Thursday, September 26, 2019

Notes on Ron Unz's American Pravda: Understanding World War II

But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace.

Where did Scott McConnell get that impression? At most, the book might have been an apologia for some of Hitler's decisions, but did he really believe Buchanan would write a book GLORIFYING Der Fuhrer?

Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it.

It was reviewed in the New York Review of Books, unfavorably but not entirely negatively. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN about the book. Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing review in Newsweek, then still a major publication; therefore, the book was not ignored. I mostly agreed with Hitchens' assessment. The problem was not Buchanan's contrarian take on the origins of World War II but the tendency to be harsh on Winston Churchill at every turn while soft-pedaling nearly everything Adolf Hitler did. Instead of arguing that Hitler shouldn't have done such-and-such, Buchanan placed most of the blame on those compelled to react to Hitler's initiatives or provocations. John Lukacs was correct in saying that Hitler was the main driver of the forces that led to WWII. Hitler's moves provoked other nations, and even if Poland, UK, and France acted unwisely(at least in hindsight), Hitler should have known that if he plays with matches, he could set off a forest fire.
Hitchens was willing to concede that maybe Buchanan and others were right about the foolishness of UK and France guaranteeing protection for Poland. From a realpolitik perspective(and especially in retrospect), one might say UK and France acted rashly. But Buchanan goes much further than that in UNNECESSARY WAR. In the earlier book REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, Buchanan stopped at events up to 1939. George Kennan, renowned for realism in foreign affairs, wrote him a letter of support. But in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan moves beyond 1939 and keeps blaming the other players more than Germany and Hitler even as he concedes that Hitler was pathological and committed unspeakable crimes. Niall Ferguson, maybe the most famous living British historian, already argued that UK should have stayed out of World War I and let Germans dominate Europe in co-existence with the British Empire. Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a book on WWII that agrees with the view of people like Buchanan, at least up to events in 1939. The real problem is what happened afterwards, and in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan keeps faulting those who reacted to Hitler than faulting Hitler for his proactive(and reckless) decisions. Christopher Hitchens also noted that Hitler was something other than a conqueror in the classic sense. If Napoleon had prevailed over Russia, there would have been at least the spread of Enlightenment values. If Hitler had prevailed over Russia, it would have been like Spartans subjugating the Helots all over again on a massive scale.

I don't think Buchanan was or is pro-Hitler, but he's always been Germano-centric. Ironically, Neocon Jews hate Buchanan because his politics of identity is much like their own. Jews have been known to favor identity over ideology. Capitalist Jews in the US sided with communist Jews in USSR and even Jewish communist spies in the US. Capitalist Jews denounced Joe McCarthy's anti-communism because it disadvantaged their tribal brethren. But Jews who supported leftist Jews also supported nationalist Jews, the Zionists. Jews have operated on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?", and Buchanan has a similar worldview about white folks, especially the Germans, his favorite people. Also, he's half-German and was born with a Teutonic personality.

Buchanan's formative years saw the world divided between godless communism that came to be associated with radical Jews & Slavs(Russians) AND capitalist Anglo-America, Catholic Spain, & fascist Germany. From Buchanan's point of view, it made more sense for democratic capitalist Anglo nations(UK and US) to side with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain for either racial or religious reasons. Buchanan came of age in a time of much intra-racial tensions among whites. Today, we mainly talk of White People as a single group, but ethnic tensions were riding high through much of the 20th century. World War I was sparked by Pan-Germanism vs Pan-Slavicism. In the US, there were many ethnic tensions among Anglos, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. There was a view among Anglos and Germans that they were somewhat better than the Other Whites who were less pure. Apparently, Italians and Spanish had some 'black' blood, and Slavs had some 'Asiatic' blood. The ethnic tensions were made worse by the rise of communism in Russia. Suddenly, the Slavs turned into commie Slavs taking orders from Jews as the new masters. This Soviet Union was not only of the Other(and lesser) White Race but godless. Then, from the POV of people like Buchanan(and his mentors), the Anglo world should have sided with Germans as proper racial cousins and with Franco's Spain as a Catholic power that stood against communism.

Looking back, much of the problems of the West could have been avoided IF these ethnic tensions had been managed better. Buchanan himself errs in thinking Anglos should have sided with Germans against Slavs. The fact is Russians are mostly white, and the thinking should have been Anglos and Germans should have made peace with Russians and sided with them against rise of Asia. John Lukacs was prescient during the Cold War when he said the Soviet Union would be a far less of a challenge than China. People didn't take him seriously back then because the Soviet Union was a superpower whereas China was mostly an agrarian country of rice-eaters, but the past few decades proved Lukacs was right. Looking back, the Anglos shouldn't have alienated Germans, and Germans shouldn't have alienated Russians and other Slavs. It just ended up with so much white-on-white bloodbath. That said, the rise of communism in Slavic Nations understandably made people like the Buchanans turn against the Other White World that seemed permanently lost to godless communism and/or Oriental Despotism.

Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries.

Germany didn't fight in a major war in those 43 years because it didn't have a worthy competitor on the continent. But with its surging industry and imperial ambitions(though limited) made it a major candidate for aggression on the world stage. From the British and French perspective, "two's company but three's a crowd." UK and France had fought many bitter wars for imperial supremacy. Brits prevailed in North America, only to see their prize possession go independent with French aid. In the end, UK vs France in the New World ended up with both sides losing. UK lost America, and French monarchy lost its head. So, instead of endlessly fighting for every inch of territory, UK and France came to an understanding. Brits would be the premier imperial power, and France would be #2. They would tolerate one another. While the Brits usually got the better colonies, the French got a lot too. Over time, they became partners, and both feared the rise of Germany because of its bigger population and expanding industry(that eclipsed British industrial output in a matter of decades). Now, looking back, it might have been wiser for UK and France to make some room for Germany's place in the world, but at the time, Germany looked like a real rival. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm really was a jerk and an ass. Rash, impetuous, arrogant, and vain. Difficult man to work with.

However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell... Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.. whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.

If Buchanan had only argued thus, it wouldn't have been a problem. Even History 101 in colleges teach that Germany was in bad straits during Weimar years and that there were real achievements under National Socialism, which was popular with Germans. Many people other than Buchanan have pointed to the Versailles Treaty as especially harmful. And if Hitler had only taken Sudetenland, things might have calmed down. But he made a move on the entire Czech territory soon after, and that became the bone of contention. Neville Chamberlain staked his pride, dignity, and reputation on peace with Germany by letting Hitler have his way JUST ONE TIME. Hitler agreed but, having gained much with earlier bluffs, went ahead and made a move on Poland, and Chamberlain ended up with egg on his face. Buchanan argues in bad faith because, on the one hand, he says Hitler got bolder because UK and France didn't call his bluff earlier, but then, on the other hand, says UK, France, and Poland should have conceded to Hitler on just about every demand or maneuver prior to(and even after) the outbreak of war. But wouldn't giving-Hitler-what-he-wants have made him even more aggressive and reckless?
On the Danzig Question, Buchanan is correct that Germans had every right to claim it as their city. But if so, Hitler should have instigated a 'color revolution' in Danzig against the Poles. He should have urged Germans in Danzig to protest and rise up. Then, if the Poles used violence against the Germans, international sympathy might have been with the Germans, and then Hitler could have used his superior power to wrest Danzig from Poland as an emergency measure. I highly doubt if UK and France would have declared war on Germany over Danzig, especially if so many Danzigers were in the streets clamoring for unification with Germany. But what did Hitler do? He conspired with Stalin to tear Poland apart. Nazis bombed civilians in Polish cities, and Stalin sent his henchmen to do much killing. Now, it's true that UK and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR, and one could fault them on principles, but it made good realpolitik sense. As Germany was nearer to UK and France, it was a bigger immediate threat. Also, their hope was to somehow create a rift between Germany and USSR, something that would have been impossible if UK and France had declared war on both Germany and USSR.

The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

'Conquer the world' has to be taken figuratively. Even the biggest anti-Hitlerians don't literally believe that the Nazis intended to conquer all the world. But Hitler did have grand ambitions. He wrote of how Germans should conquer vast swaths of territory in Russia. So, at the very least, he wanted an empire for the Germans. Still, it's fairer to say Hitler wanted a partnership with nations that had already conquered the world, France and especially UK. He didn't want to displace the British Empire but be partners with it.
Hitler could be diplomatic and courteous with world leaders, including Polish ones, but he didn't have much regard for the Polish people in general. But then, he didn't much care for Slavs, even though a strain of Nazism accepted Poles as fellow Aryans. Still, there was a good reason why Poles rejected the offer of 'alliance' with Germany. It would not have been an equal partnership. It would have been like the 'alliance' of USSR and its satellite states. Also, Poles were correct to assess Hitler as a dangerous character who might go off the rails. Who fared better in the long run? Mussolini who forged a close alliance with Hitler or Franco who kept Hitler at arm's length? Poland knew it was wedged between powerful USSR and mighty Germany, and it wanted neutrality. It didn't want to get caught between a fight that might break out between a bear and tiger. If Poland leaned toward Germany, it would have enraged the USSR, and vice versa. Poland came to lean on UK and France because they seemed to be the only major powers that might change Hitler's mind.
At any rate, what is the true worth of 'friendliness' in politics? The West was quite friendly with Gaddafi before it wasn't. Hitler offered carrots, but Poles noticed the stick. While it's true that Hitler and Germans in general were angry over lost territories, that particular issue was also a pretext(at least for Hitler and his cohorts) for larger ambitions. It's like the US raged over Alamo to take over the entire SW. US fumed about Pearl Harbor to dominate all of the Pacific. Similarly, Hitler exploited legitimate issues of territorial dispute in order to use Poland as launching pad than obstacle to his eventual clash with the USSR. While, as Lukacs said, Hitler could be rational and even statesmanlike, his essential personality and worldview was 'artistic' than political. He viewed the world as a stage for his rather Wagnerian and operatic ambitions. Judging by his statements and autobiography and tome MEIN KAMPF, he was clearly megalomaniacal and saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Personality matters in politics, as when Nikita Khrushchev found it impossible to deal with Mao Zedong because of differences in personality. In contrast, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping get along because both are more sober and temperate.

Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain... he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms../ The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations...
But... Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue... Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one.

But could Churchill alone have been so consequential? Notwithstanding Jewish influence/bribery and Churchill's vanity, wasn't the bigger problem that the Brits had fallen into a mental habit of relying on Balance of Powers as a panacea for all European problems? The policy generally worked in favor of Britain that formed alliances against whatever happened to be the top Continental Power so as to ensure that Europe would not become a united bloc against the island nation. But then, things work until they don't. The iron policy of balance-of-power backfired in a big way in World War I that depleted the British Empire of so many men and money. One could argue it worked in in WWI and WWII to the extent that UK, along with other nations, did manage to suppress the rise of Germany as the dominant continental power, but it was achieved at the cost of British bankruptcy and decline. Germans were defeated, but the Brits hardly gained anything while losing a lot.

...Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and... Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.

But Hitler had no qualms about raining down mass destruction on Polish and Russian civilian populations. Hitler may have been more restrained with the British out of racial respect, but ironically, it seems Anglos regarded the Germans the way Germans regarded the Slavs: Barely civilized barbarians who only understand ruthless power. Hitler's illusions about the British were as unsound as his sentimentality about Mussolini and dementia about the Slavs. Churchill was a bastard but more focused on what was really at stake.

Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities.

He was a bastard, but let's not forget what Hitler did to Warsaw and cities & towns across the USSR.

...late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation.

I read V-1 rockets weren't particularly effective. At any rate, war brings out craziness on all sides, especially when desperation and/or seething hatred come to the fore. Japanese went crazy in Nanking, and Germans turned to mass-extermination once the tide of war decisively turned against them. Problem with David Irving is he holds Churchill and others like him to the highest standards of ethics while making excuses for Hitler who not only fought ruthlessly also but was possessed of an insane ideology.

Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.

I agree with Lukacs. No Hitler, no WWII. While Hitler didn't plan to conquer the entire world, he did have dreams of taking a huge chunk of the East(mainly Russia) so as to make Greater Germany about the size of the US or bigger. Though rather successful as a national leader, he was not content with national affairs. In this, he was like the Neocons who aren't satisfied with Jewish wealth and Jewish homeland. They must always have more, and this means meddling in other parts of the Middle East. Neither Hitler nor Neocons were about world conquest. Neocons mainly focus on proxy-empire building(by using the US) in the Middle East and North Africa to ensure Israel's hegemony; they also hunger for control of Russia with its vast resources and 'lazy, dumb, and drunk' Russkies whom Jews regard as worthless dummies. Similarly, Hitler sought hegemony in the European continent, and the only way he could ensure German imperial predominance was to take huge territories from Russia.

On the eve of World War I, so many peoples all across Europe wanted war. The general peace for 100 yrs since the fall of Napoleon had made people less aware of the horror of war. France did lose to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, but it had been a swift defeat, and the French had been dreaming of revenge ever since. The Russian Tsar thought war would play a unifying role, and Germans were ready to take on all-comers. At the outbreak of war, no one quite realized that the two sides would be stacked against each other with nearly equal force, thus prolonging the war that also incorporated modern weaponry that had proved so effective against the backward non-West. When used against the non-west, modern weaponry meant quick victory. But when modern weaponry went against modern weaponry in Europe, it led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. But few people foresaw the dangers. So, when war broke out, there were celebrations all throughout Europe.

But, on the eve of World War II, most people didn't want war. Even Germans didn't want it despite Hitler's popularity. If Germans cheered loudly after a victory, it was out of hope that it would be the last conflict, finally the war to end all wars. France didn't want war with Germany. It declared war as a bluff and just dug in and played defense. Chamberlain did try to come to terms with Hitler. Many Brits felt a bit of guilt over Versailles and economic ruin of Germany. As such, they were willing to negotiate, but Hitler was the sort of person who always regarded concession as weakness and vulnerability that could be exploited for More. He was also devious like Bismarck but without the Iron Chancellor's sense of limits and keen calculation.

We could all agree that if Germany had remained democratic, there would have been no war EVEN IF some nations wanted to pick on Germany. I would also argue that if Nazi Germany had been ruled by someone like Ataturk, Franco, or Putin, there would have been no war. Such a leader would have understood that Germany has legit grievances, but so do other European powers, and therefore, the best bet is some kind of compromise. Or, if suspecting foul play, he would have waited for the other side to make the first move and then make a counter-move, thereby having the moral advantage. But Hitler was incessant in his demands and acted as if Germany was the only aggrieved party when, had Germany won World War I, it too would likely have taken advantage of the situation.
Suppose Hitler died of illness in 1939, and someone like Goering took over. I just don't see World War II happening. Now, if Himmler had taken over, then war might have been even more likely as he was truly nuts. But Hitler was an extreme personality too. MEIN KAMPF is proof of how obsessive and egomaniacal he could be. Turkey after WWI and Russia after the Cold War had tons of legitimate grievances, but Kemal Ataturk understood limitations and acted accordingly. Same with Putin in Russia. In contrast, Hitler kept pushing against all sides.

From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.

FDR may or may not have wanted war, but even if he was baiting Germany, would a more sober leader have fallen for the trap? Also, even if FDR was hoping for war to boost the economy or unite the nation(thus ensuring his reelection), the reason he targeted Germany had a lot to do with his genuine loathing of Nazism. As for problems with Japan, it goes back to the confused/contradictory US policy of befriending both Japan and China. On the one hand, UK and US had built up Japan as bulwark against Russia and possibly resurgent China. But the US also postured(against Europeans and Japanese imperialists) as a friendly nation to the Chinese. So, the US was, at once, selling war materials to Japan that was attacking China and professing sympathy for China. This all came to a head with the embargo and what came afterwards. Anyway, FDR inherited this crazy foreign policy in the Asian Pacific. He didn't create it.

But then, there are other considerations. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if Germany hadn't invaded Russia in the summer of 1941 and seemed poised to win? Didn't Japan wager on German victory. Then, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have acted so boldly and instead come to the table and agree to US terms: Japan keeps Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria but withdraws from China Proper. That was not a bad deal. Now, it's possible that FDR offered those terms in bad faith and fully planned to renege on them and find some other excuse to choke Japan's economy, thus forcing it into war. We'll never know.

Polish Confidential Report:

Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible... At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world... It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states.

I doubt Jewish control of media was as predominant back then as now. If Jews already controlled 100% of media back then, they must have made no further gains since. Anti-Germanism was the product of Jewish concerns coinciding with Anglo interests. But then, anti-Germanism had been extreme in the US even during World War I when Jews had even less power. Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a tendency to look upon Germans as semi-barbarians, indeed as if Anglos were the New Romans and Germans were the 'Huns'. There was something 'brute' and 'Teutonic' about the Germans that rubbed Anglos the wrong way. Anglos were also into racial ideology and aggression but had perfected a manner of talking around their true feelings. Germans were less refined & 'ironic', and such 'honesty' threatened Anglo conceit of being perfect gentlemen bringing light of progress to the world. Anglo supremacism wore a velvet glove whereas German supremacism put on a boxing glove. Anglos tended to see Germans as akin to mean Irish or rowdy Scots but in charge of a nation bigger and stronger than the UK. As for Jews, they prized Germany as the center of European economy and culture(eclipsing even France), and they valued their key role in it... before Nazis came along and said No More. Paradoxically, Jews were most upset with Nazi Germans precisely because, among European nations, they felt most at home in Germany.

But there were ideological reasons as well. If Anglo refinement disdained German 'Teutonism', leftist-universalist idealism loathed the brutal honesty of fascism about the nature of power. Fascism was clearly more candid about the nature of power than communism could ever be, but communism's appeal was its dream of the brotherhood of man. Naturally, the well-educated and idealistic(steeped in Christian credo) felt warmer toward communism(despite its brutality) than to fascism that seemed like a 'pornography of power'. While Stalin could be as brutal as anyone, his Soviet empire pontificated about universal justice, whereas Nazi ideology obsessed over the innate specialness of the 'Aryans'. Even for racialist Anglos, that was too much Or shed light on their own 'darkness'. Germans were like the Id of Anglos. As racial ideology, theirs was too crude, vulgar, and philistine. It was political kitsch. Just like Carlito Brigante didn't want to be associated with Benny Blanco from the Bronx(despite both of them being gangsters), Anglos distanced themselves from Germans as the vulgar 'nouveau riche' of power.

Another reason for the US being friendlier to the USSR had to do with realpolitik. It's like the US was warmer toward Mao's China than the USSR in the 70s even though Soviets had moderated considerably while Mao was a mass-killing nut. As the US considered USSR as the main rival, it found ready excuses to paint a friendly portrait of China as a potential ally against the Soviets. Likewise, when Nazi Germany seemed like the epicenter of the world's troubles, it made sense for the US and UK to pretend that USSR wasn't so bad and could be an ally against the Nazis.

During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.

While Germans had good reasons to be angry with Jewish Power, Hitler went about this in a bad way because he denounced ALL Jews based on extreme racial ideology. Hitler could have avoided much trouble by targeting only radical or disloyal Jews. Mussolini did just that, and he didn't have much trouble with Italian Jews in general. If anything, he later moved against them only under German pressure.

Also, while Jewish power was immense back then, it was nothing like what it is today, largely because Anglos who built America passed the reins over to the Jews. Despite Jewish role in Bolshevism, Jews couldn't stop Stalin's mass-killing of Jewish communists(along with others). Jews had a difficult time goading the West into war against Germany. Also, even when the war began, it turned out badly for Jews because (1) Germans totally crushed Poland (2) quickly defeated France and (3) allied with Stalin's USSR, the last hope for many Jews. In the end, Hitler brought ruin upon himself and Germany because he invaded the USSR and then declared war on US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He went full Tony Montana.

Now, the theory that Germany invaded Russia only upon realizing Stalin intended to attack first may be compelling when we look at armaments but not when we consider the element of psychology. Stalin wasn't a gambler. Also, he likely placed Soviet tanks and troops into offensive position to force Germans into a defensive one, thereby ensuring that Germans would not attack first. Stalin was surely aware that France gained nothing by fighting an entirely defensive war in 1940. It seemed scared and timid, like a turtle hiding in a shell. In contrast, Stalin might have felt that if Soviet military boldly positioned itself against German forces, Hitler would have had second thoughts about attacking. Also, the fact that Stalin set up so much industry east of Moscow suggests insurance against German invasion.

Lukacs argued that the main reason why Germany attacked Russia was to force UK to make the peace. The reasoning goes as follows. As long as the UK hoped that USSR would turn against Germany, it was unwilling to come to the table. But if Germany crushed Russia, UK would have realized that Germans are the masters of Europe, and that's that; then, UK would have had to come to terms with Germany. Now, from a common sense point of view, this sounds crazy. UK was dropping bombs but had no means to defeat Germany or even take an inch of European territory on its own. So, why didn't Hitler keep his alliance with USSR and run out the clock with UK? Why create a two-front-war situation, especially when, unlike the UK, the USSR had the means to invade Germany IF the Germans were to fail to take Moscow?
But from a psychological point of view, it makes some sense because of Hitler's different feelings for Anglos and Russians(and Slavs and untermensch whites). Even when Hitler was livid with the Anglos, he hoped that Anglos and Germans as fellow 'Aryans' would bury the hatchet and rule the world together. In contrast, he really loathed the Slavs and 'lesser whites' of the East. Ideally, he preferred an alliance with Anglos against Russians, but all he could muster was an alliance with Russians against the Anglos. It was the opposite of what he really wanted. Also, considering that it was entry of the US army that finished off Germany in WWI, Hitler may have hoped that if he comes to terms with UK, then the US wouldn't enter the European War. It seems Hitler seriously underestimated the power of USSR and the ability of US and UK to supply the Russians with war materials.

In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.

But Jewish power was considerably less in the 30s and 40s. First, 'antisemitism' wasn't as taboo as it later became. Plenty of politicians all over Europe ran on anti-Jewish platforms. In the US, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were major players. Plenty of Jews were mindful not to rock the boat. 'Antisemitism' was a national pastime in France, and even plenty of French Jews disdained Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews couldn't prevent European nations from making loans to Nazi Germany that made German economic resurgence possible in the 30s. Jews couldn't persuade Stalin not to make a pact with Hitler. Furthermore, if German invaders gained mass support from the local population on any particular issue, it was over the Jewish Question. Plenty of locals were willing to hand over Jews to the Germans. Also, Jews have long complained that FDR dragged his feet in really engaging Germany. He let Russia do most of the fighting, and the Western Allies landed on the European continent only in 1944. So, FDR did little to save Jews from the Nazis. While World Jewry did coordinate to destroy Nazi Germany, Hitler really brought ruin to himself with his recklessness. Had he maintained the alliance with Russia, Nazi Germany would have been untouchable as all of Europe except for UK were constituted of allies, partners, or neutral players like Sweden.
At any rate, Jewish Power became especially potent AFTER World War II not only because Jews rose to the top in the US, the premier superpower, but because the cult of the Holocaust elevated Jews into a holy people and vilified 'antisemitism' as the worst possible sin. But up to WWII(and even in the immediate aftermath), Jews weren't so sacred, and plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic could get away with critical and even condemnatory views of Jews.

Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully.

While we may find parallels between fear-mongering about Nazi Germany and scaremongering about Iraq, the truth is Nazi Germany was a genuine great power whereas Iraq in a 2003 was a mere skeleton. If we must draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Hussein's Iraq, it should be during the 80s when Hussein the aggressor attacked Iran and killed scores of people with poison gas. But of course, the US was on the side of that Hussein at war with Iran. Still, prior to the disastrous Gulf War(for Iraq), Hussein's regime was a major power in the region. But by 2003, Iraq was a mere skeleton, and all the Hitler analogies were ridiculous.
That said, Nazi Germany in 1939 was a formidable power genuinely feared by France, UK, USSR, and lesser nations. Mussolini initially disdained Hitler but, alarmed(and impressed) by resurgence of German might, decided an alliance as the safest bet. Stalin felt likewise. If you can't beat em, join em. France and UK figured if bluff worked so well for Hitler, it might work for them as well, and they bluffed with war guarantee for Poland. So, while the Neocon stuff about Iraq in 2003 was all hype and BS, there was genuine fear of Germany among many nations regardless of Jewish effort. It was made worse by Hitler's invasion of Greece to prop up the illusion of Italian prowess. And Nazis were allied with some loathsome groups, like Croatian fascists who went about slaughtering 100,000s of Serbs. Jews fanned the flames of anti-German hatred, but there would have been plenty of it in Europe even without Jews. Similarly, there would have been plenty of anti-Jewish sentiments even without Nazi propaganda. Most Europeans found Germans too brutish and Jews too radical. In a way, it's ironic that Germans and Jews became arch-enemies for reasons why both groups were feared and/or hated by most Europeans.

Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.

This is true. But despite being attacked and baited by Jewish power that is many times greater than in the 30s and 40s, notice how Putin has played the game with patience and sobriety. If Hitler hadn't been so prone to throwing tantrums and pumping himself up with the Man of Destiny operatics, he would have weathered the Jewish campaigns against him much better. At any rate, just like Jews tried to unite the world against Germany, Hitler tried to unite all Europeans against ALL Jews. In Italy, a good many Jews had joined the Fascist Movement and were loyal to Mussolini, but under great pressure from Germans, Mussolini decided to turn against even loyal Jews. So, the race war went both ways between Jews and Germans. Just as Jews were trying to recruit every nation against Germany, Germans were urging all peoples to 'hand over your Jews'.

Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans.

Actually, if people saw it in terms of a conflict, they would understand it better. But it's not portrayed as a conflict but of one-sided persecution. Instead of Nazi Germany vs World Jewry in an empire-vs-empire struggle, the Narrative says Germans chased down totally innocent, helpless, and clueless Jews who were merely minding their own business. It's like the Jewish-Russian Relations are remembered only in terms of helpless Jews being set upon in pogroms by drunken Russkies and Cossacks. There is no mention of Jewish role in radical politics and how this led to mass deaths of Slavs. While there were many innocent Jewish victims of Germans(just like there were plenty of innocent German victims of Allies and Jews), there was a Jewish Power that constituted a world empire of its own(or a shadow empire that attached itself increasingly to Anglos).

Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks.

I don't really think this means anything. Nazis weren't purists when it came to blood. Germans who were 1/4 Jewish were mostly considered as 'Aryan'. And many Germans with partial Jewish blood regarded themselves mainly as Germans and were loyal to Hitler. Just because some American Indians sided with whites against other Indians doesn't negate the fact that White America was generally hostile to the Red Savages who were targeted for removal or destruction.

Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion.

While Hitler has been made into a cartoon villain, there was no doubt he was pathological and of a maniacal personality plagued with vanity, megalomania, and arrogance. Also, we have the benefit of hindsight whereas contemporaries did not... until they realized what Hitler was really capable of. And same could be said of many world leaders. Mugabe was initially seen as a sane and moderate African leader, but how did he turn out? Idi Amin was initially seen as a fun colorful leader of Uganda before he turned out to be nuts. Many people praised Stalin as a great leader, but now, we know better. He was a mass killer. Many Americans were duped into believing Mao was an agrarian reformer in the 40s. He turned out to be a megalo-nut.

And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items.

Many details of Nazi atrocities have proven to be wrong or exaggerated, but the Eastern Front turned into a total race war, and there is no doubt that Nazis butchered countless Jews and Slavs in their war path. None of this should be surprising given the nature of war and Nazi propaganda. Himmler was especially sinister in this regard. David Irving has been careful not to deny that mass atrocities took place. His shtick has been that Hitler wasn't informed of what was really happening or it was Himmler who really done it. I would argue that such is merely a technicality. It's like it doesn't matter if Mao wasn't fully informed of the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and/or if he didn't order the Red Guards to go totally nuts. What matters is he created a system and set off events that led to mass suffering, and so, he is ultimately responsible. Likewise, we can't excuse Hitler on grounds of ignorance, indifference, or negligence. He created a system that was capable of industrial mass slaughter.

While many of the more lurid accounts of the Holocaust seem dubious, it doesn't surprise me that Germans would have acted that way. Japanese went crazy in Nanking. US, a liberal democracy, was capable of dropping two nukes on Japan(and planned to drop 10 to 12 more if Japan didn't surrender). After the war, anti-German violence was extreme all over Eastern Europe. Tons of Germans were massacred or brutalized in revenge and hatred. People of all stripes are capable of the most horrendous things. The fact is Nazi Germany instilled radical Jew-hatred in an entire generation of men who became soldiers in the bloodiest conflict that further desensitized whatever humanity was left in them. Especially when the fortunes turned against Germany, there was the temptation to use violence on easy scapegoats.
That said, it's foolish to count all Jewish dead as victims of the Holocaust. Many Jews surely died from the sheer brutality of war like so many goyim did. It didn't take the Holocaust to kill millions of Poles and Ukrainians. They just got crushed between big powers. So, even if there had been no Holocaust, it's likely many Jews would have died just the same because they were caught in the middle in the bloodlands of war.
By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming.
When it comes to UK/US vs Germany, the former did more violence to the Germans because they could. German attacks on UK was limited and ineffective,and Germany had no chance of attacking the US. In contrast, US/UK could drop tons of bombs on Germany. But this had nothing to do with Germans being better or more moral. Rather, most of their energies were directed at the East, and there, German brutality toward Slavs and Jews were worse than Allied bombing of Germany. Allied bombings killed 100,000s of Germans, whereas the Wehrmacht directly and indirectly killed millions.
Same is true of US vs Japan vs China. US war crimes against Japan were many times worse than vice versa but not because Japanese were better. It was because US had overwhelming force over Japan. But where Japanese had advantage over their enemies in places like China, they were real sons of bitches.
As awful as US/UK bombing of Germany was, for the Western Allies it seemed preferable to losing many more men by prematurely landing troops on the continent. Sure, killing lots of civilians is a dastardly way to fight a war, but World War II was a war without pity, a truly 'existential' war that decided the fate of entire nations.

Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war.

Yes, Nuremberg was a joke, but I think the kind of 'justice' that would have been imposed by victorious Germans especially over Slavic lands would have been many times worse. As compromised and hypocritical as the Nuremberg trials were, the message was that wars of aggression and genocide are evil. I don't think the victorious Nazis would have even come down against genocide, which they likely would have committed against the Slavic populations.

The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners.

There are key differences. Japanese who fought Americans in all those islands didn't go face to face against full battalions. They fought more like guerrillas. They were dug into all nooks and crannies like mice or cockroaches, and so, Americans came upon pocketfuls of Japanese who might leap out of nowhere. Thus, Americans who fought Japanese in the islands had a far more nerve-racking experience than the Soviets did in the plains of North Asia.
In contrast, Japanese in Manchuria and North China fought as an army, and as such, it was easier for them to surrender to the Soviets in an official capacity. In the clash of Soviet armies with armored tanks vs Japanese armies, the latter had no chance and surrendered en masse. Also, Japanese in Manchuria and North China had less incentive to fight with absolute zeal. After all, they were on Chinese soil, not their own. In contrast, the Japanese who fought the Americans in a string of islands were utterly fanatical because they believed they were defending the homeland from US invasion.

By the way, what happened to all those Japanese who surrendered to the Soviets. Most ended up in gulag and Siberia and never saw home again.

American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls.

Ugly, but all sides do stuff like this in war.

The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.

There is one key difference, and post-war history vindicates it. US derangement syndrome against Japan was the result of War Fever. In other words, Americans didn't harbor genocidal feelings toward Japan prior to the war or afterwards. So, it was wartime craziness. And even though there were people in government who said, "Let's kill all Japs", theirs was a minority opinion that was obviously overridden. Once the dust settled, US buried the hatchet and made Japan an ally against USSR.
In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren't so vicious to all groups; the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn't resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It's all there in Hitler's Table Talk.

For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.

But the Soviets did use many German POWs for slave labor. Consider German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad. Most did not return home. Perhaps, there was a kind of rough justice in this as they were part of an invading army who would have enslaved or mass-slaughtered Russians had they been victorious. But it is true that Soviets held back many German and Japanese POWs, partly out of revenge and partly out of need for manpower given the loss of life and industry in the war.

Monday, September 23, 2019

Selective Nature than Natural Selection is the Name of the Game for Progs of Globalism — Global Implications of the Pussification of Europe and the Rape of Europa by Africa

Selective Nature(than Natural Selection) is the favored Biodeology of the West. It's obvious from so many stories of interracial violence that Racial Integration with Blacks is a form of tyranny, indeed the worst kind as it's biological. When Russian elites enforced serfdom over fellow Russians, the tyranny was social, economic, and political. Once laws and ways were changed, all Russians were one people. In contrast, the element of biology means that the problem between the races may well remain even after the laws have changed. Even if the law says whites and blacks are equal under the law, the fact remains that blacks are tougher, more aggressive, more muscular, more savage, more impulsive, and more thuggish than whites. If anything, this black thug supremacist advantage is made much worse by (1) 'affirmative action' laws that favor unqualified blacks over whites (2) the Magic Negro myth derived from MLK cult, Civil Rights Narrative, and Hollywood Tropes that made so many whites, even 'conservatives', worship at the feet of the illusory Sacred Negro (3) Idolatry of badass blackness derived from black success in sports, pop music, and interracist jungle fever that made many whites so enthralled with the black-cool-factor that they are either blind to black pathology or fascinated with it even to the point of self-destruction; after all, so many white women enter into relationships with black men knowing full well of the dangers; if anything, the Thug Factor attracts them, just like Femme Fatale factor drew so many men to trouble; it's like many people use illicit drugs knowing full well of the dangers because insta-pleasure trumps all else in our pop-culture-dazed society of easy and quick thrills.

Anyway, black biological tyranny over whites is the most dangerous kind of tyranny because it cannot be legislated away. It's like men will always be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women, and no quality or quantity of laws will change the fact that there will always be more physical violence from men to women. What makes the unity of men and women essential and resilient despite the differences and the problem of male-on-female violence is that they are attracted to each other for those very differences. Men are attracted to women for being smaller/weaker/fairer, and women are attracted to men for bigger/stronger/tougher. Some radical feminists might call this a kind of fatal attraction, but without it, there would be no life. Men and women must be together to perpetuate the species, but this isn't true of the races. Races can remain apart forever and still thrive on their own. An all-white Europe would do well to remain all-white. As long as white men and white women mate, the race will continue.

And yet, a kind of male-female dynamics may be developing between whites and blacks. Due to black manhood eclipsing white manhood in sports, pop music, and sexual idolatry, there is a growing impression: Africans are the Penis, Europeans are the Vagina. This phenomenon among the race with the defeated manhood is called 'pussification', aka cucky-wuckery. Even though there are black men & black women and white men & white women, blackness as a whole takes on the masculine principle while whiteness as a whole takes on the feminine principle. In a way, this makes sense as masculinity is sort of a zero-sum game. It has winners and bitches. It's like white men are 'bitches' of stronger black men in prison, which is why so many white guys end up taking it up the ass. As the white race is 'pussified', white women look to black men as the real men, and white guys look to black males as the true athletes, true stars, and true studs, as the 'best men'. As American Entertainment is global in reach and influence, even nations without blacks may come to feel they must have blacks to treat their own masculine deficiency. Now, why would European nations feel this way when they got white men as white heroes? Because all of humanity is now part of global culture centered in the US, and its impression is that black men are the Real Men. Therefore, just like women seek out 'real men', all the world seek out the Idols of Real Manhood. Just like a woman dreams of putting out to a Real Man, the whole world is becoming more eager to put out to Africa.
Why else would the peoples of EU do what they're doing? It's because of mass pussification. Of course, pussification affects men far more than women. Being natural 'pussies', white women still act like women whose main loyalty is to Manhood of Power(even if of another race). In contrast, men are not natural 'pussies', and therefore, pussification does something strange to their mentality and behavior. Naturally, men like to win and be on top and attract the females. To this extent, there is some degree of pussification even in homogeneous societies as some men win big, most men do not. Even in an all-white nation where all the athletes are white, few become champions while rest are losers. Even so, homogeneity tempers and limits the degree of pussification among the loser males because of the power of identification. Even if most white guys lose out, they still get to identify with white winners as fellow racial brethren. Thus, the manhood of the white champions rubs off on masses of white men who identify with their own national heroes. While there may be only one white champion, he may serve as the model for white manhood for all white men, even the losers. Thus, there is a kind of psychological empowerment even among loser white males.

But something different happens when blacks become the winners and champions in a majority white society. Not only are white guys defeated in manhood by the tougher Negroes but there is no way for white guys to identify with black champions; it is black losers who identify with black winners, which is why even a gimpy black guy like Spike Lee feels empowered by the likes of Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali. When white guys lose in manhood to blacks and cannot identify with champion black manhood, they go into pussification mode best exemplified by the dorky countenance of CucKen Burns the pathetic and worthless dweeb. Pussification began to spread in the US as blacks took over sports and pop music. Jews even decided to push jungle fever in pop culture, what with madonna the inflatable sex doll of the NBA turned into the main role model for white women. As American pop culture is global, the pussification spread to Europe as well, and if anything, white men and women there began to feel a Masculine Deficit due to lack of blacks. Now, why would Europe feel masculine deficit when they had a white man for every white woman? Even without blacks, they could have white sports heroes and etc. But as Americanism became the unipolar world standard, whites in Europe were no longer satisfied with what they came to deem as inferior white manhood. There was the idea that black manhood is the only real manhood and that white manhood is decidedly inferior and must kowtow before black manhood, the real thing. Thus, especially with the aid of globo-homo lunacy, white guys all across EU were urged to become pussy-boys, and it seems to have worked as 50% of British Millennial men say they aren't sure what 'gender' they are. They are pussy-boys who look to blacks as the real men. And this mindset has taken over European elites who are eager to let Africa be the mega-dong to Europe-as-vagina. Look how Emmanuel Macron celebrated a virtually all-black French team defeating white European teams. He didn't cheer as a white man because, after all, a true white man would feel threatened by black manhood and DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to defend and salvage white manhood. No, Macron cheered as a white pussy boy who imbibed the globalist worldview that Africa is the Man/Penis and Europe is the Woman/Vagina. He became the Icon of Mangina.

This is why it's so dangerous when the male/female dynamics are applied to entire groups or races. It made one race into the Man in the equation and the other race into the Woman in the equation. And just like women are attracted to men for their superior strength and what is called 'manhood', the 'womanized' race longs for the 'manized' race for its manhood. It's like in ZARDOZ where the Eternal females gravitate to Zed(Sean Connery) because he is More Man than the fruity-looking fellas of privilege. What we are seeing happen in the West is something worse than the Vietnamization of the white race. During the Vietnam War in Saigon, America was the penis and Vietnam was the vagina. Not only did America have more money and firepower but it came with bigger white and black men to whom many Vietnamese women flocked as prostitutes, mistresses, or prospective wives. Vietnam was turned into a vagina-nation vis-a-vis the the US as penis nation, but the thing is the Vietnamese men, despite being short and scrawny, fought back like young Zeus who hid and ambushed his father Cronus by cutting off his balls. The thing is the Vietnamese men at least resisted, but white men not only have lost all will to resist but are now happily cucking out to black men as their masters. Even Donald Trump, despite talking big, grovels before rappers who shi* all over him.
It might be called the Afro-Thug Paradox of the Thug-Thrill Complex and Hunt-Cunt Logic. In some cases, people are drawn to the very thing for the very reason that they are repulsed by it. Consider the war lover. He knows war is dangerous and horrible. He knows he can be killed or maimed, and yet, he is drawn to war and feels most alive in it because everything is so extreme. It’s like what Willard(Martin Sheen) says in the opening scene of APOCALYPSE NOW. When he was in Vietnam, he thought he wanted to return to America, but when he was home, he wanted to be back in the jungle. He knows war is horror, but horror and the ever-present specter of death makes him feel truly alive, like a real man. In a similar vein, primitive folks are terrified by big powerful animals such as grizzly bears or lions, but it is for that very reason that they are most drawn to such beasts, even emulating them and drawing from their power by donning fangs, claws, and fur of those beasts. And even though we humans are grateful for no longer serving as prey animals for such predators as lions, tigers, crocodiles, and the like, the most popular nature programs tend to be about predators chasing after prey and devouring them. Then, it’s not surprising that, even as whites are repulsed by black thuggery, they are also drawn to it because it is seen as so primal and masterful. White people don’t want to be attacked and mugged by blacks in the streets, and many whites go out of their way to avoid such scenarios, BUT they are addicted to blacks in NFL whose behavior is really just legally sanctioned forms of thuggery. Granted, whites would be drawn to such sports with or without blacks. Ancient Greeks loved their Olympic Games that only included Greek athletes. Still, once word and image got out that blacks are tops in masterful thuggery in sports and rap culture, the closet-animal side of whites became fascinated and even enthralled with black thuggery as the core principle of life force. And to white girls, it doesn’t matter that so many white guys are beaten and humiliated by black thugs. To them, black thuggery represents the New Normal in Western Manhood, and white female behavior has been Afro-Colonized in the sense that so many white girls think life is all about ‘twerking’ their butts to attract black males. They now act like African girls in tribal villages who do the butt-dance to attract the males.
Blacks knock out a white man and jump, hoot, and holler like black athletes in NFL and NBA. Whites might find such behavior appalling, and yet, they are drawn to it as well because the favorite entertainment of whites is rap thuggery and black domination of sports where blacks are paid to act like thugs. So, next time you watch black-dominated sports or wiggle your white ass to rap, know that you're delighting in the demise of your own race. It'd be like zebras enjoying themselves by watching lions bring down prey.
Anyway, what is this Selective Nature among the Progs of Globalism? How does it differ from Natural Selection of Charles Darwin? Natural Selection is about how evolution works, and of course, evolution made and molded all lifeforms. Every organism evolved to possess certain traits and tendencies. While those tendencies can be overridden, the process is arduous and difficult, often near-impossible. For instance, it's not easy to train a horse to carry a man on its back. Horses want to be free and don't want to carry extra-weight. Still, with much effort, man can train a horse to carry men on its back. Its will as a free horse can be broken. Still, even a broken horse would rather have a free back than a man on his back. Humans have trained bears, lions, tigers, and elephants. But it was never easy as those animals would rather do their own thing than be prodded to do stuff that go counter to their nature. Dogs are easier to train because they were bred via artificial selection to possess traits of sucking up to their masters. Still, despite such elaborate breed selections, there remains the wild wolf within the dog that still prefers to run freely than obey orders. If you let a dog loose from its leash and let it run freely, it is most happy. Same could be said of Negroes. Under the power of the white man, blacks could be trained to work the cotton fields and be Good Negroes singing "Ole Black Joe" under the shade of a tree. But black nature being what it is, once it's been allowed to run wild and free, blacks were going to diverge markedly from other races who evolved under different natural and cultural pressures.
At any rate, Natural Selections says all organisms have always been profoundly affected by evolution, and this process didn't suddenly or miraculously end for humans some 10,000 yrs ago. (Even if all human evolution did end about 10,000 yrs ago, Sub-Saharan blacks and rest of humanity would still have evolved differently and diverged because Out-of-Sub-Saharan Africa or OSA happened 150,000 yrs ago and Out-of-North-Africa or ONA happened around 60,000 yrs ago.) There was, furthermore, cultural selection. Surely, if a community prizes smart people and have them breed most, it will turn more intelligent, as happened with Jews. If a community prizes tough warriors and have them breed most, it will turn tougher and rougher, as happened with Maoris.

Then, it makes sense that different groups would not only have different physical traits and possibly cognitive abilities but different temperaments, tendencies, and levels of 'impulsivity' or 'trepidation'. Of course, even within a homogeneous group, there will be a range of personalities from outgoing & extroverted to inward & introverted, but any honest person surely knows that certain groups tend to have more(indeed many more) of members with a certain pronounced personality type. Then, considering that different races/groups evolved separately, it's very likely that they will have different racial tendencies. And since these tendencies are biological at their root, they powerfully push towards a certain direction, and it takes special effort(and much suppression of freedom) to redirect them in other directions(hopefully more constructive). It's like humans have found ways to irrigate water and even reverse the flow of rivers. But such is usually a tremendous task requiring lots of engineering, manpower, and commitment. It also goes against the the river's natural flow, which is powerful and requires immense effort on part of man to reverse or redirect.
In the past, white folks were able to control blacks, suppress their natural tendencies, and put them to constructive use. But given the savage nature of blacks, this required much repression of natural black savagery that necessarily denied blacks equal freedom. (Of course, given that all humans are hairless apes to a certain extent, all of them must be controlled and suppressed in nature to make them useful to civilization. That said, given the far greater tendency among blacks toward savagery, more effort must be made to reverse the natural black tendency and, furthermore, blacks must be denied the kind of freedom allowed to most non-blacks.) If blacks are allowed full freedom, they will not act like black versions of Europeans, Turks, Arabs, East Asians, Hindus, or even Mexicans. They will act wild and crazy, ugabuga. It's too much a part of their nature. It's like that Four Tops song "I Can't Help Myself". Now, those were more 'innocent' times, and the Four Tops were singing about sweetness and love, but what has become of black culture since the outburst of total freedom in the 60s? They are now rapping, making apelike motions, and hollering 'muh dick' and 'muh gun'; and black 'biatches' are 'twerking' and acting like lunatic skanks. In a way, we can't blame blacks for acting this way, no more than we can blame wolves from howling, skunks from spraying, hippos from wallowing in mud, and bonobos from sucking each other's dicks. Black nature + Freedom = Jiveassery and Thuggery. It can be funny and entertaining, as with David Chappelle and the like. Or it can be exciting, as when tough Negroes dunk balls in NBA or rush with ball in NFL. But in real life, it is often dangerous as the black lack of inhibition + black physical power = black thuggery that totally humiliates and wussifies white manhood into cuckery.

In a way, racial integration of blacks and whites favors white cuckery over white pride because the cucks, being servile, can find a niche of survival and servitude. This was also true when whites practiced social power and tyranny over blacks. A ho-de-do'ing and shuffling 'uncle tom' found a more conducive place in the order than angry tough blacks. Whites could tolerate and even reward 'uncle toms' for their subservience but feared and hated the angry black who dared to act 'uppity'. So, a proud black guy had a much greater chance of being whupped or even killed than an 'uncle tom' Negro who kept his head low and constantly yapped out, "Yessuh Massuh". Among the losing side, the cucks, collaborators, and wussies are better adept at survival than tough warrior types who dare to stand tall amidst the defeat of his tribe. When France lost to Germany in 1940, the French cucks were better suited for the new order of German domination. When Germany lost in 1945, the German cucks were better suited for survival whereas German men who insisted on standing tall alongside Soviets and Americans got beaten and crushed.
In a racially integrated community in the US, the white cuck pussyboys have a niche in the new order(or disorder as the case may be). Blacks tolerate them as 'white toms' who cower before blacks and cheer for tough blacks who take white girls. As for white guys who insist on being tough and proud, they are likely to get hurt because white toughness is no match for black toughness. So, while black guys tolerate white wussies, they take umbrage at the sight of proud white guys. Such 'white boys' who dare to be 'uppity' are an affront to the black sense of thug superiority. So, tough blacks pick on whites who dare to act tough. Just like tough and proud blacks got whipped in the Old South and were forced to say, "My name is Toby, not Kunta" and act the uncle tom, white tough guys are beaten by blacks until they too are compelled to act like white wussies. Thus, white wussydom has become the dominant template for white un-manhood, or 'white boyhood'. Blacks got manhood, whites got boyhood or pussyhood. CucKen Burns is the model for all 'white boys' to follow. Of course, CucKen Burns lives in a tony part of town and isn't threatened by black violence, but the bigger culture, in promoting blacks as the Real Men and Tough Guys, implies that white guys have lost in the tough guy department, and so, they must take on roles of servants and wussies. In basketball, white guys are more likely to play the role of 'assists'. Therefore, the current climate favors white guys like CucKen Burns who is only too happy to smile like a dweeb and look like a fa**oty-ass-white-boy, as blacks might call such creatures with condescension and tolerant contempt.
When the tough guys of one 'race' conquer another race, the men of the defeated race must get used to cucky 'uncle tom'-ism. For some men, it comes naturally as they were born to be wussy and subservient. But even naturally tough guys of the defeated tribe must go into 'uncle tom' mode. There was a time in America when even tough blacks who were as big and strong as Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson had to act the 'tom' in front of their white massuhs. It would have been risky for them to act tough and 'uppity' in front of whites. Today, in integrated schools, even tough white guys must act like 'white tom' wussy boys because white toughness pales next to black toughness. It's like Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, and Joe Frazier all made mincemeat out of Jerry Quarry who was a tough white guy but no match for the Negroes.
Progs say they respect Charles Darwin and believe in Natural Selection, but when it comes to most social discourse, they practice what might be called Selective Nature. The theory of Selective Nature says that biology exerts great natural force on certain groups, indeed to such an extent that no amount of social pressure and/or programming can undo the natural tendency. So, while progs have been associated with 'blank slate-ism' and nurture-over-nature arguments, they've been totally pro-nature when it comes to certain groups. We've all heard feminists argue that boys prefer toy guns and girls prefer dolls because of cultural conditioning, and yet, these same people will argue that a homo-boy naturally prefers dolls because he was born that way. So, masculinity or femininity is not real but acculturated, but tutti-fruitiness is totally natural. So, when women act feminine, that's just a product of social conditioning, but when a homo male acts whoopity-poo, he's totally acting according to his innate nature.
According to Selective Nature Theory, homos can't do anything about their nature. They so very much want to bang the bungs of other men that there is nothing we can do about it. It's a case of "Have Buns, Will Boof". Homo nature is THAT powerful. It's so powerful that homo men MUST stick their dongs into the fecal holes of other men, and in turn, they must have other men stick their dongs up their hynies. Sure, we can argue that sodomy is unclean, gross, unhealthy, and a good way to spread disease, but no matter. Homo nature is such that homo guys must chase each other's bungs for fecal-penetration. Or so we must remind ourselves everyday.
Now, isn't that strange. Progs, the very people who usually favor nurture over nature and often scoff at biological/genetic explanations for human behavior and social phenomena, say biology is king when it comes to homos. So, nature, which happens to be inert at most times among most groups, suddenly flare up into the dominant factor when it comes to the behavior of homos. We are to believe that homo nature is such that we simply cannot stop homos from indulging in their wild homo behavior. And this applies to trannies as well. Selective Nature Theory says that tranny nature is such that a man cannot help himself from transforming himself into a 'woman', even if it means undergoing radical hormone treatments and even genital mutilation of tranny-penis-cutting in order to obtain a fake 'vagina'. It all sounds crazy, but never mind. Progs will tell us that, whether we like it or not(though PC says we BETTER like and praise it), it simply cannot be helped. Tranny nature is so powerful that it simply cannot be stopped or reversed. Trannies MUST become the Other Sex, and that's that, because the sheer power of their nature urges them to undergo radical transformation.

Now, one could argue that for most of human history, homos and trannies were told to either knock it off or keep it to themselves, and for the most part, that's exactly what happened. So, even if homo/tranny nature has a tendency toward weirdness or perversions, societies have been successful in suppressing such behavioral manifestations or keeping them under wraps. But to progs, this was a great injustice all throughout history because it stood in the way of the true nature of homos and trannies who MUST do their thing with 'pride' to feel fulfilled and happy. They MUST do it because nature is that powerful. But if homos (1) MUST act that way and (2) have considerable POWER in society, won't the result be the Normalization of perversion, decadence, and degeneracy? After all, homos aren't merely a bunch of oddball individuals who are buggering each other and leaving the rest of us alone. No, they constitute an organized and highly politicized group of vanity, narcissism, and precious sensibilities that demands that ALL OF SOCIETY be compelled to praise, celebrate, and honor what they do and stand for. But never mind all that. Progs will tell us that homos are just so wonderful because... they are the 'rainbow' people.
Now, if homos and trannies can't rise above their nature that compels them to indulge in homo fecal-penetration or opt for tranny-penis-cutting-and-castration, one might conclude that nature is indeed a very powerful thing. And if homos and trannies have certain natural tendencies that define what they are and direct their behavior, who is to say such natures don't exist in OTHER groups as well(and for that reason, people should be wary of those tendencies)? After all, if the desire to perform sodomy or cut off one's penis is so naturally powerful that it must not be suppressed or denied, who is to say certain other groups have powerful natural propensities that are difficult to suppress, control, or inhibit, especially in a free society where the motto for many is 'follow your bliss' or 'pursue happiness'?
Take the Negroes. Given their natural selection in hot dangerous Africa teeming with monstrous beasts and their cultural selection that favored warriors/hunters over farmers/herders, an honest evolutionary assessment would posit that blacks have different natural tendencies from other races. Or even if all races are similar in most ways, blacks have MORE of certain tendencies than other races. It's like all breeds of dogs are natural hunters but some are more aggressive(and bigger and stronger) than others. In the wild, some animals have stronger drives and more excess energy than other species that are more-or-less content to just have enough to eat. Badgers and wolverines are especially known to be restless, aggressive, active, and troublesome.

Something similar might be said of human groups. In any given diverse society, many groups are merely content to get along and live, whereas certain groups tend to be especially aggressive, confrontational, hostile, and nasty. In some ways, such groups end up with many enemies, but they may gain advantage over society if they have special talents that earn them admiration and/or awe. Jews have long been known as a troublesome people, and they suffered a lot for that(along with their goy victims), but they are also high-IQ, and this combination of aggression and high IQ in the relatively free and individualistic US meant Jews would make a lot of money and earn the respect of so many goyim who are willing to carry water for the Tribe for favors. And blacks are also known as a very problematic people, but their success in pop culture and sports meant that black aggression + black prowess = blackness as favored idolatry in the US. Generally, aggression and nastiness turn people off, but such can be the fuel of businessmen, empire-builders, athletes, comedians, or musicians. Then, the element of aggression and nastiness becomes prized as the source energy of greatness and awesomeness. This is true of homos and trannies, two groups who are known for their bitchiness, nastiness, and impossible-to-please-ness. And yet, their tireless work and success in certain elite fields have made their aggression seem justified as the raw material of ambition and drive. It seems that while most groups have moderate natural tendencies, certain groups — especially Jews, blacks, and homos — have extreme natural tendencies. It might also be true of Hindus and Gypsies, but Hindus are intellectually no match for Jews and physically no match for blacks. And Gypsies are just losers, and no one is interested in losers.
Anyway, if it's true enough that homos and trannies have natural tendencies that are so powerful that they cannot be stamped out(and shouldn't be suppressed), might not the same dynamics be at play among blacks as well? If Sub-Saharan blacks evolved separately from the rest of humanity for over 100,000 yrs(as Out-of-Africa is really Out-of-North-Africa) in a world that was wilder, more dangerous, and more chaotic, then it is very possible that blacks have an extreme natural tendency toward thuggery, muggery, jiveassery, funkery, and oogity-boogity-ness. And if those natural tendencies were forged into black genetics over many 10,000s(or 100,000s) of years, we shouldn't expect a limited period of social programming, conditioning, or engineering to alter them in some significant manner.
Sure, the Old South did manage to control black behavior and use blacks toward constructive ends, but it took slavery and threat of violence that always hung over blacks who got out of line. Under such pressures, even animals can be made to obey. Even bears and tigers can be trained to do tricks at circuses, especially if raised from a young age. But just as bears and tigers never really lose their beastly nature and can strike out at their masters, the black thug gene always remained despite their ho-de-do shuffling and 'uncle tom' act before their massuhs. White race-ists always sensed this dangerous element about blacks. Not only did blacks look more savage and primitive but they communicated in ways wilder than the norm among whites and other non-black races. So, even after slavery ended, white folks went about devising all sorts of legal codes and social norms to keep the distance between weaker white folks and tougher black folks. Also, the power of the Church was such in the past that it had a role in suppressing the wilder energies of blacks. But nature is like the accelerator while society is like the brake. While society can step on the brake against nature, there are times when the foot comes off the pedal, and then, nature lurches forward bit by bit. When we consider the racial changes in the 100 years from 1915, the year of D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION, and 2015 when Rap thuggery & Jungle Fever are the hallmarks of Americanism, it's quite obvious that nature eventually wins out, especially in a free society like the US that says every individual has an inalienable right to 'pursue happiness'. Nothing makes blacks happier than acting like thugs and 'biatches'. Just like different things make a teetotaler and an alcoholic happy, it's wrong to expect all races to pursue the same kind of happiness. That said, there is the animal inside every human, and this animal side, even among whites and Asians, secretly long for a return to the natural state. As blacks are wildest and most in tune with savage nature, they've come to be the role models of this 'liberation from civilization and its discontents'. While every group has its idea of festivity and having a 'good time', blacks take "Let the Good Times Roll" further than most races, and in our age of EXTREME THIS and EXTREME THAT, people gravitate to that which is perceived as the Most Gone-Wild. To keep the power of nature under lid, there has to be tremendous amount of repression, as in the Muslim World where blacks were kept under control, even if it meant executing blacks who got out of control or castrating them.
If homo nature is so incessant and insistent that homos cannot help wanting to bugger countless butts(and will find so many ways to do so), then it's just as likely that black nature is so wild & explosive that it cannot be contained in a free society. So, when blacks act the thug, maybe we should just remind ourselves that it's part of their nature, and blacks can't do anything about it, no more than homos can do anything about their desire to bugger butts. Sure, black thuggery can be contained, but the means must be undemocratic or anti-individualist as freedom + individualism + black nature = black mayhem. Letting blacks be free is to allow black nature of thuggery to run wild, and then, society will fall apart IF there are too many blacks. Take a look at black parts of St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, and etc. Look at Selma. Black nature + Freedom = Tyranny of Black Thuggery.
Consequently, the freer blacks become, the more biologically enslaved the non-black races become. Look at parts of Europe with large numbers of blacks. Blacks freely run wild and crazy, but many whites dare not walk those streets out of fear of being harassed, assaulted, robbed, or even killed. While blacks are humans like the rest of mankind, they have more of the savage animal nature and they are tougher/meaner, a fact that blacks are all too aware of in their contempt for 'faggoty-ass white boy'.
And that's why racial integration with blacks is sort of like trying to co-exist with wild animals, especially the predators. We mustn't confuse ourselves by applying White Norms on blacks, just as it would be foolish to impose East Asian norms on whites. Just like what is normal among straight folks doesn't apply to homos and trannies whose idea of the New Normal is to associate rainbows with homo fecal-penetration and penis-mutilation-to-obtain-fake-vagina, what is normal about whites in terms of aggression & behavior doesn't make much sense when applied to blacks for whom criminality is a norm than a deviance. What would be considered the criminal personality among whites is an all-too-common personality among blacks who tend to have higher levels of psychopathy, shamelessness, egotism, megalomania, and savage infantilism. And blacks can't help themselves because it's a part of their nature. And whites have a hellish time trying to balance democracy and blackness because democracy-for-blacks means chaos and mayhem. In order for whites to control blackness, they must use undemocratic means as in the Jim Crow South or in the Ham-Fisted North where ethnic whites relied on tough cops to keep the blacks in their place. But such means were denounced as tyrannical and repressive, and so, blacks were given equal rights under the law. But what did blackness + freedom lead to? Urban blight, thuggery out of control, black-on-white violence, explosion of rape, jungle fever, and pussification of the white boy.
With blacks, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. To maintain order, you must be like Fidel Castro or Bull Connors and suppress black savagery. To enforce liberal democratic norms, you must grant equal rights to blacks who then run wild and free and create all sorts of havoc. If we can't wean homos in a free society away from sodomy, we can't wean blacks in a free society from chimp-outs.

The only solution is for whites to seek White Liberation from the natural force of Black Thug Supremacism. From the black POV, they are the happy predators and whites are the prized prey. To the black mind, whites exist merely for them to prey upon. In the past, black nature was restrained by slavery and Jim Crow, and white power was ensured by race-ism and the law. But in the liberal democracy of the US since the 60s, equal freedom for both races hasn't led to equal respect and peace. Black nature ran wild and began to beat up whites. And then, blacks lost respect for whites as the weaker and wussier race. Black guys saw white guys as benchwarmers or waterboys and began to feel ownership over white girls who grow up to rap, jungle fever, and 'twerking'. Unless white folks seek racial emancipation or white liberation from the tyranny of black thuggery, it will be over for the white race, especially as 100s of millions of black Africans are aiming to move to Europe with the full support of cucky-wuck white elites.

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Gaysterics surrounding the Toronto Chick-Fil-A Opening exposes Gaysteria for what It's Really About: Hysterical 'Gays' push Compulsory Worship of Globo-Homo-Mania: Obey the Gay — Homo Hysterics and Nastiness suggest Homos should be called 'Vicious' than 'Gay', but then, those who are most Delicate and Precious tend to be Most Intolerant of Those who Refuse to bow before them — A form of Neo-Aristocratism as Mix of Pop Culture and Preening PC

The mentality behind Globo-Homomania is on full display in Toronto's opening of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant. Homos, trannies, and the deracinated straight worshipers of Homomania, aka Queertianity, are out in full force throwing tantrums and hysterics like it's the end of the world. Now, why would this be? Does Chick-Fil-A include in the orders of Chicken Sandwiches messages such as "Kill All Faggots" or "Queers Are Subhuman"? Do they have a policy of not hiring people because they happen to be homo? Will they not sell chicken sandwiches to assboys who indulge in fecal-penetration or to trannies who are planning to undergo penis-cutting to get fake 'vaginas'? No, it's none of the above. The great 'sin' or transgression of Chick-Fil-A in the eyes of the rapturous beholders of Dick-Fill-Ass is that it is (1) owned and operated by devout Christians and (2) believes in the true meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, one where real biology intersects with moral obligations.
The sheer hysteria of the reaction is a sure sign that the West is sick beyond belief. It's problematic enough for a society to tolerate excessive decadence and degeneracy, but as long as such are only being tolerated, there is at least the understanding that those aren't the standard-bearers of public morality. Instead, there's an understanding that a modern democracy must make for freedoms even if they aren't particularly moral or decent. But when the very agents of immorality, deviance, irresponsibility, self-indulgence, vanity, narcissism, perversion, and lunacy are allowed the moral high ground and righteous rage, there is something truly wrong at the core of society. Worse yet, when perversion is even consecrated as a matter of sanctity, then society has gone utterly batshit crazy, and that's where US, Canada, and EU are at this moment... largely thanks to the Power of Jews as objects of worship.

What is the Jewish connection in all this? When white people decided Jews, as the Holy Holocaust People, are infinitely wise, moral, spiritual, and all-knowing, it became virtually taboo to question Jewish proposals and agendas. Whatever the Jews wanted, they got, and as Jews kept on pushing for Queertianity to replace Christianity and for the abnormal to serve as the New Normal, whites just went along because, of course, Jews Know Best. After all, questioning Jews might be 'antisemitic', and that must mean you're a damned crypto-Nazi. Of course, it also helped that Jews have shitloads of money and control the academia/media. With money, they can buy any number of cuck-goy-whores to do their bidding. With control of academia, they shape the minds of young ones; Jews need not control all universities as 99% of academia take their marching orders from a few elite ones. With control of Media, Jews decide who gets to work in the information-and-communications industry, and invariably, it's the globo-homo-brainwashed whores of Zion. One thing for sure, when a people become deracinated, de-spiritualized, and hollowed out, they become so EASY. Easy to dupe, easy to manipulate, easy to control, easy to use like dogs. White people, having lost their sense of roots, spirituality, and morality, are now so EASY, mere putty in the hands of Jews. It's so pathetic.
Now, what is most insane about Gaysterics or 'gay' hysteria is its rabid and delirious tendency to hyperventilate about ANY argument or position that isn't totally conducive to their demands as the End of the World. Ironically, the very people who condemn binary-thinking in 'gender' are super-binary in their conception of Good and Bad. Indeed, they believe themselves to be not only Good but oh-so-very-great and holy-shmoly. And the other side that refuses to an unconditional surrender to all their demands isn't merely bad or wrong but downright evil. They think in 'Good War' terms of World War II where the Bad Guys were so bad that they deserved to be literally annihilated unless they agreed to total unconditional surrender. These rabid homos want to politically, morally, and spiritually nuke anything that won't bend over to their deviance and perversion as the New Normal. So, there can be no compromise or mutual understanding. Tolerance and legal protections to be homo and do homo things in their own space aren't enough for them. No, there must be compulsory proselytization of Globo-Homo-mania and Queertianity as the Neo-Religion or Mass Cult for all the peoples of the world.
In some ways, such worldview makes sense given that trashy and shallow Pop Culture has become the core culture of most people in the West. Having grown up idolizing vapid celebrities who adore homos who fashion their hair and airbrush their image, nothing matters more to current Western Culture than vanity, narcissism, hedonism, and self-indulgence. Then, it's hardly surprising that homos, who are well-known for their shameless flamboyance and precious glamour-strutting, should become the Face of the West. Homos are so full of flagrant self-worship as well as fragile self-pity — but then the two things go together as the self-worshipful are 'triggered' by those who won't join in the worship of them — that they throw a fit if people don't agree that what they do is the greatest thing since sliced bread(or baked buns). Imagine a fat ugly woman with a diva mentality. She thinks herself so hot & gorgeous, and simply cannot tolerate anyone who speaks the truth that she is fat and ugly. Homos are that way, and it seems trannies are even worse. Tranny men(or men-pretending-to-be-women) seem truly baffled as to why men are not attracted to them. The idea that men don't like fake 'women' who look masculine and have dongs or fake vaginas never comes up their radar because their pathological narcissism jams any view or notion that runs counter to their diva-like self-worship. Then, it's not so difficult to understand why homos and trannies are flipping out in Toronto. It's not about feeling threatened for their lives or losing their individual rights in a modern democracy. It's about being outraged that a business and its customers dare to espouse the view that homos are not holy, true marriage and real family shouldn't be associated with homo-fecal-penetration & tranny-penis-cutting, and that a healthy & decent society should not be promoting and pushing Globo-Homo-Mania, aka LGBTQXYZ as some kind of mass cult or neo-religion.

The fact that homos are now pushing 'gay' colors into churches and even mosques goes to show that the Homo Agenda hasn't merely been a secular struggle for individual rights for homos. Homos, like Jews and blacks, are especially self-centered, self-worshiping, self-pitying, and megalomaniacal. Just like it's not enough for Jews to be equal with goyim, it's not enough for homos to have the same legal protections as everyone else. No, homos and trannies demand that entire rules and laws be altered and perverted so that they will be favored over other peoples. Seriously, if homos are all about 'equality', why don't we shut down entire streets to celebrate real sexuality and straight people, aka NSMFR(Normal, Straight, Male, Female, Real). Or how about having massive street parades celebrating incest or same-family-sex? Why aren't people ragging about 'incestophobia'? Why don't we have massive S&M pride marches? Why is our society so fixated on homos(and trannies who are protected by homos who are, in turn, protected by Jews)? It's not about equality but homo supremacy. It's like Jews bitch about white identity and do everything to shut down BDS, but all politicians and Americans-of-status must bow before Zion and sing hosannas to Jews/Israel at AIPAC Conferences. Jews and Homos are NOT about equality but hegemony and supremacy. Indeed, one reason why Jews pushed the homo agenda was because they believe that homo minority-elite-supremacism will complement Jewish minority-elite-supremacism. You see, Jews are always thinking and strategizing in terms of "Is it good for Jews?" or "Is it Great for Jewish Supremacism?" This is why homo vanity is especially out of control. It is the spoiled brat princeling of the Jewish king. It knows it has the protection of Jews, the most powerful people in the world.

While it's true that homos in the past unduly faced persecution as the result of misunderstanding of homosexuality as a Mental Illness(by the medical-psychological community), overt religious hostility, and/or bullies picking on 'faggots' as easy targets, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that there is something about homo-personality and tranny-personality that makes many, even most, homos and trannies very problematic in their attitude and behaviors. Even though homos and trannies made social gains by spewing forth about 'equality', the thing is homos and trannies feel special, even superior to the rest. Homos see themselves as whoopity-doo natural aristocrats; they are so vain that the likes of Tim Cook thinks that his homo-fecal-penetrative behavior is blessed by god. So, bung-donging is not a sin but a win. As for trannies, it seems many, indeed most of them, consider themselves 'more woman' than real women. If homos have a combination of aggressive masculine traits and bitchy 'mirror mirror on the wall' air about them, trannies have a combination of female diva-ism and male conquer-ism. There is the homo god complex.

Furthermore, the reason why so many straight people and 'normies' have come to revere, even worship, homos and trannies was not out of regard for social equality but out of fascination with what appears to be superior. After all, the great contradiction of the so-called Liberal Democracy is that it claims to be about equality of individual rights but happens to be most obsessed with uppermost winners of dog-eat-dog competition. In other words, most people in a Liberal Democracy are disregarded as 'losers' while all the attention go to the Winners. Because of the homos' favored proximity to elite power, their success in fashion & entertainment, and representation in Deep State, many people look up to homos as a superior breed(even though they don't breed). Seriously, would homos be getting all this adulation if most of them weren't involved in media, entertainment, fashion, and elite institutions? If they weren't such servile suckups to the powerful and privileged, like the Will Patton character in NO WAY OUT? Homos gained power the old-fashioned way. They kissed the asses of the powerful so that their asses would be kissed one day. Okay fine, but let's not pretend this is all about equality. If most homos were living in trailers and drinking moonshine, no one would give a damn about them. It's like, if Jews were mostly low IQ and dumb, no one would much care about the Shoah, aka Holocaust, and all those whore-politicians would not be singing hosannas for Zionists to beat up on Palestinians.
Liberal Democracy has one thing in common with communism. Ultimately, both aren't about equality but about being 'more equal than others'. Both ideologies are obsessed with hierarchy yet wrap their power-worship with mostly empty talk of 'equality'. In a way, modern politics is the art of masking hierarchy with 'equality', like what the elites who graduate from Harvard and Yale do. They all gravitate toward power, privilege, status, and wealth, but they veil what they really DO with what they love to SAY, which is the usual rigmarole about fighting 'white privilege'. Imagine that, all those Jews, Hindus, yellows, mulattoes, and white cuck-collaborators striving for status and privilege(to gain, keep, or expand), but whining endlessly about how they are all about ending 'privilege'. But given capitalism is about winners and losers, it will always be about the privileged ruling over the unprivileged. Communism was anti-capitalist but turned into George Orwell's Animal Farm. In a way, the sheer hysteria so common among Jews and homos owes to the worrying fact that they are having a harder time justifying their power, privilege, and control over society on the basis of 'equality'. They need to shout and holler about EQUALITY to drown out the fact that they are the most powerful and privileged members of society, and if anything, they've been doing everything to expand their power and privilege even further. Notice how enough is never enough for Jews. They want more money, more power, more control. And homos were never satisfied with compromises and concessions; the way the fruitkins are going, they clearly want to be worshiped as the new gods of demento-neo-pagan Queertianity.

The current age is downright demented because it not only insists homosexuality has equal value & validity as real-sexuality but has an even greater claim on our respect and admiration. Now, it's bad enough to pretend equal value. While one can argue that homos as individuals should have the 'equal right' to do their own thing, what sane person would say homosexuality has equal value as real sexuality? Name one life that was created through ass-buggery or lesbian poon-rubbing. Since when is a male anus a sex organ? What would be the purpose of sperm ejaculated into a poopchute? All of life, even homo life, has been created by real sexuality, not by homo-fecal-penetration, and yet, we are supposed to believe that homosexuality has equal value as real sexuality? It's crazier than believing that Hannukah is as American or Western as Christmas.
But then, it has gotten even crazier, what with the dogmatic conviction among so many that a fake tranny 'vagina' is just as much a poon as the real vagina or that a hairy guy with wig and penis/balls is just as much a 'woman' as a real woman because... he just feels like it. It's bad enough to pretend ass-buggery and penis-cutting have equal value as real sexuality that creates life, but it's far far worse to elevate them above real sexuality, even to the extent of hoisting 'gay' colors inside and outside of churches. Don't these cucky-wuck morons realize that Jews regard the 'gay' banner as their Victory Flag over goyim? Haven't they figured it out yet that the Globo-Homo stuff is essentially the proxy arm of Jewish supremacist hegemonism? Apparently not. Or maybe so many deracinated and emasculated whites are now so worshipful of Jews and homos that they are only too happy to roll out the red carpet to the Jewish King and Homo princeling brat. After all, most of humanity is more about Will to Cower than Will to Power. Most people prefer to bow down before the Power. It's like, whites have become so awed by black prowess in sports, rap, and sex that they are now happy to surrender their manhood, womenfolks, and lands to blacks. It's no wonder so many whites in Europe are resigned to their nations being Africanized. They figure blacks deserve to win and take over because they got more muscle, louder voices, more aggressive personalities, bigger dongs, and bouncier buns. In our electronic-pop-cultural world, 'viscerality' counts for a lot, and the race that comes across with the most sensual power is the object of most celebration or worship. This is why blacks are especially dangerous to any non-black nation saturated with pop culture and sports mania. If many many Mexicans or Hindus move to a white nation, the chances are they won't gain success as athletes and pop stars. As such, they may do okay or even pretty well economically, but they will not captivate the imagination of white folks. But even if a few blacks enter a white society, there's a good chance that some of them will succeed in the upper echelons of sports and pop music. And word will get around white women that black men got bigger dongs. With such visceral prowess, blacks will become the much idolized celebrities of a white nation. Consider Japan, a nation with few blacks. But despite their fewness in number, they are taking over Japanese sports, and Japanese women are already into massive jungle fever and Japanese men are happy to be cucky-wucks to finish off whatever manhood was left after the total humiliation to the white man in World War II.
Anyway, if homos really do believe that their 'sexuality' is equally valid and valuable as real sexuality, why do they demand and take so much from real sexuality? Notice how whenever homos want to have a 'gay family', they filch children created by real sexuality. The children of 'two mommies' or 'two daddies' are not the product of homo ass-buggery or lesbian-poon-grinding. They are all the products of male sperm and female eggs. If homos really believe in the biological validity of their deviant 'sexual' acts, they should create life by 'inseminating' feces with sperm up the poopchute. And maybe two lesbians can create a child by rubbing their clitorises together. Of course, homosexuality cannot produce life. And no matter how much a tranny tells himself that he's a 'woman', he has no real vagina and no uterus. That why, if homos want to have a 'gay family', they must filch children created by real sexuality. Our culture is familiar with Margaret Atwood's HANDMAID'S TALE, but if anything in our world resembles it, it's the notion of the 'gay family'. Homos take children created by real sexuality and PRETEND that they themselves 'had' the kids through homo-fecal-penetration or lesbian-poon-grinding. It'd be like a communist who, knowing his system cannot produce the Mercedes, takes the car from the capitalist but then pretends it's a communist car by labeling it with hammer and sickle.

Now, why is it so important for Jews and Homos to compel us to believe in their nonsense? It's like the twisted totalitarian logic in George Orwell's 1984. Real power is not about forcing people to believe in the truth. After all, with reason and/or facts, people can be led to believe that, yes, 2 + 2 = 4. Even if people are forced to accept that truth, they can come around to believing that it is indeed true. Thus, truth would be the ultimate power. Power would serve the truth than vice versa.
In contrast, the most awesome kind of power is in compelling people to believe what is NOT true, or 2 + 2 = 5. Because reason, facts, and senses militate against such falsehood, it takes a special kind of power to force people to believe, and by 'believe', I mean really believe. After all, anyone can pretend to believe 2 + 2 = 5 under pressure or duress. Lying comes naturally to people in a tyrannical order. But what if the Power can really and truly make people believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Now, that is some serious power. In Orwell's 1984, such belief in nonsense is realized by use of physical and psychological torture, ultimately by making Winston Smith come face to face with his greatest phobia. But, taking cues from Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD and Edward Bernays notions about the power of advertising(rooted in Pavlovianism), capitalist Jews found out that people can be led to believe, truly believe, in nonsense via psychological and physical titillation. Associate 'gay' stuff with fun, thrills, joy, happiness, radiance, rainbow colors, festivity, celebration, consumerism, food & drink, white picket fence, sitcom humor, 'spiritual' rapture, and etc. (In contrast, associate anything or anyone opposed to the 'gay agenda' as 'repressed', irrational, ignorant, and/or ugly... like the Westboro church.) Such associations persuade people that 'gay' is as essential as fresh air and clean water. The implication is that No 'gay', then no fun, no sun, no meaning, no celebration, no life, no righteousness, no 'spirituality'. Such titillation and sensory-override work like the magic of music, overriding reason, sense, and reality. When the Power can make people believe, especially with passion, what is not true, it has tremendous sway over the masses. It's a much greater(and darker) achievement than forcing people to believe and accept what is true and real.
But then, there is a side of humanity that wants to believe in fantasy over fact because the former has more to do with hope. It's been duly noted by scientists and laymen alike that spirituality or mythicism comes naturally to humanity. As important as facts are, they are what they are, grim and limiting. So, we like to believe in God, gods, angels, spirits... even witchcraft and crystals. In our Godless age, the Power sold us Globo-Homo-mania(along with Magic-Negro-Worship and Holocaustianity) as the 'spiritual' answer for mankind. Believe in tootkins as angels and wave the 'gay' banner like it has magical powers. It's no wonder homos have been called 'fairies' because 'gay' and tranny culture is like a fairy-tale. As if by magic, two men who bung-dong each other can be 'two daddies' and 'have children'. Or, as if by some miracle, a man can become a 'woman', much like how a frog can become a prince or the Beast can turn into a handsome feller. In a culture where so many people obsess over comic-book superheroes, Harry Potter stories, and the Force(in STAR WARS), is it any surprise that so many proved to be so EASY in manipulating with globo-homo nonsense?
Of course, this may be said of all religions as there is no factual evidence of God, Jesus as the Son of God, Muhammad as last Prophet, angels, or miracles. But plenty of people choose to believe them because the notion that SOMETHING can override reality and make dreams come true gives them hope. It's like David in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE can never be a real boy but, being more-human-than-human in his programming, he hopes, prays, and believes in the impossible, the fantastical. Still, there is surely a difference between the great religions with their depth of meaning & richness of mythic symbolism AND the tawdry & trashy spectacle of Globo-Homo-mania with its self-indulgence, vanity, vapidity, childishness, & ugliness. Even among the fantastical, certain visions carry greater meaning than others. Just like THE ILIAD and THE ODYSSEY are more than MY LITTLE PONY, the great religions are more than homo-and-tranny self-celebration of ass-buggery and penis-mutilation as akin to the miracle of the rainbow. Ridiculous but true, so many people who've fallen under the spell of globo-homo really believe they found THE meaning of life, but they have no idea that THE JEW IS LAUGHING AT YOU, just like a drug-pusher is amused by the junkie who thinks he's found heaven when, if anything, he's just become a mental slave of the pusher.
In a way, the relation between homos and straights is like between gods and mortals. Gods worship themselves whereas humans worship gods. Gods are intoxicated in their own greatness, superiority, and/or holiness, whereas humans are dazzled by the awesomeness of gods. Thus, Globo-Homo works differently for homos and straights. It's about homos worshiping themselves and about straights worshiping homos. The relation between Jews and white goyim are much the same. Jews worship themselves while white goy cucks worship the Jews. Just like mass adulation warps the minds of celebrities whose narcissism goes through the roof, all the 'gay' celebration from the straight community has really intoxicated their minds of homos. There was a time when homos and trannies used to worship themselves in their own communities. It was a game they played in a world of their own, in their ghettohomo. To the straight community, 'gay' vanity could only be sold as 'camp' as it was understood that most straights couldn't keep a straight face looking at all that tooty-fruity behavior. LA CAGE AUX FOLLES is hardly TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. But with Jewish control of media, academia, and deep state, homo stuff was aggressively promoted as the New Normal, or even the New Conservatism(for the National Review cuck crowd). Thus, what was camp turned into champ, what with stuff like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN marketed as grand moral statements of our era. So, one of the birthplaces of American Democracy became the center of homo holiness, and the American West became the land of cowpokes poking each other's ass. Now, I'm sure there were cowboy homos who did their homo things, but Ang Lee's movie was less honest story-telling than myth-making propaganda. With all the crossover appeal, many straight folks began to buy into globo-homo nonsense. Also, with the demise of Old Religion, the sheer stupidity of Modern Conservatism, and absence of Old Liberal Issues(the last great one being the Civil Rights Movement), so many straight people gravitated towards globo-homo as the new frontier in 'moral' crusade, 'spiritual' salvation, and the hipster culture of 'creativity'. Once straights began to praise and revere the homos, the naturally narcissistic and vain homos went nuts with self-regard that soon turned into highfalutin self-worship. Thus, homos went from struggle for Tolerance to demand for Reverence. And that is why homos get triggered so gingerly over what they deem to be the teensiest slight. It's like a king or prince will be outraged by the slightest sign of disrespect from the inferiors. How dare they! "Do you know who I am!?!" So, even as homos play the 'victim', they display all the signs of wanna-be gods, neo-aristos, globo-monarchs, or spoiled-brat princelings.

After all, what is it about Chick-Fil-A that is SO offensive to the Dick-Fill-Ass crowd? Did Chick-Fil-A publicly say homos are less than human? Did they say homos should be rounded up and shot? Did they say homos should be fired from work? Did they say homos should be denied individual rights to be 'gay'? No, the only thing Chick-Fil-A has stated is that it's run by devout Christians who believe in True Marriage, the definition of marriage as understood by all of humanity until Jews came around and decided 'gay marriage' is a 'human right'. But then, if homos are so self-confident and sure of themselves, why would they need validation by being included into an institution that makes biological and moral sense ONLY AMONG real-sexuals? After all, what is the point of homos getting 'married' when fidelity is the last thing on most homos' minds? Also, why associate a moral institution with gross and deviant pseudo-sexual acts such as homo-fecal-penetration, lesbian-poon-grinding, and tranny penis-cutting? And if marriage is about production of family, what biological sense does it make to associate marriage with ass-buggery, lesbian-poon-mashing, and/or trannies-getting-fake-'vaginas'? On the one hand, homos say they are so proud to be 'gay' and stand apart from the straight community, yet, at the same time, they demand that homo behavior be accepted and legitimized by institutions that came into existence to specifically serve the needs of the real-sexual NSMFR(Normal-Straight-Male-Female-Real) community. What a bunch of half-assed louts and punks.
But being blind with preening self-regard and self-worship — indulging naturally narcissistic homos is like giving alcoholics more alcohol — , homos react to any difference of opinion or lack of respect for what they do and are about with extreme hysteria. It's like gods raging over how the mortals won't offer sacrifices to them. It's like kings and princes being outraged that the peons won't work even harder so that the effete elites could enjoy their lives even more. "I mean, how dare they!?" So, any sentiment that isn't ardently pro-homo is regarded as infamy. Then, if the owners and operators of Chick-Fil-A hold forth that homo behavior isn't dignified in the eyes of God, homos think in terms of "Why do you want to kill us?" or "Why don't you regard us as human?" If people say homo-fecal-penetration is gross, unhealthy, and dangerous, homos think, "Why do you want to round us up and throw us in concentration camps?" Gaysteria is much like all the nuttery about illegal immigration. Mere border security is denounced as Nazi-like! If someone says he believes in true marriage, one that grounds the most important social institution on real biology and true morality, homos freak out and say, "Why do you want take away our freedom and lock us up in dungeons?" Gaysteria is totally bonkers. Imagine if Bill tells Bob, "I don't respect what you're doing", and Bob reacts by freaking out and saying, "Why do you deny my humanity, why do you want to destroy me, why do you want to kill me?" Overreaction, right? Well, homos and trannies are all about overreaction, and they can get away with such loutish behavior(as when some crazy tranny trashed a store because the store clerk called him 'sir') because they have the backing of powerful Jews who use homo-horsewhip and tranny-tyranny to terrorize much of society with the notion that the great majority must accommodate the wishes and demands of elite minority elites, be they homo or Jewish.
Now, why are homos so obsessed with food. I suppose food has played a meaningful role in all cultures. Foods were offered to the gods on altars. Some cultures had taboos against eating specific foods because certain animals were deemed 'sacred'(as with cows in Hinduism) or filthy(as with pigs among Jews and Muslims). For most of human existence, few people could take food for granted and most of their activity was devoted to procuring food by hunting or agriculture. It's been said some Americans Indians apologized to the animals they killed.
Modern man no longer believes in hocus-pocus about food — even though many Jews, Hindus, and Muslims continue to observe their dietary laws — , but so many people obsess over nutrition and health, seeking advice from mystic sources, often from the Orient. But for most Americans and Westerners, food is what they associate mostly with easy pleasure. While not everyone can enjoy sex, fancy lifestyles, travel, and the like, even poor people can pig out and have a good time with burgers, fries, hot dogs, chicken, cakes, ice cream, donuts, sodapop, and etc. Enjoyment of food, especially fast food and sugary drink, has become the universal 'privilege' for all Americans(and even in poor nations as obesity is now a problem even in the Third World). Because so many people associate pleasure with fast food, it has been politicized and associated with certain agendas and idols. What other explanation is there for associating so much of fast food and drink with homo stuff? I mean, what does 'gayness' have to do with cookies, hotdogs, pastry, sugary drink, ice cream, and etc? Why are homos so adamant about targeting bakeries and cake shops? How did 'culture war' turn into a Food Fight?

In a way, what the homos are doing is akin to what Jews have been pulling forever with the Kosher label. Even though most people in US and Canada are not Jewish, they are forced to pay the kosher tax on almost all food items. Why should they? Even if this tax is negligible in monetary terms, who are these Jews to force goyim to buy foods that have been kosherized? Via kosher taxation, it's like Jews are laying 'spiritual' claim over all food. Likewise, homos(with the full backing of Jews) are pushing something like the 'homosher' tax. Food companies are made to pay lavish sums to advertising firms(run by Jews and homos) who associate pleasurable foods with 'gay' stuff. Because advertising is part of the cost, we are all being made to pay the homosher tax. This is why no self-respecting person should buy any product that is associated with homosherism. They are being forced to pay what is essentially a 'gay tax'.
HomOreo cookies because when you bite into a cookie, the first thing that comes to your mind is a bunch of assboys doing homo fecal-penetration on one another. Or maybe you think of a penis being mutilated to make way for fake 'vagina'. 
Campbell Soup advertises its soup by showing two 'gay daddies'. Where is the mother, and what is her role in the life of her child? If the kid is an orphan, why not place him in a house that resembles a Real Family? Anyway, I suppose when we eat soup, what comes to our mind is 'two daddies' fecal-penetrating each other and sucking each other's dongs.
Burger King or Bugger King advertising. It says "We Are All Same Inside", but how about "We Are All Shame Inside"? I suppose the inside of a vagina is the same as the inside of a bunghole full of fecal bacteria. Even if straight men and homo men have the same organs inside, they sure use them differently. Homo men take dongs up their bungs, a good way to spread disease and illness. If the Ad meant that we are all the same spiritually inside, there is a huge difference between true morality based on facts, reason, & health and fake morality based on fantasy, deviance, & decadence.
The power of association is incredible when we consider the uses of homosher-ism. After all, why would any consumer of fast food or drink soda-pop want his or her goodies to be associated with homo-fecal-penetration, tranny-penis-cutting, or fat hairy men with balls beating real women in sports? Who wants to eat fried chicken or a burger thinking of ugly butch lesbian bitches? This is where the power of association comes in. Due to Jewish control of the media, many people no longer associate homosexuality with such things. Indeed, the term 'homosexuality' is rarely used in public discourse that favors 'gay'(even though so many 'gays' are grumps, or g-rumps) or LGBT or LGBTQ though it keeps on gathering new letters, what with there being 50 or so 'genders' and all. So, we are not supposed to think about what homos really do to one another or what trannies must undergo in order to alter their 'genders'. No, we are just supposed to associate homos and trannies with pronouns or the 'rainbow'. Since everyone is dazzled by rainbow colors and since homos & trannies have been associated with the rainbow, so many people have come to ass-ociate homos and trannies with childlike wonderment. It's like if a homo passes you, the street you walk upon has been sprinkled with magic. And it's because homos have been associated with such things that so many people have become welcoming of homos. This is why even idiot churches now adorn homo colors. No church would hang pictures of homos buggering one another or trannies getting their penises mutilated. Such would be profane in churches. Now, that is what homosexuality and tranny stuff are REALLY about, but because they've been associated with 'rainbows', so many institutions are willing to fly the 'gay flag'. Oh, it looks so dazzling and colorful! And then, the rot spreads further. Since the most powerful institutions and biggest industries fly the 'gay flag', countless status-seeking people all over the world come to associate success, respectability, and prestige with 'gay'-ness. First, homosexuality was associated with 'rainbow' colors, and then those colors were associated with power and wealth. Thus, anyone who strives for success or wealth(or to be admitted into such a community) comes to feel that there is nothing fancier and precious than 'gay' stuff. It's incredible that despite humans being many times more intelligent and knowing than dogs, their minds are just as easily manipulated via the power of association. Dogs can be led to associate the sound of bell with food, and humans can be made to associate homosexuality & tranny-stuff with the 'rainbow' and then to associate 'gayness'(what the 'rainbow' stands for) with success, power, and privilege.
As for the hoi polloi, all that matters to the elites is that such fools are made to associate their favorite pig-out foods and sugary drinks with 'gay'. Every time they eat a whopper from Burger King(or Bugger King) and see it advertised with homo colors, they are likely to associate satisfaction with homo stuff. Thus, stuffing food down one's throat becomes associated with stuffing dong up the bung. It's like "yummy-yummy-yummy-I-got-gay-in-my-tummy". And this is precisely why Chick-Fil-A is so threatening to the Dick-Fill-Ass crowd. Because its chicken sandwiches are so popular and delicious(according to many, as I've never tried it myself), there is the fear among homos that many people will come to associate yummy-pleasure with conservative values, Christianity, and tradition. In the politics of pleasure, homos demand that all the goody stuff be associated with their symbols and agendas. Come to think of it, the chutzpah or poopchutzpah of the homo community is truly incredible. Even though Chick-Fil-A is a Christian operation, it doesn't promote God, Jesus, and Old Time Religion as gushingly as so many other food companies proselytize holy homo stuff. In the 80s, Dominos Pizza chain was owned by some Catholic man who donated some of his profits toward Pro-Life causes. The thing is he did it on his own time. He didn't push his belief or conviction on the consumers or advertise his pizza as being about Pro-Life or Catholicism. In contrast, we have all these homos working in advertising and media who endlessly promote gay-gay-gay by associating it with things that have NOTHING to do with homosexuality or trannies. I mean, when you sit down to eat soup, do you think of two homos fuc*ing each other in the ass? Do you think of some fat guy in a wig making an appointment to have his penis cut off to make way for a fake 'vagina'? Do you think of 'two daddies' raising a kid who grows up in a home where one of his 'daddy' buggers his other 'daddy'? These homos are worse than Jehovah's Witnesses who go from door to door pestering everyone. These homos, in partnership with their Jewish masters,
spread their 'gay' shit all over the world via advertising, entertainment, media, and even churches, as if Jesus died on the Cross so as to honor guys who bugger each other or to bless men who beat up women in sports and aspire to have their dicks cut off to make way for fake pooters(or cooters as the case may be). Just imagine the nerves of these homos who insist that every time we consume our favorite take-outs, we think of sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting as magical 'rainbows'. It's as if homos are telling us, "When you drink coke, just tell yourself that me and my boyfriend fuc*ing each other in the ass is what the fizz is all about." "When you take a munch of that delicious fried chicken, think of the Pride of having one's penis cut off to make way for a 'vagina'." 'Gay Pride' should really be called Poo-Ride. Of course, homos are so arrogant that they now just call it 'pride' as if they now own the entire term. Homos are doing with terminology what Jews did with Palestine. Carving and claiming it one piece at a time. It is Verbal Nakba. When we drink cola, are we to think of homos urinating on each other at bathhouses? Be that as it may, we must never lose sight of the fact that all this homo shit is the proxy of Jewish supremacist power. JATE or Jews Are The Enemy.
In the past, homos were at least known for their creativity and aesthetic sense. As there was no massive displays of 'gay pride' back then, homos had to channel their creative energies and expressions toward more worthy goals and endeavors. But ever since homos have been allowed to wallow in their narcissism and self-worship, their creativity has spiraled into a funnel of preening self-absorption. It's like what happened to Federico Fellini after 8 ½ or Terrence Malick since his much vaunted return with THIN RED LINE. Even with their eyes wide open, all they could see was the bubble of their self-inflated egos. One might say something similar happened with blacks since the advent of rap. Why bother to write good songs when you can just rap endlessly about 'muh gun', 'muh dick', 'muh dough', 'muh bitchass ho', and etc? If Negroes are lost in their childish rhymes, homos & trannies(and the like) are lost in their pronouns.
Also, homos no longer need to do or achieve anything to be worthy. Homos feel that they are special and superior in some way for the simple fact that they take dongs up their bungs. And even so-called 'conservatives' have caught this bug, which is why so many were delighted that Milo the 'gay Jew who takes it up the bung from a Negro' was on their side. Wow, the jackpot of holiness in Milo: Jewish, homo, and taking it up the ass from a Magic Negro. When homos bask in 'pride' merely for being 'gay', they've grown lazy and corrupt. And such laziness doesn't foster originality. Indeed, all this pronoun-silliness is sham intellectualism. If anything, the fact that so many people are willing to jump on the pronoun bandwagon is proof that they are utterly lacking in ideas, thought, or sense. They are likw dogs who play fetch with whatever the master throws in the air. Since Jews control the academia & media and recruit homo pseudo-intellectuals to come up with stupid shit, all the idiot minions run and play with whatever is tossed their way. Is it then any wonder that the utterly dull and boring fruiter singer Sam Smith came out as 'they'? I guess it is now too easy and boring to come out of the closet as 'gay'. Too many have done that to death, and as too many homos get affection and adulation just for being 'gay', they have to add another element to their identity to feel even more special... and for the moron Sam Smith, it is to declare himself 'they'. Yeah, his soul must be so big that it must be made up of millions of 'me's.