Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Why Biological Slavery under Blacks Is Like Social Slavery under Whites

Contrary to the impression viewers have been getting lately from films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE(not without a certain degree of masochistic ‘white guilt’ self-righteousness), the lives of black slaves in the South were not uniformly bleak, cruel, and inhuman. While there were cruel and sadistic slave-owners, there were also many kindly and decent ones who took care of their slaves reasonably well. In this regard, the TV series ROOTS was closer to the truth. Some slaves lived under nice ‘enlightened’ masters while others lived under nasty masters. It was rather like the condition of dogs and cats. If a dog or cat’s master is real nice, the dog or cat might as well be in heaven. If the master is nasty, it’s hell for the poor creature. Of course, all slaves in the South had to work hard, but in this regard, their lives were no different from most white folks around the world, America included, who had to toil from sunup to sundown. Most American whites were not large plantation owners or rich folks. They spent their entire lives working on farms and in factories. The conditions of many whites could be harsher than that of black slaves. Black slaves worked no harder than most white farmers in Europe and were, in most respects, much better off than Russian serfs. And of course, black slaves in the South had it much better than most people in non-white nations, especially under the barbaric rule of non-white elites.

But man doesn’t live on bread alone. Even if a free white farmer and a black slave had to work equally hard and ate the same kind of food and lived under similar conditions, the white man had the advantage of full legal rights and all the psychological benefits that came with it. While the law in Southern states made provisions for the well-being and decent treatment of black slaves, it was nothing like being free and being legally protected under the system of democratic government. Also, no man wants to feel himself to be the property of another man, at least in a world defined by concepts of liberty and freedom. To be sure, in certain societies, some people didn’t mind being the properties of the king, noblemen, or the state since they were raised to think and feel that way from cradle to grave. In Japan, elements of the lower castes were willing to give their lives for their masters and preferred death in the name of honor and loyalty(to their masters) than be free of their obligations. (Obligations and servitude, even if often unjust and harsh, at the very least provided the servants or slaves with a sense of purpose and meaning. It’s like dogs would rather serve a master than roam around freely. There is an element of dog-psychology in all humans. Indeed, when slaves are suddenly freed by their master, they might feel anxiety than liberation for they knew their lot under slavery but don’t know their future under freedom. This explains why a large segment of Russians longed for the old Stalinist days after the fall of communism and the economic devastation of the 1990s. At least things were steady in the good ole bad ole days. And Germans were all too willing to give up their freedoms to Hitler in exchange for security and stability. And even black slaves in America, when offered the chance of freedom and return trip to Africa, declined. They’d rather live under white folks than be free as an African savage. At least under white folks, you knew where the next meal was coming from, whereas in Africa, you might have to hunt a hippo that turn around and might bite your black ass in two, or worse, some black tribe might capture you and have you for dinner, especially if you were an albino.) And the Janissaries(enslaved boys from Christian families trained to fight for the Sultan) in the Ottoman Empire were raised to believe in the honor of serving their Muslim lord. They took pride in their roles as warrior-slaves against Christendom, the very realm into which they’d been born.
Even so, not all forms of slavery are the same. Some forms of slavery may take away your freedom and property but ‘spiritually’ make you feel empowered as a part of the collective. This was the appeal of communism. It took away individual property and freedom, but the people were made to feel as ‘comrades’ united in struggling for the common goal of creating a ‘better world’. In contrast, some forms of slavery are more nakedly honest, and perhaps the most extreme was Nazi slavery(of non-Germans) that made the slaves know that they were no better than cattle and would be treated as such. As Nazi ideology was rooted in biology than spirituality, Nazis didn’t care if non-Germans had souls or not. Germans were seen as the higher breed of pure wolves while certain other races were seen as inferiors breeds of dogs or mongrels.

The American South justified its slavery on loftier grounds, not least because the dominant cultural heritage even in the South was Christianity(even more so than democracy, which had been gained through independence from the British as the result of the efforts of mostly northern and mid-southern forces than deep southern ones; more key battles were fought in the north than in the south). Defenders of slavery argued that black Africans, being so wild and savage, needed to undergo a historical and cultural transformation so as to become worthy of living as free men alongside white folks. This line of argument believed that even though slavery would be wrong when applied to civilized white folks, it would do some good for Negroes who’d learn the virtues of hard work, discipline, order, organization, and obligations. (After all, before white folks gained freedom, they too had been civilized from brutality and barbarism through long yrs of iron discipline and servitude under kings and noblemen. In other words, there could be no short cut from barbarism or savagery to civilization. Spiritually, culturally, and perhaps even biologically, a people had to progress gradually from brutality — the world of black African savages — toward civilization where free men had rights. It took whites thousands of years to become civilized enough to be finally worthy of democracy and freedom, and so, it made no sense for blacks, the least civilized people in the world, to make a sudden jump from savagery to freedom. Ideally, they had to undergo the process of discipline, organization, thrift, and industriousness under the presumably benign guidance and management of white folks who’d made the arduous historical transformation earlier. So, if slavery was an evil when applied to civilized men, it could be a blessing, a helping hand, if applied to savages who had no concept of God and higher values. It’s like it’s wrong to treat an adult as a child, but it’s also wrong to treat a child as an adult. Of course, modern Americans scoff at views such as this when applied to Negroes, but the Liberal and even Conservative reluctance to pass proper judgment on bad black behavior suggests that there is a tendency to view Negroes as a bunch of children who simply cannot be judged like the rest of humanity. It’s like we shouldn’t expect Negroes to act like full-fledged adults since they are naturally ‘childlike’.) Thus, white Southerners rationalized black slavery as a kind of civilizing mission. The Negroes had to be fully tamed through the generations before they could rightfully claim equal freedom and full legal rights.

In any case, the Negro’s lot as a slave essentially depended on the moral character of his master. Was the master kindly and decent and did he take care of his slaves? Or was he mean and nasty and treat his slave like a dog and unduly call him ‘nigger’ too often? Of course, even the kindly master used cruel means to maintain order and discipline when Negroes rebelled or ran off. Even a kindly master may order a whipping to teach a lesson to the runaway slave, and other slaves would be made to watch the whipping as a lesson lest they too ‘get rabbit in their blood’. It’s like what the Strother Martin character says in COOL HAND LUKE. He can be a real good guy or a real mean son of a bitch. And of course, there were a whole bunch of masters who were neither too kindly or too mean but something in between.
Therefore, it’s difficult to defend slavery on the basis that some masters were indeed humane, relatively speaking. The fact remains that the slave’s condition depended on forces beyond his control and will. If a master was mean and nasty, he still had to work for that master. He couldn’t, like a free worker, just quit and go off to find another job. The slave was stuck in his place. Also, even if a master was nice and kindly, the slave had to always be mindful to be on his best behavior and act servile to ensure that the master will continue to treat him nice. So, when push came to shove, a slave under a good master was no freer than one under a bad one. So, at least from the moral perspective of our times, slavery cannot be defended on the basis that some masters were decent and good. At best, it can be argued that slavery in the Deep South was not uniformly the horror show that film-makers and others would like us to believe.
At the very least, we can all agree that the central fact of the SOCIALLY SANCTIONED SLAVERY in the American South was that the slave was at the mercy of the master. The master had to be good for the slave to lead a decent life since the slave lacked the freedom to make his own mind and decisions. And to that extent, American slavery was an unjust system — though much preferable to the kinds of slavery practiced by barbaric Asians, cruel Arabs, and savage black Africans, none of whom saw anything wrong with slavery(even of their own kind).

But the same kind of problem exists in the case of BIOLOGICAL SLAVER. American Slavery in the South was a form of Social Slavery. White masters ruled over black slaves because whites were better armed, had the power of law on their side, and were better organized to maintain their form of power structure. Whites ruled over blacks not because they were tougher or naturally more dominant than blacks but because they’d created a mighty civilization that had given them a decisive advantage over the non-white parts of the world that lacked big ships, guns, factories, and the like.
Abolitionists demanded the ending of slavery on the religious/spiritual ground that all men of all races and colors were equally the children of God and imbued with souls equally dear to Him. Abolitionist, who were religious fanatics, didn’t care about biological factors or issues — and were even hostile to science. They thought in terms of God, God, and God, and they were certain that as long as all humans had souls equally loved by God, it was sinful for one group to enslave another group for whatever purpose or reason. Of course, not all Abolitionists were religious fanatics. Some came to support the Abolitionist Movement and sought to free the blacks, but they still believed in the inequality of races and wanted to keep blacks separate from whites. Abraham Lincoln was such a man. He wanted to free the slaves but also saw them as dangerous innate savages and wanted them shipped back to Africa or to relocated to some place in South America.

In the 20th century, many white liberals swallowed the notion that all races are the same except for skin color. The leftist Jewish takeover of anthropology had a deep impact on social thought. Also, WWII and the great crimes of Nazi radical racism cast a pall over the very notion of the science of races; the baby came to be thrown out with the bathwater. With the so-called ‘free world’ having defeated the oppressive systems of Fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism, Americans felt good about themselves as not only the proud defenders of but ardent crusaders for the land of freedom and equality. Also, the Cold War with Communism pressured the US to make social reforms, especially in the area of racial equality, so as to neutralize Soviet Union’s accusation of ‘racism’ as the defining characteristic of American capitalism/imperialism. For US to win over the hearts and minds of the Third World(the main battleground during the Cold War), it just wouldn’t do to have TV images of Bull Connors unleashing his dogs on Negroes beamed all over the world.

But as things turned out, the races were not equal, and the differences weren’t limited to skin color. In general, blacks are less intelligent than whites, though blacks have superior talents in certain mental areas, just as rhythmic patterns and making jazzy and funky music. Blacks also have more colorful ape-like charisma. Like a chimpanzee, blacks can talk and act in an amusingly brash manner that delights white folks to no end. It’s no wonder THE JEFFERSONS was one of the most popular shows of all time even though George Jefferson did little else but insult white folks by hollering at them like an intelligent ape. He was colorful. So was Eddie Murphy during his heyday. (In a way, whites have valued blacks as their darker id, the repressed animal nature that has no inhibitions about sex, aggression, dominance, and pleasure. So, white people sometimes let loose and try to dance like blacks, talk like blacks, gesticulate like blacks. The have sexual fantasies of having sex with blacks or even indulge in such acts. Jewish-controlled porn peddles such fantasies, and not surprisingly, much of porn since the late 90s involve black males and white females. It’s as if white girls want the singing voices of black females, as if white guys want the muscles and penises of black males, and as if white girls wanna be ravaged by the Negro stud. White boys wee in their pants in awe of feats by black athletes, and white girls cheer for black sports kings and put out to them after the games. Thus, part of the appeal of blackness is in the allure of animal amorality or even immorality. The natural black beast, like King Kong, breaks free of the shackles of civilization & its obligations and rampages around seeking total dominance for the sake of power and pleasure. It’s like the experiment in ALTERED STATES where William Hurt’s character reverts to a stronger and more aggressive form of early ape-man. It’s a gangster fantasy, which accounts for the popularity of the ‘gangsta’ image of so many black rappers, which white rappers try to ape with varying degrees of success. Thus, it’s rather ironic that so many white ‘progressives’ are upset with black attitudes against homosexuality. On the one hand, white ‘progressives’ take delight in the wild and unruly aggressiveness of black masterfulness that ruffles the feathers of white society — white ‘progressives’ credit wild black energies for having liberated repressed and dull white people from their old priggish and prissy ‘Victorian’ and ‘Puritanical’ hangups — , but on the other hand, white ‘progressives’ — who are ideologically neo-puritanical in their bent — are so very distressed and perturbed by the fact that so much of wild black energies are of a hostile, nasty, and vicious nature, especially against certain groups favored by ‘progressives’, such as homosexuals. But, this is rather like celebrating the glorious wild energies of a tiger or grizzly bear but then getting upset over the fact that they don’t make for good table manners. ‘Progressives’ want black to run wild and free but not punch out nice Liberals like Matthew Yglesias. They admire and cheer on blacks for singing and shouting whatever’s on their minds — or lack of them — without inhibition, but if the words coming out of the mouths happen to be ‘faggot’ or ‘Jew motherfuc*er’, ‘progressives’ get awful upset, which is rather like setting a wild dog loose to run around in a kitchen but then getting all miffed because it ate all the caviar. This is further complicated by the fact that ‘progressives’ subscribe to the notion that there’s no such thing as a race, which means there can be no racial differences; if that is really the case, why do ‘progressives’ worship blacks for being better athletes, having more powerful voices, being better dances, being more colorful personalities, and having bouncier butts on the women and bigger penises on the men? To confuse the matter even further, the appeal of black animality is intermixed with the notion of the Negro as the spiritual savior of white folks. This side of the myth would have us believe that blacks are so noble that they have no time or energy for sexual interests or violence. Even a mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE has no thoughts of vengeance, no thoughts of sex with white women — or any kind of women — , no desire to beat up white boys and fuc* them in the ass as so many powerful black males to do white men in America and South Africa. The ONLY thing the Noble Spiritual Magic Negro ever wants to do is to love and redeem mankind, and of course, MLK played this role to the hilt, though his closeted real nature was closer to King Kong, as his main passion away from the camera and microphone was to have endless orgies, drink like a fish, and cuss like Eddie Murphy. Western morality since the 1960s is utterly confused and unstable since its core myth tries to have the cake and eat it too, i.e. it would have us believe that the ‘Nigga’ as the amoral animalist fantasy of raw power and domination is compatible with the Magic Negro as the spiritual fantasy of higher truth and transcendence.) But when it comes to most areas of intelligence involving logical problem-solving, math, and reading, blacks have been proven to lag behind other races. To be sure, there are cultural factors to this, but if blacks were naturally smart like Jews, they would show more interest in brainy matters as smart people generally gravitate to things that challenge their minds, just like fast and strong people naturally gravitate toward athletic or physical pursuits. No amount of cultural upbringing is going to turn a dumb black woman into an intellectually curious person. Even Michelle Obama, who had the advantage of being admitted to Princeton and Harvard Law School via ‘affirmative action’ never had a single original thought in her entire life. She’s just a bundle of politically correct and Afro-centric cliches picked up from patronizing professors who passed and recommended her on the basis of race.

But all said and done, the most crucial factor that underlies the racial relationship between whites and blacks is not intelligence but physical-and-emotional differences. While it’s true that dumb people achieve considerably less and end up as economic burdens on society, they are not necessarily destroyers of civilization nor much of a threat to the smarter members of society purely on the basis of their lower IQ. Suppose most blacks had low IQs and were physically like Emanuel Lewis, the little Negro child star of WEBSTER. While a bunch of them might fail in school and live on welfare(and be something of an economic burden), would they pose a threat to the white race? Of course not. There are plenty of dumb ‘white trash’ folks, but the problems they cause to the general population is nothing like the damage done by blacks.

So, what is the crucial difference between whites and blacks? It’s about time that the White Right stopped beating around the bush. White Right always complains that the media — controlled by Jews and Liberals and cowardly Conservatives — don’t properly report black-on-white crime, but the White Right itself is too wussy to deal with the true nature of such violence, namely that blacks are physically stronger and tougher than whites(by a considerable margin) and emotionally more aggressive. Blacks are also naturally more psychopathic, i.e. lacking in qualities such as empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, conscience, and shame. And I suspect in due time, with advances in genetic research, all these observable facts will be proven with hard data, which may be why the forces of political correctness are currently working extra-hard to expose whites to such a heavy dosages of ‘white guilt’ radiation so as to render them defenseless against political correctness even with the emergence of scientific data proves that many blacks are unfit to live alongside whites — or, more accurately, whites are physically unfit to live safely alongside stronger and nastier blacks. White people will still go on weeping over sanctimonious MLK speeches even when the hard facts of biology demonstrate that whites would be much better off living separate from blacks.

Anyway, the problem with social slavery was that even though some white slave owners were decent and kindly men, the indisputable fact was that blacks lived at the mercy of white power. Blacks had to hope and pray that whites who had power over them were good because if they weren’t, blacks could be treated harshly, and worse, there wasn’t much they could do about it.

A similar problem hangs over white people living under the system of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. In an integrated neighborhood, whites might be left alone or treated kindly by decent blacks who are kindly and conscientious, and of course, such blacks exist just as there were decent white slave owners. But there are also nasty and brutal blacks who are lacking in conscience and any sense of remorse. (Worse, the ‘white guilt’ narrative that predominates in America imbues even horrible blacks who commit the worst kinds of crimes with a sense of righteousness, i.e. their violence against whites was just payback for what the ‘cracker honkeys’ had done to blacks in the past; and of course, films like TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE will only harden such perspectives, not least among violent black thugs.) Since blacks are generally stronger than whites, nearly all whites in an integrated community are biological slaves of blacks. Though whites have legal rights that protect them from bullying, intimidation, hostilities, and crime, the fact is there is no way a white person can effectively rely on the law all the time for protection from Negro bad behavior. For one thing, the cops have better things to do than to be protecting whites from every case of intimidation and bullying from blacks as the integrated community could be reeling from rapes, shootings, robberies, murders, and other kinds of mayhem. Also, even when the police arrive, it’s often too late as the thug took off already after brutalizing the white victim. Also, many whites are afraid to call the cops for fear of reprisals. If the cops arrest a certain Negro for having attacked you, his family members and friends might come after you and your family in ways big and small. So, even though the law and the police do exist to ensure equal protection for all citizens, the fact remains that in an integrated community, blacks will biologically rule over whites because the power of the law only goes so far in our lives. In schools, white guys who are attacked by blacks will also be unlikely to report the abuse since (1) little will be done about it as the bullies aren’t legally adults and will only be slapped on the wrist (2) white guy will be seen as a ‘pussyboy faggot’ for not fighting his fight and instead relying on school authorities and (3) the black attacker doesn’t care if he’s suspended since such types don’t give a crap about studying anyhow and (4) the black attacker will hurt the white kid even worse for having told on him. (There is also the problem of ‘micro-aggressions’ against whites. A black guy might ‘play’ with the white boy like a toy. He will do everything within the law to belittle, taunt, and humiliate the ‘white boy’ without throwing the first punch. Thus, he hasn’t violated any law. If the ‘white boy’ walks away, he’s been pussy-whipped. If he talks back and escalates the situation or, in a fit of uncontrollable white rage, throws the first punch, the black guy will be justified in whupping the white boy’s ass. There are psychological means by which tougher guys can mess with weaker guys, as in the scene in SHANE where Jack Palance’s character legally manipulates the ‘sodbuster’ to dig his own grave. He is ‘owned’ by Palance’s character. The oft-heard term among young people today is ‘own’, and Oprah’s channel has the same name. In an integrated neighborhood, blacks OWN whites physically and psychologically. Physically, blacks can beat up whites. Psychologically, blacks can mess with whites without whites doing anything about it out of fear. Also, blacks sexually own whites. If blacks have a thing for a certain white girl in school, they can make sure that white boys don’t go near her for if they do, they’ll get their asses kicked. And white girls often submit to such sexual ownership by blacks since women naturally want to be dominated and conquered by alpha males. The only chance for whites in such a situation is to study harder, make something of their lives, and move out of the neighborhood, but ‘affirmative action’ hampers the social progress of poor whites as it favors blacks and rich whites over poor whites; and even if they make it out of the troubled community, there are Section 8 programs to relocate lots of bad blacks to the very areas that whites fled to.) Of course, such white victims don’t have any defender in the Jew-run media that cackle with glee over black-on-white-gentile violence(Jews only care when blacks attack Jews) nor among white conservative elites who seem more eager to recruit more blacks to the GOP(as trophy Negroes that prove that Republicans aren’t ‘racist’) than to call attention to the problems of biological slavery suffered by so many whites who are stuck in integrated communities and OWNED by blacks.

Thus, under biological slavery, whites have a choice between decent black biological masters or nasty black biological masters. Either way, whites are under a form of slavery, a biological one at that, which is far worse than the social one, because, while social slavery can be ended by new legislation and social values, nothing will change the nature of biological slavery. It’s like no matter how many laws we pass and enforce, most sexual violence will be male on female since men are stronger than women. Thus, the sexual threat of violence is always male-on-female, and that makes women the biological slaves of men, and to this extent, feminists have a point. But what feminists overlook is that women have a natural attraction to the power of men. By their very nature, women want to be with strong men who can ‘own’ them emotionally and sexually, if not legally. This passion and desire make the unequal relationship between men and women not only tolerable but meaningful and blissful for both partners. Even if women want to be equal with men legally, they want to meet men who are stronger and more masterful. Even lesbians have an hierarchy of the alpha female and beta female. And this sexual attraction between unequal sexes is what ensures the survival of humanity. Without the unity of men and women, no race can survive.

In contrast, there is no need for one race to co-exist with another race to survive. Japan will be Japan even if not a single Negro sets foot on the island. Norway will continue to be Norway forever even if not a single Japanese or African sets foot on Norway. So, races don’t need one another. While all races have much to gain by learning from one another, trading with one another, and even mating with other races, no race needs to mix with other races in order to survive and thrive. And some races are bound to lose out if they mix with other races. Suppose we were to mix Russians with Vietnamese. Clearly, Russian men, being stronger and bigger, will win out over Vietnamese men. While Russian men will be taking lots of Vietnamese women, Vietnamese men will not only lose their own women to beefier and bigger Russian men but they won’t be getting much Russian poon either since Russian women will still prefer bigger and beefier Russian men to scrawny Vietnamese men. Of course, one could argue that Russians will lose out too. If a whole bunch of Russian men mix with Vietnamese women, their Russian-ness will become diluted in a genetic sea of yellowness.

Same goes for blacks and whites. Despite all the rosy and idealistic yammering of ‘thinkers’ on both the mainstream ‘left’ and mainstream ‘right’, the fact is racial integration between blacks and whites can only lead to the biological slavery of whites being OWNED by blacks. In schools all across the nation, the racial violence is overwhelmingly black on white. In prisons, black thugs rape white inmates in the ass. In sports, blacks dominate over white guys who are relegated to bench-warming status and to the humiliation of watching white blonde cheerleaders shaking their asses for black athletes who mostly clobber white guys. In streets, in buses, and other public places, blacks swagger around like they OWN the whole world while white boys are reduced into dickless wimps who are afraid of being knocked out by ‘teens’.

Sure, there are good, kindly, and decent blacks, but that means whites are at the mercy of blacks being nice to them. Since blacks are stronger than whites, blacks don’t have to worry about whether whites are nice to them or not. Even nasty white guys can easily be whupped by tougher blacks. So, blacks can rule over both nasty whites and nice whites, but whites, being weaker, cannot rule over blacks. Thus, whites have to hope and pray that blacks are nice than nasty. If a black guy is like Arthur Ashe, wonderful. But if he’s like Mike Tyson, it’s big doodoo.

Now, suppose whites were stronger than blacks, i.e. stronger than both nice Negroes like Ashe and nasty Negroes like Tyson. Whites need not worry since the nice Negro won’t mess with them and since, if the nasty Negro messes with them, they can whup his jigger-jiving ass.
But reality being what it is, whites are only okay with blacks when blacks are nice, whereas blacks are okay regardless of whether whites are nice or nasty. Nice whites won’t mess with Negroes and even nasty whites are too afraid of blacks to mess with them. Thus, blacks are the lions, the masters of the community, whereas whites are like the weaker hyenas who always have to be on the lookout for nasty lions. (Also, even nice Negroes will come to sexually own the white race since even nice Negro men will lust after white chicks no less than nasty Negroes; and since nice Negroes are tougher than white men, white women will go with nice Negroes. Whether white women go with nice Negroes or nasty Negroes, it’s a humiliating loss for white men. Similarly, regardless of whether Negresses slept white nice white masters or nasty white masters, it was a case of white social slavery owning and humiliating the pride of black males. Would it have been much of a consolation for black males in the Deep South during slavery if the nice white massuh than a nasty white massuh slept with their mother, wife, or daughter? Pathetically enough, a whole bunch of white guys welcome the union of nice Negroes and white girls. It’s as if they’re so afraid of the accusation of ‘racism’ that they wanna show "how far they’ve come in the goal of racial harmony", though, of course, this "racial harmony" is premised on stronger Negroes making their moves on white territory and owning white females sexually and owning white males psychologically. Of course, some white guys hope that by offering or surrendering their white women to nice Negroes, the latter will protect the whites from nasty Negroes. And indeed, the psycho-politics as to why so many whites voted for Obama owes to such an psychology. White folks OWE and black folks OWN.)

During the age of social slavery, all whites has legal and institutional advantage over all blacks. Even a poor white knew he was a free man and legally on equal footing with rich whites. He also knew he could never be a slave. But even relatively well-off blacks who were given decent tasks by their rich and kindly white slave masters knew that their welfare depended on the kindness and mercy of decent whites. If they were to fall into the hands of nasty whites, their rights could be stripped overnight and they could be reduced to being ‘cotton picking Negroes’ again.

So, if one thinks about it, the dynamics between social slavery and biological slavery is pretty much the same. The slave side depends on the good will of the master side. As long as whites live next to lots of blacks, their well-being depends on the decency of blacks since nasty blacks can push them around and beat them up real good. Also, even nice Negroes will come to OWN white women and wussify white males as beta-male second-raters in the sexual marketplace.

Thus, the ONLY WAY for white people to be free at last, free at last, and free at last is to invoke the necessity of RACIAL RIGHTS, i.e. all races have a right to live in peace and safety for the sake of their own self-preservation and posterity. Since integration with blacks leads whites being biologically OWNED by blacks, whites are being reduced to the status of the slave race under stronger blacks(and more intelligent Jews). For whites to be free and to determine their own future and fate, they need to break free from this biological bondage.


So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.
That is the template of how the US sees race relations.
Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.
It’s a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.
So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.
Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?
But races do exist and racial differences are real and go beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It’d be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.
So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, and lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger Negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is ‘racism’ insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.
And even though white northerners mocked white southern 'bigots', the Liberals in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all discovered the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.
So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Palestinians were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legitimate fears and rages. We don’t use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)
Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.
BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.
THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration and social equality.
And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we’ve seen how White Liberals sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of ‘racial justice’ but act in ways that increase haute-segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewish(and maybe more Asian).
Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Democrats in 68 and 72, Liberal elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.
And by filling the Democratic Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run because a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.
In contrast, a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.
Foreign Strategy vs Southern Strategy.

Monday, November 18, 2013

The Paradox of Feminist Power: How Feminism Both Demeans and Demands Male Power.

It’s been a matter of habit for conservatives and the White Right to bemoan the demasculinizing effect of feminism. Conservative white men have long condemned the castrating effect of feminist ideology. Many suspect feminism’s goal is to stunt the natural growth of young boys into hardy men, to feminize men in general, to degrade masculine virtues and principles, and to purge the academic curriculum of values and activities amenable to the virtues of manhood.

Of course, there is much truth to these charges, especially when it comes to the world of Northern Europeans, particularly the Scandinavian types in both Europe and northern parts of the America. When life was cold and brutal in Scandinavia long ago, the men had to be extra tough and hardy to survive and take care of their clans and families. But once economic and technological advancement came to the northern parts, people could be comfortable without acting like Vikings or Gustavus Adolphus. And since Scandinavia was cold and dark for most of the year, there wasn’t much for the men to do except stay indoors and attend to domestic chores close to their wives and daughters. Also, the cold climate made Scandinavians emotionally and mentally focused on single tasks; when they were into acting like barbarians and warriors, they could be single-mindedly ruthless in their aggressions and plunder, as the Vikings were. Such single-mindedness made Scandinavians conducive to the spartan hardiness of Lutheranism and puritanical moralism. Once Scandinavians lost their religion, their single-mindedness turned to the new religion of the era, the secular faith of social-progressivism, and this accounts for Sweden’s leading the way with its dourly humorless policy of elevating women at the expense of men and in opening the doors to vast numbers of Africans and Muslims and indulging in interracism. And such mind-sets can also be found in places like Minnesota that was largely settled by Scandinavian-Americans. Whether conservative or liberal, Scandinavians tend to be single-minded in their commitment and devotion; they have a tunnel vision of what-is-to-be-done. In the modern era, Liberal Scandinavians have won the culture war as conservative types never seem to engage much in intellectual or cultural affairs. You can’t win if you don’t get into the ring. The Right speaks of the culture war but provides no troops for the good fight since it has no use for arts, ideas, and culture, at least not for the creation of new expressions and propositions. Thus, what goes by the name of Right-wing culture has only been defensive. It relies on established truisms and traditions. To go on the offensive — at least in the modern world — , one’s side must create NEW ideas and culture — even if essentially repackaging of old ideas — to hurl at the enemy. This was the brilliance of Fascism and National Socialism for they repackaged the Right as a force of modernity that looked forward than backward. Unfortunately, Hitler decided to look eastward than forward, bringing about WWII and the destruction of not only Germany but the modern right.

Anyway, most feminism in America isn’t like the one practiced in Sweden. On the one hand, it is true that feminism has a demasculinizing effect on boys in general. Feminists have often denigrated ‘manly’ things as aggressive, violent, cruel, barbaric, oppressive, ruthless, and hostile. Some feminist educators, allied with castrated male counterparts, want to degrade the spirit of competition in schools. Some schools don’t even keep count of the score, and sports games end with both sides as ‘equal winners’ or some such. We can recount a whole litany of examples of the feminist war on manhood to fill up hundreds of pages.

But there are two sides to the feminist coin. Paradoxically, feminism also has had the effect of exaggerating and magnifying masculinity, machismo, and male dominance, if only selectively. When the pioneering radical feminists in the 60s and 70s were making the social climb, most of their ranks did rail against the aggressive tendencies of maleness. Many attacked capitalism as not only male-dominated but as the instigator and perpetrator of male dominance since capitalism was supposedly all about dog-eat-dog ruthless competition than about cooperation and sharing. Ironically, to an extent, this view had a certain parallel with the conservative male view that women, being the fairer and gentler sex, weren’t fit for the game of capitalist competition. Pat Buchanan, for one, said as much. It would be like dogs competing with wolves. Where feminists and Buchanan disagreed was that the former thought women were equally capable of being just as determined, competitive, and aggressive, but some of the Sisters thought that women shouldn’t follow down such a path as they would only be participating in the patriarchal and imperialistic system that exploits people all over the world.
Also, many of these early feminists were ugly Jewesses and hags of other groups, and they were filled with envy of prettier women who made it with their sex appeal and looks. So, feminists attacked Hollywood and the porn industry as ‘sexist’ and raised their daughters with something like neo-puritanical ethos that shunned the ‘beauty myth’. As Carole King sang, she was proud to be a ‘natural woman’ who looked like she hadn’t showered in a week nor brushed her hair. (She wrote some great songs though.)
But in time, the communist world imploded(and socialism in general came to be discredited — unless one worked in the academia), and neo-liberalism came to be embraced by the entire spectrum of ‘progressives’, including feminists. And with the rise of MTV culture, the boomer generation of feminists found their daughters rebelling and demanding the right to be appealing to boys. Their girls wanted to be sexy, dress like madonna, and be liked by boys.
Also, if the early feminists found the female sex symbol in the media to be enslaving — not least because the movie and TV industries were dominated by men — , attitudes changed as lots of women began to work in the upper echelons of the entertainment industry. And as they made a lot of money, they began to live THE SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle. If early feminists saw the idealized images of female sex symbols to be manipulative and controlled by men — as in STEPFORD WIVES — , later feminists grew up with equal access to power in every industry and sector and came to prize sexiness as a powerful asset. Early feminists believed that many women had been forced to rely primarily on their sex appeal since so few avenues of power were open to them. Thus, they came to fallaciously associate sex appeal with male domination.
But as women gained great power in the 80s and 90s, they came to see sex appeal as an additional weapon in their arsenal of power. As women comfortable with their feminine sex appeal, they naturally sought out men with masculine sex appeal. A woman could be a power player AND a sex symbol, whereas early feminists believed that a woman had to choose one or the other: to play the game, you couldn’t be a dame. But later feminists came to realize that they could play the game and still be the dame. Sexiness, which had once seemed to be owned by men, now came to be a weapon of women themselves.

But more importantly, the new feminists came to demand more from life. They got good jobs and money and lots of freedom. The won high positions and accolades. And so many opportunities were availed to them. Also, powerful women in the entertainment industry had to admit that sex appeal was very profitable, and they weren’t going to sacrifice billions in profits out of some ideological fixation to early outdated feminism(of struggle than enjoyment).

Feminism went from struggle for freedom and power to taking freedom and power for granted(and seeking the hedonistic joys that accompanies freedom and power). Once women had the power, they demanded more pleasure, and of course, one of the biggest and most powerful kinds of pleasure is sex. And women find their biggest pleasure in the arms of big, tall, muscular, and big-penised men. For women to find true liberation and happiness, why should they be denied the ultimate pleasures in sex? And to find such pleasure, women demanded muscular studs with big puds than dorks like Pee Wee Herman.
Thus, there is the paradox at the core of feminism. On the one hand, it attacks male power to make room for more female power. It rails against male domination and aggression and makes a case for ever more opportunities and equality for women. And yet, women with lots of power and freedom discover those assets can afford them lots of riches and pleasures of life. Women want the fruits of power, which are happiness and pleasure. And for many women, the biggest pleasure comes from sexual relations with macho men. If a rich and powerful woman craves great sexual pleasure and if she could choose to have sex with any man, would it be with a dork or a stud? The stud, of course. Thus, feminism came to prize the value of the macho stud. It’s like if you are rich and can afford to eat anything, would you eat something delicious and fancy or something cheap and coarse? (Personally, I’ll take a cheeseburger over some fancy dining any day.)

And this neo-feminist desire for macho studs even became ideologically feasible since black men are the most muscular, most powerful, and biggest-penised studs on the planet. While a macho white man might carry the stigma of the ‘white male chauvinist oppressor’, a Negro stud, no matter how rough and tough, has about him the aura of holy eternal victim-hood stemming from the Cult of Jim Crow. Consider the film HAPPINESS by Todd Solondz where a very attractive and sexy ‘liberated’ and free-and-independent modern woman keeps a black stud as her sex mate. She is a gorgeous babe with lots of money and freedom, and she wants the maximum in sexual pleasure. Indeed, she demands it. The final product of feminist liberation lusts after powerful masculinity. (And consider the scene in SPARTACUS where a rich Roman woman swoons over the big mighty Negro played by Woody Strode. If she had the power and freedom to choose any man to do her, it’ll likely be such a Negro than some white guy.)
Rich and powerful men all over the world desire tall and buxom blonde women, and they use their money to acquire and enjoy such women. Today, in a world with so many rich and powerful women, they too have the freedom and choice to hire and enjoy the ultimate pleasure with super macho males, and often, these males are black. Feminism made it possible for women to grow rich and powerful. And rich and powerful women want maximum sexual pleasure, no less than rich and powerful men do. Think of all the rich and powerful Arab men who hire blonde women to suck their whankers. Similarly, rich and powerful women get it on with Negro studs. Consider madonna with her Negro studs porking her every orifice. Of course, not all rich and powerful women indulge in such things. For one thing, there aren’t enough trustworthy Negro males to serve as safe mates for most successful women. And it’s risky for rich and successful women to form dalliances with dangerous street Negroes who might act violent.  Also, some successful white women only want to enjoy Negro studs as something like their stable of horses. The Negroes are seen as animals to ride than long-term mates to settle down with. Notice even madonna didn’t marry a Negro though a whole bunch of them porked her in every hole. So, a rich white woman might sow her wild oats by having affairs with a bunch of Negro men but eventually settle down with a more reliable white guy.
Since blacks are seen as a ‘victim group’, black men, far more than white men, can get away with their machismo. If some white guy acts to macho, he could be attacked for his male domination, but if a black guy does the same — or even more — , his ‘uppitiness’ and ‘in your face-ness’ can be lauded as an example of a black man re-establishing his manhood(within the hoary historical context of having been forced shuck and jive as a ‘boy’ under the tyranny of the white man).

White conservative males may hate feminism for being anti-male and anti-masculine, but there is a side to feminism that lusts after machismo, as long as it’s within the power and choice of the woman to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Besides, the rise of masculinism doesn’t favor all races equally. It favors the more masculine race over the less masculine race. If women desire the macho men, they will favor the Negro man over the white man and favor the white man over the short Mexican or geeky Asian man. If white men were the toughest, most muscular, and biggest-penised men in the world and if feminists lusted after studs, white men would win the game of sexual competition. But as Negro men are considerably more muscular than the white men — and in many cases bigger penised — and can ‘sing and dance better’, the female/neo-feminist desire for sexual pleasure with the super stud favors the Negro.
In our ‘vagina monologue’ culture, feminists are encouraged to speak openly about their raw sexual desires. In the past, when such things were considered vulgar and unbecoming, a lot of girls talked about how ‘cute’ guys were and how they were after romance. But new feminism encourages women to talk about sex, sex, and sex — and those who don’t are accused of espousing repressed neo-Victorian ‘abstinence’ — , and all such talk about sex naturally revolves around ‘my boyfriend has a bigger dick than yours’, and ‘I had the biggest orgasm in my life with a guy whose dick is so big’. As one white female at work once told me, she had the biggest orgasm with a Negro whose penis was so big that she felt she was being ‘fuc*’ed in the spine. When I was a teenager in the 80s, most girls didn’t talk like this, and someone going with a Negro was seen as somewhat strange. With such talk now so common among young women who espouse new feminism, girls without boyfriends with huge muscles and big whankers feel left out. They feel cheated in life of the sexual pleasures that should be the ‘right’ of every liberated woman seeking pleasure. Every woman wants his Negro Heathcliff. Indeed, a new British version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS has a Negro in the role. And a whole bunch of British women are going with Negroes. And one of the favorite reading material among feminists is THE AWAKENING by Kate Chopin about a middle class white woman who has a fling with a mulatto or something and is finally ‘awakened’, presumably by his mega-penis. Thus, feminism, especially neo-feminism, rebels not so much against big strong alpha males as against beta-males who have used their institutional power to keep women under their control. After all, patriarchy wasn’t so much the rule of men over women as the rule of older and/or institutional men over younger and rougher men. A patriarchal system favors the older men and diligent brainy men over rough-and-tumble men with huge muscles and big penises(though, to be sure, Jewish men are both brainy/diligent and possessed of big fat whankers). Thus, under patriarchy, many women had to remain loyal to their older or beta-husbands as such a social system had a way of keeping wilder and younger studs in their place; the Rule of Law and social customs favored the diligent worker-bee-husband over the wild thug-stud. Many women felt imprisoned in such a social system and hungered to be carried away by the wild stud who would ravage her and liberate her with a mega-orgasm. (But then, judging by the Japanese film such as UGETSU, men too have had fantasies of abandoning domestic obligations and going off with the woman of their dreams. And in SAMSON AND DELILAH, the Jewish strongman even unwittingly betrays the people of his own tribe, especially the homely but loyal Jewish girl, all because he can’t resist the charms of a Philistine shikse who looks like Hedy Lammarr, who ironically enough, was really Jewish.) The theme is there in Jane Campion’s stupid PIANO too, where a white woman rebels against her diligent white husband and goes off with a man who has gone ‘native’. Of course, middle class white women could indulge in such fantasies because they could take for granted the comforts of bourgeois life provided by their diligent husbands who may not have been super-studs but worked hard to keep society running and orderly. It’s like children often find their parents oppressive and dream of going off with outlaws and freaks to find freedom, but such fantasies are possible because of the comforts of home.
Still, if a woman was married to some dullard and stuck in a boring middle class home, we can imagine why she might have longed for ‘liberation’ in the arms of a ‘pirate type’ like Fabio. We can understand why Diane Keaton’s character in MRS. SOFFEL goes off with the outlaw character played by Mel Gibson. Sexual desire is funny that way. And of course, white men had something of a similar problem. Consider how, in THE BOUNTY, Mel Gibson’s character rebels against the uptight character played by Anthony Hopkins. Gibson’s character has status and respect and enjoys the privileges of the British social system, but having fallen for a tropical hottie, he feels truly liberated for the first time and is willing to give up everything for love and lust. So, the likes of John Milius wants to lord over the tropical ladies who would suck his warrior penis, and the likes of Jane Campion wants to surrender to the natural dominance of Maori warrior studs. So, you see, there is a paradoxical link between ultra-masculinism and ultra-feminism.

Given the nature of racial differences, old feminism was actually better for white male than the current feminism is. Old feminism tended to be puritanical. It attacked female sex symbols and was hostile toward machismo in general. But new feminism came to embrace the sex symbol as ‘empowering’ and fun, and once power and wealth flowed easily to women, they wanted and demanded the pleasure that comes with the power. And since sexuality is one of the great pleasures of life — especially as the needs of housing, food, clothing, and food have been met for most modern people — , feminist women today demand top studs to pump and hump their orifices. Look at all the feminists who shake and pump their booties to rap music by Negroes and who drip with vaginal juice at the sight of Negro football and basketball players who dominate the sporting fields.  So, white males lose to feminism’s attack on male power(generally white male power), neo-feminism’s demand for sexual pleasure with super studs(who happen to be Negroes), and to masculinism’s favoring the stronger Negro over the soft white boy. Unless white males face these facts of racial differences and work together to save their own race, they will be finished in a few generations. But Jews control the minds of white women and also have so many white men — conservative as well as liberal — by the balls.

The future of the white male:

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Is It True that Social Change Has Come to a Standstill?



"One of the biggest changes of my lifetime has been the decline in the speed of social change... Instead, mass society fragmented and thereby stabilized." - Steve Sailer.

Maybe this is true when it comes to hair styles of white people. But hair-styles among blacks have changed quite a lot, especially among men. We don't see Afros anymore. What is most popular among black men is the Slave-Rebellion look of the shaved head. It makes them look meaner and leaner than they already are.

As for Alvin Toffler's FUTURE SHOCK, the only reason we don't feel the 'shock' is because we are Future-Shell-Shocked. It's like people in wars eventually become accustomed to the explosions, deaths, gore, and horrors. We've been bombarded with so much change so fast that much of it don't register as change or 'change' has become the new stability.

Also, what is exactly meant by 'social change'? One might argue that the internet amounts to technological change and not social change, but technology impacts society and culture. The rise of the internet has had profound impact on how people communicate, buy things, get information, make and share entertainment, become famous, become controversial, etc. It certainly gave a new voice to the American Right once silenced by liberal media and Neocon takeover of the GOP.

Also, aren't demographic changes afoot in the US and EU part of social change?
We've never seen so much change happen so fast, and mostly for the worse. Even just by comparing the 80s with the 90s and then 90s with the 2000s, the change is overwhelming. The rise of Rap as mainstream music is one. The mainstreamization of porn, and then the utter interrace-ization of porn is another. (I know because I worked in video rental during the late 80s and 90s when the change first took off in a big way.) The complete Neocon takeover of GOP had a huge impact. One could argue that's political change, not social change. But politics translates into social power and social change. The rise of Jews and gays in politics and media has meant all of America is turning more pro-gay just like it turned more pro-Zionist. Even after WWII, Jews used to fear and respect Southern white and German-American power, which is why Hollywood, for the most part, didn't make movies that dehumanized German soldiers and Southern whites. But today, almost all Americans(even conservative German-Americans and Southern Christian whites) do little else but sing hosannas to Jews and Israel. This had a profound impact not only on political policy but cultural outlook among White Conservatives who even wanna nuke Iran and wipe out Palestinians to please Jews.

And consider the Boomer takeover of power in the 90s and then the rise of Obama. No candidate in the 80s supporting half the things Obama stands for could have been elected. Even in the 90s, it would have been impossible, which is why Clinton settled for DADT. Now, Obama openly comes out for 'gay marriage' and still leads in the polls. Timid conservatives meekly voice support Traditional Marriage(as if that's something dirty) but don't dare oppose 'gay marriage' with any spine or guts. A beauty contestant got dragged through the mud by the entire Jewish-and-Gay-controlled media apparatus by answering Perez Hilton that she doesn't support 'gay marriage'. The media even dragged out details of her private life to smear her. In the new social environment, Perez is normal and decent while a beauty contestant who isn't for 'gay marriage' is treated like a dirty tramp to be hated.

There is utter social, cultural, and political fear of gay power, especially as it's protected by Jewish power. Soon, attacking the gay agenda will be like attacking Israeli policy.

Also significant is the utter beta-male-ization of the white man and the rise of the Tough Sexy Negro. TV commercials openly promote the wussification of the white male and promote interracism of white girl and Afro-Aryan black guy.
Jack-Johnson-ism the law of the land. And dweebized white guys don't resist and don't even know how to resist. They've become irrelevant unless they're 'creative gays'. Obama isn't just some political phenomenon but a social and cultural one as well. America's acceptance of him as leader means profound social changes has taken place. How long before the next president is a dark-skinned black guy married to a blonde woman? Americans in 2008 found nothing wrong with a friend of Bill Ayers becoming Commander-in-Chief. If anything, the best-educated Americans were swooning all over Obama and even fainting.

As for the Jews, they've turned into an utterly corrupt New Elite. When Wasps ruled the roost, Jews used to be for free speech, dissent, speaking truth to power, and etc. Today, while Jews continue to use those tropes, they are really working to push Political Correctness to end free speech(that's critical of Jews and their allies), to bail out Jews on Wall Street, to silence any criticism of Jewish power and Israeli policy, to promote interracism mainly to weaken the white race and white power, and totally change the terminology of the nation with nonsense notions such as 'same-sex marriage' and 'undocumented immigrants'. Obama tramples on the Constitution and illegally offers amnesty to illegal aliens who are now called 'undocumented immigrants'. And he still leads in the polls and will win in 2012 while the timid, awkward, and pathetic white boy Mitt Romney seems endlessly flustered as he tries to win conservative votes while, at the same time, pandering to the Jewish-and-Gay Lobby.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

The Conspiratorial Style in American Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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