Thursday, June 26, 2014

On Why ‘Antisemitism’ Is Natural, Normal, and Healthy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, June 9, 2014

The Problems of Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox

Fruitkin as Prom Queen

As many have surely observed, one of the strangest social phenomena is the level of intense enthusiasm/exhilaration over things that are odd, weird, perverse, and even obscene. Why would this be? Shouldn’t people feel a natural aversion to things that are so obviously weird, distasteful, abnormal, and/or obscene? At best, shouldn’t the reaction of most people be that of reluctant tolerance? But instead, we see people getting all nuttily enthused about stuff like ‘gay pride parade’, ‘gay marriage’, and the ‘gay male prom queen’. So, what is going on? Why is that some things that are naturally abhorrent to most people are being received and praised with so much mindless enthusiasm, exhilaration, and even worship?

Perhaps, psychology has a term for such a response, but we will call it the ‘aversion-exhilaration paradox’. It is paradoxical since some of the wildest enthusiasm seems to be reserved for something that is so obviously off-putting, weird, ridiculous, ludicrous, perverse, and/or obscene.
We know that some things are easy for people to get enthused about. Who doesn’t like ice cream? So, if you tell kids that they’re gonna get ice cream, they’re happy. They don’t have to MAKE AN EFFORT to get happy since they’re naturally happy. And since the happiness and enthusiasm for ice cream come so naturally, there may not be much in the way of intensity of enthusiasm. Okay, so they love ice cream, and they’re gonna get some. Yum, and that’s that.

Now, take something kids don’t like, such as spinach — personally, I like it or hate it depending on how it’s prepared, but that’s another matter. Kids have a natural aversion to certain foods, and spinach is one of them for many children. So, they will naturally be disappointed if their parents say they have to eat a plateful of it. But suppose kids are told that spinach is holy food — indeed food of the gods —, and that if you don’t like spinach, you’re a mentally unbalanced spinachaphobe, you are a hater, and you’re just an all-around bad, bad child. Since kids want to be liked and win approval, they will feel shame for not liking it. And yet, deep down inside, they still don’t like it. But they have to like it because they’ve been told they’re awful unless they like it. So, the enthusiasm for spinach cannot be natural. It doesn’t come easily. It requires a lot of effort. Indeed, EXTRA EFFORT is called for in order to overcome the natural aversion to spinach. And even more EXTRA EFFORT in order to repress the fact that, deep down inside, one doesn’t really like spinach. So, one goes about acting like Popeye, as if spinach is the best-tasting, most wonderful, most nutritious, and most magical food in the world. So, paradoxically, the natural aversion to spinach and one’s effort to overcome it(and repress one’s doubt about one’s strained excitement for spinach)can make one even more enthusiastic of something one doesn’t like than of something that one naturally likes.

Indeed, consider the black queer ‘prom queen’ at the high school dance. What would be the natural response of any sane and normal person to such a thing? Laughter, ridicule, and mockery. I mean it looks like parody, silliness, childishness, stupidity, retardation, a joke. But society, as governed by the Jewish elites and their mini-me allies the homos, teaches young people that it’s terribly ‘sinful’, ‘unjust’, ‘unequal’, and ‘hateful to not ‘welcome’ and ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. After all, it’s no longer enough to just tolerate homosexuals. One MUST exhibit proof of enthusiasm, exhilaration, devotion, and even worship in order to be labeled a ‘good progressive’ person who’s against ‘hate’. So, kids must repress their natural inclination to laugh and ridicule the notion of some funny-ass black jiver queer ‘prom queen’. But since such enthusiasm simply doesn’t come naturally, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to repress their doubts and to express their obligatory enthusiasm. Also, one must repress the fact that one is a wimp who is cowering to the demands of the powers-that-be that imposes such a ridiculous notion as ‘gay pride’ — pride over guys doing fecal penetration one another or men having their penises sliced off to be fitted with artificial vaginas. What is a potent way to hide one’s shame? By exhibiting extreme enthusiasm. Therefore, the aversion-exhilaration paradox.

Aversion-exhilaration paradox is more common than most people might think. So much of what we feel great enthusiasm about is actually something we feel a natural aversion to. Consider TV talk-shows where some ugly, crippled, and wretched woman is paraded onto the stage. Our natural reaction is obviously revulsion since we prefer the healthy and the normal. But since society tells us to feel compassion for the unfortunate, we repress our feelings of aversion. So far, so good, as we should feel sympathy for the unfortunate. We certainly shouldn’t harass, taunt, or torment people like, say, the famous Elephant Man. But what if that’s not enough? If society defacto forces us to praise the notion of ‘cripple pride’ — i.e. it’s not enough for us to feel sympathy for the unfortunate but we must praise, celebrate, and worship them — , then we must not only suppress our natural aversion but force ourselves to believe that we genuinely feel enthusiastic about the ‘beauty’ of crippled people. Since such feelings are not natural, we must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves of such emotions and display them, and so our show of enthusiasm for ‘cripple pride’ may actually be even more powerful than our enthusiasm for beauty. After all, it doesn’t take any effort to admire beauty. It comes naturally and easily. And we don’t have to make a collective show of it since every individual feels so naturally drawn to beauty. And it doesn’t have to be imposed with mass hysteria and punitive taboos since what is more natural than finding pleasure in admiring beauty?

If anything, we feel an aversion to anti-beauty, and this is why extreme Islamic societies suffer from aversion-enthusiasm paradox when it comes to feminine beauty. Muslim men, like most men, naturally admire beauty and wanna see more of it. But Islam says feminine beauty displayed publicly is sinful, shameful, obscene, dirty, sacrilegious, and pretty bad stuff. So, Muslim men must repress their natural love of feminine beauty, and they must embrace the naturally aversive notion that beauty-shown-publicly is vile and wicked. They must force themselves to believe that women draped and veiled in black look pretty good. But since such aversive feelings don’t come naturally, Muslim men must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be anti-beauty. In this sense, the logic behind the current Western worship of ‘gays’ — propagated by Jews — and the logic behind the Islamic suppression of feminine beauty share an element of the aversion-exhilaration/enthusiasm paradox. Both are enforcing onto the masses what is naturally aversive. Western folks have to be pressured to believe that there’s beauty and honor in men porking their penises into the fecal holes of other men, in men having their body parts mutilated and their veins pumped with massive amounts of artificial hormones, and in two guys pretending that they are ‘two daddies’ or ‘daddy and mommy’, indeed as if the anus or poo-sy is the same as pussy. The homo agenda would also have us believe that the rainbow is the symbol of male fecal penetration among homos, of two lesbians having sex by humping a hole with a hole(???), and of a black guy cutting off his penis and putting on a wig and calling himself a blonde lady.
Laverne Cox the Black Guy as Blonde Woman
This sort of thing used to be reserved for Mad Magazine and the Onion when this nation had a healthy sense of satire and irony. Today, you better accept and praise it with a straight face, or else, you will be accused and attacked as a ‘hater’ and be destroyed worse than any Stalinist, Maoist, or communist spy/subversive was blacklisted during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’. (Btw, given that so many far-right and Nazi sympathizers had their careers destroyed during the WWII era, how come that period isn’t denounced as the sinister ‘Roosevelt Blacklist Era’? Of course, Jews and Liberals control the academia and media, and they’re only offended by blacklist against the far left but never against the far right. It’s the same today in places like London where a university banned a club because it discusses the ideas of right-wing philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Welcome to the Jew World Order. Jewish defense of freedom of speech was always about opportunism, never about principles.)

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is also common among soldiers. After all, soldiers are humans, and humans naturally don’t want to get shot, torn to pieces, stabbed with bayonets, blown to bits, crippled, blinded, and etc., all of which happen all too often in wars. Also, many soldiers don’t want to kill civilians, even of the enemies. But soldiers don’t have a choice. Once drafted or volunteered into the force, they must shut up and obey orders as long as they are in uniform. Even in a volunteer army, one is free only when one volunteers. Once entered into the service, one is essentially an attack dog of the elites, and since US is run by Jews, American soldiers are nothing more than attack dogs of the likes of Victoria Nuland and other vile hideous Jews who send goy boys to do all the killing, dying, and getting maimed for Jewish supremacist interests.
Since soldiers must do as they’re told and must repress their fears, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince themselves and others of their great fighting spirit and enthusiasm for war. Prior to the Iraq Invasion, American soldiers were shown clips of APOCALYPSE NOW and encouraged to rock to songs like ‘Rock the Casbah’ by the Clash. Soldiers must hide all their fears since it might seem wussy, dishonorable, and even treasonous on the eve of war. So, the very soldiers who are naturally sick in the stomach with fear and anxiety about battles-to-be-fight can seem the most delirious and passionate in their willingness to charge into the battlefield in order to die for ‘national glory’. Consider ‘Ron Kovic’ prior to be shipped off to Vietnam in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. He tries so hard to convince himself that it’s going to be a great adventure where he gets to play the great hero. In a way, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is the basic idea behind SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The film begins in a manner that is so harrowing that we feel a natural aversion to combat. Most viewers naturally feel, "gee, I’m sure I wasn’t there and I never wanna end up in combat." But the inspirational John Williams music, the Norman Rockwellian iconography of the soldiers-transforming-into-heroes, the uh-goshy patriotism and paeans to the virtues of sacrifice, and all that stuff make the audience feel guilty about feeling any doubts about the nobility of the men’s mission to fight the war and save Ryan. So, by the movie’s end, the audience is made to feel in terms of "Have I been a GOOD man?" Since ‘goodness’ is measured by one’s willingness to fight and die in a war to rid the world of the main enemy of Jews, the audience is ‘inspired’ — and emotionally manipulated, brutalized, and coerced — to repress their natural aversion to getting blown up in war and to replace it with great enthusiasm. Not surprisingly, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was soon followed by TV shows like BAND OF BROTHERS that lionized the ‘greatest generation’.

Overcoming aversion is necessary in any moral order. It’s even necessary for good health. After all, who wants to undergo surgery or take bitter medicine? Who wants to eat healthy food that tastes yucky? Who wants to wake up every morning and get stuck in traffic on the way to work? Who wants to risk his life by entering a burning house to put out the fire? But people must do all that in order to maintain social order and moral values.
Even so, there are good things we don’t like and bad things we don’t like. Spinach is good for kids, but most kids don’t like it. But when it comes to eating shit, we not only have an extreme aversion to it but our aversion is good and necessary for it’s unhealthy to eat da poo poo. So, if we have a fear of being forced to eat da poo-poo, it’s not a phobia but a naturally healthy response to a disgusting act — though there are some people with natural fetishes for eating disgusting stuff, including poo-poo; and some people seem to enjoy eating human flesh. (Maybe libertarians can champion cannibalism whereby the family of a deceased member can sell his body parts to cannibals. That way, no murder is committed, and it’s all about the freedom of choice. And maybe libertarians and ‘progressives’ should unite to legalize the eating of dogs and cats. After all, if it’s okay to kill and devour animals as intelligent as pigs because eating pork is a cultural norm in the West, isn’t it a case of ‘privileging’ western cultural norms over the Asian, American Indian, Polynesian, and some African ones where dogs are regarded as food? By golly, isn’t that ‘racist’ and ‘Euro-centric’? What about ‘culinary equality’ or ‘culinary freedom-to-choose’?) But suppose society says poo-poo is a form of sacred food and that those who find the practice of eating poo-poo disgusting are ‘poophobic’ and mentally sick in the head. Suppose children are educated from a young age that eating-da-poo-poo is wonderful, and since there is a small minority of people who naturally like to eat da poo-poo, eating da poo-poo should not only be tolerated but welcomed in the name of ‘food equality’. Of course, it’s difficult for most people to swallow poo-poo, so they won’t do it. But since poo-poo has been elevated to iconic/sacred status, they must at least show great enthusiasm for the glory of eating da poo-poo. So, at poo pride or poo-ride rallies, they show up and go crazy as floats are wheeled across celebrating the greatness of poo-poo. The thing is they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be especially delirious in their support since they must repress their natural aversion to the idea of eating da poo-poo. Of course, to conceal the true nature of poo-poo-eating, the promoters of poo pride will wrap the poo culture in rainbow colors and other pleasant-looking imagery and glitz. If Wall Street could package so much worthless shitty derivatives and sell them around the world by packaging/stamping it with AAA-rated approval, then why can’t the elites sell something like the homo agenda or poo pride?

There are necessary things we must accept(even if unpleasant) and there are things we must necessarily tolerate even if they don’t hold much value for us. Because so much of life is about ‘no pain, no gain’, we must necessarily handle much pain and aggravation in all aspects of life. As for crippled people and people with low IQ, they may not be of much use to society, but as fellow humans, they have to be taken care of and/or treated with decency. But there’s a difference between making some effort to be more decent and making an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves that what we must tolerate or acknowledge is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Consider the queer black prom queen pictured above. Yes, there are such people in the world. They are ridiculous, but they are what they are, and they shouldn’t be taunted or attacked. But notice how the school went overboard and convinced itself to pretend that such ‘sexuality’ is the greatest thing since baked buns. There is element of servility, condescension, and narcissism(both vain and moral) in all this. There is the servility to political correctness. There is the condescension in trying to boost the ‘self-esteem’ of some freak-as-noble-victim. (The condescension is racial as well as ‘sexual’, a kind of double ‘affirmative action’.) And there is the narcissism on part of the Negro queer ‘prom queen’ in actually believing himself to be beautiful when any honest person will say he looks ludicrous and ‘faggoty’, and there is the preening ‘moral’ narcissism on the part of the school that thinks itself sooooooooo pwogwessive because it upholds a very ‘anti-normative’ notion of beauty that happens to be oh-so-‘inclusive’. The whole thing stinks of bullshit.
Or consider the case where a school — actually two schools — secretly plotted a sports scenario where a retarded student would be helped to score a touchdown on the football field. Of course, the problem isn’t the compassion that the students felt for the poor kid. That much is to be lauded. It’s their over-enthused fantasy that what the kid achieved is a real touchdown. Now, kids feel a natural aversion to retarded children. Kids don’t want to hang around retards, and girls surely don’t want to date them. And long ago, perhaps such kids were too neglected, mocked, and mistreated. So, one could say it’s a good thing that kids have been raised to be more sensitive today — though, to be sure, the number of retards have been reduced thanks to fetal screening and selective abortion. But, the charade that the retarded kid is a some kind of student-athlete who actually made a touchdown, that is just bogus. Worse, though it seems to be about selflessness, it’s a form of moral narcissism, as if to parade oneself to the world that you are so caring and compassionate that you went so far as to make a retard feel good about himself. But the retarded kid has been sold on a lie. And the audience has been softly bullied into going along with the charade since people don’t want to be seen as ‘mean-spirited’, ‘uncaring’, and ‘hateful’ for calling out on the bullshit. We can treat unfortunate people with caring and decency without going out of our way to pretend that their misfortune is actually some kind of great fortune. We don’t need this Forrest-Gumpity BS which is a horrible fantasy about the world. Also, notice that the ‘moral’ pressure that forces us to pretend that the retarded kid scored a ‘real touchdown’ is much like our pretension that two lesbians or two homo guys can ‘have a child together’. Melissa Ethridge didn’t have a child with her lesbian lover. She had the child with David Crosby, but as in HANDMAID’S TALE, the real biological parent has to be nixed out of the equation while we must pretend that the woman had the child with another woman. We may over-enthusiastically pat ourselves on the back for our supportive compassion and applause for lesbians(as poor noble victims), but it’s all built on a lie that no honest person can take seriously.
So, even ‘good intentions’ can mask pathological amounts of deception and self-deception. It’s like the Housing Bubble under George W. Bush had so many enthusiasts on both sides of the ideological divide since they had to swallow and suppress so much bullshit to fool themselves that everything would turn out alright in offering no-interest home loans to so many people who live paycheck to paycheck or don’t even have any kind of steady income. People have a natural aversion to total bullshit, but if the bullshit is protected and promoted in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ — and of course, Wall Street greed — , then even the experts come under pressure to swallow and peddle the BS. And since their rational minds remain skeptical, they have to compensate by expunging their natural doubts with boundless enthusiasm. There is an element of cultist devotion and religiosity in all this, and indeed, Jews understood this very well as they are the masters of psychology.

Indeed, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is intrinsic to all religions, some more than others. Religions, especially the higher ones, cannot function without pressuring and even forcing people to overcome certain natural tendencies and aversions. The positive side of this is the civilizing effect it has on people as, after all, so many natural human tendencies and drives are ‘base’ and ‘animal’. Surely, any Jewish kid through the ages would have preferred to run around and play than sit at the feet of some mean-spirited hairy Rabbi who instructed him with ‘boring’ stuff, especially as the kid had to undergo much painful effort to memorize a lot of passages of text.
Much of Buddhism is about denial of what comes naturally to us. We naturally embrace the joys & pleasures of life while fearing poverty, disease, and death. But Buddha instructed people to reject pleasure as addictive illusions that filled one with ‘desire’ and ‘attachment’ that prevented people from separating and liberating themselves from the falsehood of the world. As for poverty, disease, and death, such should not be feared or regarded with aversion since they too are mere illusions.

Some Hindu yogis go out of their way to overcome their natural aversion to pain by sitting on cactuses or doing horrible things to their bodies. Naturally, fleshly pain is something we dread and try to avoid, but Hindu yogis seek to spiritually rise above the flesh by overcoming pain and agony. They may not embark on such with enthusiasm or exhilaration but still do so with extreme commitment in order to compensate for their pain and aggravation.
In some cases, doing something one dreads and fears most may pay off in some spectacular way at the very least. Most of us would be afraid to climb a high mountain or jump out of an airplane. But those who made it to the top of Everest surely felt as masters of the world. And once one masters the practice of parachuting, it can be exhilarating to be ‘floating’ up in the sky. And maybe Hindu yogis do feel a kind of transcendence once they master the practice of making their butts impervious to cactus needles.
But what is the payoff for most people when it comes to stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and the homo agenda? Do they really feel ecstatic in the knowledge that marriage has been associated with floopy-doo homo fecal penetrators with whiny voices and fairy-like demeanor? Do they really feel better as human beings by praising and worshiping the people with the styles of Liberace? What do most people get out of this homomania? It is precisely because homomania is so unnatural that the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal must work so hard 24/7 to pump us day in and day out with the homo-cult, which comes in two flavors.
On the one hand, we are to accept homos because we are told that they’re just like us, a kind of ‘new normal’, ‘new mainstream’, and so clean-cut. They are the new ‘fathers knows best’ or ‘father blows best’. But on the other hand, we are also told that we must especially worship homos since they are so showy, so stylish, so special, so wild, so creative, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Of course, the same shtick is pulled with Jews and Negroes. So, we are told that we must regard Jews as ‘just like us’. They must not be seen as the Other, as that would be ‘antisemitic’. But we must also worship Jews because they are so special, so exceptional(in achievement and suffering), so smart, so wise, so funny, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Same with Negroes. On the one hand, we must see blacks as ‘just as normal and upstanding as respectable middle class whites.’ So, Sidney Poitier was, for a long time, the too-good-to-be-true Negro, a real credit to his race. Even in GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, he seemed to be marrying a white woman not out of any jungle fever lust but because it was all about love and progress and doing the right thing. You’d expect the union is entirely social and idealistic and hardly sexual as Negroes are too upstanding to think about actual sex. And of course, Obama has been sold as this kind of straight upright Negro. So, how dare any white person stereotype the Negro as a sex-crazed, gorilla-powered, wild-ass, and funky mofo!
But there’s the other side of Liberalism that says we must especially revere and worship the Negro and Negress because they holler like baboons, have huge dongs and big juicy butts(that be twerking like mad), run as fast and jump as high as animals, and fight like savage chimpanzees. So, you see, Liberals love racial and sexual stereotypes AS LONG AS they can be spun positively. So, if BIRTH OF A NATION says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must unite and defend themselves from the Negro, that is ‘racist’ and evil. But if, Jewish-promoted Rap culture says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must surrender and put out to the superior and more masterful black race, that is so ‘progressive’ and wonderful. Both views are predicated on racial differences, but notice that the latter is welcomed by Liberals even as they insist, officially at any rate, that there are no racial differences and that racial stereotypes are evil.

It’s truly astounding how stupid white people are in being suckered this way. But of course, many white people do sense a lot of bullshit in all this. Naturally, many whites do fear blacks. Naturally, many whites are worried about excessive Jewish power, especially since Jews are only 2% of the population, so pushy & nasty, and so unpleasant in looks and behavior. Naturally, many whites, deep down inside, find the homosexual thing to be gross. But as they’ve been inculcated in schools and by media — and even at work — that they must defer to blacks, Jews, and homos or otherwise they are ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, and ‘homophobic’, white folks feel that they must repress their natural anxieties and aversions about Jews, blacks, and homos.
How else can we explain the Oprah craze? (And there’s Ellen Degeneris the degenerate who owes her success to the mere fact that she’s a lesbian as she has no discernible talent.) She may have a knack for hosting a TV show, but she is no more than a fat black entertainer. How did she become ‘the one’? Why are so many white folks crazy about her, as if she’s the daughter of MLK? Indeed, even the MLK myth is promoted excessively in part to suppress our natural aversion to his true character. The real MLK was a compulsively lying and cheating opportunistic punk who used to beat up women and laugh about it. But such truth goes against the myth of him as the prophet of peace, and so, we must shout and holler in our reverence for him in order repress our doubts about him. And same goes for the Mandela craze. In truth, whites during apartheid did great things for South Africa by building up its economy and infrastructure, none of which would have existed had blacks gained control of South Africa much earlier. Also, South Africa has been a hellhole since the black takeover. So, any rational assessment of South Africa would fill many people with aversion to and revulsion of black African rule. But we can’t have that since that would be ‘racist’. Since the myth promoted by Jews is that Mandela was the father to a rainbow society of bliss and harmony, we must go batty in our delirious over-praise of Mandela to drown out our doubts and misgivings about the experiment of black rule.
Same goes for Israel. Any rational observer would notice the fact that vicious Jews rule the US, and that they’re working in tandem with Zionist Israelis in their pitiless oppression of Palestinians. (True, Palestinians are no saints, and many of them are unpleasant people, but they’ve lost their nation with the full backing of the most powerful nations on earth.) Any honest broker should be able to tell that the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are snakes. But since Jews are cloaked with the holy Holocaust Cult and have the means to make or break anyone, all politicians go out of their way to bow down before Jews with wild enthusiasm.
Chris Christie - Fat Pig Running Dog of Jews
Surely, deep down inside, fatsos like Chris Christie know Sheldon Adelson for what he is — a vile and cretinous Jewish tycoon. But he and his ilk are goy dogs who must bow down to Jewish supremacism, and they know they will be destroyed for even the slightest criticism of Jews and Israel.
This is especially true of Republicans. As Democratic Party is so owned by Jews, one can be a Democratic and be mildly critical of Israel. But since the white right has traditionally been associated with the cardinal sin of ‘antisemitism’, they must make an extra effort to show that they’ve been healed, see the light, and are on the side of holy shmoly Jews. Since white Conservatives must repress so much of their natural aversion to Jewish foulness, they must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to be pro-Jewish and pro-Zioinst, and this explains why the GOP is so mindlessly rabid in its support of everything Jewish. Republican pansy-boys act toward their Jewish masters like Mel Brooks-as-servant acts to his ‘master’ in TWELVE CHAIRS.

It’s all very sickening but such aversion-enthusiasm paradox is all too common among white people, and indeed, it’s becoming increasingly so since America has gone from majoritarian rule to minoritarian rule mode. Clearly, when the elites are markedly different in identity from the masses, they are going to be more nervous, anxious, and fearful of mass values, mass norms, mass passions, mass biases, and mass prejudices since the natural mode of most people is to want to be ruled by their own kind. Therefore, there will be more pressure from Jews and homos on the majority gentiles and straight people to suppress their natural tendencies, feelings, and values in favor of lionizing, revering, and worshiping the glory of Jews and homos, i.e. the ‘new normal’.
Given the nature of what has happened in America and EU in recent years, ‘antisemitism’ — though unpleasant and nasty at times — was very natural and even healthy in European history. What people would want to be ruled and manipulated by an alien elite with different looks and values? Why did the Chinese eventually overthrow the Manchus? Why did the Indians eventually bid the British farewell? Indeed, suppose Turks are only 2% of the Israel population but have the kind of economic, media, and political control that Jews have over US, UK, and even Russia. Jews in Israel would flip out and call out for Jewish nation for Jewish people under Jewish rule; Jews would be totally ‘antisemitic’ against the Turks. But Jews have been working so hard to make white people see ‘antisemitism’ as some kind of irrational disease of the mind when, in fact, the true disease is the notion that gentiles in America and the West should cower before the Jewish minority elites that, despite all their power and privilege, still go around whining like they are all poor survivors of the Holocaust. Consider the differential in power between Israeli Jews — who are backed by US, EU, Russia, and developed world — and Palestinians who have nothing and no support from the world community. Yet, we are to believe that Palestinians are the new Nazis and we must do everything in our power to save Jews from kids throwing rocks in Gaza at Israeli tanks and jet fighters. Anyone who knows anything naturally feels repulsed by such bullshit. But in America and EU, you don’t get anywhere without sucking up to Jews. And it’s not enough to tolerate Jews. Indeed, it’s not enough to welcome Jews. It’s not enough to praise Jews. We must worship Jews as holy victims of all eternity. Since this is so much BS, we must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to repress all our doubts and to express our full enthusiasm for the Jews.
"Zionists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life."
Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is well-illustrated by the case of Jack Johnson. In truth, Johnson was a loathsome person. But seen in historical context, we can understand why he had special meaning to black folks. In a society where blacks were, at best, second-class citizens(and often not even that), it was natural for many blacks to feel pride when Jack Johnson beat up all the whites guys and won the championship. Even ‘racist’ white people should be able to acknowledge that much, i.e. even if Johnson was lowly in character as an individual, he was a great boxer and he overcame many social obstacles at a time when there was so much white antipathy to any notion of black pride and power. To be sure, there were white progressives back then who did promote black pride, but it had to be respectable, the sort that was a ‘credit to their race’ and approved by white society. Johnson’s counter-example stood for blacks defining their own brand of racial pride(even if it meant blacks would eventually fulfill the stereotype as gorilla-like thugs with big fists, big muscles, and big dicks).
Jack Johnson the Negro Champion
Ken Burns the white dork Liberal sap
This much, all of us can agree on. But among white Liberals like Ken Burns, there’s this quasi-religious need to be redeemed of ‘white guilt’, and this means that we must all overcome the problem of Johnson’s lowly character and elevate him to something like a super-hero of noble virtues and greatness. So, with the likes of Ken Burns, it’s not enough to acknowledge the social meaning of Johnson within the context of history. We must somehow repress our natural loathing of many of his characteristics and pretend that he was a hero of the ages. But the fact is, if we remove the historical and social context, there’s only the thug. If Johnson were alive today, he’d be just another trashy black athlete, just another black thug in the streets or in jail, or just another black loudmouth who are dime-a-dozen. It was the context that gave special meaning to his life and career, but for white Liberals the CONTEXT of one’s character matters more than the CONTENT. And so, many idiot white Liberals get all gushy about Johnson as if he wasn’t just some socio-historically significant athlete but some kind of prophet-saint of the righteous fist: a kind of one-man black Boxer Rebellion. Anyway, whites today must repress so much of their doubts and revulsion about the real Jack Johnson in order to believe in the culturally sanctioned myth that he was made of heroic stuff. In truth, he was just a thug who liked to beat up people. And although harassed by white society-at-large, he was a bully in the ring since he ducked black fighters — who might have beaten him — and stuck to beating up easier white fighters. If bullying is where the stronger picks on the weaker, Johnson was a bully since he refused to fight other black fighters as tough or tougher than him. When he fought all those white guys, it was like a man deciding to fight only women, as indeed, the difference between the black male and white male in athleticism is almost comparable to that between a man and a woman.
Though we divide the sexuality into male and female, males can take on feminine attributes and females can take on male attributes depending on the set and setting. So, women prison guards come to act like men in their use of force to maintain order among women prisoners.
In contrast, even seemingly tough males will turn wussy in the presence of much tougher males. It’s like an aggressive barking male dog will suddenly droop its ears, curl its tail, and roll on its back in the presence of an bigger and tougher male dog.
White males have been totally pussifed by black males, and of course, this is very humiliating. To the natural male instinct, such a fate is disgusting and intolerable. Why would the men of any nation or race want to be pussified into quasi-womanhood by another race or people? So, the natural white male response to their fate under the lordship of smarter Jew and stronger blacks would be anger and rage, but since they’ve been brainwashed to believe that any negative feelings about Jews and blacks is ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ — ooh, so evil and wicked! — , they repress their aversion and go out of their way to show their enthusiasm for their submission to Jewish brains and black brawn. When Bill Clinton addressed a bunch of white students at a commencement ceremony and told them that their kind is fated to become a minority in America, why was he greeted with such ecstatic applause from whites? Surely, deep down inside, the white students must have felt some doubt and anxiety about the future of their own kind as a minority in the very nation founded politically, culturally, economically, and socially by their ancestors. But as they’ve been brainwashed that they can only redeem ‘white guilt’ by submission to Jews and blacks(and ‘undocumented immigrants’ of all color), they simply couldn’t admit to their aversions about the troubled future. So, they went out of their way to applaud Clinton with rapturous exhilaration to drown out their natural aversions and anxieties.
It was the same with the kids assembled at a Harry Potter convention. When the foul and disgusting J. K. Rowling said Dumbledork is supposed to be a homo, there was first a muted reaction, as if WTF. But as kids have been told that there’s no higher honor in life than worshiping homos — after Jews and MLK of course — , they drowned out their doubts with mindless non-stop applause.

This is how mindless most people are, and this is why the Enlightenment ideals centered around Reason don’t go very far. For the elites, the thing is not to educate the people to think as individuals. First, most people are incapable of individual/independent thought even with extensive education and training. But, even if it were possible to turn most people into free thinkers, why would the elites want such an outcome when it would mean free-thinking individuals thinking their own thoughts and speaking truth to elite power? Why would Jewish-and-Homo or Jomo elites want the vast majority of people who are not Jewish nor homo to think freely and speak truth to Jewish and homo power? So, the Jomo elites seek to use mass education, mass indoctrination, mass advertising, mass taboo-enforcing, mass delirium — so much the feature of ‘gay pride’ parades — , and mass ignorance to further their goals.
Also, since both the Liberal and Conservative elites have been bought, tamed, and chained to the globalist Jomo agenda, the masses have no alternative leadership that might offer alternative formulation of power. There is no Moses figure in America. Jews and Homos are the new pharaohs, and they’ve leashed and trained everyone who matters to be obedient.
The GOP establishment, totally under the thumb of Neocon Jews who are allied to Liberal Zionist Jews of the Democratic Party, have decided to surrender on ‘gay marriage’. Since the corporate class, academia, media, and finance controlled by Jews say we must have ‘gay marriage’, the GOP has decided it better go along. So, all those Americans who’d supported the GOP for socially conservative reasons have all been had. They thought they had a stake in the Republic, but their votes were merely exploited by weasel-GOP elites who are nothing but running dogs of the Jewish elites. Of course, GOP leaders don’t suddenly say that they are FOR ‘gay marriage’. They just say, oh well... um.. uh..., ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Now, Orrin Hatch is an old man who grew up in a much more conservative time and place. You’d think he’d stand up for the real values, but he’s a politician first and foremost, and politicians are prostituticians who go where the power is. It’s like Sal in THE GODFATHER shaking Barzini’s hand since, well, it appeared as though the Corleones are finished and Barzini is the inevitable winner. So, why fight it? Just ho-de-do like a ‘house nigger’. A true conservative would stick up for his principles and fight to the last even if the cause seems lost. But these GOP elite scum have no scruples. They are really out for #1, which is themselves. Of course, the Jomos are cackling with hideous glee as they take notice of how cowardly, craven, and chickenshit most American Conservatives are. And of course, deep down inside, many American Conservatives who sell out this way know they are succumbing to something they naturally feel an aversion to deep in their hearts. So, what will happen eventually? Following the logic of the Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox, it won’t be long before the GOP loudly and ‘proudly’ proclaims that ‘gay marriage’ is the ultimate in ‘family values’. Yes, the GOP has learned to love Big Buttfuc*ing Brother.

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox in Action:

Goyim repress their cravenness and shame with excessive enthusiasm for whatever Netanhayu says.

Commissars scared shitless of Stalin hide their fears by out-of-control non-stop applause.