one get? Spencer is all talk and no understanding of the Power even as he yammers endlessly about power, power, power. He needs to study Zionist suppression of Palestinians than watch 007 movies to understand how power works. Or at least watch THE GODFATHER and NO WAY OUT. He's always been yakking about how it is the Power that really matters, and yet he is surprised that the ruling power in the West used dirty tricks to shut him down? The student of Power didn't see it coming? He sudden fame really got to him. His 15 min of fame owed completely to Hillary and Mass Media's attempt to tie Trump to the 'toxic' Alt Right, but Spencer began to see himself as a self-made man than as a media creation and tool. (And as if to prove Hillary and the media correct AFTER THE ELECTION, Spencer steered the Alt Right into a genuinely toxic direction.)

Also, his narcissism is so stupid(and now stale) that he's turning into a laughing stock. He goes on and on about how the media just couldn't get enough of Spencer because he's so good-looking, brilliant, and awesome. Oh, he's the Don Juan of the movement, the man they love to hate to love, and they can't keep their hands off him. Well? When the Power finally decides he's a menace, the Power shut him off, and that's been that. So, he wasn't so irresistible after all. He's more Don Quixote than Don Juan. (Never mind that the media also interviewed 'albino' Anglin and fat Matthew Heimbach a good number of times.)
But even worse is that Spencer's future vision is hardly better than that of Neocons and Zionist-supremacists. If Jews feel that they should rule the world, the only difference with Spencer is that he feels that his Faustian tribe should rule the world with new rounds of imperialist ventures. (At least old imperialism could be rationalized on the prevalence of different sets of values, curiosity about the world, sense of adventure & discovery, and pioneering spirit. But what's the point of imperialism at a time where every corner of the world has been explored and mapped? Also, a world where any nation can offer stiff resistance to invasive imperialism(as in Iraq and Syria)? Imagine the Brits trying to invade China or India today.
Instead of countering Jewish-Zionist globalist supremacism with the ideal of universal nationalism, Spencer's agenda is to rule the world with white supremacy. It is all the more ridiculous when Spencer can't even order a cup of coffee in a diner and keep a membership at a health club. When white people are on the verge of losing their homelands, Spencer-the-clown's silly little mind is filled with Kiplingian fantasies(of conquering the STARS too -- Let's rule over Ewoks and defeat the Klingons).
In any struggle, the weaker power must seek moral advantage over the stronger power that has the material advantage. If you allow the stronger power to have both moral and material advantage, your side is cooked. But how can there be any viable moral argument from the Spencerian Alt Right when its main message is "Ultimately, we want to conquer and rule the world with Faustian-Nietzschean-Bondian-Vaderian white supremacy?" Spencer is too stupid to lead anything. At best, he's a decent commentator on a host of Beltway topics.

On the matter of Andrew Anglin, 4Chan Trolls, The Right Stuff(TRS), and others like them, Liddell's complaints are somewhat misguided. The real problem was taking people like Anglin seriously, an error committed by Liddell's site as well(even if in condemnation than praise). There is NO POINT in taking Daily Stormer seriously or engaging with their 'ideas' and proposals like 'white sharia'. Also, it doesn't matter if Anglin is or isn't a Fed-asset AS LONG AS Alt Right or Aff-Right people keep him at arm's length.
There are two ways to fight the power. One way is the moral and serious way. But there is also the other way: The irreverent, pestering, and outrageous way of the jester. The trick is to keep the two sides separate. Jews used many ways to undermine White Gentile domination of society and culture. They made serious Holocaust movies & documentaries. They built museums and published many scholarly books. But the other way was also effective. Jewish nasties, comedians, pranksters, subversives, and etc. were masters in mocking Jesus, spreading porn, indulging in vulgarity, and shitting on every sacred cow in the West. Jews made both SCHINDLER'S LIST and CADDYSHACK. Jews host both Holocaust conferences and Porn conventions. The trick, however, is not to mix the two. We don't see the director of the Holocaust Museum having serious conversations with a Jewish porn-oligarch. Now, behind the scenes, it's very likely that Jews of all kinds see eye to eye. It turns out ADL had ties to Jewish mafia since the beginning. But at least for public consumption, Jews keep seriousness over here and clownishiness over there. I don't think the Holocaust Museum will be inviting Howard Stern any time soon.
So, as long as the Alt Right keeps the Nazi-larping trolls in their own sphere, it's not a problem. Even though much of the trolling and 'shit-posting' have been offensive, they've also been effective in spreading irreverence of sacred cows of sacred Jews, magic Negroes, holy homos, and globalism. They've also been effective at exposing hypocrisies of the Power. That is the key, the use of outrage antics and black humor to make people laugh at Jewish power and its bogus pieties.
The problem arose when Spencer decided to have a SERIOUS discussion with Andrew Anglin. Now, one can have a conversation with anyone -- Bill Buckley invited all manner of guests on FIRING LINE -- , but Anglin is NOT someone you can have a serious discussion with about the future of the white race. He's too much of a clown, idiot, and degenerate. His stuff has to be kept in the jokesphere. You can't mix oil and water. The Radical Left in the 60s found out the hard way when its serious wing joined with the clownish wing represented by the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the Yippies whose priority was gaining notoriety as attention-whores. The Yippie shtick of running Pigasus(an actual pig) as political candidate was funny, but when these clowns were allowed to be part of the Leftist movement itself, everything began to turn into a shit-show, indeed something like the Gong Show. Soon, radical leftism spiraled out of control into a circus and poisoned the Democratic Party in the 1972 election against Richard Nixon.

Liddell is right that Enoch and Spencer were foolish to form a direct contact with Anglin and the Daily Stormer crew, but his site was, in a way, guilty of the same thing by taking Anglin and DS seriously even in opposition and condemnation. Whether pro- or con-, one should never take that stuff seriously. Anyone who's been to Daily Stormer knows the site is criticism-proof because it's too absurd. As Spencer often likes to say of things, "It is what it is." Debating DS is like taking Hustler Humor seriously. Of course, courting DS is even worse, but denouncing it also gives DS far more credit than it deserves.
Anyway, the point is even nasty Nazi-larping trolls have some value to the movement AS LONG AS the movement doesn't get near them. Trolls spread irreverence of sacred cows and premises underlying the Power. It's like Jews will use even Stormy Daniels against Trump. 'Serious' Jews will not invite her to their conferences and gatherings or take her seriously as a person, but they will let people like her vent their spleen against Trump and whomever Jews hate. So, we should regard Daily Stormer as Stormy Daniels of Counter-Power politics. A porn-bomb that can make a mockery of PC and the Power. Just be sure not to take the bomb in your own hand. Let Anglin and other clowns toss them. We can just watch and enjoy with plausible deniability since WE don't officially condone such things. The problem with Spencer and Enoch is they took the stormer-bomb in their own hands. It's like Jews don't condone what Kathy Griffin did with a decapitated rubber-Trump head and publicly even disavow it, but they don't mind OTHERS doing pulling such stunts. In opposition to Trump, Jews employ both the respectable gavel and the jokey poker.

Mike Enoch is the most interesting figure in all this. Whereas Daily Stormer is mostly retarded, The Right Stuff has presented something close to first-rate satire and insightful commentary. But because its satire is edgy and abrasive, it too would be problematic if it became an ACTIVE WING of the movement. As an independent voice cheering on the movement, it can do much good. But as a part of the movement, it can too easily be highlighted by the enemy as 'nazi' stuff. Again, oil and water doesn't mix in politics, especially for a movement with huge disadvantages in media and money. For such a nascent movement, good image is crucial, and TRS is counter-productive as a movement player. It's one thing for TRS guys to make Nazi jokes in their racy podcasts. But it was quite another thing for Mike Enoch to pull a Heil stunt at the NPI conference(after Trump's victory) when the whole world was watching. There was no way the Mass Media were going to cover that as 'larping' or 'joking'. Also, even if Enoch meant it as a prank, there were some real morons there who took it seriously and joined in the salute.
Still, DS and TRS aren't problematic AS LONG AS they stay in their own space and do their own thing. To be irreverent and outrageous against sacred cows, one needs more freedom and vulgarity than serious people in the movement. But serious people need plausible deniability from TRS and especially DS because some of their stuff are really over-the-top. That said, just like all religions were built on both iconography(affirmative erection of holy cows) and iconoclasm(mocking desecration of false gods), the Movement will need not just a serious & respectable arm but dirty fingers to pull down the pants of the Power and grab its nuts.
Finally, maybe what is more necessary than changing the adjective -- 'alternative' to 'affirmative' -- is changing the noun. Why stick with only the 'right'? This left vs right dichotomy has been useless since the end of the Cold War(and fall of communism) and the emergence of the Convergence between 'Fiscal Conservatism'(more money for the globalist rich) and 'Social Liberalism'(cultural decadence promoted by capitalists as the New Norm). Indeed, even regarding the Cold War as a right vs left conflict was problematic as communists nations tended to be more nationalist and culturally conservative than capitalist nations of the West. But because of the egalitarian economic ethos of the Soviet Empire(that seemed awesome in reach and power), people went along with the narrative of 'right-wing' capitalists vs 'left-wing' communists. And because the rich class feared economic leftism, it formed an alliance with social conservatives and nationalists. But in truth, the rich everywhere tend to mainly care about more riches and more self-indulgence. For this reason, they secretly despised social conservatism that said NO to excessive decadence. And they felt restrained by nationalism that said capitalists should prioritize doing what is good for the nation as a whole(like hiring native workers and paying them a decent wage with benefits); nationalism was less profitable than globalism. Because of the threat of worldwide communism, the capitalists went along with social conservatives and nationalists. After all, if American capitalists had treated the American working masses during the Cold War the way they treat working people today, many American proles may have demanded either fascism or communism. Why would the American working classes have tolerated and even supported the capitalists IF the latter had just to shipped jobs overseas, lowered wages, and brought over tons of foreigners to replace native workers? But with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of China from a Maoist to a Market economy, American capitalists had a golden opportunity to enrich themselves with Free Trade and to indulge themselves with fun decadence. The big losers were not only social conservatives and the working class but the True Left and Classic Left that had prioritized the needs of national workers and the importance of speaking Truth to Power. But the Democratic Party went with Free Trade under Clinton, and Big Business made a pact with PC because the 'new leftism'(a bogus variety) emphasized globo-homo-mania that, if anything, was great for the rich because, after all, homos are the most vain and narcissistic people on Earth who love catering to the powerful and privileged. Washington DC is 10% homo, and many of these 'gays' are in the Deep State cooking up new Wars for Israel, new Fruit-Crusades to turn the world pink, and new economic policies to make the super-rich in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood even richer. Calling someone like Rachel Maddow a 'leftist' is to defame true leftism and to give her ilk too much credit. They are not about equality or working people. They are about elitism, hierarchy, Jewish tribal supremacism, globo-homo power grab, and censorship of little people who dare to speak truth to power.

Indeed, we in the 'dissident right' are more leftist than those freaks. Calling such globalist tribal-oligarchs and their commissars a bunch of 'leftists' obfuscates the fact that they are really a bunch of supremacists who don't give a shit about the people. Because leftism has long been associated with much good(as well as bad, like discredited communism) -- struggles for workers, more freedom and liberty, equality under the law, and etc --, it only lends credence to our enemies by calling them the 'left'. Tucker Carlson calls Rachel Maddow a 'leftist', but in fact, his positions are now closer to the True Left and Classic Left than Maddow's. We need to remember that the leftism of the French Revolution forged a new politics where the national elites were compelled to identify first and foremost with the national masses. (Current globalism is neo-aristocracism whereby elites of the world mainly identify with one another than with their own national folks who are to be replaced by Diversity.) Nationalism is leftism as well as rightism. It is about Socialism of identity and interests between national elites and national masses. It is also about the tribalism of shared history, blood, and culture. Even though National Socialism turned evil upon lurching into imperialist mode with wars and genocide, its core nationalist and socialist policy was sound. Indeed, Zionism has been, from the beginning, a national-socialist ideology. It was a means to bring together Jewish rightism(reverence of blood, history, and culture) with Jewish leftism(the need for the elites to be mindful of the people as fellow brothers and sisters than as mere subjects). The reason why Jews hate left-rightism with such virulence among goyim is that they want to keep that great secret to themselves only. It's like Jews in Israel hate the idea of Iran having the Bomb because they so dearly want the Bomb for themselves. What Jews want most for themselves, they most vociferously deny to others. Jews love free speech but not for thee. Jews love Israelis owning guns but not for thee. Jews love nuclear weapons but not for thee. One thing for sure, just like National Socialism turned evil by going imperialist, Zionism too is a moral failure because it went from nationalism(defense of Jewish homeland) to imperialism(use white goyim to wage endless Wars for Israel).

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

On the Three C's. The 3Cs of Convenience, Conversion, and Convulsion. Wolf vs Dog. Negro vs White Man. Savage and Slavish. Civilization and Its Costs.

On Convenience, Conversion, and Convulsion.

Some people have noted that blacks have achieved least in the creation of civilization, complex societies, and high culture. And yet, maybe in a certain sense, blacks could take pride in not having been able to create Wakandas. After all, for every gain, there is a loss. And for every loss, there is a gain.

To create civilization, the slavish genes have to outnumber the savage genes. Obviously, slavish dogs are easier to control and handle than wolves. And yet, wolves are freer, wilder, and more robust. Dogs are more useful, more cooperative, and gentler, but they are comparatively wussier creatures than wolves.

The races that created civilization needed to be more slavish. Maybe natural forces, such as extreme cold that necessitated closer cooperation and delaying of gratification, made them more slavish, and then perhaps, 'civilizational' factors compounded the slavishness by weeding out the savage genes by execution or exile. So, as a community, such people could achieve more collectively, but this came at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.

It’s like Chinese and Japanese built high civilizations, but they regarded by Modern Pop Cultural standards as colorless, mostly skin-and-bones, timid & sheepish, and not very good at singing, dancing, and sports. They are regarded as akin to dickless space aliens who appear at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. The natives of Mexico may have built the great city of Tenochtitlan, but their descendants are deemed a dull, timid, and sheepish bunch. In order for them to have built civilization, they had to be have been more slavish than savage. (Granted, slave-made complex civilizations could carry out savage deeds like human sacrifice, but that's not the kind of savagery we are talking about. Savagery in our context means a primitive level of human existence and culture.)
Now, compare the wolfish Mongols with the doggish Chinese. Mongols, by Asian standards, are big & robust and have barbarian souls. They don’t like to take shit from anyone. They preferred to sack and loot other civilizations than build their own, but there’ something vital about their character, duly noted in the novel and movie WOLF TOTEM by a Chinese author who lamented that his Han tribe, in building civilization and establishing order, lost something vital and natural that the Mongols still possessed. For sure, Mongols in Sumo summarily bounce Japanese guys off the 'dojo' like ping pong balls. Though both Mongol and Japanese societies were warrior-centered, Mongols prized the robust and hale rider-hunter who took charge of things. In contrast, samurai favored the obedient subordinate and ruthlessly executed those who exhibited independent streaks; thus, a vital element of human nature was weeded out of the Japanese gene pool. This made the Japanese more cooperative and mindful of others, but it also made them duller and more neurotic. This is why so many Japanese are like the character Yohei in SEVEN SAMURAI.
Pitiful Yohei, the typical Japanese Male.
Because Negroes failed to develop civilization, they came to be subjugated by other races with superior organization, technology, and culture. And they became slaves in Arabia and the New World. But even if historical and economic circumstances made them more likely to be slaves, their nature was less suited for slavery(at least in a complex order). Blacks have more savage genes than slavish genes. From a modern social perspective, the black savage gene has been problematic because it made too many Negroes run wild and act like lunatics. But countless people also find it vibrant, exciting, manly, sexy, badass, and etc. Look at the worldwide success of rap music, reggae, and other black-infected pop music. And blacks have dominated so many of the world's most popular sports. No one watches Chinese sports outside China, but many millions of Chinese love to watch the NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.

Among all the arts, music is the most spontaneous and powerful, and blacks have been, pound for pound, the most dominant force in pop music in the 20th century with their contribution to or invention of blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, reggae, rap, and etc. Such music arose from the savage genes, and it turns a lot of people on. Even though so-called 'black music' of the 20th century would not exist without white influence, input, and instruments, one could argue that the core energy is the black fire. It's like gasoline is useless without an engine, wheels, and other parts of the car, but it is the fuel that fires up the engine. So, even though something like Rock music owes a great deal to white contribution, much of its raw fuel is black coal. White influence gave it structure and style, but the core energy of beat, rhythm, and soaring/scouring vocals owes to something particular to blacks. (Similarly, much of the power in classical music owes to the Germanic soul that added an especially potent mix to the musical form invented by others.) In contrast, the world community is far less interested in the slavish-genes-music of, say, Mexicans or Chinese. Now, a musicologist could argue that there are no objective standards by which to argue that some music is 'better' than others. Also, popular doesn't necessarily mean better. Fast food is more popular than fancy food, but is it better? TRANSFORMERS made more money than worthier films, but it's certainly not better. And yet, there have been lots of great black music(and white rock fueled by black coal) that managed to be both popular and inspired, and that surely counts for something. As for rap, even though people like myself detest it as attitude and expression, there is no denying its appeal as a means of forceful expression that many find infectious.

So, in some ways, blacks may take pride in not having been able to build the Pyramids of Egypt -- most Ancient Egyptians were not black-black -- and the Great Wall of China. They were too independent-willed, too 'badass', and too wild to be subjugated into hauling bricks to build stuff for oppressive kings and queens. They preferred to run wild & free and chuck spears at hippos and then run from hippos when hippos had enough of the Negroes acting wild and funky.

For every gain, there’s a loss. Chinese may have built a great civilization, but look how scrawny they became. Non-Asian women feel no excitement about Chinese men, and just about any good-looking Chinese woman in the US would rather marry anyone but the men of her own race. Asian women are the Story of the Horniness of Women with Hots for Bigger/Tougher warriors. Despite the matter of Asians having higher IQ than blacks, if a white guy were presented with a chance to become a Negro or a yellow, he would likely prefer to be Long Dong Silver than Wong Dong Lee. Consider the first part of the animation movie HEAVY METAL where a white guy enters the body of a black guy and turns into a warrior-stud who humps white women. It was cuck-fantasy before cuckery took off. And all those white college boys cheer for black athletes as demigods that they wish to be. And the movie GET OUT is about how Liberal Whites actually see blacks as so superior that they want to kill blacks to take over black bodies. While whites may feel that Asian-ness is preferable on the cerebral level, most people's immediate responses tend to be visceral than intellectual. One can admire an athlete right away, whereas it takes time to appreciate a writer, scientist, or an artist. A woman can be turned on by a tough guy right away, whereas it takes time for a woman to appreciate an unexciting guy who happens to have good qualities as friend and companion. It's the same with men in how they react to women. Any man can look at a 'sexy babe' and be turned on immediately, but it will take some time to appreciate a homely woman who happens to have good qualities.
Animation Movie HEAVY METAL where a white boy enters a body of a black guy to hump white women.

Humanity operates, for good or ill, according to three main modalities: Convenience, Conversion, and Convulsion.

Civilization greatly improved the means of Convenience, and this has been especially true of the West(that came to change the Rest). Think of all the great Western scientists and techno-inventors who created stuff like cars, refrigerators, airplanes, machines, toilets, and etc, etc, that made life so much easier, more comfortable, and more convenient. We owe so much to such individuals, but how come they are almost invisible to us? Because the purpose of convenience is to serve us and make us forget it even exists. We don’t think about the technology of plumbing every time we use the faucet to drink water or flush the toilet. We are very glad to have such things, and they make life easier. But they don’t turn us on. They make life more bearable but not more pleasurable. They lessen the pain but don't intensify the pleasure. Once they've become a part of our lives, we really notice them ONLY WHEN they malfunction or are denied to us. Who thinks about water or electricity except when the service fails?
Also, they don't move us sensually or emotionally. Once the air conditioner is on, we hardly think about it or respond to it, any more than we think about the very oxygen we breathe, essential as it is. Elevators are useful but we don’t get excited about being inside one. Western civilization has been the king of convenience, but how many white folks are reading books about past inventors to get their jollies? Think of the guy who invented modern textile technology. He did something very great. But I don’t know his name and likely neither do you. Machines are essential for they exist to serve us and make life more convenient. And convenience is very very nice, even essential, but it’s utilitarian, not 'orgasmic'.

Then there is the matter of Conversion. It comes alive in the realm of ideas and emotions, the mind and heart. Religions and ideologies are 'conversionary'. Religions and ideology may require time and patience for us to appreciate. To truly understand Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or whatever, we have to calm & control ourselves and do some intense reading & contemplating. And there is the need for prayer and meditation. Thus, we gain inspiration and the passion to serve something higher and greater than ourselves.
To understand ideologies, we have to attend meetings, read certain texts, and join discussions. In the end, religions or ideologies may be very fulfilling and transforming. They may provide us with the meaning of life, a sense of truth and righteousness, and the possibility of redemption and salvation. They make us realize that there’s a higher meaning to life, i.e. life isn’t just about material well-being but about spiritual, moral, and/or intellectual pursuit of truth.
The Middle East, Asia, and Europe achieved great things in 'conversionarity'. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, and many schools of thoughts arose from those civilizations. Conversionary stuff may not make life easier in the physical/literal sense -- as the instruments of convenience do -- , but they are compelling because they imbue us with a sense of truth and meaning. And this is why some Muslims in the West still cling to their Old Faiteh. Sure, the Modern West offers a great deal in terms of convenience -- medicine, technology, and etc -- , but it’s not very meaningful to worship a refrigerator, ponder the significance of carburetors, or meditate on the truth of toilets. People find meaning by thinking about God, myths, high art, philosophy(ultimate meaning of life), history, moral progress, and etc.

When it came to matters of Convenience and Conversion, black African produced next to nothing. No great science/technology/invention. No great religion, philosophy, ideology, or school of thought.

But then, there is the power of Convulsion. Human eyes, ears, tongue, genitalia, and certain parts of the skin are all erogenous-like zones. Convenience makes the body comfortable. Conversion makes hearts and minds feel meaningful. But it’s convulsion that makes the erogenous-like senses explode like Juicy Fruit gum and go crazy.

Convenience is like a perfect chair that makes the ass comfortable. Conversion is the book one holds while sitting on the chair. In contrast, convulsion may not offer any long-term utility or any deep meaning, but it provides intense explosions of pleasure. It’s like a vibrator-dildo up a nympho’s pooter(though some might call it cooter).

Now, we could argue that humanity should be wiser and favor convenience and conversion over convulsion, but the power of pleasure(especially in our electronically-connected world overflowing with leisure) is so powerful for a lot of people that they’ve come to favor convulsion over all else. It’s like if you give cocaine to a monkey, it will just want more doses. It’s like once a boy or girl experiences orgasm, he or she has to look for more and more. It’s like once young ones listen to pop music, they don’t wanna do anything else but listen to more. It’s like sports addicts are crazy about sports 24/7. It's no wonder that Soma and Feelies are so crucial to the world of Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD. The Power figured that, instead of maintaining order through strict repression and regimen, people could be better-managed by making them carry out certain tasks in allotted roles for routine rewards of intense pleasure.

It is in the areas of convulsion that blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race. Though convulsion may be the opposite of convenience and conversion, paradoxically the power of convulsion became magnified because of the success of convenience and conversion. The Western triumph in convenience led to huge technological advances. As people in the West have all the basic amenities and own TVs/stereos/computers, their minds are barely fixated on convenience(even as their lives owe so much to it). In the 19th century, white farmers struggled to eke out a living. They had to grow food, and their minds were occupied with making life easier by gaining greater convenience with improved methods of agriculture and tool-making. Also, as there were no radios, TV, and stereos, fun and pleasure amounted to local folk dances and get-togethers where parents and preachers kept a watchful eye on the young ones(who had to grow fast into adulthood to take on backbreaking labor). And as morality and spirituality of Conversion guided society, sexuality was carefully regulated.

But today, we have enough food and water. We don’t worry about disease and cold. Also, religion has faded due to science, wealth, and education. And grand ideologies such as Marxism have lost their appeal in a world with far less need, one where even poor people get fat. If anything, 'idology'(the politics of idolatry) has supplanted ideology. Our social mores are more libertarian and freewheeling and hedonistic. So, people take basic necessities for granted and instead seek wild/intense pleasure through sports, music, movies, TV, porn, dating-services(aka hookups), and free sex.

Conversion also paved the way for the rise of convulsion. How? Because conversion-dialectic led to the emergence of the kind of political/social/moral philosophies that best served to create and maintain modern societies of peace, law, and order. Once such socio-economic-political success was achieved, people began to take ideas for granted. After all, how many people regularly read the documents of the Founding Fathers? How many read up on the history of advancement of law and ethics from Roman times to the present? Though some people do find intellectual fulfillment in reading and learning, most people don’t much care about ideas as long as life is pretty good for them. What passed for ‘ideas’ since the 'End of History' has been stuff like WWG(world war gay) and WWT(world war tranny).

But one thing people are mad about is pleasure and more pleasure. If you’re dying of thirst, a glass of water will suffice as pleasure, mainly to overcome the pain of thirst. But if you have all the water in the world, you want something like an ice cold beer or soda pop with the fizzle.

Since the success of the Modern West put people’s minds off convenience and ideas -- as their utility is taken for granted -- , people are looking for more and more pleasure. People on a cruise ship don't think about the engines, steering, plumbing, and myriad other things that make the trip possible. They are fixated on fun. Likewise, how many people watching a movie think about the machinery of film-making and film-projection? They are just fixated on the fun images on screen. How many people think about how their smart-phones work and what went into them in terms of ingenuity and innovation? They just want to trade 'butt pics' and 'dick pics'.

And it is in the area of convulsion that Negroes are beginning to take over.

Look at sports. Muscled Negroes dominate. White girls cheer for black studs and line up to have sex with Mandingos who give them the biggest orgasms. White boys in the stands cheer for black athletes like crazy. The emotional response of white male fans to black athletics is almost 'orgasmic'. White boys turn quasi-homo in their worship of black muscle and mastery on the field. They act like white cheerleaders. They scream their heads off like they’re having orgasms all over their bodies.

And consider the worldwide potency of rap music. Black guys sing about how badass they be, about how white girls worship their muscle and big dongs. And white girls have conniptions listening to that stuff. They ‘twerk’ their asses to rap as if they’re mounting big Negroes. And white boys listen to that stuff too and get quasi-homo jollies in their worship of black toughness and cool thug attitude. White rock critics sing hosannas to Kanye West. White guys try to emulate black rappers. White homo guys look for black guys to pump them in the ass.

Intense sexual pleasure are found through feelings of conquest or feelings of submission. White girls and white guys find great orgasmic pleasure in submitting to the Negro as Nature's Master(and in vicariously ‘sharing’ the conquest by the Negroes). There was even an article in DETAILS mag about how white elites are having 'mandingoes' hump their wives on their own beds. White wives must have the big Negro, and white guys can get off only by submission fantasies before black guys as the superior race over wussy whites. This has now caught on in Japan, with clubs where small Japanese men gather to see big black Americans hump Japanese women who, having caught jungle fever, are having more kids with black men and producing offspring who dominate Japanese sports and defeat weaker yellow guys.

The power of convulsion is huge in the current Globo-Homo-Afro-Shlomo order. It’s like WUTHERING HEIGHTS where some hussy runs off with Heathcliff. Or Kate Chopin's THE AWAKENING which I haven’t read but I think it’s about some white woman getting turned on by a mulatto. Or Jane Campion’s silly PIANO where some white hussy goes off with some white guy who’s gone native and acts the Maori warrior. She feels ‘liberated’ by sexually submitting to the ‘savage’.

We may admire Japanese contribution to the technology of convenience, but in the area of convulsion, Japan fails at least in its male-dom. East Asians make the bulk of world electronics, but what most people watch through TV, computer, and smartphone screens are whites and blacks than Asians(who are more likely to be depicted in cartoon form in anime or manga). Japanese males are seen as a bunch of 'scrawns'. Hard-working drones who make good radios but who count for zero in convulsion factor. On the other hand, Japanese women may offer some convulsion goodies since men prefer women who are feminine, and it seems men all over the world have fantasies about me-so-horny mama-sans.

Negroes achieved zero in convenience and conversion, but they seem to be masters of convulsion. And yet, this triumph of the Negro has been made possible by Western triumph in convenience and convulsion. Western invention of electronics, TV, stereo, and etc., made black music accessible in the bed room of every white boy and white girl. Western moral-intellectual development led to the feelings of ‘white guilt’, and MLK-ology is the reigning ideology of White folks. And of course, it was the white-made transport systems and economies of scale that led to whites going to Africa AND blacks coming to the West. Without the triumph of convenience, whites would have remained in the white world, and blacks would remained in the black world.

So, even though blacks are only really good at thuggery, humpery, and jiveassery, their power in these areas have been magnified as pleasure-drugs all over the globe through Western media. And ease of travel have sent Negroes all over the world to hump women of all color.

Pleasure may be fleeting, but it is intense(just look at the loonies who totally lose their minds during Santana’s ‘Soul Sacrifice’ in WOODSTOCK), which is why some druggies are hopeless. Also, there is an endless barrage of pleasure-inducing sounds and images via countless devices that service pop culture. Junkies may know that the drugs that give them convulsions are destroying them, but they are so addicted to the pleasure, they gotta have more and more and more. It’s like the orgasmo-orb in Woody Allen’s SLEEPER.

Just look at the state of UK today. You still have elites who are well-mannered, well-read, and well-spoken(though all seem to be committed to Diversity and Vulgarization of Society), but the main cultural interest now revolves around convulsion, especially in relation to the Negro. Andrew Sullivan the homo may find meaning in books and surely appreciates modern conveniences(created by so many white scientists and inventors), but where does he find the greatest pleasure in life? By having some muscled big-donged Negro pump him in the ass. Milo shares that excitement as he's 'married' to a homo-Negro. That pretty much sums up the essence of what the British elites stand for nowadays.

Today, Jews control much of the Convenience industry(especially in high tech) and the Conversion industry(academia, media, publishing, etc). Control of sectors like Silicon valley and finance technology gives Jews tremendous amount of wealth. And with that money, they’ve bought up all the media and funded much of the academia. And they use their control over conversion-spheres to promote ‘white guilt’ as the main moral-spiritual 'idology' of the age.

And as Jews own much of sports, media, TV, music, and porn, they work in cahoots with Negroes to push the Negro dope or Negrope on white junkies who are totally addicted to orgasmic convulsions from sports, rap music, porn, and even watching one’s own wives humped by Negroes.

So, as we look to the future, the issue is no longer a matter of which people created the greatest civilizations but which people produce the biggest convulsions for humanity?

Though non-blacks created the greatest civilizations, the price they had to pay was the rise of slavish genes over savage genes. The higher degree of slavishness among whites, Near Easterners, Hindus, and yellows enabled them to build bigger cities and get along better and obey orders. But they also grew wussier, wimpier, doglike, Dan-Quayle-like, and David-Cameron-like. Without inspired leadership from above, most non-blacks fear to step forward and take action. In the past, British elites led the British masses in defense and aggression. Today, with the elites have been brainwashed by Jewish Conversion and/or addicted to Negro Convulsion, they no longer rouse up the British masses for racial solidarity and national power. Your average Briton, left to his own devices, would rather accept national suicide than give offense to others with 'nasty views' such as 'racism'. His instincts are more slavish than savage.

Just like Japanese built high civilization but get bumped around by bigger & tougher Mongols(who excite Japanese ladies who also run around Yokohama looking for Negro studs) in the Sumo 'dojo', white folks built greater civilization but at the cost of becoming dweebier and doglike, at least when compared to blacks.

Even though the dweeby and doggish naturally fear the wolfish and savage, they are also turned on by displays of wolfish or pitbull-ish prowess. It’s like dogs are more impressed by wolves than vice versa, and female dogs will could well have bigger orgasmic convulsions with male wolves... and in time male dogs will find their jollies as quasi-homo bitches of male wolves. Looking forward to the future of wolfish Negro males and doggish white males?