Who Is the Real Victim of Black Sexual Conquest? The White Female or the White Male?

Many on the White Right paint a social portrait where black males are committing wave after wave of sexual crimes against white women. According to this narrative most sexual encounters between blacks and whites are violent, with black males brutally raping, beating, and even killing white women. White women are presented as the primary victims of black sexual aggression, and for that reason, white males are reminded of their duty to unite and save their mothers, sisters, and daughters from black ‘savages’.
There is some degree of truth to this, insofar most interracial or interracist sexual violence in this country is black male-on-white female. Government statistics are pretty grim, with black-on-white rape outnumbering white-on-black rape by a zillion to one.
　
But, there is a fundamental flaw and a repressed denial in the White Right interpretation. The fact is most sexual encounters between black and white are consensual, with white women as enthusiastic partners. White women seek out black men no less than black men seek out white women. Of course, this doesn’t apply to all white women nor even to the majority of them, but their numbers are growing, and among younger white girls, it’s very possible that their IDEAL beau is someone like Will Smith, Obama, or some other black celebrity.
　
Given this reality, one could argue that the REAL victims of black-white sex are white males, not white females. The real problem is not black males raping white women but increasing numbers of white women abandoning white men and going off with black men. And the taboo against such union is all but gone. Indeed, the new taboo is criticizing miscegenation–especially involving blacks–as detrimental to white civilization. A white celebrity going with a black guy can proudly declare her love for the Negro, but no famous white person would dare say white people should sexually stick together. He or she would be castigated, stigmatized, and tarred-and-feathered by the leftist Jewish and liberal Wasp-controlled media.
There had once been laws against miscegenation. Even after such laws were repealed, there had still been an unspoken taboo against white women going with black men; respectable, popular, cool, or good white girls just didn’t do that.
But, this taboo grew weaker and weaker as sports became more dominated by blacks. Given that sports is America’s National Pastime, those commanding the field became the new archetype of masculinity.
In the beginning of the movie PATTON, the eponymous general says "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." He says Americans admire the toughest boxer, fastest runner, etc. Well, in the battlefield of sports–which Americas are obsessed with–, blacks were the winners and whites were the losers. Over time, white women couldn’t fail to notice that blacks were the hometown heroes to cheer for while white boys were the benchwarmers. Of course, whites owned many of the sports franchises, but many of these whites actually happened to be liberal Jews pushing a miscegenist agenda.
And in the realm of popular culture, black males seem to sing and dance better and have more commanding voices.
Even so, one could argue that white women were overwhelmingly sticking with their men until the late 80s and early 90s when two crucial things happened: the rise of hip-hop and the movie "Jungle Fever". Prior to the rise of hip-hop, black musical acts, though soulful and talented, had less appeal to young white people. Pre-rap black music wasn’t necessarily for young people but for all black people who wanted to boogie and dance. Therefore, most white kids stuck to white rock whose appeal was more brazenly youth-oriented and rebellious. But, hip-hop and rap changed all that. This was the music of black youth rebellion. It was nasty, vicious, badass, cool, hip, raunchy, and sexual. It had the assaultive rage of punk, the raunchy excess of heavy metal, and thuggish sneer of gangster movies. Hip hop caught on like a wild fire among young white people in the late 80s and 90s, becoming THE mainstream music among the majority of white kids.
　
Just as important was the movie JUNGLE FEVER by Spike Lee. Though we like to accuse Jewish Hollywood of promoting miscegenation, this wasn’t really the case prior to Lee’s movie. Sure, there had been interracist films such as GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, but Hollywood in general maintained racial divisions.
Indeed, one of the biggest cultural phenomenon of the 70s and 80s was the Rocky movies where the Italian Stallion beat up black guys and won the devotion of the lovely Adriane. Hollywood, either out of fear of white backlash or market conformism, preferred not to touch the theme of interracism. And when it had, it was in cheap blaxploitation B-films that existed under the radar or in overly stuffy respectable movies like GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, which was not a jungle fever movie at all but one that argued that white-black marriage is wonderful because a black guy is just a white guy with black skin. Sidney Poitier is unbelievably poised and dignified in that movie. GUESS totally ignored the darker and primal emotions at the base of black(male)/white(female) relationships.
　
Spike Lee didn’t ignore that reality but spilled the beans with jiveass boldness–though it must be said even Lee played it somewhat safe, presenting a scenario of a black male/Italian-American female sexual relationship than the more taboo-busting black male/blonde white female sexual relationship. There is a sense among both white and blacks that blue-eyed blonde women are the epitome of white beauty and purity, and therefore the greatest violation of whiteness is for a non-white male–especially black–to ravage the sacred hole of the blonde goddess that should be reserved only for the noble and proud ‘Aryan’ sexual spear. A dark-haired Spanish woman going with a Negro is less troubling to most white males than a blonde blue-eyed woman going with a Negro. Anyway, Spike Lee’s movie shattered taboos when it came to the issue of the true nature of black/white sexual relationships. His movie demonstrated that black/white lust was not color-blind but all about color or race. Black men are attracted to white women because white women are generally more feminine than black women, and white women are attracted to black men because black men are generally more masculine than white men.
　
Except for free thinkers like Steve Sailer, most white males have been afraid to address this issue in an honest way. It is too hurtful to their pride. So, they spin the narrative where all black males are brutes out to rape white women. It presents white women as helpless, duped, or naive victims of black sexual criminality or doomed consensual relationships because black men will almost always turn out to be abusive and sadistic.
So, David Duke has given us many stories about how an innocent white girl went with a black guy, only to be beaten and murdered in the most savage way imaginable. The suggestion is that the ONLY reason why white women would ever go with black men is because of Political Correctness or Jewish control of popular culture. Supposedly, PC fills white girls with racial guilt and self-doubt; therefore, they seek out non-white men to give birth to non-white babies, thus committing racial suicide in order to wash away the sin of white guilt. Or, Jewish controlled Hollywood and music industry brainwashes white women to go gaga over black dudes.
　
Though there is some truth to both assertions, it ignores a fundamental fact. The main reason for black male/white female sexual attraction is NATURAL and EVOLUTIONARY. Darwinism can be used to justify both racial unity AND miscegenation. Even if liberal Jews didn’t control the media and even if PC didn’t rule the land, there would be much natural attraction between black men and white women. Why? Because males naturally desire the prettier females–and white women are generally prettier than black women–and females naturally desire the more masculine males. Look at the natural world of animals, and males of any species are always fighting over three things: food, territory, and females. It’s all about ‘land and pussy’. And females ALWAYS go with the stronger males who triumph over other males. In the modern world, the competition among males take place in the sporting field and in popular culture. Black rappers have proven themselves tougher, meaner, and more badass than white rockers. Black movie stars have proven themselves more charismatic and commanding than guys like Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis. In politics, Obama defeated John McCain–and would have defeated others as well. In the Democratic Primaries, Obama defeated Hillary Clinton because he was, in the terms of the natural consciousness, the male buck while she was the female who should be humped by the top male. Obama first easily destroyed the white liberal pussyboy John Edwards. When it came down to Hillary and Obama, most liberals chose the charismatic male over the duck-like female. Though liberals take pride in their rationalism, enlighten values, and intellectualism, the real reason for their attraction to Obama was animalistic and instinctual. The herd submitted to the guy who seemed to have more leadership charisma as the alpha male. Of course, Obama came across as intelligent too. The animal side of us worships the strong guy, the modern side of us admires the smart guy. People look up to superstar football players and superstar computer geeks–like the boys at Google or Jewgle. If the problem of most black politicians was they were all tough noise and not enough brains, Obama carefully mixed black charisma with the geek chic he picked up from places like Harvard. He mixed black charismatics and Jew-esque intellectics. Jews, we all know by now, have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of brainpower. Blacks have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of muscle and musical power. So, it was clever on the part of Obama and his Jewish supporters to create the image of the new messiah based on the merging of badass black and radical Jewish characteristics.
　
To be sure, evolutionary impulses can be contradictory. There are plenty of white women loyal to white men, and this devotion could be explained in terms of evolutionary instinct too: a kind of herd or tribal mentality to the survive as a group. But, another kind of evolutionary instinct seeks to pass down the genes of the toughest and most virile males.
Suppose there is a deer herd dominated by a certain male. The females in the herd are bound to the toughest male and sexually give themselves to him. But, suppose another male appears, fights the leader of the herd, and defeats him. The female deer will NOT remain loyal to the defeated male who had once been their sexual master. They will give themselves to the new master. So, to a certain extent, the rising tide of black male/white female unions is a part of process rooted in evolution. When blacks were non-existent, invisible, or marginalized in white society, white women admired and were attached to the apparent superiority of white men. But, when blacks gained greater freedom in a modern democracy committed to EQUALITY FOR ALL REGARLESS OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR, they began to demonstrate that they can defeat the white men in spheres that most arouse the sexual passions of women–sports, music, performance, and etc. Thus, the sexual migration of white females to black males is not only something engineered and approved by Organized Jewry but the product of evolutionary impulses. If whites were a sizable minority in Japan, much the same would happen. Many Japanese women would likely and NATURALLY prefer the taller and beefier white males to the short and scrawny Japanese males. Indeed, though there is no Jewish control of the media in Japan, a lot of Japanese women fantasize about white males and black males. Why? Women prefer the more masculine male.
Of course, humans are more than animals. Most women will not simply prefer a mindless brute over a weaker guy. Women also look for qualities such as decency, sensitivity, intelligence, knowledge, judiciousness, integrity, etc. After all, even most white women who sow their wild oatesses by jumping into bed with black men will eventually marry a more stable white guy as marriage is NOT ONLY about sex. Madonna may have f***ed the entire NBA, but she settled down with a white guy. Even so, at least 1/3 of sexuality is still animal, brutish, and elemental.
　
So, we need to ask again, who is the real victim in this sexual equation? White males or white females? If white females are indeed the primary victims of black male sexuality, how come far many more white males are opposed to interracism than white females are? Though there is legitimate and sincere white male anger at black criminal acts against white females, the GREATER anxiety and anguish is over that many white women have WILLINGLY thrown themselves at black males. Just look at all the white girls who will stand in long lines just to bed down with a rap star, basketball player, or Tiger Woods. Just look at all the white women who wet their pants over Barack Obama. Indeed, black women are less impressed with Barack as the black men they know in their lives are many times more ‘charismatic’ and badass. White girls, in contrast, perceive and measure Barack in comparison to the white males in their lives, and Barack somehow comes across as more masculine, cool, self-assured, and etc.
Indeed, white male anger over black/white sexual unions is seen by white females not as a sign of toughness or manhood but of insecurity, frustration, fear, and resentment.
　
Though the white right talks endlessly about the danger posed to white women by black thugs, the greater fear is that many white women might be perfectly happy or happier with black males than with white males. Stories of black male assault on white women are, perversely enough, kind of reassuring to the white right as confirmations of black-as-brutal-beast. Also, white rightists may take some pleasure in the idea of a white woman getting her comeuppance by betraying the males of her own kind–since the skanky white whore willingly chose a black guy, good for her if she got beaten to a pulp by the ‘black ape’.
　
But, when white women find happiness, pleasure, and stability in relationships with black men, it is truly threatening to the racial position of the white right. They have less of a rationale to argue against miscegenation. This is the REAL danger and threat of interracism.
It is, indeed, the PSYCHO-SEXUAL RAPE of the white MALE. When a black male struts his stuff and the white female willingly chooses him over the white guy, the white male has been pussified and left high and dry. He has been betrayed and abandoned. They can either sulk in impotent white right rage or celebrate the black male/white female union as the way it should be for both natural and historical reasons. Natural, because the sexier and tougher black males should get the top females by the rules of the jungle. Historical, because the ideology of liberal white guilt says that since white males had conquered and exploited the peoples-of-color, it is now time for the reverse to happen. Thus, pussyboy Ken Burns has become the posterboy of a good darling liberal white boy who defers to black superiority in athleticism, sexuality, and creativity–JAZZ and UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS.

The Duped and the Duplicitous. The Secret of Obama’s "Popularity"

There are several reasons why Obama has won over many Americans, but I shall consider two. There are two kinds of Obama supporters. There is the genuinely duped, the kind of people who really look at him as the messiah of CHANGE and HOPE for whatever pitiful reason–ignorance, sappiness, guilt, fear, anxiety, etc. But, there is also the duplicitous, the kind of people who know exactly who and what Obama is and feel that they know the Grand Game Plan. It is the combination of images of radiance(for the duped) and of radicalism(for the duplicitous) that has fueled Obama to power. Unless one understands this duality, one cannot grasp the essence of the Obama phenomenon.

We have seen countless images of swooning crowds at the feet of Obama. He is their Jesus, their Leader, their Lord, their Prophet. He might even be their Will Smith or Oprah. Many of these people tend not be well-informed nor too bright. Many of them are young, which means they are impressionable and prone to social and cultural pressure. (Though young are said to be rebellious, most happen to be slavish to peer pressure; even oddballs who take pride in their deviation from The Norm are acutely aware of their social exile, and as such, even their rebellion is a form of emotional slavishness. They need to prove themselves out of a sense of inadequacy.) Many of these people surely heard of reports of Obama’s sleazy Chicago politics or his many lies. But, they are essentially emotional people who respond to images and sounds than think rationally about issues. Once they’ve latched onto Obama, he’s their ‘rock star’ hero; and, whenever in doubt, they go into the ‘say it aint so, Joe’ mode. They WANT to believe that Obama is the savior. This desire is so powerful that evidence to the contrary doesn’t make much impact. The ONLY way they can be woken out of their doldrums is if the media finally do their job and go after Obama for all his lies and expose and shame him. Only if the authority higher than Obama–the liberal Jewish-run media–says he’s no good will the sheeple who worship him finally come to realize he’s a false god. Many of these people are good people, fine people. They are like the dupes in "MEET JOHN DOE". They so desperately want to believe in hope and change and a bright future where everyone gets along–especially whites and blacks–that they don’t want to know the truth about Obama. It would break their hearts and force them to think and use their brains–something they are not equipped to do. As they happen to be intellectually limited, they would rather believe in mantras and symbols. Whenever they hear bad things about Obama, they pray,‘say it aint so, O’. ONLY IF the media seriously go after Obama and expose him in a serious way will the minds of these people change. Remember that in "MEET JOHN DOE", the rich and powerful had to unite and expose Doe as a ‘fake’ before the minds of people finally changed. Obama supporters are just like that.

This of course raises a question. How can so many people be so stupid? Well, they just are. Why do so many Americans prefer stupid TV shows and movies to serious literature and art cinema? And, this is a problem in both camps. Remember that conservatives went with the mediocre George W. Bush because he promoted himself as a pious man of God and a ‘regular guy’–though he was born with a silver spoon his mouth. Many people are dumb.
But you may ask, ‘but, how come so many intelligent and well-educated people also support Obama?’ Why did 50% of upper middle class people vote for Obama? Why did the majority of very rich people support Obama? Why was Obama’s support so overwhelming among the Ivory Tower crowd in the academia.
There are many reasons for this, and let me run them down as fast as possible. (1) Higher education these days means higher indoctrination where thinking CORRECTLY counts for more than thinking FREELY. (2) People with most education tend to come from the privileged class, which means they have had little contact with REAL reality, and as such, are prone to be more naively idealistic. (3) The rich, at least white gentile kind, tend to feel a degree of guilt and ‘social obligation’ since this country was founded upon Christian ethos which says ‘greed is evil’. So, one could argue that even intelligent and well-educated people can be duped or can dupe themselves. They are human after all.

But, there’s another reason why well-educated people–often in influential or powerful positions–support Obama. It’s not so much that they are duped but that they are duplicitous. Conservatives sometimes wonder why so many well-educated and intelligent people aren’t troubled by the fact that Obama is of the Saul Alinsky school. Anyone who has paid attention to the news knows that Obama’s intellectual influences and political associations are pretty radical. We know that Alinsky-ism isn’t open and honest but subversive, cunning, and deceitful. It is the strategy of shrewd and devious ‘progressives’ manipulating the gullibility and stupidity of Middle Americans. Alinsky deviated from other radicals and came to the conclusion that Middle Americans had to serve as the clay for revolution. America didn’t have masses of poor, and the classic working class was shrinking. So, no great social change could be achieved without the support or involvement of the vast Middle Class. Alinsky-ism was about playing to Middle Class anxieties, fears, doubts, guilt, naivete, and hope. This didn’t mean that Alinsky-ism was pro-Middle Class or embraced American Middle Class values. Instead, it sought to change Middle Class values by pandering to Middle Class fears, anxieties, and hopes. Radicals would cut their hairs, act all-American, put on respectable three piece suits, and go among Middle Americans, work through mainline churches, and penetrate Middle Class culture. Through control of education and media, they would gradually persuade Middle Americans that there was something fundamentally lacking or wrong in their lives and in America. This missing element could be economic, spiritual, moral, or psychological.
Alinksky-ism is the most dangerous kind of subversive-ism as it comes with a hug and a smile, flowers and chocolates; it is radicalism made(or feigning to be) respectable and ‘safe’. Just as some radical leftists in the US served international communism by pretending to be for PEACE, Alinsky radicals served their hidden brand of radicalism by pretending to be for Middle Americans. (Of course, some of these radicals were indeed very much into Middle American life and fooled themselves about being radicals only to add some socio-intellectual spice to their humdrum lives. How much cooler if a suburban or yuppie couple flattered themselves as being part of some intellectual underground!)
We know that Obama and his close IDEOLOGICAL associates don’t care for Middle America. Obama is, at heart, a black internationalist and a stealth Marxist. He wants to take white wealth and give it to ‘exploited’ people-of-color around the world, mostly to black Americans and black Africans. Of course, Obama knows he can’t do this overnight as people will wake up and see his black ass for what it is. So, he’s in the Jackie Robinson mode of politics. He knows that national politics still has a long way to go to catch up to the NFL and NBA level, which are so black-dominated that blacks can say and do as they please. Recall that when blacks first entered professional sports, they were met with fear and suspicion from white players and fans, and so they had to act like they were nice gentle fellows who simply wanted to play ball and get along. So, we had guys like Jackie Robinson as the face of Integration in sports. Whites were assured that some nice Negroes would come and play, and that would be that. Well, look at the NBA and NFL today!
Obama knows that national politics is still in the age of Jackie Robinson, so he smiles a lot and acts partly like a nice and polite ‘House Negro’. But, it’s all just an act.

Now, good many educated people must know what Obama is really about. They read books, watch the news, read magazines, and etc. Even if the media are slanted to the Democratic Party and favor Obama, anyone with any brains and knowledge should know what he really is, what he really stands for, and where he came from. So, why do intelligent and well-educated white liberals and leftists go along with a man who built his career on deception, manipulation, two-faced-ness, and shrewd cunning? It’s because they find it all very exciting and feel that they themselves are IN on the Big Lie. This may sound crazy. One may indeed ask why intelligent and well-educated people would find pleasure or seek pride in participating in a Grand Lie. It’s because radicalism has long been very chic and hip among well-educated folks. You and I may see radicals as a bunch of extremists, but educated folks and intellectuals think RADICALISM is where real truth(or the spirit of truth) is, what the grand future holds, where real values lie, where real courage and purity can be found, where no compromises are made. For radicals, subversion is the necessary weapon against a society that is all too compromised–and requires everyone to compromise and conform to the oppressive Middle Norm to get along. (According to the Frankfurter left-wing Jewish intellectuals, Middle America offered false freedom, sham liberty, and a form of oppression that fooled people into thinking they were free through commodity-centric consumerism and socially normative conformism where one gauged one’s worth by keeping up with the Joneses. Though leftist and radical, this theory expressed the contempt and snobbery of European elite culture toward ‘materialistic’ Americans. For European intellectuals, materialism was a philosophy for understanding the world as it really operated. For Americans, materialism was a way of life where one’s happiness and ‘freedom’ were measured by how much material wealth one accumulated and enjoyed like silly little children. So, even as Frankfurter School intellectuals were egalitarians, they exhaled elitist contempt for mass society. According to Marxism, capitalism was supposed to make the masses poorer, and intellectuals were supposed to lead them to freedom. But, in America, the great masses had no desire for revolution since they ‘never had it so good’. Through the prism of Marxist theory, it was not acceptable that American capitalism had improved the lives of workers and ordinary people and expanded their freedoms. Since Frankfurters couldn’t find open oppression, they looked for invisible oppression in the hidden structures of society and people’s thoughts. From this arose Radical Feminism which argued that housewives were psychologically like Holocaust victims and Alinksy-ism which said Middle Americans were slaves but just didn’t know it because they ‘had it so good’. Since Middle America could not be convinced that their lives were horrible based on material evidence, the left had to play on emotional and psychological issues, which was why Marxism and Freudian psychology merged in the social sciences dominated by the Left.) Since subversion is deceitful, it merely pretends to compromise while concealing the radicalism within. Real compromise in a democracy is where two people openly and honestly come to an understanding and accept the compromise as just. Leftist radicals don’t think or act this way. Alinsky told his students to act as if to compromise, all the while gaining more and more power until the day arrives when they can take total power. For people who really believe in democracy, compromise is a worthy goal. For radicals, it is merely a means in order to gain greater and greater power untilthey can grab ALL the power. Salvador Allende of Chile was that kind of radical. So is Hugo Chavez. The reason why Chavez moves gradually is not because he likes to compromise and work with the other side. Instead, he wants to make it seem(especially to outsiders) as though the people democratically granted him ALL the power. Similarly, Hitler was a radical with a purist ideology who employed democratic compromise only as a tool in order to gain more and more power so as to eventually do everything his way.
We must never confuse compromise-as-goal with compromise-as-means. The former is made in good faith, the latter in bad faith. People who embrace compromise-as-goal regard it as a hallmark of a true democracy. People who employ compromise-as-means look forward to the day when they no longer need to compromise since they will have ALL the power. US is moving in that direction, not necessarily because of the rise of Obama but because of the increasing power of the liberal and left-wing Jews. Consider an average white goy whose total wealth may be around $30,000 in the bank. Compare that to people like Michael Bloomburg who’s worth $15 billion. That means that Michael Bloomburg’s net worth is equal to that of 500,000 white goyim. One rich liberal Jew = half a million white goyim. There are many liberal Jews with that kind of wealth and power, and they’ve come to own all the networks. Even the so-called conservative movies are made by liberal Hollywood, which means the profits made from conservative ticket buyers go to liberal Jews just the same. Many conservatives appreciated Spielberg’s "Saving Private Ryan" as a patriotic movie, and 100s of millions of dollars flowed into Spielberg’s coffers. So, how did Spielberg the liberal Jew honor this country that did so much for Jews? He helped elect Barack Obama, the stealth Marxist. Nearly half of all billionaires in the US are Jews, and most of them are liberal. Even so-called conservative businesses like Walmart are largely managed by top Jews, most of whom are liberal. Same is true of Fox News. We can grumble all we want, but the fact is Jews are smarter. Worse, conservative culture is largely stupid, un- and anti-creative, and simple-minded.

Anyway, affluent whites grew up watching movies, listening to popular music, and getting fancy education. All those things inculcate and celebrate radicalism as cool, cutting-edge, badass, heroic, exciting, far-out, and groovy. Some got radical chic or radical hip through Matrix movies, some got it through punk music, some got it through Che t-shirts, some got it through Rolling Stone magazine, some got it from their highschool teachers, some got it from books, some picked it up in college.
Frankfurters were wrong about Americans not being free, but they were right about American popular culture producing mental and spiritual zombies, gimps, and airheads. Intellectually vapid and spiritually empty in a vast pop cultural and consumerist wasteland, many Americans–everyone from college students to housewives glued to the Tube–were bound to be won over by at least certain aspects of radicalism. This transformation also involved many conservatives. After having grown up in the staid or banal culture of Christian fundamentalism, small town hick values, or colorless suburbia, many kids raised as conservatives found meaning in radicalism.
Generally, leftists own radicalism, but there’s also radicalism on the right, especially libertarianism and Ayn-Rand-ism. Libertarianism’s main attraction is its purity and un-compromised ideologic. Though libertarianism will never gain power, it makes a lot of rightists feel good about their un-compromised ‘integrity’. Libertarians don’t seem to understand that their brand of radicalism is useless for gaining power because it is anti-statist. How can you gain political power if you’re anti-government? Just as anarchism lost out to the communism, libertarianism always loses out to liberalism. All libertarianism can do is appeal to people to be more self-reliant, but truth be told, many people don’t want to be self-reliant as it means not only more freedom but more responsibility. They would rather shove the burden and cost to government. Of course, some people choose libertarianism precisely because it has no hope of ever coming to power. Some radicals want power, but some radicals just want to feel nobler-than-thou and pretend that the reason why power is denied them is because they are just too good, too smart, too pure, and too deep for the stupid crass world. Lost-Cause-Libertarianism is really just a form of intellectual-moral-narcissism.

Anyway, the reason why so many intelligent and well-educated people support Obama is they see themselves not as dupes but as the dupers or ones participating in Obama’s dupe-a-rube routine. They see Obama, a student of Alinsky, as their leader and comrade in hoodwinking the entire nation, especially Middle America. But, one may ask, "didn’t many of these smart and well-educated white Americans come from Middle America? Aren’t they subverting their own world and their own power?" Yes and no. Yes, many of them are indeed the products of Middle America. But, there is Middle America as economic status and Middle America as heart-and-soul. Many economic Middle Americans are culturally, spiritually, and politically ‘radical’ since they grew up on stuff like Matrix, rock music and its related politics, liberal or leftist education. Just as many rich people have been leftists and many poor people have been rightists, it is wrong to think that economic status = political/spiritual/cultural identity. If such were the case, Karl Marx, born and raised in privilege, would not have become a radical socialist. Entire generations of kids have been raised on left-colored music, movies, magazines, textbooks, teachers, media. Though Hitler is said to have been evil, evil, and evil by our media and academia, the same has not been accorded to the mass killers of the Left. Though Stalin and Mao are remembered for their evil, the general liberal line is that they committed evil because they betrayed their leftist principles. In other words, Hitler was evil because he was indeed a true rightist whereas Stalin and Mao were evil because they weren’t properly leftist. So, rightism is evil for what it is whereas leftism can be evil only for what’s done in its name. In and of itself as an idea, leftism is supposedly of the highest moral order.
Marxism has a place in the West similar to that of Christianity. Christians feel that they cannot live up to the highest principles of Christianity and that trying to create a Christian utopia may actually do more harm. They reject theocracy not because a world ruled by God’s laws would be bad but because man cannot be trusted to rule the world according to God’s wisdom. Even so, Christians believe that Jesus was a perfect man and that it would be nice IF INDEED we could all live in a perfect Christian world. In other words, the problem is not in the ideas of Christianity but in the sinful nature of man who makes a mockery of those ideas.
Liberals and leftists feel the same way about Marxism. Though they acknowledge the miserable history of communism and accept the fact that communism failed as a totalitarian or ideocratic system, they believe that Marxism as an idea still holds the highest principles of Human Justice. In other words, it’s no so much that communism failed mankind but that mankind failed (to live up to) communism. Liberals and leftist reject communism or Marxism not because they think it’s a bad idea but because they think it’s an unattainable Great Idea. In contrast, fascism is regarded as evil in both ideology and practice(as opposed to communism which is supposedly good in ideology but was bad in practice–because stupid man couldn’t live up to its noble and demanding ideals).

So, even as liberals and leftist reject classic communism, they spiritually long for the Marxist promise. This isn’t surprising since man is naturally ‘spiritual’ and seeks something to cling to with his deep emotions and prophetic imagination. Christianity isn’t enough for their spiritual needs because (1) liberals and leftists are supposed to be rationalist and scientific and immune to ‘superstition’ (2) Christianity is 2000 yrs old, too old for modern people with a fetish for the New. (Though Marxism too is pretty old by now, it’s been repackaged time and time again as a fresh idea. Consider that with the recent financial collapse, some liberals are pushing Marx as relevant again (3) much of Christianity is culturally associated with the Right.
So, liberals and leftists prefer Marx to Jesus. Even liberals and leftists who readily admit that Marx got it wrong maintain that he was a man of the highest intellect, moral character, seriousness, noble intentions, and so on. Just as Moses has been revered by Jews for having led the way despite his major flaws, even ‘progressives’ who now admit that Marx had been wrong on crucial issues and ideas still revere him for what he stood and strived for. They believe that even if Marx ultimately proved to be wrong, his bold and determined search for Truth should be the template for all true intellectuals with a moral stake in the world.

What appeals to many liberals and leftists about Marx is his total devotion to the radical calling. Marx chose the life of a ‘starving radical’ through and through(though, to be sure, he had rich patrons who supported him time and time again). Most liberals and leftists feel that they ‘sold out’ and feel guilty and compromised as a result. They grew up with fancy ideas about justice and saving-the-world by gaining wealth and power, but most of them turn out to be affluent and privileged professionals or businessmen. And, even the less successful spend a lot of time scrambling to make more money and get ahead in life. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, but something in their education and cultural experiences/preferences informs them that it’s so lame and a waste of a life to be a privileged materialistic yuppie who lives the Ugly American lifestyle. They long to be AUTHENTIC, and you can’t attain that brand by being a middle class middle of the road white yuppie!! The only way you can buy some Authenticity is by supporting some ‘radical’ cause, listening to Afro-pop and calling for more aid to Africa, going on travels to less developed places around the world where pristine cultures haven’t yet been spoiled by rich materialistic Western people–as opposed to ‘caring’, ‘sensitive’, ‘cool’, and ‘progressive’ Western people such as themselves.
Just as materialistic and compromised Christians attend church on Sunday and seek forgiveness for their sins and trespasses, modern liberals and leftists pray to Marx and Martin(the Noble Negro) for their compromises with the materialist ‘greed’.
Che Guevara is also very appealing to modern liberals and leftists because he, like Marx, supposedly went all the way and compromised nothing. If Marx was intellectually 100% committed and courageous, Che was physically 100% committed and courageous. He died in the jungles of Bolivia, and attained the status of new Jesus for the New Left. Of course, most actual liberals and leftist are more like Naomi Klein. They want their yuppie privilege, fancy condos, fine dining, expensive coffee, travels and tourism to exotic places, and etc. Though politically, culturally, and spiritually raised to be leftists, they are the beneficiaries of the ‘capitalist-imperialist’ system. So, they latch onto something that gives them meaning and assures them that they are indeed involved in the radical revolution, if only indirectly or in spirit. Some affluent ‘progressives’ find radical redemption by vacationing in Cuba, smoking Cuban cigars, going to rock concerts where the star-as-saint yammers between songs on saving the rain forest/feeding the hungry in Africa/impeaching George W. Bush.

Anyway, the point is that many leftists and liberals know what Obama is about and up to. They know all about his Alinsky past and his far left sympathies. They know that Obama is a subversive radical. But, this excites than disturbs them since they too grew up with the notion that being ‘radical’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘subversive’, and so forth is cool. Indeed, being straight and forthright are considered white, middle-class, and lame. Educated people who listen to NPR and watch PBS prefer slick and sly jazz to straight-forward country music or even sober & dignified classical music. Obama is a radical slickster and jive-master, but being a subversive, he also knows how to feign earnestness. He knows how to pull the Will Smith schtick in ‘Six Degrees of Separation’.
That’s what makes him subversive as opposed to people like Malcolm X who were radical and anti-mainstream but not subversive. Malcolm X was straight forward in everything he said, regardless of whether they happen to be true or false, sane or insane. In contrast, Obama always wears masks, and he must be understood in terms of an actor in a blockbuster movie financed and written by liberal Jews. He’s their Will Smith in politics.
Anyway, though ‘subversive’ has negative connotations for conservatives, it’s a badge of honor for leftists and even many liberals. It means being cutting-edge, daring, cool, exciting, rebellious, slick, tricky, witty, and brilliant. Just as con-men take pride in their ability to trick people, many ‘progressives’ take pride in fooling and hoodwinking the lame, banal, bland, and dull white middle class. ‘Progressive’ subversives also take moral pride since they believe their deviously naughty fun will bring about ‘social justice’. (It’s a matter of having the cake and eating it too. They get to have fun playing bad boys and girls rebelling against The System, but miraculously the end result of all this conceited and contrived game is supposed to be the Better Future. Of course, there has long been a connection between the super-rich and the radicals, not least because the super-rich are vain, narcissistic, and want to share in the fun of being ‘progressive’ and ‘revolutionary’ in the locomotive seat of history. So, it’s not surprising that many rich people have tried to appropriate the radical style, rhetoric, outlooks, and manners. In a way, the rise of Obama is the product of an understanding between the liberal super-rich business class and the super-privileged Ivy League radicals. Obama is like the most expensive political doll built or bought by the super-rich class who, having amassed tremendous fortunes in the past 30 yrs, want to play at being big government socialists by pulling the (purse)strings of their toy radical puppet. In this sense, Obama is to the rich liberal Jews what Will Smith is to Hollywood Jews.)
It’s surprising that many ‘progressives’ come from the white middle class, but it’s not hard to understand why that is. Having come from Middle America, they feel lame and inadequate(as middle class America is depicted that way by popular culture and higher education), and many seek meaning and excitement though radical politics, subcultures, or avant-garde intellectualism. Look on youtube and you find a whole bunch of bedroom philosophers and kitchen table revolutionaries speaking into the digicam to prove that they are not just another lame middle class person but a member of the avant garde or some cool secret society or movement. And so, when conservatives point out Obama’s Alinsky past, many ‘progressives’ think it’s so cool that Obama is a subversive, wink wink.

Of course, there is genuine awe and admiration for Obama on the part of many liberals and leftists, among both the duped and duplicitous. But, how can the duplicitous who know what Obama is really about look upon him as a ‘shining prince’? It’s because the human mind is infinitely complex and can fool itself in countless ways. Yes, it’s possible for even cynical and subversive duplicitous individuals to fall under the spell. Man is half intellect, half emotions.
‘Progressives’ have long sought a racial healer or a deliverer who embodies the positive qualities of Kennedy, King, FDR, Lincoln, Oprah, and Malcolm X. So came Obama, the master of many masks. (Even makers of masks can fall for their own masks, just like liars can come to believe in their own lies, and fabulists can fall for their own fantasies. It’s like the spider is forever the prisoner of the web it spins.) Also, no matter how subversive or cynical ‘progressives’ may be, their deepest core is enervated by a naive quasi-religious view of world salvation. Leftists may be tricky and sly on the outside, but their inside hugs-n-tugs an innocent child who wants the world to be perfect. So, strange as it may seem, not only the duped but even the duplicitous can get carried away by the Obama cult.
This was true of communist movements as well. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, many communist members were subversive, ruthless, hard-nosed, and pitiless. But, many of them did indeed believe in the shining myth of Stalin EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW that Stalin gained and maintained his power through the dirtiest and the most sinister of means. All people need something to stake their faith in, especially idealists. Therefore, even people who would later be crushed by Stalin died believing in the noble myth of the all-knowing Big Brother.
Similarly, on the one hand, many ‘progressives’ are deeply skeptical, sly, cynical, and cunning people. They are subversive. On the other, they are naive and quasi-religious idealists intoxicated with faith in a Better Future. They have this powerful need to attach onto some Great Theory or Great Personality. So, even those who know Obama for what he is are willing to project onto him their hopes and delusions. Even the duplicitous are capable of duping themselves. Obama, of course, knows this, how it works, and how to manipulate it. He knows that many of his followers are the duped while others are duplicitous. But, he also knows that even the duplicitous have a certain psychology that needs to cling to a Great Faith or Myth, and he knows how to play to those emotions. Even the smartest person responds to the world rationally only 50%. The other 50% is affected by sights, sounds, rhythm, texture, the groove and style, etc. This is why a man as smart as Einstein could fall for socialism or delude himself that Gandhi is a great saint.
Jesus said man doesn’t live on bread alone. It’s also true that man doesn’t live on ideas alone. The ideas he espouses must be attached, embodied, and expressed by a personality. Personality gives life to ideas. So, the "I Have a Dream" speech was just an idea from the pen of a Jewish writer. It came to life only with the delivery by Martin Luther King. King gave Life to those ideas, and in a way, became the very embodiment of or even bigger than those ideas. Today, his message of Love and Peace mean nothing to most blacks who listen to rap music and demand racial favoritism. But, the cult of King-the-personality is bigger than ever. Ideas become personified, and the person becomes mythified. In the end, the meaning of the ideas takes a backseat to the Myth of those ideas as embodied by The Great Personality. Same is true of what has become of Mao in China. Chinese no longer care for his communist ideas but still revere him as a symbol of Chinese unity, glory, pride, and power. Maoism isn’t no longer about actually following Mao’s ideas by the letter but celebrating the spirit of those ideas by adapting them into symbols of nationalist power and glory.
Similarly, blacks embrace Martin Luther King personality cult not because they believe in color-blindness or peace but because the cult guarantees them automatic moral superiority and racial pride. White ‘progressives’ cling to the King cult either out of opportunism, naive idealism, or radicalism. Scared conservative opportunists want to use the King cult to argue against racial favoritism(‘content of character’ over ‘color of skin’) and to persuade blacks to choose peace over violence. Liberals cling to the King cult in the hope that some kind of racial harmony may prevail. Radicals want to use the King cult as a Trojan Horse tactic to fool white people into dropping their guards against the rise of black and Jewish power.

Anyway, just as King imbued white liberal ideas of 60s with Music and Charisma, Obama aims to do the same today. Again, we see a similar set-up and pattern. Most of the writers are Jewish. Jews have great intellect and cunning but not much in the way of charisma. Blacks have that hormone charged intensity but aren’t much for ideas. We saw this in pop music too. Brill Building was largely made up of Jewish songwriters, but many of the singers were black. Jews supplied the songs, and blacks delivered the performances. Of course, Jews did this with whites too. Jewish Hollywood came up with screenplays but found big tall handsome goyim to bring the pages to life. Ayn Rand the Jewess wrote the novel and screenplay of "The Fountainhead" but big tall handsome Gary Cooper brought it to life. Milton Friedman was the funny looking yoda-like man of ideas behind Reaganomics, but Reagan was the man who gave it a face that inspired millions. Jews are brilliant, smart, and/or cunningl but tend to be gnome-like and funny looking. They need to partner up with the ‘Aryan’ or the ‘Negro’. In the past, Jews used ‘Aryans’ like Charlton Heston to popularize their artistic ideas and political values. Today, ‘Aryans’ have been vilified and dehumanized while Negroes have been elevated in their place. But, the people who are still financing this and writing the script are the Jews. Even in the conservative movement, the writers have often been people like David Frum, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, etc.

Many white liberals and leftists see themselves as people of brilliance, knowledge, intelligence, and ideals. But, they feel that they themselves lack either charisma or the moral right to preach to the world about a Better Future. After all, leftist history says white people are to blame for all the evils in the world. Of course, Jews are exempt from ‘white guilt’ but good many of them tend to look funny and have annoying public personas. Anyway, most white people feel that they don’t have the right to be moral leaders or exemplars because of the morally stained history of white people.
With white liberals, the problem is compounded by the fact that they’ve also burdened also themselves with American guilt, whereby Americans are supposed to apologize to the rest of world, especially to Europeans, for being too powerful, being too rich, and consuming too much.
Therefore, many ‘progressives’ have wanted a ‘person of color’–innocent of the sins of Western History–to lead the way, but most blacks turned out to be crazy and unfit for this role. Even Martin Luther King, observed closely, was a scumbag in private life. Liberals felt they had the message but not the proper messenger nor the ‘perfect storm’ through which their ideas could be embraced by most people. Of course, conservatives too had a similar problem for a long time before Reagan finally came along during the Perfect Storm of 1980.
Conservatives felt they had strong and solid ideas but suffered an image problem in the 60s-70s. There was the granite-faced not-very-likable Goldwater, the dark and shadowy Nixon, and the inept Ford. The great conservative moment came when Reagan arrived on the scene just when the Carter administration was in total free fall. The Great Communicator had the physical and charismatic instruments to deliver those ideas to the public at large. He had a way of making conservative theories sound simple and accessible, even inspirational. He persuaded people as to why America needs a strong military and how that could restore American pride and power.
Just as a bomb, no matter how well-conceived, is useless without a missile to deliver it to its target, an idea is useless unless there is a personality that can deliver it far and wide to the public. Otherwise, it remains a just another intellectual idea or policy proposal. Conservatives really had to wait until 1980 for a man like Reagan to arrive.

Democrats thought their star had arrived with Clinton, but Billy boy turned out to be too rascally and childish(and out of control). Clinton let everyone down. So, Obama is the New Hope. If Clinton was the first black white president(prone to reckless self-destruction), Obama is like the first white black president(disciplined in terms of what he needs to do). Therefore, many liberals are crazy about Obama for this reason for the Messiah of the Great Liberal Message has finally arrived.
Obama is the great missile that white liberals–especially the Jews–have been waiting for all these yrs to carry their message all the way to the Moon. He is the political equivalent of the Final Frontier. He’s the (Rock)Star Child of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

White liberals have had Grand Ideas they’d wanted to implement for a long time but all their missiles proved to be duds or faulty. Duds were Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The ambitious but ultimately flawed missile was Clinton. There was Hillary with the Great Healthcare Plan but she lacked the charisma and ‘character’ to deliver it on target to the American public. Many people just didn’t warm to her nor trust her. They saw her as overly shrewd, cold, arrogant, and calculating. (Obama is no different but he knows how to seem different, at least to all the dupes out there.)
But, liberals now have Obama, perfect in the age of Will Smith, Oprah, and Hip Hop(when most young white people are more into blackness than whiteness). He’s supposed to be the super missile that delivers all the Neo-New Deal ideas right on target. Liberals are further emboldened by the fact that 2008 has been a year of the Perfect Storm. 8 yrs of Bush made the white male unfashionable. Bush was a poor missile who never hit the target; his public persona was especially a disaster. His words seem to drip out of his mouth like saliva. The Iraq War as long, painful, and costly. The economic meltdown of 2008 played into liberal hands since the blame usually goes to the party in power. McCain had the wrong image–weak voice, old face, wobbly body, etc–in a nation that’s into hip hop culture and youth narcissism. Also, Obama as a missile could rely on support of the launching pad and airspace–liberal Jewish controlled media and academia.

Anyway, when white liberals and leftists see Obama, they don’t just see a fellow duplicitous subversive radical, but the deliverer that has finally arrived to take the liberal (Jewish) ideas to their intended targets. He is the giant mythical bird that has finally arrived to take liberal ideas to the promised land. He’s supposed to finally finish what FDR started, what Kennedy failed to achieve due to the assassination, what LBJ failed to accomplish due to Vietnam War, what King failed to reach due to assassination, what Robert J. Kennedy failed to bring forth due to assassination, what Humphrey failed to do thanks to 60s out-of-control radicalism, what Carter failed to do due to his incompetence and bad luck, what Clinton failed to do thanks to his self-destructiveness, what Gore failed to do thanks to GOP having ‘stolen’ the election. In the liberal Grand Narrative, history was stolen from them by tragedies, accidents, bad luck, recklessness, etc. Obama is supposed to embody the perfect balance between white and black, between religious and secular, between national and international, between elitism and egalitarianism, between intellectualism and populism, between confidence and humility, between hip and the hop. So the stupid liberals think in their Hollywood-induced fantasies, as though mankind can be redeemed by mindless social engineering and pop-political gimcracks.

No less funny was the delusions of the Bush administration and many gentile whites in this country. White gentiles still seem to think they control America when they do not. The rulers of this country are liberal and leftist Jews. Liberal and leftist Jews dominate Ideas, Education, Information, Knowledge, History, and what we see, hear, and read. NY, the financial and intellectual capital, is mostly Jewish. LA, the pop cultural capital, is mostly Jewish. Northwest Coast, the center of high-tech billionaires, is dominated by Jews. Pharmaceutical companies are dominated by Jews. Most Jews are liberal or leftist. Most of the powerful lawyers are Jewish.
Yet, people like Bush and McCain still act as though white gentiles have all the power and therefore must be generous, kind, and tolerant of other people WHEN IN FACT the real people in power are the liberal and left-wing Jews(and their brainwashed goy allies and puppets)whose determined goal is to destroy and bring down white power, white interests, white unity, white pride, and the white race.

There’s a weird relationship between gentile whites and Jews, especially in the GOP. Though Jews are the most powerful people in this country, the political charade between white gentiles and Jews requires that white gentiles pretend that they have the power(and therefore must be overly kind and generous to others) in exchange for Jewish financial and intellectual support.
We have pretty much the same situation in Hollywood where Jews have the money and power, but they put forth bigshot gentile stars who give the false impression that Hollywood is dominated by people like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie. As the public face of Hollywood, gentiles are supposed to act like they rule and control Hollywood(and therefore be exposed to endless scrutiny and accountability)whereas the truly powerful Jews remain behind the scenes and amass bigger fortunes and gain greater power without any scrutiny whatsoever. We can see this with guys like Charlie Rose too. Having Charlie Rose as interviewer gives the impression that WASPS still control the media, but he’s just a puppet of Jews who really control the media. Well, that’s just how it goes.

Philosemitism Is More Dangerous than Antisemitism... At Least in Today’s World.

If antisemitism is a unified theory(of science, religion, history, etc) that views Jews and/or Jewish culture as essentially sinister, philosemitism argues the very opposite. Philosemitism is a grand theory that says Jews are the fountain of much if not all that are wise and noble. It says Jews are inherently good, or at least better than other people. It believes that Jews are essentially harmless or beneficial to mankind. Even when Jews gain great power, wealth, and influence(and even when they commit acts of evil), we are to convince ourselves we need not worry about since JEWS, a naturally noble and wonderful people, have the power, wealth, and influence. Since Jews are great, it would be wrong to question their power as it would be wrong for Christians or Muslims to question God.

Now, some Jews will argue that philosemitism or Judeification–deification of the Jew–is also a form of antisemitism. Since it idealizes and ennobles the Jew toa ludicrous degree, philosemitism may judge Jews according to a higher moral criteria. We are seeing some of this in the international criticism of Israel. How often do we hear critics say, "since Jews experienced the Holocaust and were ennobled by the suffering, Jews ought not treat Palestinians the way Nazis treated the Jews." Jews often complain that the world judges Israel differently than other countries with far worse human rights record. After all, where is the UN condemnation of what China has been doing to Tibet? What has the world done about the horrors happening now in the Congo?
The animosity toward Israel has elements of both antisemitism and philosemitism. Antisemites exploit the Israel-Palestinian conflict to point out that Jews are ‘just like the Nazis’. But, philosemites are also anti-Zionist because of their ‘spiritual’ view of the Jew as the Eternal Victim, Eternal Martyr, Eternal Saint. The philosemite is filled with guilt about what happened in the Holocaust; he is filled with great sympathy and admiration for the Jew. But, this love requires the Jew to be holy schmoly. When they witness tough militant Jews beating up on weak and poor Palestinians, their philosemitic world view is threatened.

But, Jews are not being entirely sincere because they are the main proponents of philosemitism or Judeification. The media–Hollywood, publishing, TV, news, etc–are largely controlled by Jews, their brainwashed puppets, and their sympathetic allies. So, we’ve gotten nothing but news, books, movies, and etc. that teach us to admire Jews, feel sorry for Jews, love Jews, hug Jews, favor Jews, support Jews, feel awed by Jews, make way for the Jews, etc. Jews viciously, rabidly, and virulently attack any criticism of Jewish power. Jews are usually paranoid, demeaning everyone who probe into Jewish power and influence as neo-Nazis. Jews are the most hysterical group in this country. If you oppose illegal invasion, ‘gay marriage’, multiculturalism, gun bans, and political correctness shoved down your throats and up your arses by the media and academia, you are called a ‘racist’, ‘xenophobe’, ‘homophobe’, and so on by the Jewish liberal elite. And, invariably, someone compares you to a neo-Nazi or a closet Hitler-lover since only a totally evil person can be against open borders and ‘gay marriage’. Funny, aint it? The very people who bitch and whine about the paranoia of ‘red-baiting’ during the era of Joseph McCarthy are hysterically screaming "NAZI!" every time someone displeases the Jewish establishment.

Anyway, philosemitism or Judeificaition is the law of the land because (1) constant barrage of hug-a-Jew movies, books, TV shows, school curriculum, and news coverage and (2) any criticism of Jews–no matter how mild–is met with rabid and virulent hostility from the all-powerful Jewish establishment which control the flow and nature of information in the US and even in Europe.
So, it is disingenuous when Jews complain about philosemitism and about how it has, on rare occasions, created inconveniences for Jews(especially in Israel). Of course, philosemitism has been a greater boon than handicap for Israel. It is the blind philosemitism of the Christian Right and much of America that made the support of Israel into a major priority in American foreign policy. But, philosemitism has been known to backfire, even to point where people who are sincerely sympathetic toward Jews have been appalled by the actions of the nation of Israel and venal Hollywood Jews. So basically, what Jews want is a philosemitism without any leaks or bugs, one where Jews can only be loved, hugged, and obeyed but never ever questioned or critiqued. So, Jews are not against philosemitism per se but against a philosemitism that may come back to bite the Jew in the ass. Jews want to occupy the higher moral ground but don’t want to be judged by higher moral standards.

When Jews say, ‘we want the world to treat us like any other people, judge us like any other people, and deal with us like any other people’, they are lying through their teeth; or, they are sincere but can’t resist the advantages of philosemitism.
Also, Jews have this paranoia that even if legitimate criticism of Jewish power is allowed, it will soon snowball into an avalanche of all-out hostility, suspicion, and even hatred against Jews. Jewish anxieties are not unfounded because all peoples generally tend to be envious and suspicious of and hostile to a minority that gains tremendous power over them. Jews have been that kind of minority all through history. It is natural for majorities to be wary of Jews. This great Judeophilia is a recent phenomenon, only made possible by the Holocaust which filled the West with great guilt–even though most white people had nothing to do with it but actually died in the 10s of millions to defeat the Nazis(for which Jews show little gratitude).
Judeophilia is strange and unnatural because it’s about loving a minority in your midst that has disproportionate power, wealth, and influence–especially one that has done much to undermine and subvert the values and institutions crucial to your race or nation’s survival. No Holocaust, no Judeophilia.
Indeed, we would today be talking about Jews the way we talk about Mexicans, Chinese, Russians, and Muslims had there been no Holocaust. (Jews know this, which is why they are squeezing the Holocaust for all its worth. It’s their golden goose when it comes who goy guilt.) Minus the Holocaust, there would be no taboo against discussing Jewish power since the West would not be burdened with guilt. Similarly, suppose Europeans had killed 6 million Muslims in the Holocaust than six million Jews. The taboo would probably be against badmouthing Muslims.
But, even this isn’t necessarily true. The taboo against badmouthing the Jew goes deeper than the Holocaust. Jews are a very intelligent people. As such, they gained tremendous wealth, media control, and intellectual dominance. They made the TV shows, movies, and documentaries; they wrote and devised many of our textbooks. Jews are so talented that even people who don’t like nor want to empower the Jews go see Spielberg movies, watch TV shows, and consume other stuff dominated by Jews. Even extreme rightwing types would rather see Hollywood movies than third rate movies and documentaries made by conservative goyim. And, everyone seems hooked on professional sports though most of the franchises are owned by Jews. Anyway, the point is Jews became criticism-proof because of the Holocaust AND because of their ability to gain great wealth, control the information and remembrance of history. After all, nearly 5 million Ukrainians died under Stalin and his Jewish henchmen, but most people know nothing about it because Ukrainians are not very smart, not very rich, and not very clever(and the Jew-run media would rather prefer to bury that horrible history). And, the world doesn’t know the great extent to which Jews had been involved in the communist movements all over the world that may have killed up to 100 million people.

Anyway, Jews fear any criticism because it may turn into an avalanche. This is especially true since there has developed so much pent-up rage at the Jews that never saw or never was allowed to see the light of day. And in some quarters, this rage is only growing thanks to the rise of internet and new sources of information that make more people aware of the Jewish role in the election of Barack Obama and in the policies that are so detrimental to white people and white power in this country: open borders, ‘gay marriage’, gun bans, multiculturalism, etc. So, Jews want to nip all criticism of Jews at the bud.
During the Hundred Flowers Campaign, Mao Zedong briefly liberalized the country and allowed, even encouraged, criticism of the Communist Party. At first, there was only a trickle of criticism as the people feared iron-fisted communist authority. But, more and more people took the bait and began to air their grievances. Soon, it turned into a torrent and then the dam burst. Mao freaked out and put an end to this experiment soon enough. Those who had dared criticize the Communist Party even in the slightest way were sent to labor camps or shot. Mao had expected the criticism to be mild and controllable(and reverently constructive). But, there was a lot of bitter and angry criticism of the Communist Party that had secretly built up over 7 yrs. (Today, the Chinese Communist Party operates the same way. It allows economic and social freedom but no criticism of Party authority. Not even a little bit, because even a little bit can turn into more and more until it may turn into another Tiananmen Uprising. Similarly, Jews, like the Chinese Communist Party, fear even the slightest criticism of Jews because it might snowball into an avalanche of rage against all the venal and evil things Jews had done to the white race since the 1960s. Just like the Chinese Communists, American Jews want to distract us with bread and circuses, with Hollywood entertainment and Hollywood politics–Obama.) .
Jews feel the same way. Though Jews are always saying that they are for honest and open criticism of Jewish power and influence, they freak out at the slightest sign of such criticism. They go into a hissy fit, get all rabid and virulent, hysterical and vicious. They seethe with hatred and intolerance. They start acting like Mao or Stalin. Jews act this way because they know that an open policy of criticism of Jews will turn into an open season on the Jews. Yes, Jews are not entirely wrong on this matter. If criticism of Jews is allowed, it can’t be limited only to ‘reasonable’, ‘humble’, ‘sympathetic’, ‘grateful’, ‘polite’, ‘reverent’, and ‘constructive’ criticism. Much of it will be angry, bitter, and hostile–justifiably so. Some of it will even be rabid, virulent, and downright crazy. But, these kinds of passions will only be natural. Why?
For the same reason that the angry criticism of the Chinese Communist Party was natural during the Hundred Flowers Campaign and during the late 80s. People feel a need to criticize, condemn, denounce, call to account, and even scapegoat those in power or positions of authority. When the Chinese people were briefly allowed freedom, it was only natural for them to harshly criticize the Communist Party–fairly or unfairly–which had such a great power over their lives. Kids blame parents, students blame teachers, the people accuse and blame those in power. Just look at the ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’–which the Jews encouraged. Now, Bush was an idiot president, but was he really Hitler, the Devil, Satan’s helper if not Satan himself, a totalitarian thug who wanted to set up a Christo-Fascist State? No, but he was the President, the most powerful man in America and the world. So, naturally people in the US and around the world were harshly and crazily critical of him. Having great power is a mixed blessing, a double-edged sword. You can be admired and praised by the masses or hated and resented by the masses. It all depends on the state of affairs and/or public perception. So, even if the hatred and animosity toward Bush was over-the-top in some quarters, it was not all that surprising. It comes with the territory of having a great deal of power, of having control over other people’s lives. Bush, unlike Mao and American Jews, had no means to clamp down on all those hated and denounced him.

Given the nature of Jewish power, influence, and privilege through much of history, it’s not hard to understand why so many people came to hate Jews. Though Jews and their allies say this hatred was an irrational and inexplicable sickness of the European soul, it was actually natural and inevitable. Not that it was right or justifiable, but as Thomas Sowell has written in ‘Are Jews Generic?’, wealthy, privileged, and influential/powerful middlemen communities(especially if of ‘foreign’ or ‘alien’ origin) have always been distrusted, envied, and/or hated universally around the world. In some cases, the middlemen communities didn’t even have to be of alien origin. Confucianism in China is philosophically very hostile to the merchant class. And, what was Marxism but essentially an anti-middlemen ideology? Middlemen, entrepreneurs, or capitalists make the money and gain great power and influence. The masses resent them because the have-lesses have always envied and feared the have-mores. And, the intellectual, philosophical, artistic, aristocratic, and/or spiritual class dislikes them because merchant or bourgeois economic power is either uprooting, materialistic, or based on no consideration other than ‘greed’. America has been somewhat different because of the vast lands, vast opportunities, and a spirit of freedom and free enterprise that made it possible for most people to believe in the ‘American Dream’ of material success; even people who were not particularly rich saw many ordinary people become rich, so there was at least the feeling that anyone could succeed through hardwork or good luck. Economic success through entrepreneurship came to be associated with freedom and equal opportunity for all.

Also, because American religion had a kind of a salesman quality to it, American spiritual culture wasn’t as anti-capitalist as the churches in other nations. One of the reason why Americans may be more religious than Europeans is because Christianity has been nakedly turned into a mass commodity and sold all over America. Europeans never developed the Bible Thumping kind of Christianity that you see in the movie The Apostle(starring Robert Duvall). Because Europeans maintained a dignified and traditional style of church worship, many people were bound to lose interest in religion as society became more mass-oriented, youth-centered, ‘liberated’, and demotic. But, American religion kept up with a society that was becoming mass-oriented in organization, message, feeling, and taste. In America, you can go to a Church to boogie woogie–if you’re black–, or you can go to a giant mega-mall church where they play rock music.
It may well be that the reason why Europeans are less religious than us is NOT because they’re better educated or more intelligent but because their churches never sold out to mass culture like the American churches did. Because European churches had traditions going back centuries, they could not turn overnight into discotecques or rock concerts.
In America, by contrast, religion wasn’t moored to some sacred tradition. Indeed, parts of America where church tradition is the deepest–New England and Northeast in general–tend to be the most secular parts of America; this is because those early churches tended to be stricter and more tradition bound, which is to say they maintained a sense of hierarchy in their practice if not in admission. A casual person wouldn’t feel immediately ‘welcome’ in a tradition bound New England church as he would in new Megamall church or in some jiveass Baptist church where anything goes hallelujah.
What happened to tradition-bound churches in Europe and New England also happened to high brow and serious art. Most people don’t pay attention to classical music and traditional works of art because our mass culture wants things be accessible, fun, and immediately gratifying. High culture stands no chance in the pop culture world.
So, the success of religion in America may have less to do with the greater religiosity of the American people but the greater adaptability of American religion to mass culture. And, Europeans may be less religious not because they are better educated, more enlightened, or more intelligent but because their religion has not ‘kept up with the times’. Even among Latin Americans(both in and out of the US), Protestantism is gaining over Catholicism because the former, at least in the Americanized form, is much more mass-oriented and populist. It’s more ‘fun’. Europeans are not more intelligent nor sensible than us in most respects because they like the same garbage we like. Just look at European TV, listen to European pop music, read European newspapers, and so on. Sure, there is high culture or serious culture in Europe, but most people don’t pay attention to that and, as a result, they must all be state-funded. If we look at what the masses of Europeans really like, it’s Rap music, Hollywood movies, and American TV shows(and their imitations of such). In other words, Europeans are addicted to trash, garbage, and celebrity culture just as we are.
If European churches lose their inhibitions and go into pop culture mode, there’s no telling what might happen in Europe. You might actually see a revival of religion. But, is that the kind of religion they want? Isn’t it ironic that America happens to be more religious because the American forms of worship happen to be immature, ungodly, and retarded–with jiveass black preachers yakking and jakking and stupidass white preachers talking likes salesmen?
Anyway, this explains why capitalism and religion have been good partners in America. America, with only indirect connections to the European past and with a diverse population, was a land of individuals and opportunities than that of unified traditions, grand intellectual ideas, and etc. The grand American intellectual ideas are freedom and individual liberty. Actually, they are more sentiments than full-blows ideals that Ayn Rand tried to turn them into.
So, Jews were bound to face fewer opposition and hostility in the US. The distinct hallmarks of Jewishness–entrepreneurship, adding to the diverse mix, rootlessness, and etc–were not necessarily anathema to Americans. Everyone who came to America had a nomadic soul in a way, even if many settled in new communities where they put down roots. (Indeed, that is the key difference between non-Jews and Jews. Non-Jews are nomadic out of necessity; their ideal is to settle and plant roots. Jews are nomadic as an ideal.) Even American Indians became part of the nomadic community as many had to leave their ancestral lands and settle in reservations foreign to their ancestors.

America was far more welcome to Jews than any European nation or empire. Americans were also not burdened with the sin or crime of antisemitism during WWII. Holocaust didn’t take place on American soil by the hands of Americans; and, Americans died in great numbers to defeat Nazi Germany. So, you’d think that Jews owe something to gentile America. You’d think Jews would be grateful. You’d think we would be able to stand and walk confidently around Jews who show us respect. Jews didn’t like this state of affairs–where they owed us–, so Jews concocted a way to undermine the moral authority, pride, and confidence of white Americans. How? (1) Jews brought attention to instances of discrimination against Jews in American society, and those did indeed exist, some subtle, some blatant. But, we all know that American discrimination against Jews was very mild compared to American discrimination against other groups; also, discrimination or no discrimination, Jews were succeeding fabulously in America; also, American negative feelings about Jews had a good reason as disproportionate number of Jews were involved in radicalism of various kinds. But, since Jews own the media, they’ve made it seem as though a US law firm that didn’t hire a Jewish Harvard graduate was one of the greatest crimes that ever took place! (Never mind that Jewish businesses usually favored fellow Jews and often discriminated against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other whites.) (2). But, Jews also focused on American injustice against minorities, especially blacks. Since Jews couldn’t make much of a case of antisemitism against America, Jews focused on black slavery, and then the Jews associated the suffering of blacks with that of Jews in the Holocaust. That was what the bogus PBS documentary "Liberators" was all about. "You blacks and we Jews are fellow ‘victims’ of white racists" was the motto. In other words, since Americans mistreated blacks(like Europeans mistreated Jews), Americans might as well be equally guilty of the Holocaust too. Jews don’t care that American whites didn’t commit any genocide against blacks, and therefore any comparison of black American experience cannot be compared to the Holocaust. . Whites brought 300,000 blacks to America, and now there are more than 40 million. Some genocide!!! And, the number of blacks lynched since end of Civil War to 1960 is less than 2000. Compare that to the 20 million white Christians killed by Stalin and his Jewish henchmen.
Still, Jews made themselves criticism-proof in the US by associating themselves with blacks. Since whites had been ‘racist’ against blacks, whites had no right to criticize Jews since that would amount to antisemitism, a form of racism.
Of course, we all know that Jews exploited blacks–athletes, entertainers, singers, actors, etc–for a long time until only relatively recently. (Of course, Jews in the porn business continue to exploit ‘white trash’ by using them as ‘cum buckets’ for Negro studs. Jews then give a large share of this profit to Israel so that the Zionist goons can kill and rape Palestinians.) But, Jews have a peculiar way of remembering history. When Jews did wrong to blacks, Jews merely become part of the white race; so, we are told that whites mistreated blacks in sports and entertainment(even though most of those ‘whites’ were Jews). . But, when Jews helped blacks, Jews take all the credit AS Jews. So, if Jewish Hollywood exploited blacks, ‘white guys’ did it. But, if Jews funded the NAACP, JEWS did it. It’s no wonder so many people call Jews ‘dirty’. (3) Jews made a big fuss about how US didn’t do enough to save the Jews in the Holocaust. So, even FDR, a pro-Jewish President, is criticized for not allowing more Jewish immigration or for not bombing railway lines to the death camps. (Jews hardly condemn FDR for dispossessing and locking up 150,000 Japanese-Americans. American history dominated by Jews is always about Jews, Jews, and Jews). (4) Jews have been making a lot of movies and publishing lots of books about the Holocaust, insinuating that the evil of Nazism wasn’t unique to Adolf Hitler but to all of Western Civilization of which US is a part. So, Jews will say what the Anglos did to the American Indians is like what Germans did to the Jews. Never mind what the Jews did to the Canaanites. Never mind what Jewish communists did to Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, Kazakhis, etc. Never mind what Jews did to the Palestinians. Never mind that Jewish role in communism was one of the main inspirations for National Socialism. Jews pick and choose history to make themselves look totally blameless while everyone else is made to feel guilty for the Jew.
So, we have Jews telling us to beware of Muslims because those evil towelheads are dangerous to saintly darling little Jews. Jews say we must stand up to Muslims because Muslims don’t like Jews in Europe and in the US. But, which group caused more harm to Western Civilization? Which group came up with communism? Which group is pushing open border policy? Which group is destroying the morality of marriage? Which group owns Hollywood which promotes miscegenocide of the white race? Jews shit on us and then expect us to come to their aid against Muslims.
Muslims are indeed a big headache and problem, let us stand up to them for OUR interest, not for Jewish interest. If anything, we need to stand up to Jewish power more than to Muslim power as Jewish ideas which have done most to corrupt, weaken, and dissipate the West.

Anyway, the American frontier has been closed for some time now. All that remains is the concept of the frontier in the existential and metaphorical sense. We talk of coming up with new medicines, new technologies, new systems, new ideas. There is always the frontier of the mind, the frontier of political and social progress. But, there is a fundamental problem with this new concept of the frontier. It is abstract and inaccessible to most people. Back in the 19th century, any family with a wagon could strike out West and stake his piece of territory. Frontier was tangible, something you could see and feel. And prior to rise of advanced science, even amateurs could come up with practical inventions and make a fortune. Thomas Edison was not a Great Genius like the Jewish computer geniuses and physicists of today. So, great success was open to far more people before the rise of hightech. But, mere inventiveness and cleverness will not go very far these days. This is the age of high-tech and only the super-smart can really get ahead. They are the ones who come to head the great corporations in computers and other stuff. The reasonably intelligent can learn skills, get a good job in these companies, and lead a pretty good life, but they are mere drones within the system. The ability to be truly independent and individualistic is open only to the supreme geniuses in finance, science, high-tech, and medicine, etc.
Of course, smart people always had an advantage throughout history, but as our science and technology advance, only the smartest of the smartest can really find great success in the new world order. Back in the days of Edison, even a person of average intelligence could understand the mechanics of Graham Bell or Edison’s inventions. Today, many of us wouldn’t understand modern computers, science, and math even if we were given a chance to study them for yrs. Some of this stuff is inaccessible to all except for the tiny percentage of people with super intelligence. The paradox of our civilization is that just as our technology grows more advanced, we are becoming more ignorant of that thing that has greater power over us. Of course, many kids learn to use and toy with all these new gadgets, but few understand the real science behind them. How a TV worked was complex enough. How advanced computer systems work is truly infinitely complex. And, the technology grows more and more complex yet. So, the frontier is still open only for the truly super smart. For the rest of us, there is only waiting for the geniuses to come up with the next great invention. And, since we are dumb, the only way the super smart can make money off their inventions is by turning them into neat little toys for us to play with. So, even as the technology grows more complex, the more we become infantilized.

Philosemitism is a secular variation of the notion of the Chosen People. Since modern secular Jews don’t believe in God, the notion of the ‘chosen people’ have turned into idea of the ‘preferred people’. We are told that Jews are to be preferred and/or prized over other people because: (1) they suffered more than others; as a result, they deserve more sympathy; actually not only sympathy but also feelings of guilt on the part of goyim since all of goy kind are said to be responsible for the persecution of Jews. We are told that ancient Egyptians were nasty to Jews. Babylonians were nasty to Jews. Romans were nasty to Jews. Europeans were nasty to Jews. Muslims and Arabs were nasty to Jews. And, the whole world is nasty to Jews because the UN condemns Israel or because nations like Russia and China have business deals with enemy nations of Israel. So, we should all feel guilty. Of course, all the nasty and brutal things Jews did to other peoples are underplayed; we don’t much hear of Jewish genocide of Canaanites, the wars of aggression waged by Israelites, the role Jews played in nomadically going from one place to another and undermining the value system of the majority goyim. We don’t hear of Jewish role in the Medieval white slave trade. We don’t hear of Jewish collaboration with the gentile elite to tax and exploit the masses of peasants. We don’t hear of Jewish role in finance capitalism. We don’t hear of Jewish role in communism. No, all events and movements in history are twisted and distorted so as to show that ONLY Jews were the primary victims. We know, for example, that Jews were the biggest promoters of communism; not just in communist nations but in free nations. American Jews did a great deal to promote far left ideas in the US and all over the West. But, when we hear of victims of communism, we mainly hear of Soviet Jews. We are never told that Soviet Jews became victims of a system of their own creation. Seeing Soviet Jews as the main victims of communism would be like regarding Germans as the main victims of Nazism. True, all Germans eventually got burned by Nazism and suffered a great deal, but who created and supported Nazism in the first place and turned it into a destructive force? The Germans. So, Germans were victims of their own creation. Soviet Jews too were the victims of the system of their own creation, but media and academia run by Jews and their sheepish goy allies(or puppets) suppress the part about Jewish role in communism and vastly overplay the Jewish victimhood under communism. Just as some Germans stick to the ‘good German’ myth, many Jews stick to the ‘good Jew’ myth. We know that most ‘good Germans’ turned against Nazism only after defeat seemed eminent in WWII. And, we know that many Jews turned against communism ONLY because the control of Soviet communism eventually fell into the hands of goyim who didn’t particularly like Jews. (2) Jews are just so lovable and funny. Jews are indeed funny because they are intelligent and have superior wit. It’s no accident that so many of the great comedians and music composers have been Jewish in the modern era because good music and great humor depend on wit and brilliance. Germans are good at many things but aren’t much good at comedy. Indeed, comedy around much of the goy world amounts to little more than slipping on banana peels. Most of the great witty and brilliant comedy are Jewish. So, it’s true that Jews can be fun. Who doesn’t like Don Rickles and Marx Brothers? Since Jews are fun, they are great, right? True to an extent. But, we must remind ourselves that much of Jewish humor actually target us. Even most Woody Allen jokes are really on us. Sure, he makes fun of ugliness of Jews, Jewish anxiety, Jewish neurosis, and etc. But, all said and done, all his movies ask, "Aren’t I lovable, cute, wonderful, and totally harmless... even as I piss on all the values that mean something to the goy kind?" To be sure, Jewish wit and humor aren’t always necessarily committed to destroying the goy moral order. Sometimes, Jews just act crazy because they can’t help themselves. Restless due to their fierce mental powers & energy AND enamored of their own brilliance, Jews can’t help poking fun and undermining everything; Jews are kinda like an hyperactive kid. All cultures produce such people, but Jewish clowns tend to be more subversive and dangerous because Jewish wit simply goes further and because Jews simply have more mental energy to expend. Jews also feel extra-clownish and subversive because they are surrounded by a vast ocean of dimwit goyim. This fact can inspire either sobriety or subversiveness on the part of the Jew. If the goyim are united and suspicious, Jews will act sober, afraid to rock the boat and upset goyim. But, if the goyim have been turned into valuefree decadent idiots, the Jews will have a field day ‘dickslapping’ and ‘cumming’ all over the goyim. It’s the nature of the Jew. Jews look at us as dogs because we are less intelligent. Though some people refuse to accept the intellectual superiority of Jews, we need only to look at the winners of Nobel prizes in science and medicine. And, most of the innovations in computer and other high-tech have been made by Jews. And, Jews have been most talented in coming up with massive business models. Whether one likes these models or not, no one can deny that they are formidable organizational blueprints and undertakings. Just as some dog owners just can’t help playing with their pets and making them do crazy things, Jews can’t help making fun of us and driving us crazy. An dog owner will throw a stick into the water, and the stupid dog will jump in and get all wet to fetch the stick. Similarly, Jews cannot help manipulating us because it’s amusing to them. Whether through capitalism or communism, through religion or secularism, goyim have followed the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Marx was a Jew. Freud was a Jew. Betty Friedan was a Jew. Spielberg is a Jew. Jews do, stupid goyim follows like gullible dogs that they are. But, what do you expect? The intelligent have always manipulated the less intelligent. (3) It’s NOBLE to love a Jew, we are told. This message is tied to (1) and (2) but should be considered separately. Through the media and academia, we are not only told that Jews are lovable but that the best kind of goyim is one that helps or loves the Jew. Consider the movie ‘Schindler’s List’. Why is Schindler such a good guy? He saved Jews. Indeed, there is a genre in cinema that should be called SAVE-A-JEW movie. Hollywood has made a good number of them, but they are sprouting all over Western and Eastern Europe too. Go to any videostore and the foreign video section will have movies from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, France, Sweden, Norway, etc, etc that are about Jews being helped and saved by good goyim.(It’s like kinda Lassie Come Home remade as Goy Come Home. Good goy is the ever-faithful dog of the Jewish master.) This is rather odd, especially in Eastern Europe, considering that anti-Jewish feelings are not rare in that part of the world. But, consider the fact that people in the media tend to be of the Left. And, many of the film makers in Eastern Europe have been Jewish. Also, these nations want movies that sell and make a profit, and they know that SAVE-A-JEW movies will receive much greater attention in America which is totally dominated by Jews. For example, if an Eastern European movie is about saving Ukrainians, American media wouldn’t pick it up. But, if it’s about saving Jews, you bet that Miramax or some Jewish movie company will distribute it, and every public library will carry that title. Also, European nations know that they need the blessing and approval of worldwide Jewry in order to succeed and do business; so, they feel obligated to produce their share of SAVE-A-JEW movies for the sake of international image. And, some of these nations even erect Holocaust memorials, also mainly for the sake of public relations worldwide. It’s similar to Putin’s use of Solzhenitsyn. Though Putin is something of a mild neo-Stalinist, he knows that Stalin is considered a mass killer all over the world. So, he has made token gestures showing that he is very mindful of the evil aspects of Soviet Union under Stalin.

Anyway, philosemtism, Judeification, or Judeophilia has turned into a sick disease. Admiration of or sympathy for Jews is understandable as all peoples have something good about them. Indeed, there is much that has been very great and profound about Jewish accomplishments, history, and heritage. Even so, Jews are human after all, and all peoples have a dark side to their history. The dark side of Jewish history has been hidden from light. We admire much of German and Japanese culture and history but we openly discuss the dark sides of those cultures. And, we say that those dark aspects led to Nazism and Japanese militarism. We also know that there are things in culture that cannot easily be separated into good and bad. Take Wagner for instance. A very great musical genius, but there is a very dark and dangerous side to his music. Or, take the samurai culture of Japan. In many ways, it was magnificent, admirable, and impressive. It was also oppressive, inhuman, and merciless. There are cases where we can separate the good vs bad rather easily. Kicking a harmless dog is bad, pure and simple. But, concepts like national pride and honor can be both good and bad. Tribalism can be both good and bad. It can be about appreciation of and loyalty to one’s own people; it can also mean racial or cultural arrogance and/or contempt for different peoples. Universalism also can be both good and bad. It can mean all of humanity sharing basic principles of human rights and dignity. It can also mean forcing all of mankind to adopt what YOU believe is the ONLY way for people to be ‘liberated’ or
‘redeemed’. Communism was universalism gone crazy. Nazism was tribalism gone crazy. Islamic radicalism is both universalism and tribalism gone crazy. Islam is culture-specific, and as such, it is tribal. But, it tries to spread the faith and customs to ALL MANKIND.

Anyway, there is much in Jewish history, culture, and heritage that is dark and sinister(as there is much that is noble and profound). But, we are not allowed to discuss the dark or evil side of Jewish history or culture. We are told that such should be discouraged or suppressed because Jews too often have been the targets and scapegoats of goy rage, hatred, and paranoia. In other words, because we don’t want another Holocaust, we should even shut down legitimate criticism of Jewish power BECAUSE legitimate criticism may turn into extreme criticisms which may turn into totally crazy condemnation of all things Jewish. The Jews see us as hopeless alcoholics when it comes to anti-Jewishness. Just as AA demands that alcoholics not touch a drop of liquor since alcoholics simply cannot control their drinking habits, Jews figure that we should not even sip a single drop of anti-Jewish sentiments because it will invariably lead to another Holocaust.
If Jews can scientifically prove that criticism of Jews will to another Holocaust, I might be inclined to agree with Jewish fears, but this really just self-serving, hypocritical, and paranoid lunacy on the part of the Jews. Besides, we can make a similar counter-argument against the Jews. We can say, ‘when Jews took power in Russia, they embarked on a social experiment that created a vast slave state and killed over 20 million people. Since that’s what invariably and inevitably happens when Jews take power, we must not allow Jews to take any power ANYWHERE. Just as alcoholics cannot handle liquor and shouldn’t even touch a drop of alcohol, Jews shouldn’t get a hold of even a little bit of power because Jewish power invariably leads to Jewish control of everything and the destruction of the goy majority. Think of the mass murders, the slave camps, and ruthless repressiveness of communist countries. Think of what happened to the Palestinians. Look at what’s happening to whites in America. If the Holocaust can be used as a reason for banning ALL criticism of Jewish power, the Boshocaust–which claimed perhaps up to 100 million lives worldwide–can be used as a reason for banning ALL forms of Jewish power and influence. Jews believe that criticizing Jews leads to the Holocaust, so there must be NO criticism of Jews. Okay, then I say that Jews gaining power leads to the Bolshocaust, so there must NO power in the hands of Jews.

Look at what the Jews are doing to white goy Americans, a people who did more for Jews than any other people. Where do you see any gratitude? Where do you see any appreciation? (I thought Spielberg showed us some appreciation when he made Saving Private Ryan, but he was one of the main supporters of Barack Obama, a stealth Marxist black-nationalist. Jew Spielberg and his cronies thought Obama could be a useful puppet of Jewish interests. We simply cannot trust any liberal Jew, even a moderate liberal Jew. Making Obama–the friend of Wright and crazy Ayers–the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces is the biggest insult to Americans in the history of this country.)
From the first arrivals in the late 19th and early 20th century, many Jews were Marxists and anarchists. Through the 30s, 40s, and 50s, more Jews were pro-communist than anti-communist. In the 60s, Jews did everything to aid and abet Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh. Jews in the Soviet Studies and China Studies departments were often apologists for communism if not exactly communists themselves. Magazines like The Nation and New Republic were on the side of Stalin. New York Times regularly hired reporters of Marxist bent who blamed white gentile Americans for all the woes around the world. Today, Jews are forcing open borders on us. They are promoting miscegenocide whereby white women have black babies with black men. Jews have been able to do this by something other than naked force. 2% of the US population cannot physically force the vast white majority. No, Jews did this by gaining control over our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds. They control the academia and produce the textbooks. They control publishing and print mostly liberal and leftist books. Sure, there are conservative books, but notice that conservatives books cannot veer too far to the right whereas leftist books can veer to the far left. In other words, Barnes and Noble and Borders Books will sell tons of books on and by Noam Chomsky and Che Guevara(and 1000s of other ilk) but will not carry books by David Duke or Kevin MacDonald.
And, even stupid conservative thinkers use the far right as the yardstick of evil. So, when some lowlife radical leftist filmmaker comes along, even conservatives will compare such filmmaker with the Nazi director Leni Riefenstahl than with communist directors like Sergei Eisenstein or Dziga Vertov. Or, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh will attack the Left by associating it with Nazis instead of with communists. Limbaugh should have called feminists ‘femi-commies’ or ‘femmunists’, but the stupid fat ape called them ‘feminazis’. Coulter compared Willie Horton with Horst Wessel. Either these stupid conservatives are really ignorant of communist history, or they too are afraid of the liberal Jews who control the publishing and radio industry. And, of course Jewish conservatives always denounce Muslims by comparing them with Nazis than with communists–though Islamic radicalism has more in common with communism. Though Islam is a religion and communism is atheist, they share a common historical and moral source–the Judeo-Christian tradition. Nazism was revival of European paganism!! It was tribal and anti-universalist whereas Christianity, Islam, and Marxism are all universalist.

If the extreme consequence of criticizing Jewish power and influence is another Holocaust, the extreme consequence of not criticizing Jewish power and influence is another Bolshocaust. Also, it’s not as though Jews leave us alone because we leave them alone. Through a Culture of Contempt and Subversion, Jews are constantly criticizing us(even though we do nothing but praise Jews 24/7) and many other peoples. Jews bitterly, rabidly, virulently, tenaciously, and viciously attack Mormon power, Christian Right power, Chinese power, Muslim power, Japanese power, French power, German power, Russian power, and etc. Jews constantly attack Catholics. Jews demean the history of Europeans and other folks. Though Jews were financially at the core of the West and profited from capitalism, imperialism, and globalism more than any other people, Jews are always attacking non-Jews for the evils committed under those systems. Jews say it’s antisemitic to criticize Jewish treatment of Palestinians, but American Jews love to point out what whites did to blacks in the South or what Afrikaners did to blacks in South Africa. (Of course, Jews conveniently forget that Israel was a very close ally of South Africa. Jews also hardly mention the fact that Israel is close to Turkey, a nation that still denies the genocide of the Armenians! In other words, genocide and human rights are really just a cynical ploy on the part of Jews to serve their own interests).

There are indeed nations where hatred of Jews is a problem, but it isn’t a problem in the West. Sure, there are pockets of neo-nazis and such ilk in the US and EU, but they are far outnumbered by leftist radicals who dominate culture, arts, media, and academia(not least because they are intellectually more serious, better-read, more curious, and creative). 98% of Americans say they would vote for a Jewish person as President. For Chrissakes, where is the rabid Jew-hatred in this country? The main problem, as far as I can see, is blind and mindless Jew-love, which is pathetic since Jews feel mostly contempt for white gentiles. Jews regard all conservative whites as closet-Nazis and they regard liberal whites as their putty pet dogs. Jews see right-wing whites as rabid dogs who won’t obey and see liberal whites as their running dogs who roll over when told to do so. Jews despise both groups, but of course favor the latter because a running dog obeys orders. Jews are using Political Correctness as a vast human Obedience School to make all of us fetch and roll over whenever they want us to. Jews want white male dogs to roll over and want white female dogs to stick their behinds to black male dogs. Jews want to mongrelize the entire white race so that white pride and identity will be gone forever, whereupon Jewish power will be permanent.

Jews are expert chess players, and this is how they see history. We must never trust what the Jews write but learn to read between the lines. 99% of things said and written by people are lies. We all wear masks. We must look behind the mask and see the real face. Though antisemites through the ages exaggerated Jewish evil, there is a dark side of Jewish history and culture that we must look straight in the face and be vigilant against.

Today, Jews feel safe in the US. But, Jews want more than the feeling of safety. They also want POWER, more POWER than anyone else. For a small minority to have excess power, wealth, and influence is always tricky because people take notice and grow resentful and distrustful. So, Jews want to create social and political conditions whereupon their power will be permanently secure forever and ever and can never ever be challenged. (Like champion chess players, Jews are looking 10 moves ahead into the future.) Since Jews can never be a demographic majority in the US, they have to use other means to secure their permanent dominance in the US. The main weapon is to weaken the feelings of pride and unity among their main goyim rival–the white majority. Prior to the Hispanic illegal invasion, Jews used American blacks and worldwide communism to counter the power of the white majority. Jews used blacks to morally shame and scare whitey. But, Jews overplayed this card, crime shot up, and many whites actually turned Republican. Jews also used the specter of world revolution to fill the West with guilt and shame over the history of imperialism. But, communism turned out to be a massive fraud, and Jews no longer wished to be associated with it. As they owned the media and academia, Jews were able to whitewash their role in communism. Also, even though Jews played whites vs blacks, many blacks came to hate Jews, and Jews came to fear an alliance of whites and blacks against Jews even if such alliance was mainly opportunistic and practical than deep.
What Jews had left were pop culture, media, and illegal immigration. Though Jew continued to use blacks against whites, many Jews discovered that rise of black power wasn’t necessarily good for Jews. Indeed, hatred and suspicion of Jews were a bigger problem in the black community than in the white community. Jews know that most Hispanics don’t care much for Jews, but if Hispanics become the other big minority in the US, blacks must compete for attention and sympathy. Since blacks have to compete with Hispanics–another poor and ‘victim’ group–, blacks are more likely to be accommodating with Jews. So, Jews want to use blacks and Hispanics against one another, and then use blacks and Hispanics against the Whites. This way, with whites, Hispanics, and blacks at odds with one another, Jewish power will be safe and permanent. Jews are so paranoid and crazy about power that they are willing to destroy white/western civilization just to safeguard their own interests. That is the WAY OF THE JEW.

Anyway, philosemitism, Judeification, or Judeophilia would not be dangerous IF Jews didn’t hold so much power, have committed great evils in the modern era(especially through communism), and are pushing policies that are sure to destroy the white race forever. After all, there has been a American-Indian-philia as well which has been pretty harmless. During the days of the frontier, Indians were seen as the savage that stood in the way of the white man and progress. In the wars between the white man and the Indian, the whites won totally, and Indians were driven into reservations. But, over time, the American Indian came to be regarded as Noble, Spiritual, and all that stuff; he became romanticized and idealized, especially in movies like Dances with Wolves. The idealized image of the Indian has little to do with reality. There was much that was indeed noble and beautiful about their customs and way of life. And we must honor their courage in putting up a tough fight for their land, culture, and women. But, American Indians were also ruthless, bloody, and not-so-nobly savage as well. But, it doesn’t matter if we no longer criticize American Indians. The fact is American Indians don’t have power in this country. They live on welfare and Casino revenues. They have no control over Hollywood, media, academia, government, etc. In the cases where we hear of Indian issues, it’s usually through Jewish and liberal spokesmen rather than from Indians themselves. So, American-Indian-philia, whether smart or dumb, is immaterial and inconsequential.
But, philosemitism, Judeification, or Judeophilia is dangerous because it makes us drop our guard against the most formidable power in this country and possibly the world. Jewish power is tremendous. Jews are not only disproportionately dominant economically, culturally, and intellectually, they are out to destroy our interests, our power, our pride, our influence. If American-Indian-philia is simply love of the American Indian, Philosemitism isn’t simply love of the Jew. It means being defenseless against the Jew who is out to get you. It means Jews get to use you, abuse you, exploit you, insult you. It means the Jew gets to rape you but you have to buy flowers and chocolates for the Jew for raping you. Consider the behavior of American conservatives. Jews are doing everything to undermine their values, power, and influence. Yet, these same stupid conservatives are going overboard to praise Jews, hug Jews, kiss Jews(in the ass), and support whatever Jews do in Israel. And, when things go badly in the Middle East, the Jews blame it all on white conservatives, but white conservatives support Jews even more. How more pathetic can you get?

Philosemitism says Jews are perfect just like American-Indian-philia says Indians are perfect. Of course, there’s no way to measure human perfection scientifically so we’re dealing with ‘spiritual’ perfection. It means there’s something inherently and intrinsically noble, deep, beautiful, and wonderful about these people. It’s hogwash. But again, it doesn’t matter with American Indians because they are powerless. If our job is to speak truth to power, there is very little we need to say to Indians who have little power and little money(even with all those Casinos–mostly run by Jews, at any rate).
In contrast, we must speak truth to Jewish power, but we cannot speak this truth because philosemitism or Judeification has spiritualized Jews into angels.
Of course, we know there are evil individual Jews like Bernie Madoff and others, but notice that the burden of guilt isn’t placed on the Madoffs or on the Jewish community. No, the bigger burden is put on us for potentially thinking, ‘hmm, lots of Jews involved in shady business and crookedness.’ So, it’s less of a crime for Jews to do evil than for us to take notice of it. So, if a bunch of Jews were to rape your mother and daughter, their crime would be less grave than the fact that you noticed that a bunch of Jews did it. We saw something similar during the Obama campaign–orchestrated by Jews. It was no sin for Obama to have associated with the likes of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers. Oh no, that was perfectly okay. It was deemed a much bigger sin to have taken notice that Obama has extreme and hateful allies. Same thing was true in the 1940s and 1950s. As far as Jewish liberals were concerned, it was a much less of a crime to be a closet-communist or a communist sympathizer than to have blown the whistle on communist espionage and subversion. There has been a spiritualization not only of Jews but of the Left and non-whites. This is why if a college gives tenure to a communist, the moral burden isn’t on the university who hired a radical but on those who denounce such a promotion. Since the left is said to be on the ‘right side of history’–even if they made ‘mistakes’–, leftists are considered to be saints, sages, and angels. To complain of leftist radicals being given positions of power would be McCarthyism or paranoid red-baiting. But, if a college gave tenure to a neo-Nazi scholar, you bet leftists, liberals, and even many conservatives would be calling for an immediate dismissal and cut-off of all funds to the university. In other words, a college can hire a 1000 Noam Chomskys but it better not hire a single David Duke. This is what philosemitism has wrought.

Philosemitism, Judeification, or Judeophilia always finds a way to deflect criticism from the Jews. We saw this when the story of Bernie Madoff hit the news. The media warned that antisemites would run with this, that it was the best Christmas gift to neo-Nazis since Madoff had mostly hurt fellow Jews and gave Jews a bad name. Never mind the much more numerous gentile victims of Bernie Madoff. Never mind the great majority of great financial criminal minds in recent times have been Jewish. Never mind all that. Just focus on the fact that people like Bernie Madoff might lead people to question the power, influence, and wisdom of Jews.
And, there is no middle ground between Jew Love and Jew Hatred according to the Judeophiles. If you don’t totally love the Jew, you must be a Jew hater. "If you’re not with us, you’re against us." Though Jews accuse George W. Bush of promoting a rigid kind of Americanism where it’s ‘either our way or the highway’, Jews promote their interests, their power, and themselves the same way. We must love and appreciate the Jew with total obedience and reverence; otherwise, we are a bunch of antisemites.
Yes, there are indeed some people who would love to use examples such as Bernie Madoff to spin wild conspiracy theories about the Jews and to demean ALL Jews. But, most critics of Jewish power aren’t like that. Most critics of Jewish power respect and admire much in the Jewish community and know that our society is indebted to Jewish genius, brilliance, and hard work. But, who can deny the dark side of Jewish power especially since Jews are so powerful? Also, Jewish power is protected because (1) media, the so-called watchdog, are owned by Jews, and we know a lot of Jews watch out for one another. Many Jews in the media, Wall Street, and Washington have shielded the shysters who were behind the recent economic collapse. The media would have been far more aggressive in going after these crooks if Wall Street is the playground of German-Americans or Greek-Americans. (2) Non-Jews are afraid to criticize Jews since ANY criticism of Jews is labeled as ‘antisemitic’, whereupon the critic is sure to be blacklisted and have his career ruined. (3) And since generations of Americans have been brainwashed by Jewish media, most Americans kneejerkedly think any criticism of Jewish power is a form of neo-Nazism. There is a famous scene in Blues Brothers where Belushi and Ackroyd drive Neo-Nazis into the river. In other words, you get extra points for attacking the enemies of Jews. Now, Neo-Nazis are pretty rotten people, but that scene in Blues Brothers wasn’t really about Neo-Nazis per se. It was about sucking up to Jews. It was as if to say the Blues Brothers are sooooooooo good because they stand up for the Jews.

So, even when Jews do wrong, the blame never falls on the Jews. The blame falls on people who may take notice that a lot of Jews are up to no good. (The Jew media pull the same stunt when blacks act crazy. Instead of blaming blacks for acting crazy and violent, the Jewish media will say the main danger is not what the blacks did but how evil white people might use the example of black criminality to ‘spread hatred’. Blacks are not to be blamed; rather, the focus is on white people who might ‘exploit’ black hatred and lunacy. Very sneaky, these Jews.) In the 80s and early 90s, we discovered that a good number of Televangelists and Christian Right folks were actually hypocritical scam artists. The media went after them full blast. People like the Bakkers got in huge trouble. No mercy was shown. The media narrative was that there is something rotten in the Christian Right community, and we must air it out completely. No one said, ‘we should go easy on the dark side of the Christian Right lest the radical secular enemies of the religion–Neo-Commies–exploit it as an opportunity to spread hatred of religious folks’. Though communism killed tens of millions of religious people, we don’t cut slack for evil Christians. If there’s something rotten in the Christian community, we air it out and discuss it openly whatever the consequences. Same has been true with the Catholic priest scandal. There had indeed been a culture of silence and violence within the Catholic hierarchy. Too many sexually abusive priests had been allowed to remain in the church and even to rise up the hierarchy. When this news broke, the media went full blast to air all the dirty laundry. No one said, ‘this Catholic-bashing could be exploited by radical leftists who spread communism in the 20th century and slaughtered millions of Catholics.’ The burden of guilt was fully upon the Catholic priests, the Catholic Church, and the Catholic culture as a whole which had turned a blind eye to all these problems despite the warnings through the decades. And, the media treat the problems within the Mormon community the same way.

But, when it comes to the Jewish community, the burden of guilt falls on the goyim than on the Jews EVEN WHEN it’s the Jews who’ve committed acts of great wickedness and sneakery. The main finger is not pointed at the Jews but at those who might think less of Jews because of what has been exposed of the Jewish community. So, if you’re in a room full of people, and if a Jew farts a truly nasty fart, the finger is not pointed at the Jew but at the person who says the "Jew did it." If a Catholic, a Baptist, or a Mormon farts, the Jewish guy can say as loud as possible, ‘the GOY did it’. But, if a Jew farts, you better pretend the Jew didn’t fart at all. You better pretend that the terrible odor doesn’t emanate from the Jew but from the room as a whole or even from yourself for even daring to entertain the thought that the Jew did it. How dare you!!!! Are you an antisemite or something?
In the recent financial crisis, the Jewish community–in government, economic thinktanks, and in Wall Street–were the main fartmeisters, but we are not supposed to notice it. We can fully take notice of the rottenness within the Catholic Church, but we are not supposed to notice the rottenness in the Jewish community. So, even though Bernie Madoff and others like him blew massive farts, the burden of guilt falls on those who say, "Jews blew the rotten egg farts." Now, suppose Wall Street were mostly controlled by WASPS. You bet the Jewish run media would be attacking not only the individuals in the financial sector but the whole WASPY old-boys-network and culture of special connections, sweet deals, conspiratorial collusion, and whatnot. But, since most of the big old bad boys are Jews, we are not supposed to notice that the Jews farted. We are not also not supposed to notice that these rotten Jews also supported Obama over McCain. We are not supposed to notice that Obama’s administration is doing special favors for Wall Street Jews. Of course, McCain would have done the same thing as Jewish purse strings control both parties. Though the financial sector gave more to Obama, it did give a considerable amount to McCain as well.
Just think of how this all works. Jews in global finance mess things all up, and then they get to pull all the strings–especially in collusion with their Jewish media buddies. Of course, the liberal media have been hard on Wall Street and financial sector but it hasn’t been hard enough. It has pretty much buried the news about the ties between the Jewish finance boys and Obama. And, it’s mostly for show anyway. We know that liberal Jews in the media are in cahoots with the big Jewish boys in finance. Though they have some ideological differences, blood is thicker than ideological ink. The superrich liberal Jews who run the media will not really go after the superduperrich Jews in finance. Besides, on social and cultural policies, the finance Jewish boys and media Jewish boys see eye to eye. They both want to piss away national sovereignty of America and promote social libertarianism and decadence so as to undermine the fabric of the white moral order for the sake of permanent global Jewish power based in the US.
Indeed, just look at how Hollywood and entertainment industry are in cahoots with liberal news media. If the liberal news media are really about going after the guys with Big Money who do crooked things, how come Hollywood has gotten a pass all these years despite their marketing of cultural sewage, their corrupt and crooked ‘creative finance’, their materialistic and piggish lifestyles, and so on? Because both Hollywood bigshots and media bigshots are liberal Jews. All said and done, it’s all about Jewish power, Jewish influence, and Jewish clout. And, on social and cultural issues, they see eye to eye. They know their main priority is to undermine the moral fabric of American whites. And, it’s happened tremendously fast. Hollywood promotes miscegenocide on a huge scale whereupon more and more white girls go with Negro males to have half-negro kids. Iowa, a Midwest State has approved ‘gay marriage’. Iowa of all places! How could that be? Iowa is not San Francisco. It’s the power of the Academia, TV, Hollywood, News, and etc, all controlled by Jews. The Liberal Jew poison spreads everywhere because media control the minds of all Americans. Jews are devious but they know how to think and come up with fun stuff that engages people’s hearts and minds(or lack thereof). Most goyim are brainless dolts who just go along with others say.

So, we must wake up to reality. We must reject philosemitism, Judeification, or Judeophilia. It is dangerous because (1) Jews are the most powerful people in this country and we need to ‘speak truth to power’ (2) Jews are out to undermine us and destroy our race and culture (3) failure or cowardice to criticize Jews means that even when Jews do wrong, the blame never falls on Jews but on us instead. I’m all for criticizing the Christian Right, the Catholics, Mormons, and etc. I don’t care if millions of Christians of Catholic or Orthodox Faith were murdered by totalitarian madness in the 20th century. If there’s something rotten in those communities, we should discuss it and air the dirty laundry. I don’t care if 3 million Poles died in WWII and if Poland suffered under communism for 50 yrs. If something is rotten in Polish history, culture, or nation, we should discuss it openly. Similarly, I don’t care if millions of Jews died in the Holocaust. The fact is we must discuss the dark side of Jewish history, especially of how Jews were instrumental in the Bolshocaust which killed over 20 million people in USSR alone. We must discuss the Jewish role in the undermining and subversion of the white order in the US.

It may well be that the Jews have already destroyed America and white power forever. It may well be that the damage is now irreversible. But, if we’re gonna go down, let us at least drag the Jew down with us. If a Jew pushes you off the cliff, hang onto the Jew, and pull him down with you. Jews are mocking, insulting, and murdering us, but as we slide down the cliff, we should sink our claws into the Jew and pull him down with us. If SW goes to Mexican Illegals, let us make sure that Israel falls to the Palestinians. If Jews create conditions where more and more whites are attacked by black crime, let us get back at the Jews. If Jews are destroying us–and nothing can be done about it–, at the very least we can destroy the Jews in the bargain. It’s like when Hamlet was poisoned and dying. He knew he was finished but he knew he could kill his enemy as he himself died. They all died, but at least Hamlet got his sweet revenge. It may be too late to save ourselves but we can get our revenge against the Jew who are doing to us what Hitler always warned. Hitler was a lowlife scum, and his crimes were evil. But, how ironic that Jews, who said Hitler was just a paranoid lunatic, are indeed doing everything Hitler said the Jews would do: destroy the white race through miscegenation, mass immigration, and cultural decadence; Jews want whites to become like those crazy and confused mulattos of Brazil. What with all the cultural decadence plaguing the white goy, he has lost the will to fight for his land, his woman, his honor, his people. White boys have no sense of history, heritage, or pride. If we’re gonna fade away and die as a people, the least we can do is ensure the destruction of the Jews along with our destruction. Amen.