Murder of Linda Frickey by Black Criminals and What It Reveals about the Lack of Racial Immunity for Self-Preservation & Resistance against Existential Dangers — Defeating a Nation, People, or Culture by Robbing It of the Will to Resist

Vincent James on this horrible news: WHITE GRANDMOTHER HAS ARM LITERALLY RIPPED OFF BY BLACK TEENS, MEDIA IS SILENT - The Red Elephants - Vincent James
James focuses on the reluctance of the media, especially national media, to either report the news or discuss its racial dynamics. Of course, if a bunch of white teenagers had done this to an old black woman, it'd be world news spread by Jewish-run media, and Biden would made several speeches about it, and Twitter would be lit up with a zillion comments on 'racism'. Indeed, Jussie Smollett's obvious 'hate hoax' got 1000x more sympathetic attention than this horrific news story, which is all too characteristic of the nature and extent of crime in the US. Not only are the Jewish-run media remaining mostly silent about this news story but the FBI, under the control of JAB(Jews-around-Biden), decided not to publicize crime statistics, of course for ONE REASON: Black crime, already and always so high, went through the roof as the result of the fantasy of BLM that led to the 'defunding' of the police. What is truly amazing in all this is the general white silence and wimpery. Worse, so many white dummies or whummies(even highly 'educated' ones, but then that is precisely the problem as education today = indoctrination = communion into 'woke' PC) still chant the BLM slogan or put up BLM signs on their windows and front lawns, as if doing so imbues them with spiritual righteousness — apparently, for post-religious Jaberals, their spiritual void has to be filled by SOMETHING, and when it's not the 'rainbow' sodomy, it's the myth of St. George Floyd(though, of late, Ukraine is the new crusade, but I don't see that lasting too long). However, even those who haven't fallen for the BS of BLM and Floyd Fantasy dare not speak the naked truth about blacks and crime. Even those who blame BLM for the rise in crime and deaths dare not talk about how crime is linked to blacks due to evolution and genetics. And even though blacks feel ZERO sympathy for the nonblack victims of black crime and thuggery, even anti-BLM voices frame their arguments in terms of lamentation for increased black deaths. Imagine a war in which the men of Army A are rejoicing over the deaths of men of enemy Army B, but Army B pleads to end the war because, boo hoo hoo, too many men in Army A are dying as well. Never mind their own men, for whom Army A feels zero sympathy. It goes to show that being right isn't the same as feeling righteous. Ones who are factually wrong but righteous in passion often dominate those who are factually right but defensive, apologetic, and gutless in emotion. On the eve of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, a free market economist with better statistics and arguments would have been useless against true-believing Bolshevik fanatics. Maybe Bolshevik economic theory was based on false stats and wrong notions, but their adherents were extremely righteous in their conviction and willing to kill/die for their beliefs. So, in the absence of social and political order, the most strong-willed and impassioned were likely to come out on top.

All the correct statistics and the rightness in assessing reality are on the side of anti-BLM people. They are right in their knowledge that blacks commit the most crime, blacks routinely kill blacks, blacks also kill lots of non-blacks, and that white police 'genocide' of blacks is a total fantasy, despite the general 'liberal' belief that 10,000 blacks are killed annually by the police. They are also right in pointing out that increased police presence significantly reduce black deaths. But that's about being right, not about being righteous. It doesn't challenge the prevailing idolatry in the West that blacks are somehow sacred, that their bodies are special, their souls are nobler, and etc. Indeed, even anti-BLM voices often make their arguments in service to Negrolatry, i.e. they argue against BLM to save sacred black bodies that have been killed in larger numbers due to BLM policies. Righteousness can be founded on rightness in facts and reality but not necessarily, as facts often get in the way in the way of a narrative of heroes and villains, saints and sinners. More often than not, righteousness is divorced from rightness because emotions and spirituality often don't comport with facts and reality. It's like romance doesn't always choose the right or better person based on objective criteria. No wonder women fall for dangerous but dashing men, and men fall for femme fatales. Righteousness can be sentimental, or it can be furious, even murderous. Often, it starts as a gentle glow but then burns hot and threatens to set the world on fire. Consider how Christianity began as sympathy for Jesus the Good Man but turned into a worldwide crusade that destroyed countless pagan temples and persecuted so many as witches and heretics(and also led to countless sectarian violence). And, consider THE PLANET OF THE APES series, especially ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES where the apes in the first movie find themselves transported to an earlier time on Earth when humans still ruled. A man figures out what happened and realizes that the presence of the talking apes could begin to fulfill the prophecy whereby apekind eventually supersedes mankind as the masters of the planet. So, based on his calculations in regards to the future, the talking apes must either be killed or, at the very least, sterilized. But the movie audience, presumably all human, is likely to side with the apes despite the knowledge that the talking apes' presence threatens the future of mankind. Why would the audience feel this way? Because even though the correct 'math' is on the side of the man who sees the need to kill or sterilize the apes, the heart of the audience feels for the apes. They don't want to see the madonna ape and her baby be killed by Neo-Herod man. The movie ends with the baby ape going 'mama, mama'. So, 'mama' wins over 'math' because it feels more righteous even though the right thing to do, in order to secure mankind's future, is to kill or sterilize the apes. If the righteousness in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES was on the level of sentiment, it turns into inflamed passion in CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, the hero of which is the ape-baby grown into the messianic Ape Avenger. (Of course, the religious-conservative orangutan elder was also right in THE PLANET OF THE APES as to the danger posed by humans to the ape world. Still, he was better-positioned than his human counterpart in ESCAPE because the ape world was tribal, traditional, and communal in their antipathy toward humans, whereas the thinking/talking apes in ESCAPE arrive in a liberal human order that, especially in the post-WWII and Cold War atmosphere, goes out of its way to be enlightened, tolerant, and compassionate. Thus, if the orangutan elder served the general will of the ape order, the human 'villain' in ESCAPE must act on his own against public sentiment.) Even when factually wrong, the righteous possess the drive to assert their will and go on the attack. Jussie Smollett pulled the insane 'hate hoax' because of his sense of righteousness. Being black, there's obviously more natural egotism, but our culture instills blacks with angry righteousness via academia, media, and official pronouncements. Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement narrative now counts for more than all other events in US history, and MLK is deemed greater than all great white historical figures combined; his only rivals are Harriet Tubman and George Floyd. For the righteous, it doesn't matter if something is factually correct or incorrect. What matters is they are on the 'right side of history', on the side of angels, and/or war with the demonic(as currently defined). So, stuff like facts are secondary to the cause, the agenda, the crusade. If facts are inconvenient, ignore them. If lies are useful, use them. As righteousness trumps all, reality exists to serve one's sacral vision of the world. It's like biology is a mere inconvenience to a tranny who insists he's a woman. As globo-homo has been sacralized, the homo or tranny's feelings are next-to-godliness, and reality must take a backseat to the passion of globo-homo. Likewise, no matter how many 'hate hoaxes' are exposed for what they are, the phenomenon continues because they aren't about facts but the faith of Negrolatry, Globo-Homo, or Jew-Worship. So, even when the latest 'hate hoax' is factually shown to have been the work of some lowlife Negro, Homo, or Jew, what matters is that it was for a good cause, to push the holy narrative, just like the Catholic Church, knowing full well that miracle sightings were bogus, pretended otherwise to keep the flock faithful. Such mentality now affects the entire media, even academia. Not that journalists and scholars aren't interested in facts and details, but they believe that the holiest of the holies are Negrolatry, Globo-Homo, and Jew-Worship, and therefore, even falsehoods that prop up the idolatry and narrative are preferable to facts that belie them. But then, there's another trick, that of 'prestige'. The establishment media and academia posture as being rational and factual by abusing their brand to dismiss any inconvenient fact, data, or idea/theory as 'discredited', thus persuading the less knowledgeable that certain things have been rejected by SCIENCE. New York Times uses its prestige to repeat over and over that Charles Murray's Bell Curve theory has been 'discredited' but without showing any scientific proof. For many people, official prestige is enough to sway them. (By the way, Murray is a perfect example of the weakness of rightness in the face of impassioned righteousness, like at Middlebury College. He may be right about lots of facts, but he's bloodless and passionless about his knowledge. At times, he's even defensive and lamenting, like Robert D. Putman who wrote BOWLING ALONE. Both scholars operate on the basis of, "I wish it wasn't true, but it is." It's impossible to be righteous with the right data with such wussy attitude. If rightness is to prevail, it must also be righteous and grow a pair.)

As a matter of factuality, BLM is a lie, which means policies based on it are nonsensical, and as such, they can only do harm as reality is willfully misunderstood and mishandled. It's like misdiagnosis in medicine can be harmful, even fatal. Imagine a lung cancer patient being ordered to smoke more as a cure. (Just think of what the lies about Covid-19 did to the world.) Despite all the lies, so many people in the US still chant BLM slogans and even put up BLM signs. They are saying and living the lie, but they do it anyway because they feel righteous. In contrast, even though anti-BLM people are on firm ground as far as reality is concerned, they are anxious or afraid to speak the truth. A few may defend the police and even put up support-the-police signs, but virtually NO ONE in the US puts up signs saying BLACKS MURDER BLACKS, BLACKS RAPE WHITES, BLACKS ATTACK NON-BLACKS, etc., all of which are infinitely truer about reality than the fantasy of BLM. Furthermore, any sane person should know by now that BLM policies led to even more black deaths, but BLM still remains the righteous position whereas critics of BLM are still apologetic about the truth. 'Black Lives Matter' is like China's 'Great Leap Forward', which was actually a great leap backward. More black lives were killed as the result of BLM, but such facts are secondary to the righteous rage of 'social justice' where blacks are saints and whites are demons. But white people weren't always this way. They used to be rationally race-ist and have a far more realistic assessment of group differences. Sure, there was also more bigotry of the stupid sort, the gratuitous nastiness of a**holes, but there was also a good deal of common sense, as well as a sure sense of white worth, white pride, European heritage, and historical meaning, all of which kept whites believing that they were of a race, culture, and civilization worth preserving and defending, even expanding. Fast forward to today, and many whites feel as though they're diseased with a 'sinful' and 'racist' identity that must be expunged somehow. There are still many whites feel otherwise, but even many of them lack the guts to stand up and speak up for their race. Furthermore, despite their lack of white self-loathing, they tend to give special consideration to Jews and blacks over their own kind, as if they feel they must prove they are not 'racist'. It's like Donald Trump relied heavily on white support but was always yammering about how his policies are so great for Jews and blacks. All of this is a powerful demonstration of the effect of undermining resistance in a people. It's like a person with severely compromised immunity can fall seriously ill or even die from a mild disease. A healthy person's body fends off all sorts of germs, even the nastiest ones, but an unhealthy person can succumb to even the common cold or mild case of flu. For him, it could be totally debilitating or even fatal.

Jews understand this very well. One way to destroy a powerful system is to assemble a powerful counter-force and go on the attack. All throughout history, a powerful domain was defeated by an even more powerful domain. In World War II, it took the combined might of UK, US, and USSR to destroy the powerful Nazi Germany, which had been unified into a powerful industrial fighting force. It's like it takes a powerful boxer or wrestler to defeat another powerful boxer or wrestler. To amass a powerful force and hurl it against another powerful force is no easy feat. It's like it's nearly impossible to fell a tree with one blow. So, what did people do through the ages? They took an ax and slowly chipped away at the tree. Then, when enough of the tree was chopped away at the base, it would fall from its own weight. Just leave it up to gravity. Indeed, no matter how big and powerful someone is, anyone(even a child or old lady) could beat him if he was debilitated by drugs or disease. It's like naturalists in the field can work on bears, lions, rhinos, and other dangerous animals once they'd been tranquilized. White America used to be united and powerful. What made it so? Racial consciousness, historical sense, pride of achievement, sense of community, and spiritual conviction(that its faith was the best one). There was no chance that Jews or any people could bring down such a power. Politically, economically, technologically, and militarily, the White West was the most powerful entity, invincible as a united force. Nothing even came close. Yet, even if it couldn't be beaten from the outside, it could be weakened from the inside. Anti-whites could enter into institutions and rewrite the laws. They could enter the academia & media and alter the narratives and idols/icons. They could use entertainment and leisure to make the white masses prioritize hedonism and decadence over morality, family, community, and nation. They could take over medicine and promote all sorts of drugs on which people become dependent. They could use education and communication to instill whites with feelings of 'guilt' and 'sin'. Information and Media could also be used to promote non-white, anti-white, Judeo-centric, Afro-centric, and/or homocentric idols/icons and narratives over pro-white, normative, and Eurocentric ones. Also, language and terminology could be used to turn certain words into incantations and truisms that were to be accepted as 'self-evident' than debated. "Diversity is our strength, diversity is our strength..." or "black lives matter, black lives matter", "white supremacism! white supremacism!" "Migrants Welcome, Migrants Welcome", ad infinitum.

Over time, despite still being the dominant majority in the West, despite having suffered no military invasions, despite continuing to hold lots of wealth, and despite having lots of people with talent, the White World came to be near-fatally weakened on the tribal, racial, communal, moral, spiritual, and national level. Forget about European pride when you've been told that a recently arrived Arab or African is just as 'European' as a European(if not more so) with ancestry going back 10,000s of yrs. Never mind racial unity when 'racism' is the greatest sin, and 'white racism' is the worst of all 'racisms', especially against blacks even when blacks act like thugs and louts. Forget about community when individualism is all that matters; your hedonism and pleasure matter more than family and society. Besides, if a community must be formed, it has to be around stuff like globo-homo or BLM as any theme with the slightest hint of being pro-white, genuinely Christian, or truly European is anathema in the Current Year. And what is morality when right-or-wrong is a matter of mindlessly praising and serving Jews, blacks, and homos? And forget about spirituality in a world where churches fly the homo flag or care more for the Negrolatry of George Floyd than about God and Jesus. With the White World degraded to such level, forget about nationalism. What nation is left to save or defend? It's been said the US defeated the Soviet Union without firing a single shot in the Cold War. World War III was averted but US nevertheless won over the communist system. Actually, this isn't really true. Soviet Union defeated itself because communism wasn't a workable system in the long run. Even if there had been no Cold War and even if the US and USSR had just ignored one another, USSR would have lost anyway(even without US hostility) because the economic system was too confused and inefficient, and without incentives. Soviet Union defeated itself, but the US took the credit. Imagine if someone you hate drinks himself to death, but you take credit of having beaten him. In contrast, the defeat or the fall of the White World is truly amazing. Unlike the USSR that practiced a deeply flawed economic system, white people in Europe, Canada, and the US had everything, most of them right. They had freedom and democracy, they had capitalism, they had social safety nets(a bit of socialism), they had national identity and pride, and lots of other things that make society work. And yet, whites have become increasingly defenseless against problems and challenges that should have been obvious to the naked eye and could have been handled with a bit of good sense. The fate of the Soviet Union was the failure of failure, whereas the fate of the White West is the failure of success, i.e. people with so many good ideas and systems failing to secure and strengthen them and instead, meekly and weakly, letting themselves to be nudged, prodded, pushed, and attacked with ever more ridiculous demands.

The White West was the most powerful force in the world. So powerful that even after WWI, it dominated the world. And even after WWII, the white-dominant US was the biggest power in the world by far. (And even the Soviet Union was white.) There was no force that could challenge or defeat it. And yet, its mechanism of self-preservation and resistance grew ever more compromised from the inside. Instead of being defeated outright in the physical/material/military sense, its inner sense of worth, confidence, meaning, and value came to be eroded over time... until there was a critical mass of whites who called for the outright destruction of whiteness and whites who were too spineless to stand up and say NO. In a way, what happened to Russians and White West during and after the Cold War is like the mirror opposite. During the Cold War, the America-led West grew richer and more abundant and developed the most powerful military. In contrast, the Soviets with a far smaller economy strained to keep up militarily and couldn't even fill up store shelves with basic items. By every metric of material success, the American-led West beat the Soviet Union by a mile. But, despite all such gains in the West, there was a ceaseless decline in patriotism, national identity, cultural heritage, civilizational confidence, communal unity, and racial sense. White Americans had more, ate more, and had more fun, but they increasingly became defensive about their identity lest they give offense as 'racists'. In contrast, while material conditions worsened in Russia under late communism and then truly hit rock bottom in the 1990s, Russians never felt there was anything wrong with being Russian, that Russians were burdened with special 'historical guilt', or that they were soul-sick for their ethnicity or nationality. Even when material conditions were at their worst in Russia, Russians didn't feel bad about their history, country, culture, and identity.

In the end, who wins out? A rich man who hates himself or a poor man who likes himself? Such a rich man, for all his wealth, begins to work against himself, whereas the poor man, despite his poverty, works for himself, to build himself up. In the long run, a man robbed of his soul is worse off than a man robbed of his possessions. It's even worse if the man robbed of his soul is told that hating himself is the highest good, or the new soulfulness. White Californians had it so good. In the same period, Russians had it so bad. But today, Russia is asserting its national will and taking back historical parts of Ukraine. In contrast, white Californians, over several decades, have been unwilling, thus unable, to do anything to stop their decline and demise even though there has been no military invasion of California. While Russians were doing something about the globalist oligarchs, White Californians let Jewish oligarchs take over everything and demand and dictate as if the Golden State was their fiefdom. While Russia reasserted control of its borderlands, white Californians, once over 80% of the population, have been reduced to 35% and keep on losing. While Russia said NO to globo-homo, white Californians are always at the mercy of whatever fads and fashions pushed by Jews, indeed as if they have no minds or souls of their own. When the Cold War ended, white Californians had so much more than the impoverished Russians. But whereas Russians never felt bad for being Russian, so many White Californians had no ethnic pride or racial sense of pride left. They lost their sense of self-preservation and resistance because Jews gained the key into the control centers of the West and reprogrammed the White Mind via the academia and media with negative feelings about 'white guilt', 'racism', 'homophobia', and etc. (While the Soviet Union was also 'anti-racist', the policy didn't come at the expense of Russian-ness, which was not insulted and excoriated as being uniquely guilty. Jews pulled that number first on Germans, then Anglos, and then rest of Western Europe.) And this poison is the new white identity or anti-identity all over the West, from US to Canada to Australia to EU. Indeed, one reason why current Europeans hate Russians(and Hungarians) with such virulence is that their new identity is one of self-negation. A German believes it's wrong for a true German, a white German, to feel pride of identity. No, 'German-ness' has value only in association to 'diversity'. If a black African becomes a 'German citizen', then and only then does German identity have value. For true/white Germans, German-ness is a burden, a curse stained with Holocaust Guilt. Only when outsiders become 'New Germans' does German-ness gain value as newcomers(especially if non-white) are without Holocaust Guilt. But it's not just the Germans. Almost all Western Europeans now feel and think this way. Their national anti-identity is one of self-negation-and-abnegation, of welcoming the non-European world to take over as the New Europe.

Then, it's hardly surprising that such people would be terribly triggered by Russians who affirm their national identity and heritage and culture. How dare they? Don't Russians know that 'good whites' work to undermine their own national identity, national borders, national heritage? It's become customary in Europe to feature black actors in historical roles of Europeans. Whiteness is BAD and is made GOOD only through self-negation and cucking to others. When such mentality dominates the 'rules-based order' of the West, of course Russia proudly asserting its position and projecting its power to secure its existence and future is deeply offensive. Don't be like those barbarians! Be like the British, Irish, or White Californians whose highest notion of good is winning approval from Jews. So, Jews were very smart. They knew that the White West was mighty and impossible to defeat and take over militarily, but it could be rendered defenseless if its resistance mechanism were altered from within. Jews didn't have to fire a shot. Just get the key and worm inside to the inner workings of white institutions and media that control the thoughts and feelings of the white masses, especially true in the era of electronic media where virtually everyone's mind is tuned to the wavelength of those who monopolize key media centers. Then, why should anyone be surprised about the sickening silence surrounding the horrific murder of Linda Frickey? She's white, and whiteness is bad. Don't resist against black savagery! That's 'racist'! Gee, maybe those blacks(called 'teens') did us a favor by ridding the world of some of this shitty 'whiteness', of which Linda Frickey was a part. What a world we live in. White American cowards who don't lift a finger to protect their own from black savages and illegal invaders get all triggered over Russia finally pushing back against Jewish use of NATO as battering ram against Russia. Death Of The Jewish Pencil - Brother Nathanael