Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Law of Compensation Regarding Conservatives and Zionism.

You cannot gain national power in this country without the approval or consent of Jewish power. You’re best off if the Jews fully support you. But, if the Jews don’t like you or your views, you must at least win their consent or mild approval. And for conservatives the only way to win this approval is by supporting Zionism 100%. Doing so the conservative candidate will win support from conservative Jews, who though outnumbered by liberal Jews, are very rich and influential. He will also face less hostility from liberal Jews who, though opposed to conservative values and policies, are pro-Zionist and would know that the conservative goy politician at least knows how to kiss Jewish ass. Liberal Jews may be more critical of Israel than conservative Jews are, but liberal Jews range from the likes of Alan Dershawitz, an ardent Israel Hawk, to the Nation magazine which, despite its harsh criticism of Israel, believes in the ‘right of Israel to exist’(which means no ‘right of return’ for displaced Palestinians and no right for Palestine to exist on the land which Israel now occupies).

Anyway, the point is gaining national power is impossible without either the support or some degree of approval of the Jews. Since most Jews(oligarches of the media and academia)are opposed to conservative values and policies, how may conservatives reduces the hostility from the vastly powerful Jewish community? Zionism is the only answer. Since even liberal Jews love Zionism, conservatives can make themselves acceptable, if not exactly appealing, to the Jewish power brokers who pull the purse strings and run much of the academia/media.

The Law of Compensation says THE MORE CONSERVATIVE A CANDIDATE IS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, THE MORE ZIONIST HE MUST BE ON THE ISSUE OF ISRAEL. The more a candidate opposes stuff like ‘gay marriage’, open door immigration policy, affirmative discrimination, miscegenation(or miscegenocide of the white race), gun restrictions, and multiculturalism, the more he must embrace Israel dearly and nearly and early and curly. That is the nature of the bargain in current politics. If you oppose the social or political policies that Jews favor in America, you must compensate by supporting Israel 100%, 200%, or 300%.

Even among ‘conservative’ Jews, a good many support GOP mainly for the reason that it happens to be more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party. If Zionism were to go away as an issue, I suspect half the Jewish Republicans would join the Democratic Party. So, even though 18% of Jews voted for McCain in 2008, if the issue of Zionism were taken off the table, it probably would have been 90%. Jews are 2-3% of the US population, but 60% of donations to the Democratic Party come from Jews, and 35% of donations to the Republican Party comes from Jews. Even though Republicans receive less from Jews than do Democrats, Jews are still the biggest donor group for the GOP. If Jews are 2% of the US population, then conservative Jews are .4% of the US population. Yet, 35% of the donation to McCain’s campaign came from Jews. So, both parties are beholden to Jewish money and power. People think Mitt Romney is a rich guy, but he only made $250 million, which is laughable chump change to Jews who make up over 48% of all the billionaires in this country.

So, sucking up to Jews is an absolute necessity in this country. Meritocracy is a good thing, but it doesn’t just favor the most qualified individuals; it favors certain groups over others because certain groups have more individuals possessed of certain talents. For example, meritocracy in sports had led to domination by blacks. And, meritocracy in academics and business had led to the domination of Jews. Yes, individual blacks and Jews succeeded above the rest–and there are plenty of blacks who failed in sports and plenty of Jews who never grew rich. But, the fact is certain sectors do become dominated by individuals who share a common background, common race or ethnicity. Since people of the same ethnicity or race tend to share similar values, assumptions, and ideas, the end result of meritocracy is not the triumph of individualism but the triumph of certain groups over others. Sports is about triumph of black power over non-black power. As such, blacks are worshiped by white boys and white girls as the alpha-male race. White men have become sheepish white boys groveling before the big tough cool black dudes, and white girls wanna put out to black studs and give birth to little Obamas.
Business world has seen the triumph of Jewish power. Jews get to own and control business, come up with financial tricks, and make billions; when the system collapses due to their financial crookedness, they use the government to bail them out. Since media operations require lots of talent and brain power–and lots of money–, Jews were bound to gobble up all the media as well. Some say there’s Fox TV and point out that Murdoch isn’t Jewish, but the cultural department of Fox Inc. has been headed by a liberal Jew. Also, Fox has been as corrupting as Hollywood with little in the way of conservative values. Also, Sean Hannity and those Talk Show conservatives are a bunch of blowhard idiots who suck up to Israel night and day. They are all a bunch of slaves to Jewish power just the same.

This is why Ayn Rand-ism is worthless to the white gentile race. It doesn’t help us. In sports and pop culture(which has become a kind of pornographic gladiator sports), blacks rule totally thanks to meritocratism. In business, Jews rule. There’s nothing left in it for us. In Ayn Rand fantasies, the great titans are usually tall, handsome goy men, but look at our society, look at reality. The titans of culture and business are funny looking Jews. And, though they make their fortunes through the cutthroat Ayn Rand way, they hold and push leftist or liberal views that empower them even further.

Their leftism is opportunistic, tribal, and idealistic. It’s opportunistic because bigger government is simply another means for rich folks and their kids to rule society politically as well as economically. It’s tribal because it’s in the Jewish interest to make US more diverse so that Jews can play different groups against one another like Jerry Springer plays white and black trash guests on his show. (This is why Mel Gibson said, "Jews start all wars"). . Also, it’s in the Jewish interest to castrate white men into white boys and to divide white women and white men. Destroy the cultural, sexual, and historical unity of white men and white women, and the white race is finished. This is the REAL aim of feminism. It’s not about women power. It’s about brainwashing white women to side with Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, and other ‘victim’ groups against the Evil White Male. Notice that feminists go easy on instances of non-white male oppression of women. Indeed, feminists get more worked up about white conservative males who believe in full freedom for women than against Muslim males who treat their women like property or against black males who treat their women like whores.

Anyway, the Law of Compensation is something we must be aware of because it has poisoned the well of conservative politics. And, no one was a bigger poster boy of the danger of this rule than George W. Bush. We know that Bush’s social policies were detested by the Jewish community. I didn’t like some of them myself as the Christian Right is pretty stupid. Anyway, the fact is Bush’s social policies were very conservative in certain areas. Jews in this country are mainly interested in social and domestic issues, even more so than in Israel. Jews want us to accept ‘gay marriage’, open borders(and illegal ‘immigration’), multiculturalism which blames white people for all the problem of the world(Jews excepted of course), radical feminism(which divides white man and white woman), gun restrictions, and interracism(whereby white women are goaded and encouraged to give birth to black babies). Many white conservatives are opposed to these Jewish policies. As such, the Jews denounce white conservatives as ‘racists’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘homophobes’, ‘sexists’, and other stupid slurs they pulled out of their hairy arses. Since Jews are so powerful, how can conservatives hope to succeed on the national political stage against the might of the Jewish controlled liberal media? The only way is to woo the Jew is by being even more Zionist than the Jews themselves. And that was the essence of Bush’s foreign policy.

Jews hated Bush, but they tolerated him because he was a foreign policy puppet of Neocon Zionists. Though neocons and liberal Jews don’t see eye to eye on many issues, there is a Jewish camaraderie between the two groups. And, both sides agree mostly if not 100% on Israel. Though liberal Jews at NY Times, CNN, ABC News, New Republic, Time, and Newsweek will insist that they were duped into supporting the Iraq War because the Bush administration lied about intelligence reports, they really supported Bush’s war because they thought it would be good for Israel. Neocons and Jewish liberals came together to support Bush’s war in the hope of re-making the Middle East so that Israel will be safer. And if Iraq War had turned out well, liberal Jews would not be complaining that no WMD were found. They would be happy that the Middle East had been made safe for Israel. They would have lauded Bush on the war. Of course, they would still hate Bush on social issues and look for some other reason than the war to unseat him. But, the fact is Bush won some degree of Jewish consent if not support when his foreign policy turned out to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel.

And, we see this over and over among nearly all national conservative politicians. The more they espouse conservative social values and policies, the louder they scream about how Israel is dear to us, precious to us, close to us, and blah blah. You’d think they care more for Israel than for the US. This is why Ron Paul never had a chance. Whatever his faults and merits, he stood for policies at odds with the Jewish community and had the guts to criticize Israel. He violated the Law of Compensation. So did Pat Buchanan. If you’re gonna go against the Jews on social policy, you MUST compensate by groveling before the Jews on the issue of Israel. Ron Paul and Buchanan violated the Law.
Problem with Bush is he took this too far and embarrassed the Jews. He was such an ass-kisser of the Jews on the issue of Israel that more and more people around the world began to think, "JEWS REALLY DO CONTROL AMERICA." People on both the Right and Left all over the world saw Bush as a toady of Israel and American Jews. They saw Bush’s strings pulled by Neocon Jews.

Jews are always hungry for more power in reality, but they want to appear powerless in public. They want to own billions but want to act like they just walked out of a shtetl or a Nazi death camp. But, Bush’s slavishness to Jews on foreign policy made Jews look very powerful. A book like "Israel Lobby" would have been dismissed at any other time, but it received a degree of positive attention because it became obvious who holds the REAL power and wealth in America during the Bush era.
It must be said the ‘Israel Lobby’ is a misnomer. It should be called the USrael lobby as there is no distinct barrier between Israel and the US. Jews go back and forth from NY, LA, or Washington DC to Israel. Israel is more powerful in Washington DC than all the other countries combined. It is more powerful and influential than any of the 50 American states. This is not because US is under Israeli occupation but because it’s under Jewish-American occupation. Israel is powerful in the US because Jewish Americans are powerful. If US had no Jews, Israel would have no power over us. But, American Jews hold the media, academia, and the purse strings.
They’ve been telling us over and over that Israel is special to us. We didn’t decide this on our own. No, Israel’s importance to us was fed to us by the Jewish media and academia. We’ve told that we love Israel because Israel is a democracy like ours, Israel was founded much like the US was, Israel has been a staunch ally during the Cold War, etc. These are not OUR thoughts and sentiments. No, they are thoughts and feeling dictated to us by the Jewish media. Following the logic and reasons given by Jews as to why we love Israel, we can make a counter-argument on the same grounds. If US was founded upon rebellion against oppressive authority, we could just as well side with Palestinians who could be compared to American colonialists and minutemen. If democracy is so dear to us, we can say Palestinians are fighting for equal rights, equal dignity, and equal claim to their ancestral land. If the issue of Cold War allegiance is what makes Israel dear to us, then let us remember that NO GROUP in the US did more to spy for the USSR, aid and abet radical leftist groups, stir up black rage and hatred against whites, supported Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and undermine our efforts in Vietnam than Jewish-Americans. Jews were the biggest thorn on our side during the Cold War era. Jews were by far the most radical, most anti-American, the most communist-sympathizing group in America. So, the reasons that are given as to why we love Israel are not our own reasons; they are reasons foisted upon us by the Jewish media. If we need to understand anything, it’s that we must stop allowing Jews to think for us. We must think on our own according to what’s good for OUR interests. Jews in America and Israel are not good for our interests.

Anyway, Bush went overboard with the Law of Compensation. Jews want politicians to support Jewish interests but don’t want them to look beholden to Jews. That would mean that Jews are indeed powerful. Bush made Jews look all-powerful. Much of the Bush hatred around the world had an element of distrust, resentment, and even hatred of Jewish-American power. Many Europeans envy and hate Hollywood and American pop culture’s control over the world. Their criticism of American policies is often really an attack on Jewish-American power. But, as Jews are linked to the Holocaust and due to Europe’s long history of antisemitism, Europeans would rather not say it so openly. Europeans did notice that Bush was 200% pro-Israel and his foreign policy seemed guided and controlled by neocon Jews. Also, the world wondered why liberal Jewish institutions supported the war. Why did NY Times and New Republic give their thumbs up and fan the war fever? Why was much of the liberal Jewish media coverage of the war so favorable(in the early stages)? We know why. The Jews thought the war would stabilize the Middle East and that it would be good for Israel. Jews, both neocons and liberals, wanted to show the world how an America-guided-by-Jewish-power could fix the world’s problems. But, the war went very badly. The world began to say ‘we told you so’ and started to blame America for its arrogance and hubris. This is when liberal Jews all jumped ship and tried to put all the blame on Bush. They acted all innocent and said they’d been duped by Bush the liar. The neocons couldn’t jump ship so easily as they had positioned themselves within the GOP power structure. But, even neocons who had been behind the war found various excuses to support Obama in 2008. Yep, it’s the Jewish way. No principles, no loyalty. Just their conniving self-interest.

Iraq War or no Iraq War(and its political fallout), the Jews would have supported Obama anyway. Obama is their boy. He’s the child of black male/white female sexual union. He is the template of what Jews want to happen to all of white America. Jews want white males to be emasculated into metrosexual quasi-homos and white females to open throw themselves at black men. This will destroy white power forever, and Jews will be All-Powerful forever. Jews want to control a black guy who would morally and spiritually lord over a bunch of pussified, sappy, dorky, and self-loathing white boys and jungle-feverish girls. Jews also want to remake the black community. Jews want blacks as moral allies–Jews, victims of Holocaust, linked with blacks, victims of slavery(both victims of white racial oppression). But, too many blacks resent Jewish success and blame Jews for a lot of black problems. Many blacks also side with Palestinians against Israel. So, it was in the interest of Jews to prop up a clean-cut black guy who would challenge the crazy styles of Al Sharpton and his ilk who are hostile to Jews. But, Jews were careful to make sure that Obama didn’t appear totally pro-Jewish as that would make Obama seem like a puppet of Jews. So, Obama has been allowed to associate with some Palestinian-Americans and dilly-dally with the likes of Wright and Nation of Islam followers. This would give cover to Obama’s dependence on the Jews.

Obama is useful to the Jews because it gives the false impression that US is no longer presided by a Jewish puppet–Bush. Many idiots actually think Obama is his own man when he’s really beholden to Jews even more than Bush ever was. Bush was beholden only to neocon Jews whereas Obama is beholden to both neocon and liberal Jews. And, record amount of Jewish money went to supporting Obama. And the Jew-run media gave Obama favorable cult-like coverage like you wouldn’t believe. Now, some people will say that many Obama supporters in the media are non-Jews, but as Jews own all those media outlets, Jews have hired mostly liberal pro-Jewish gentiles over the yrs. So, even gentiles in the media were handpicked by the Jews. (And, as a disproportionate number of "conservatives" on TV and radio are Jews, even they will never ever criticize Jewish power. Jewish conservatives will rail against the Left, but never against the Jewish Left–despite the fact that Jews pretty much define and control the Left. Jewish conservatives will specifically go after Mexican power, Chinese power, Saudi power, or Muslim power, but they’ll never attack Jewish power–despite the fact that Left in this country is largely Jewish, especially at the top.)

Obama is also useful to Jews because Bush’s aggressive Zionism has failed. Bush ended up destabilizing the Middle East and only increased the ire of many Muslims who came to see US as a totally Jew-controlled nation. Though Bush was 200% pro-Israel, this backfired on the Jews. It made it seem as though Bush was doing EVERYTHING for Israel. So, the cunning Jews decided to go with Obama, supposedly a fair-minded person because of his multi-racial and multi-religious background. But, it is all a sham. The only thing about Obama that isn’t pro-Jewish is his ideology of black identity. There is indeed an element of Black Power-ism in Obama, but Obama the sly fox is as cunning as the Jews. He knows that Jews have all the money and power in the US. He always knew that he had to play along to Jewish interests and power. So, Obama has suppressed his black power side of his ideology.
Other than black power ideology, Obama’s influences are all Jewish. He came under the influence of Marxism, a Jewish theory. He went to Ivy League schools and hung around radicals, a good many of them Jews. And, his spiritual mentor was Saul Alinsky, another dirty left-wing Jew. His professors were Jewish. His associates were Jewish. His big money men have been Jewish.

But, Jews don’t want Obama to act totally beholden to the Jews. Bush did that, and it actually made it worse for the Jews because world came to see who has the real power in America. So, Obama is supposed to act like he is independent, is his own man, a brilliant thinker of staggering intellect(though Jews do all the thinking for him), and fairminded to all peoples. And, so many people have fallen for this crap, which goes to show how stupid the world is.
But, even foreign people who see through this charade like the fact that Obama is president because they want US to be humiliated. The idea of a black guy becoming president means, for many people around the world, that the evil whites are losing grip of their country. Whites are now ruled by a black man who belongs to the race that had once served as slaves in America; whites have now become the spiritual and moral slaves of blacks(and financial and political slaves of Jews).

Another reason why Obama doesn’t have to be slavish to Jewish interests(at least publicly) is that he supports the social policies that Jews want. Deep down inside, Obama is for ‘gay marriage’, open borders for illegal invasion, taking guns away from whites, multiculturalism which blames whites for all the problems in the world, global welfare, radical feminism which divides and weakens the white race(as only white males are routinely attacked by feminism while non-white men still qualify as ‘victims’ under the ‘people of color’ banner). Since Obama is for all the social policies that Jews want to push on us, the Law of Compensation doesn’t apply to him. The Law only applies to conservatives because they must make up for angering Jews on social issues. Again, the only way conservatives can make up for pissing off the Jews on issues like ‘gay marriage’ is by supporting Zionism 100%. Bush took this to the logical limit, and Jews got burned because it made Jews look too powerful(which they really are). These are things we must understand if we are to confront Jewish power and see it for what it.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Do Conservatives Oppose 'Marriage Equality'? Yes, and They Must!

Proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say that people–mostly on the Right–who oppose it are against Marriage Equality. Many on the Right deny this because ‘equality’ has become a sacred cow, which is rather hilarious because no society on Earth is more competitive and hierarchical(in a meritocratic way)than the United States. After all, liberals live to succeed in business–be in Hollywood, law, medicine, and high-tech–and making millions or even billions of dollars. Most people in Ivy League schools are liberals–a good number of them Jews–, which means that liberals want to send their kids to the cream-of-the-crop academic institutions. And, liberals love sports where the best of the best dominate and make millions of dollars while janitors and clean up crew working at the stadium make a pittance. Liberals aren’t bothered by the fact that most sports franchises are owned by billionaire Jews who live in giant mansions and own several yachts. So, we are living in a funny kind of society. On the one hand, our society is competitive, and the smartest come out on top. And, the smartest/richest people who own the culture industry hire and market the good looking, the athletic, the witty, and the glamorous so that movie stars make millions while countless schmucks flip hamburgers for their Friday night at the movie.

But, despite the actual nature of our society, equality is our national religion. Perhaps, ‘egalitarianism’ is the better term because equality can mean anything. There’s the concept of equality of opportunity and equality under the law as opposed to equality of outcome or bio-equality of man. Equality of opportunity or protection under the law doesn’t deny the fact that people are different and that equal freedom will lead to different results. In contrast, equality of outcome demands that all people, regardless of their differences, should receive, more or less, the same rewards in life. And, bio-equality of man assumes that all men(and even women) are made of the same stuff and have the same talents(and the only reason for differences among people is social or historical injustice).

In any case, one form of equality violates another form of equality. Equality of opportunity means that smarter and more industrious will rise above the dumb and lazy; it leads to socio-economic inequality. But, equality of outcomes violates the equality of opportunity because the freedom of smarter and more industrious people will have to be curtailed so as to make things ‘fairer’ for the dumb and/or lazy.
But, equality is such a catchy and appealing idea that all sides use the equality excuse. Conservatives say they are for equality in the sense that all people should have equal freedom to be work and succeed in life according to one’s talent and input; since rich people used freedom equally open to all to succeed in life, why shouldn’t they keep their riches? Leftists, in contrast, say they are for equality in the sense that all people should be provided with happiness and necessities of life; why should rich people have so much more than poor people?

But, this is a complex and unpredictable issue because many poor people want equality of freedom and not equality of outcome; they want to rise up using their own freedom or want their kids to do so. And, there are plenty of rich people who are for equality of outcome(at least as a state policy if not in real terms); they wouldn’t really be giving up their riches, power, and/or privilege since the rich and well-educated and their children will be controlling the government and institutions dedicated to making society more ‘fair and equal’.

Anyway, equality has become a secular religion. All sides try to justify their views or position on the basis of equality–one kind or another. So, it’s only natural that the people pushing the gay agenda use the equality argument for ‘gay marriage’. They say gay couples should have equal right to marriage as normal or heterosexual couples do. And, if such is not provided for them, society is evil, wicked, and oppressive.

Of course, equality is not synonymous with sameness. Sameness means that two things are alike. Equality means bestowing equal value to two things which may or may not be alike. For instance, an apple and a rubber ball are not the same, but they can have equal value if both cost $1. But, only a fool would say a rubber ball should be categorized as a food item because its monetary value is equal to that of an apple. They are of equal value but not the same thing.

The problem of marriage equality is more serious because gay marriage is utterly valueless. A rubber ball is good for playing and an apple is good for eating. But, what is ‘gay marriage’ good for? Gays cannot have kids. I know of no child that was born of a man buggering another man or two women grinding their vaginas together. So, homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality. A ‘gay family’ is a culturally constructed fantasy as no life can be created by homosexual behavior. Gay people have to engage in heterosexual behavior themselves to create life or they have to adopt children produced by heterosexual unions. So, in a ‘gay family’, the child(though created through heterosexual union) is denied the healthy and normal attentions of a father and mother but instead led to believe that he’s the product of two men buggering one another or two women grinding their pussies together. In other words, ‘gay marriage’ is a pathetic lie. It is not same as real marriage; it is not even equal in value with real marriage. It is a monstrous perversion of the concept of marriage, either for the purpose of undermining the foundations of our civilization so as to bring forth social breakdown whereupon a wholly radical new order will be built (the agenda of the radical left) OR for the purpose of feeling oh-so-morally-hip-and-narcissistic among airheaded liberals who’ve been brainwashed by pop culture and radical professors into thinking it’s uncool and lame to oppose ‘gay marriage’.

Anyway, it’s time for conservatives to stop being afraid of the word ‘equality’. It’s about time conservatives said, "not only is ‘gay marriage’ not equal to real marriage but that the very concept of marriage equality is a stupid idea." Marriage has its own meaning, purpose, values, and design. It is what it is according to its needs, purpose, and meaning. It is a form of human relationship with its own set of rules. Indeed, if we are to expand on the definition of marriage, why not call every relation a form of marriage? Why not call the relationship between employer and employee a marriage? Why not call the relationship between a coach and his players a marriage? Why not call the relationship between a movie director and actor a marriage? After all, ‘marriage’ has been used metaphorically, as in ‘marriage made in hell’, ‘marriage of talents’, etc. Why not turn metaphors into literal meanings? Of course, this will not do because most human relationships simply do NOT qualify as marriage as marriage is defined. ‘Gay marriage’ may resemble marriage more than most kinds of human relationships do. After all, there is sexual attraction between the two partners, and the couple may want to commit to a relationship for life. That part has the trappings of real marriage. But, gay coupling makes no reproductive sense. Gays are sexually screwed up. Their bio-chemistry simply isn’t normal or functional. Their feelings and their physical attributes don’t complement one another. A gay guy with a penis acts like he has a pussy. A lesbian with a pussy acts like she has a dick. Though the vagina was designed by nature to be a hole for the penis in order to create life, two lesbians rub their vaginas together in a funny way. And, gay guys stick their penises into the anuses of other men and squirt sperm into a tunnel filled with shit. In the case of gay men, the sexual act isn’t just funny–as with lesbians–but downright sick and putrid. A guy fuc*ing another guy in the ass is gross.

We should not and cannot impose equality or equal value on things that aren’t the same and aren’t even of equal value. Indeed, contrary to what egalitarians may think, the very concept of equality assumes the existence and necessity for hierarchy. After all, if equality exists in the world, so must inequality–just as darkness and lightness only make sense in relation to the other. For there to be lightness, there has to darkness. We notice lightness as a contrast to darkness, and we notice darkness in contrast to lightness. If darkness was all we knew, we wouldn’t even notice it. If lightness was all we knew, we wouldn’t notice it either. We say some things are of equal value because we are aware of inequalities that exist all around us. We may argue that some inequalities are artificial, constructed, falsely premised, or unjust. But, we must also acknowledge that most inequalities are natural, normal, welcome, beneficial, and not the product of injustice. Some people are smarter than other people. Some animals are faster than other animals. Some animals are stronger than other animals. Some people are stronger than other people. These inequalities are facts and the products of nature. We become aware of equality only because inequality is an overwhelming fact of life and nature. Because so many things and creatures are unequal and different, we take notice when we see things that are equal in form or value. For example, we notice that a tiger is stronger than a cheetah–inequality. But, we may observe that a tiger is roughly of equal strength as the lion. And we may note that the cheetah is faster than a tiger or lion. And we may say that a car going 60 mph is roughly as fast as a cheetah–equal speed. So, we are aware of the concept of equality because it exists in contrast to inequality that we see all around us in nature and human society. We know that Einstein was immeasurably smarter than your average beauty contestant.

Taking notice of equality and forcing equality are two different things. It’s one thing to say it would be nice if all people were equally smart, but an agenda that tries to pretend that all people are of equal intelligence makes no sense. But, radical egalitarians are trying to redefine intelligence. They argue that the concept of intelligence is Eurocentric(funny when some of the smartest people measured by Eurocentric tests are Jews and Asians) and that there are many kinds of intelligence. So, the ability to dribble and dunk a basketball is a kind of intelligence too. So, the ability to be sociable and make friend is also an intelligence. Now, intelligence is involved in everything we do as all skills are partly learned and memorized. But, intelligence, as most people understand it, has to do with logic, memory, and rational thinking of a higher sort, not mere physical talent or likability. Someone who learns to hula hoop very well isn’t exactly a genius. Neither is a person who learns to eat 100 hotdogs in 30 minutes. Such individuals may indeed have used a degree of intelligence to improve their talents, but their feats have less to do with high intelligence than certain physical attributes and sheer will power(and obsessive stupidity).

Anyway, it’s become a very bad habit on the left to force equality on things that are not equal. Equality has become a religion, an ideology. Thus, it goes by the name of ‘egalitarianism’. It’s not simply about taking notice of things that are equal or trying to make social laws equally just for everyone. It’s about forcing equality on things and people that are not equal and can never be equal. It’s about pretending that a dumb person is really just as smart as an intelligent person by coming up with endless social or historical excuses for the dumb person’s failures or by redefining intelligence.

Or, it’s pretending that homosexuality is just as legitimate as heterosexuality. Sane people know that the basic fact of sexuality concerns its reproductive nature. The reason why people feel sexual pleasure is because evolution made sex pleasurable possible so as to encourage members of the species to mate in order to produce offsprings to carry on the DNA. If organisms didn’t feel ‘lust’ and seek pleasure through sex, they wouldn’t engage in sex and would die out as a species. So, the basic feature of sex is its reproductive function. Higher animals such as dogs, apes, and humans have come to appreciate or enjoy sexual pleasure without necessarily engaging in reproductive activity. Dogs will hump legs or furniture. You can see apes masturbating at the zoo. Humans are also known to masturbate and also to engage in sex for the express purpose of pleasure. To be sure, it could be argued that all creatures engage in sex for fun or pleasure rather than to procreate since only humans understand that sex-leads-to-pregnancy-and-new-life. So, when a lion humps a bunch of lionesses, he’s doing it out of sheer horniness, not because he thinks it’s going to lead to birth of lion cubs. Lions and even apes do not understand that sex leads to new life. They go into heat, feel horny, and want pleasure by f___ing. Humans are the ONLY organisms that understands that sex leads to new life, so humans are the ONLY organisms that has sex specifically for the purpose of creating offspring.

Since modern healthcare and abundance of food make it possible for most human offsprings to survive, there’s no need for humans to have lots of sex to have more kids. In primitive societies where only 2 offsprings survive out of 9 or 10, sex serves a truly primary function. In modern society, even if a couple has only two kids, both will live a long life thanks to abundance of food and modern medicine. So, sex is mainly for pleasure for modern humans, especially since they have contraceptive means to prevent pregnancy. For people who are mainly interested in the pleasures of sex and don’t want to have children, marriage isn’t all that important; there’s no great moral need for the partners to get married. They may choose to marry out of love, but whether they do or not has little bearing on rest of society. However, if a couple decides to have sex to create new life, marriage or some kind of strong mutual moral commitment is absolutely necessary because their kids will grow up to become members of society for good or for ill. Humans are not only born but raised and shaped into citizens. This responsibility of shaping babies/children into decent adults must fall on the very people who created the children in the first place. This is a moral necessity, and this is what marriage is all about.

Marriage is not merely a biological concept nor merely a moral concept. It is a bio-moral concept. Marriage can also be understood culturally and spiritually, but those concerns are specific to particular societies. What all societies have in common, however, is the bio-moral aspect of marriage: that is life is created through sex between man and woman and that the people who’ve decided to create that life must be responsible for it. Whether a society is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or communist, that much can be agreed upon. But, the cultural and spiritual aspects of marriage differ culture to culture. Culture is the product of tradition and customs, so different cultures have different rules for marriage: age of consent, monogamy vs polygamy, rules on divorce, marriage by free choice or by arrangement, etc. And, different religions validate marriage differently; for Jews, rules of marriage concerns the Chosen People and their covenant with God. For Christians, marriage is something sanctified before God. For Asians, marriage is a way of passing down the spirit of ancestors to future generations. So, the cultural(traditional) or religious meaning of marriage is not universally the same around the world. But, the bio-moral element of marriage has been a constant in all peoples and all societies. It was and is understood that a mother must take care of her children and that the father must stick around to protect and provide for the family. Whether we’re talking of primitive, barbaric, or modern society, that much has been true. But, the Left and the gay agenda people are waging war against this concept of marriage.

Though communists came to accept marriage as a social necessity, many on the Left have always been wary and hostile toward marriage because the family has been regarded as an obstacle in the creation of the New Man. This is why the Left wants women to enter the workforce and hand their kids over to daycare centers where kids, from the cradle, will be indoctrinated in leftist ideology. The Left ideally wants kids to be raised by the Big Mother Big Father Nanny state(funded and run by the government) rather than by their own parents who might have ‘reactionary’ tendencies. And, though the Nazis were not as anti-family, they too wanted German parents to hand over their kids as early as possible to state indoctrination. Even so, communist nations came to understand that the state cannot produce life. Only couples can. Also, the state cannot breast-feed and take care of all kids 24/7, so the biological parents had to play a major role. So, the concept of marriage was preserved under communism.

Nevertheless, the Left would like to take control of children as much as possible. Since the Left sees the state as the real intellectual, moral, and cultural guardians of the children, the sanctity of marriage is seen as a mere hindrance. The modern Left doesn’t care if children are born out of wedlock and grow up in single-mother homes. The Left feels that as long as the state is big enough and well-funded enough, the kids can properly be raised by the vast state apparatus. And, even if things don’t work out as the Left promises and the breakdown of marriage leads to social decay(as conservatives warned), the Left doesn’t care because it sees the collapse of the modern capitalist order as an opportunity to bring forth a real radical revolution. Leftists act in utterly bad faith. They offer ideas and programs that are supposed to fix problems. But, if their proposals make problems worse and lead to social ruin, leftists love that too since they have apocalyptic visions of a wholly new society built upon radical ideas.

Anyway, to those who say we are opposed to marriage equality, you are right. We don’t believe that ‘gay marriage’ is equal to real marriage on biological, moral, cultural, or spiritual grounds. We believe that real marriage is the fundamental to the well-being of civilization whereas ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t add anything to society but only takes away. It takes away because if we equate something of real value with something of trivial or no value, the value becomes worthless.
It would be like saying counterfeit money is the same as real money. Even if the introduction of some counterfeit money will not destroy the entire financial system, but the very idea that counterfeit money has equal value as real money undermines the very foundations of the financial system. If counterfeit money has the same value as real money, there’s no reason for any agreement on money. Eventually, the entire financial system is corrupted and leads to collapse.

Just look what happened to the financial system in recent times because lending requirements went out the window. Many people on both the Right and Left said it would be no problem if we dispensed with hierarchical credit-ratings in order for more people to get loans; for several years, it seemed as though the new egalitarian lending policies would have no ill effect, but eventually it led to a massive economic collapse.
Something far graver will happen if we destroy the core meaning and value of marriage. We won’t see the full impact right away, but once a virus enters a system, it has a way of multiplying and corrupting the system from within. That’s how moral corruption spreads through stealth. Sometimes, the corrupt nature of a new idea or value is concealed by its moralistic language; proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say it’s for tolerance, love, understanding, and equality. Though cloaked or draped in moralistic overtones, the core essence of ‘gay marriage’ is moral rot; it equates the dysfunctional sexual behavior of gay people with the healthy, normal, and productive sexual behavior of straight people. (Another way to spread moral rot is to hitch it onto coolness. Why do kids start smoking and using other drugs? They are told by their peers–and by popular culture–that it’s hip and cool to do so, and so they become blind to the dangers of drugs; they want to be liked, popular, and ‘with it’ than lame, square, and ‘boring’. So, kids don’t realize how they’re endangering themselves. The Left is promoting the gay agenda through a combination of moralism and coolness. On the one hand, they are characterizing the gay agenda as a struggle for ‘equality’; but they are also promoting gayness and its allies as cool, hip, ‘with it’, and glamorous. Notice that so many TV shows parade and feature gayness as something funny, wonderful, and cool. Once people come to equate gayness with being cool and hip, they have a harder time opposing the gay agenda lest they come across as lame, square, and ‘boring’, not to mention evil, ‘homophobic’, and discriminatory.)
Similarly, the stupid and retarded idea of making easy loans available to irresponsible people, poor people, illegal aliens, and asshole speculators was cloaked in moralistic language about ‘equality’, ‘progress’, ‘fairness’, and the ‘ownership society’. Evil and moral corruption is most dangerous when they come with a smile and a handshake. Rat poison is more dangerous if made sweet. Communism was all the more dangerous because of its universal moral rhetoric. In the recent financial mess, Wall Street and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac took worthless mortgages–stinky shit loans–and sealed them inside perfumed and fancy boxes with pictures of Martin Luther King on the sides. Though what were inside the boxes stank to high heaven, the moralistic packaging covered up the rotten odor. Eventually, of course, the rot inside the boxes got so bad that the all the boxes began to blow up.

Similarly, many good decent people have been sold on ‘gay marriage’ because this stinky rotten idea has been packaged in moral language that appeals to the goodwill of many people. If you honestly show people what homosexuality and ‘gay marriage’ are really about, they will reject it as a stupidity and pervesion; but the Left is never that honest or candid; no, they are deceitful, act in bad faith, and think just like Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals. Instead, the Left sanitizes gayness and present gay people as saintly; next, it loads ‘gay marriage’ with all the ideals that we espouse–like tolerance, equality, and being cool. So, many people come to think that you must support gay marriage because opposing it means you’re a reactionary beast.

‘Gay marriage’ is counterfeit marriage. We should not allow gay marriage just to be ‘understanding’, ‘tolerant’, and ‘nice’. ‘After all, should we allow counterfeit money lest we offend the feelings of those with counterfeit money? It just won’t do. The values and feelings of normal people who uphold the laws and rules of civilization are infinitely more important that the insipid and overly sensitive feelings of homosexual activists who are trying to bully and force us to accept homosexuality as the equal of normal sexuality just so they can feel good about themselves.

Of course, leftists say it’s all about equality; that it’s not about gays being better than us but being just as good as us. I would counter that though gay people can be as good as straight people in most respects, gayness is not and can never be as good as real sexuality. Indeed, gay sexuality is either funny(among lesbians) or disgusting(among men). What else is two guys fuc*ing each other in the ass if not disgusting? A guy taking a sexual organ designed by nature for the vagina sticking it into the shi*hole of another guy? Is that not disgusting? But, the gay agenda would have us believe that two guys buggering each other is the biological, moral, cultural, and spiritual equivalent of real sexuality. And, if you disagree, you’re said to suffer from a mental malady called ‘homophobia’. The lunatics now run the asylum because Jews are smarter than us and took over the media and academia. Why would Jews do such a thing? That is a topic of discussion for another day.

Anyway, we must not be afraid of being opposed to perverted notions of equality. We are for equality of things of equal value, but we are opposed for coercive equality of things of unequal value. We proudly and adamantly say that real marriage is superior to ‘gay marriage’. We say it loud and clear. If our enemies say we are opposed to ‘marriage equality’, we say DAMN STRAIGHT, PAL! We are opposed to the idea that ‘gay marriage’ is as good as real marriage or that counterfeit money is as good as real money or that African black magic is as good as Western medicine or that Creationism is as good as evolutionary theory. I’m sure that many people who push for ‘gay marriage’, counterfeit money, black magic, or Creationism have good qualities; they may indeed be sincere in their agendas. But, truth cannot be sacrificed just so certain groups can feel good about themselves. Sorry, ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t belong in the pantheon of marriage. Creationism doesn’t belong in the science class. And, Monopoly game money is not the same thing as real money. But, gee, won’t a kid who wants to buy an ice cream cone with Monopoly money feel sad and cry if the ice cream vendor won’t take the fake money? Well, TOO BAD!! Let the kid learn about real money.

It’s because we keep losing sight of values that our society becomes more stupid and ludicrous. Because we cannot accept the fact that some students do better in school in others, we try to come up with ways to show that all students are equal despite the inevitable wide range of academic performances. This is why so many police and fire departments have gotten rid of testing–because whites tend to do better than blacks or Hispanics. This is why we can no longer even tell an American citizen from an illegal alien. Under radical egalitarianism, we must say all things and peoples are of equal value in order to be ‘nice’, ‘progressive’, and whatever.

This is why we are on the verge of thinking that ‘gay marriage’ has equal value as real marriage. Ironically, the people who are most adamantly pushing egalitarianism are the elite–mainly the black, Jewish, and wasp elite. Of course, they do so for different reasons. Though the black elite–intellectuals and thinkers–speak the language of ‘social justice’, they push egalitarianism for a very simple black nationalist reason. Since most blacks lose out academically and economically to other groups, blacks want government laws and programs favoring undeserving blacks in the name of ‘equality’. It’s really in the name of black power, but these clever blacks know how to use ‘progressive’ lingo to cover up what are essentially tribal interests.
Jews push egalitarianism because they are nervous about their success. On the one hand, Jewish moral authority is based on their victimhood and minority status; but, this facade is getting harder to maintain because Jews are the richest and most powerful group in America; as such, people might feel resentful, suspicious, and envious of Jews; in order to cover up or hide their great wealth and power, Jews openly call for egalitarianism to make us feel that they are for the little guy(though they themselves are the big guy); it’s like rich Hollywood making all those movies where poor are good guys and rich people are bad guys; though rich Hollywood makes these movies and takes all the profits, the stupid moviegoers think the rich Hollywood guys are on their side.
As for the Wasp elite, they support egalitarianism for three reasons. One is they’ve really been brainwashed by the Jewish intellectual elite. Second reason is they feel guilt for treatment of blacks in the past and want to make amends. Third reason is they are afraid of Jewish and black power and want to be let off the hook by saying all the politically correct things.

So, we are not necessarily for equality nor against equality. We are for equality of things of equal value, and we are for maintaining hierarchy for things that have different values. Otherwise, why not insist that iron and silver should be of equal value as gold and diamond? We don’t want to discriminate against people who own iron over those who own gold, do we? So, maybe there should be a law saying that a man taking a bar of iron to a jeweler should be paid the same amount as someone who brings a bar of gold. And, what’s with American Idol saying some people sing better? Isn’t it bigoted since American Idol favors blacks and some whites over most whites and Asians? Can’t have that, can we? Why not say all people have the same singing talent and that ‘bad singing’ is actually good singing except that we don’t know it yet because we are badsingophobes?

Monday, April 20, 2009

The Elitist Conceits of Liberalism and Libertarianism. Why Conservatism Is Crucial to the Success of Both.

Though both liberals and libertarians talk about the The People, both have elitist blinders on when it comes to social reality. Elitism in and of itself is not a bad thing. There is hierarchy everywhere and in everything. In the military the special forces are better trained and more skilled than regular troops. In sports, you have professionals as opposed to mere amateurs. There are colleges with better qualified professors and more intelligent students. Elitism as elitism is no problem at all, as long as it recognizes itself as such.

The problem begins when elitists think they speak for the people and that their highfaluting ideas are actually good for the masses and will work as planned at the top. This is too often untrue. Indeed, sophisticated and highly rationalized ideas at the top often have a terrible impact on the people below. The most extreme example of such was communism, an ideology conceived of by serious and highly learned intellectuals. It was an ideology of justice for mankind and was supposed to create a better world. It turned entire nations into prisons and killed tens of millions.

Though liberalism and libertarianism aren’t nearly as dangerous or radical as communism, they too are misguided or misconceived elitist ideas. Liberalism is intellectual democratic statism, and libertarianism is intellectual democratic individualism.
What’s wrong with government? What’s wrong with individual liberty? All societies need governments, and it’s only natural for government to do certain things that the private sector cannot do or provide, right? And, every individual should have freedom of choice to do as he pleases as long as he doesn’t interfere with or violate the freedoms of other people, right?
So, what’s the problem? The problem is not the idea of the modern state or the idea of modern liberty. The problem is the notion that the high sounding and sophisticated ideas of liberalism or libertarianism could be understood, appreciated, and practiced by masses of people. A good number of people may understand, appreciate, or apply them, but many people will simply misunderstand or half-understand them–and abuse them. If liberalism has one major advantage over libertarianism, it is because liberalism feeds on personal irresponsibility whereas libertarianism requires personal responsibility. Human nature prefers freebies and pushing blame onto others than working hard for one’s keep and self-criticism. So, at least in the game of winning votes of the masses, liberalism understands human nature better. Of course, human nature being what it is, libertarians and conservatives are right to argue that it should not be encouraged toward irresponsible behavior. Cynical liberals understand human nature–tendency for wanting freebies and scapegoating–and exploit it to gain power. But, not all liberals are cynical. Idealistic liberals think that human nature can be transformed and improved by social engineering.

Anyway, the liberal elite(at least ones who aren’t cynical)believe that a bigger statist role and increased social engineering will make for a better and more just society. They project their own high intelligence, goodwill, learnedness, decency, compassion, and work ethic onto others. They see everyone as a potentially ‘intelligent, caring, and hardworking progressive person’ and believe that the reason why so many people are down on their luck, stupid, or hopeless is because of historical injustice, economic inequality, self-interested individualism(greed), irrational superstition(religion), and so on. They believe that these problems cannot be overcome by the Church, the individual, or by ethos of capitalism. They see the Church as promoting blind faith over reason and as sweeping real social problems under the carpet of false hope. They see the individual as caring only for himself, often at the expense of the community. They see capitalism as promoting dog-eat-dog materialism which tends to separate and exploit the people according to race, nationality, and class. These "well-intentioned" elitist liberals believe that their big government is necessary for society. Though liberals–at least white liberals–have a self-loathing and guilt-stricken streak, they also happen to be ideological, intellectual, cultural, and moral narcissists. They think they are more socially and morally advanced than other people because they went to top schools, read John Rawls(and some Marx), watch foreign films, know more about Jazz and World Music more than your average American, and care so much about Negroes and poor folks around the world. They’ve read Jeffrey Sachs and Cornel West, you see. So, even their self-loathing fills them with narcissistic pride; they think, "we are better than all those mean white conservatives because we CARE for the ‘people of color.’"

Educated and affluent liberals tend to have very high opinions of themselves. They don’t see big government-ism as incompatible with personal responsibility, diligence, work ethic. After all, they believe in big government yet studied hard, attended good universities(and were taught by successful and intelligent professors who also believe in big government), have good jobs, and tend to raise pretty stable families. If big government philosophy is so damaging to people, how come so many liberals who espouse statism are successful people? How come most of the top professors in all fields are liberal? How come most of the super businessmen are liberal? And, how come so many conservatives and small-government gun-clinging folks are actually down in the dumps(and actually live on welfare despite all their tough talk of freedom)?
As far as the liberals are concerned, big government-ism goes well with social order, success, and advancement. Big government-ism means that intelligent and serious people who care for society get to run and expand government to make sure that everyone has an equal chance and also to counter-balance the power of unstable free markets. Liberals believe that the best and brightest(and the most caring and moral)should run society. Since capitalism is about the rule of those who know to make the most money, it is not necessarily best for society(say the liberals). Capitalists will sell whatever to maximize their profits, even if what they’re selling may be damaging to the people. Also, people with A LOT of money don’t just re-invest it in business but come to control the media and influence government to serve the interests of the Rich Class. So, the idea is that liberals must run a big strong government in order to check the power of the Rich Capitalist Class. (Ironically, those who run much of our private enterprise economy are liberals. Hollywood, TV, and fashion industry are totally liberal, and what they’re selling to the people are corrupting and damaging. What we have is liberals in business corrupting and messing up our society, and then liberals taking over government in order to repair the damage caused by the private sector–run by liberals. The business of pop culture is what fuels our dreams, fantasies, obsessions, and desires. It is totally dominated by liberals, and liberals will market and sell ANYTHING to make their millions, no matter how negative the impact may be. Though one could argue that it’s the private sector–bastion of conservatism–doing social damage, it’s actually the private sector dominated by libertine liberals who are doing the damage.)

The problem with the liberal view of the world is obvious. What applies at the top doesn’t apply to the bottom. This is all the more so when we closely study how most white liberals succeeded in the world. Did they succeed by taking handouts from the government? No. The most successful group in the United States are the Jews. How did Jews rise up in America? On welfare? No, through self-reliance, communal & family values, individualism and personal responsibility, work ethic, education, and so forth. Many affluent WASPS are also liberal, and they rose up in society the same way. So, why do these people think that other folks can’t rise up in the same way? If Jews and WASP–and Asians-Americans–can rise up through practicing ‘conservative’ values(at least on the personal level), why not blacks and Hispanics? (Isn’t it odd that Japanese-Americans, another very successful group in America, is overwhelmingly liberal?) Why is it that so many successful and highly educated people in America are liberal? One reason is colleges are run by liberal and leftist professors, and the best/brightest/elite people come under liberal influence. But, there are probably other reasons as well. One reason could be a kind for loathing of the toil that their parents went through. If you look back enough, the rise of all peoples from the dirt poor poverty was a painful process. (The American Dream was always earned through hard work, not fantasy.) Jews had to work as peddlers in the US or run dirty shops. Chinese had to work in steaming laundries. And, Japanese had to work from dawn to dusk on the farms. Indeed, the parents of Jews, Japanese-Americans, and white liberals told them to rise up in the world and find something more dignified in life–often meaning professional work than wheeling-dealing kind of business. In other words, parents sacrificed themselves and toiled and sweated so that their kids would have not only more money but have more respectable jobs in life–like Don Corleone, who made his money by dirtying his hands but wanted his son to go into politics and become a lawyer. (Many liberals look upon capitalism as a form of gangsterism that is, at best, necessary for making money and rising up in the world; once you have the money and power, you want to buy respectability and join the mandarin class that deals with Ideas and works for a better world according to those Ideas than merely grub for more money like shylock. Notice that even Bernie Madoff surrounded himself with ‘progressive’ and ‘moral’ figures and causes.) And, kids of parents who toiled and sweated did have better lives; but, feeling that their parents suffered and sacrificed for them unduly, they wanted to create a society in which success would come much more easily for all people rather than have people go through what their parents went through to rise up in society; we often hear of liberal guilt, but much of it could be ancestral than social.
Anyway, on the one hand, the kids got imbued with the ‘conservative’ values of their parents and appreciated the latter’s seriousness and dedication. On the other hand, the kids didn’t want to go through what their parents went through. Because their parents suffered so much, they didn’t want other poor people to go through the same struggles to rise up in the world. They wanted to make things more ‘humane’ and easier for all people, especially the poor, so that everyone would have an easier time rising up in the world without having to sweat and toil so much. Indeed, Jews will always say it’s because they remember how much that their ancestors suffered that they want big government to help people rise up in the world without so much toil and sweat. (There’s also the element of contempt for their parents. Poor or immigrant parents who work, work, and work often aren’t the most educated, most debonair, most cool, most hip, or most sophisticated people in the world. Many of these people are God believers, speak broken English, or have simple devotions in life. As much as their children may appreciate the parental devotion, they regard their parents as ignoramuses. To an extent, parents wanted it this way. Parents wanted their kids to know more, advance more, succeed more, and become more respectable and rise up to higher standings in society. Many of these parents don’t want their kids to do what they themselves have done to climb out of the hole. They want their kids to climb to the Ivory Tower and gain greater knowledge and power. So, naturally, the kids become elitist snobs, but due to the ‘progressive’ ideology of the Ivory Tower institutions, their elitism is devoted to egalitarianism. Indeed, they justify their elitist power in the name of promoting equality.)

But, there’s another reason for why the successful are so liberal. Those who rose up in the world and attained higher standing want it to be assured permanently. The rule of capitalism says that losers may win and winners may lose; there is no permanence in capitalism; it works according to the principles of creative destruction. The never ending innovations and competition make for a dog-eat-dog society. So, winners today may be losers tomorrow. This is why government is so welcome to successful liberals, especially those who grew up in affluence instead of having earned it themselves. They want constancy in their privilege and good life, and big government offers it. A liberal who has a plush bureaucratic job is set for life. Or, if the rich person is living off a trust fund, he or she can grab onto some liberal cause to justify his or her wealth or privilege; just look at the Kennedy family.
Also, a liberal businessman can rely on subsidies to maintain his business even if it’s not profitable. Big government cushions the affluent from the hard knocks of cold competition. Just look at the banking and auto industry going to government for bail outs and aid.
Also, privileged liberals grew up with high-minded notions taught in school and absorbed through books and culture. They want to work for the GOOD of society, which is why even liberals who enter business try to make their business socially conscious. Big corporations run by liberals(or even image-conscious conservatives) seek the advice of men like Jeffrey Sachs and Al Gore; they often contribute to Good Causes. Even the arch conservative Annenberg donated money for Bill Ayers’s educational agenda. And, many corporations and individuals set up foundations which generally give money to liberal or leftist intellectuals, activists, and artists. There is a sense among liberals that artists, activists, and intellectuals live for truth and justice whereas businessmen live for profit. So, for businessmen to be good people, they must take a big chunk of their cash and support artists, activists, and intellectuals(who these days must be part of the ‘radical’ crowd to be considered relevant). Obama is appealing to many rich liberals because there’s something of the artist(actor/performer), activist(community organizer), and intellectual(Ivy League trained lawyer) in him. Of course, most successful liberals are not stinking rich but only moderately affluent, but they all think in the NPR/New Yorker Magazine mode. It’s the Way To Be and Way To Think–just as even unsuccessful conservatives read Ayn Rand and pretend to see the world through the eyes of capitalist titans.

Anyway, the problem of the liberal elite is they think what applies to itself applies to the masses. It doesn’t. Successful liberals may be liberal in thought, but they are ‘conservative’ in many of their habits and personal choices. They may dismiss traditional marriage, but your average successful liberal is more likely to lead a traditional married life than your white trash conservative with half a dozen tattoos on his ass and obnoxious idiots for children. Jews may politically be the most liberal people in America, but if you judge them by what they actually do, they are ‘conservative’ in many respects. Successful liberals are for new ideas and more tolerance, but in actual practice they have an instinctive and deeply ingrained sense or hierarchy of what’s crucial and what is not. Also, they have strong sense of personal responsibility and personal shame. Many Ivy League liberal students worked very hard to be admitted to top schools. They are the kind of kids who got depressed if they got a B on an exam. For all their egalitarian mumbo jumbo, they want to excel, attain most privilege, most power, most money, or most whatever. They are very competitive and talented, much more so than your average not-to-bright conservative. Indeed, one of the reasons why successful liberals push for big government is because they feel so personally responsible–not just for themselves but for their fellow man, for the poor, the downtrodden, for minorities, for disenfranchises, for the hungry around the world. They want power, but power is always having power OVER OTHERS; doing ‘good work’ is justification for the power they amass in order to control us.
Anyway, successful liberals may want to share more, but they have a strong sense of responsibility and shame. They would personally feel ashamed if they failed in life. People without shame and responsibility do not make it to top schools(unless on affirmative action), find and keep good jobs, or build successful businesses. So, it’s true that many liberals have many sound virtues and values that may be deemed conservative in actual practice. So, what is the problem?

The problem is that elite liberalism applied to the masses often turns into shit. For successful liberals, big government-ism means SHARING. For the masses, it just means TAKING. For successful liberals, big government-ism means caring or being concerned about your fellow man. For the masses, it just means demanding more attention and getting more handouts. For successful liberals, big government-ism means that good people should be responsible and take care of all of society. For the masses, it means one should be lazy and irresponsible and force other people to take care of their jive-ass needs. You’ll notice that many successful liberals are too proud and responsible to take handouts themselves, yet they believe that the masses should be provided with more handouts. Successful liberals want to give; the masses just want to grab. The positive intentions, values, and virtues of successful liberals translate into negative intentions, vices, and vitriol among the masses. Successful liberals say, WE SHOULD CARE, CARE, CARE. The likes of Jeremiah Wright and his followers shout GIMME, GIMME, GIMME.

The reason why liberalism has worked better in nations like Holland or Sweden(at least among the white population) is that their citizens tend to have a degree of work ethic, good amount of education, appreciation, and a sense of contributing as well as taking from the system, and so on. Liberalism may eventually erode the values of hard work and responsibility in these nations as well, but for centuries these nations imbued their people with a serious disposition, discipline, diligence, and culture of appreciation and cooperation; those values still remain intact in the national character of the Germanic peoples. If big government-ism means that everyone works hard and contributes to as well as takes from the system, it can work reasonably well. But, if big government-ism means that one group of well-intentioned and idealistic people contribute to the system while others just take and take(and feel no gratitude but always demand more and more), it cannot work. Because of the large black, illegal alien, and white trash elements in America, big government-ism will not work here as it has in Sweden or Holland. Indeed, even those Scandinavian are now facing major problems due to increasing numbers of immigrants, a good number of them black-African(most problematic) and Muslim. Also, big government-ism everywhere has a way of slowly eroding away the culture of diligence, discipline, shame, and appreciation forged through centuries of cultural development. As society grows morally laxer, shameless, faceless, and bureaucratic, more and more people learn from an early age that they can have a pretty good life by working as little as possible while living off the government dole. In the long run, liberal big government-ism makes ‘niggers’ out of everyone.

This is why if we’re going to have big government-ism, it has to be the fascist kind than the welfare kind. The fascist kind favors providing work than welfare. This is why National Socialist and New Deal policies worked. They focused on creating jobs by opening up factories for the armament production on a vast scale. Also, fascist big government policies offer things to the people ONLY in exchange for the goodwill, appreciation, and responsibility on the part of the people. Lee Yuan Kew of Singapore established a fascist big government system whereby the government provides certain programs and services but makes sure that the people act in good faith. It’s not just a system whereby one group of people get handouts indefinitely for giving nothing back in return. They must give something in return as well–decent behavior, appreciation, and taking work when work is available. It is conditional socialism(fascist) as opposed to unconditional socialism(welfare liberalism).

It seems that even American liberals have understood this lesson to some degree. Though Obama is a welfare socialist in many ways, he also wants to expand public works programs and set up a mandatory youth corp. The new liberal view is that too many American kids have become self-centered, cynical, individualistic, and lazy. So, kids need to believe and work for something higher than themselves, and the new programs will make them work for the people; kids will be inspired to do so under the Banner of Obama because Barack is ‘like a rock star’. So, liberals are taking certain ideas from National Socialism and Lee Yuan Kew-ism. Liberals are too proud and arrogant to admit that Great Society and Welfare Liberalism/Socialism have done much damage. Also, even though liberals are too proud to admit that their control of popular culture has led to cynicism, ugliness, putridity, savagery, animal behavior, and hideousness of all kinds, their support of Obama as the ‘new kind of black guy’ suggests that many white liberals are worried about what liberal culture has done to this country. Liberal dominated TV, Hollywood, and Music Industry have inundated us with ugly rap music, cynical TV shows, pornography, crass materialism, culture of violence(Matrix movies, video games, gangsta rap, etc), egocentric individualism, and retardation of all kinds. Liberals cannot admit, ‘we were wrong, we need to mend our ways’. Liberals actually cannot let go of their old ways because too much of their power, prestige, and influence are invested in Hollywood(and what it sells) and in Government(and what it offers). So, liberals conveniently blame people like Rush Limbaugh for all the cynicism. To liberals, cynicism means ‘not having total faith in the Church of Obama and Oprah’.
And, liberals blame the materialism and crassness of our culture on the ‘free market’ and capitalist ethos of greed, vanity, and such(despite the fact that popular culture is run by liberal Jews, blacks, and gays.) Liberals privately sense that our society has grown ugly, decadent, and putrid largely due to the excesses of liberal Jewish and black-dominated popular culture, but they can never admit it since doing so would be ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’(and give ammo to the right-wing enemy).

In times of economic downturn, people can sober up, grow angry, and lash out at the cultural rot infecting the nation. Liberal Jews, ever so clever, decided to pre-empt the rise of neo-fascism on the Right by appropriating elements of fascism for their own power. Many angry White Rightist want their form of unified political power, their great powerful leaders, and their own grand vision. Such movement may gain real power and momentum in American thanks to the dangers of illegal invasion, pop cultural rot where black thugs and whores act like animals, Jewish control of banks and Wall Street which contributed to the financial collapse, and so on. This is like the social decay and deterioration we saw in Germany during the Weimar period. In the turmoil and chaos, the National Socialism produced the most dynamic leader with the charisma and vision to capture the hearts and minds of the German people. The liberal Jews figured that if things continue as usual–pop cultural corrosiveness, economic collapse, social divisions and alienation, etc–, the White Right may eventually unify into a National Socialist mode and come up with a Great White Leader for White People. So, in order to prevent the rise of such fascism, liberal Jews decided to take certain spellbinding and catchy aspects of fascism and let Obama run with it. With Obama as the fuhrer, Jews have killed two birds with one stone. On the one hand, fascism has been, appropriated, tamed, and used for the empowerment of liberals. On the other, the White Right, in attacking Obama as a fascist or Hitlerian figure, undermines their own future investment in fascism. If the White Right trashes everything about Obama’s style and image as being ‘fascist’, then they cannot use or employ that kind of campaign or movement for themselves in the future.

And, though liberal Jews don’t like Ron Paul, they would be only too happy if more white rightists supported Paul because Paul stands for small government(which means conservatives will never gain much political power) and individualism(which means the White Right will remain atomized and disunified as mere individuals whose only ideology is ‘leave me alone’). There is a virtue in individualism, but the fight that the White Right must face is not one they can win through individualism. They must unify as a people and as a race. Individualism of the kind that Ron Paul advises is only good after the victory of white power and assurance of white survival.
So, I would advise white people that they are making a mistake if they attack Obama for being a fascist. Rather, they should attack Obama for deviously stealing elements of fascism from the White Right. We should say he’s a fake fascist, a poseur fascist, merely a tool used by the liberal and left-wing Jews to rile up populist passions for the liberal agenda. Obama is not the return of fascism but the appropriation of fascism. Just as liberal companies have appropriated Marxism and radical leftism for their marketing agenda, they’ve also appropriated elements of fascist imagery and style to serve liberal politics. To many liberals, fascism or fascist style or aesthetics are okay as long as it glorifies, celebrates, or deifies the non-white or the ‘anti-Aryan’. So, fascist imagery that promotes black power or black passions are cool with liberals. Zionism is a form of fascist-nationalism, but it’s okay because it’s about Jewish power as opposed to ‘Aryan’ power. The thing for the White Right is not to scream ‘fascism’ whenever they see Obama, but to develop their own fascism.

The White Right should also realize that for every disadvantage, there is an advantage(just like for every advantage, there is a disadvantage). It’s disadvantageous to the White Right that the liberals masterfully stole and employed the fascist thunder. (Of course, liberals acted in bad faith. All these years, they’ve been denouncing fascism as a style, ideology, and value system, yet there is more than a little fascism in Obama-ism. According to liberals, fascism isn’t fascist IF it glorifies non-whites or if used against the White Right. It’s like saying a gun is not a gun if it’s used to kill a conservative. In truth, Obama-ism has quasi-fascist elements. If indeed Obama-ism is a political and ideological miracle, it is proof that fascism had been right all along. It means that fascism never died and that even liberals have come to drink from its well after the discrediting of communism, welfare socialism, global capitalism, and finance capitalism.) But, if that is the case, the White Right should not reject Obama-ism completely but come up with their own Obama-ism or their own fascism. Our own Obama-ism would be pro-white, pro-Western, national socialist, for bigger government in OUR HANDS, and have its own great leaders. And, if liberals accuse us of acting like fascists, we need only to point our fingers at Obama-ism and say that liberals revived this kind of politics and used it very effectively. If liberal fascism is an option, then so is conservative fascism. We are all socialists now? No, we are all fascists now.

Socialism was purely a materialistic ideology that claimed to scientifically understand the world and how to fix it. But, there is something mythic, inspiring, holistic, messianic, sacrosanct and spiritual about Obama-ism. It has the Vision Thing. It is more fascist in style than socialist. It appeals to the emotions of the masses, to the mythic bonds of unity. Socialism has been dry, technocratic, impersonal, and intellectual. Since it’s supposed to be a system run by rational minds, it distrusted primal emotions and the passions of the community. Of course, communism had a mythic and spiritual element, but that developed later and rather cynically in order to keep power by winning and controlling the hearts and minds of the masses; since communism didn’t work well as it promised on the material level, it had to rely more on myth-making. Also, the radical passions at the core of communism lent it more easily to stuff like mass pageantry and the deification of the Great Thinkers and Leaders.

Anyway, the elitist assumptions of the liberals have failed. Both liberal control of government and popular culture have not led the masses toward independence and liberation but toward enslavement(or addiction) to basest desires, appetites, and passions. What held true for the educated and successful liberal elite didn’t hold true for the masses. Liberal thinkers and activists with their neat theoretical models became ever more divorced from reality. The masses were not too bright, responsible with their freedom, accountable, nor grateful for the new order. Liberals came to realize that the people are essentially emotional beings. And so, the liberals came up with Martin Luther King-ism, Camelot-ism, and Obama-ism. Obama-ism unites intellectual liberalism with the impassioned holism of the masses. It is indeed the apotheosis of what might be called ‘liberal fascism’.

Since liberals who control the media and public discourse have made fascism fashionable again–though they would never call it that–, it gives us a chance to bring back fascism for OUR power, interests, and agenda. Again, if liberals accuse us of reviving or using fascist methods, we need only to point to what they did with Obama. We should do exactly what they did with Obama in terms of marketing the image, the celebration of the Great Man, the loud slogans, the holistic symbolism, and so on. Also, Obama-ism has meant ‘no enemy to the left’. So, liberal policy is never to criticize or attack black extremists, illegal aliens, gay lunatics, feminist bitches, radical Marxists, and so on. They are altogether now. This is not necessarily because liberals endorse the elements of the far left or the nationalisms of minority groups. It just that liberals, cynical and hungry for power, have a Popular Front strategy whereby everyone opposed to the White Right must stick together no matter how sick or demented they might be. The White Right must do the same thing. The White Right is not exclusively white. It should welcome non-whites who believe that the West should remain a white majority civilization(just as white people respect the right of China to be mostly Chinese, of sub-Saharan Africa to be mostly black, of India to be mostly Indiana, and of Mexico to remain mostly Mexican. At any rate, once the White Right understands who their allies are, the policy should be to never attack enemies on the white right. If the liberals say the White Right is allied with ‘extremists’, we have a silver bullet to shoot back because Obama-ism has meant and practiced ‘no enemy to the left’. Despite the revelations about Obama’s allies and associates, the national media–that is to say the Liberal Jew Media–said it was perfectly fine for Obama to have been friends or close associates of radicals and extremists since they are ‘progressives’ or ‘victim groups’. Then, we must follow the same policy. We must never condemn the elements of the far-right(not harshly anyway) but rather argue that even though we disagree with some of their views, they are merely a people fighting for their survival.

Anyway, let’s return to the original topic of why the elite assumptions of liberalism are wrong. Imagine pure snow at the top of the mountain. It is clean, crisp, perfect, and pure. It is icy snow, pure H2O in icy frozen state. Elite liberal ideas are like this. Purely on a theoretical level, they sound pretty good and infallible. But, what happens when the snow on the mountain melts and flows down the slopes and streams and rivers. Near the top, the water is clean and pure. As it moves down more, it picks up more impurities. As it hits the rivers, it picks up mud and dirt. When it finally moves into the lagoons, it isn’t all that clean but festering with all kinds of germs. Elite ideas are like that. What sounds good in its pristine theoretical form at the top becomes muddied, dirtied, and loaded with impurities as it spreads among the masses. This is the case with high and mighty ideas. Nietzsche’s profound philosophy turned into the ugly aspects of Nazism. Aldous Huxley’s cautious and profound ideas on hallucinogenics turned into 60s hippie lunacy and drug orgies. Marx’s theory of economics in actual practice became murderous communism that destroyed entire societies. Elitist Huxley thought that the experience of hallucinogens was so profound that people would not/could not possibly abuse them for stupid. How wrong he was. I highly doubt if Nietzsche would have thought his ideas would lead to something like Nazism and WWII. Of course, not all ideas hatched by ‘great men’ are pure as snow. In many ways, Nietzsche’s ideas were dangerous to begin with. And, come to think of it, Marx’s ideas and visions were pretty crazy to begin with too. Orwell was wrong in Animal Farm to suggest that the noble ideas of Marx were corrupted by those who came later; the ideas were ruthless and murderous to begin with despite all that stuff about justice for mankind.
But, some ideas do sound so pristine, nice, logical, and fool-proof at the top. Liberalism and libertarianism both share this quality. Both are incredibly naive but fool and win over a lot of smart people because of their impressive intellectual mumbo jumbo. Many people, especially the educated, come to think it must be correct since some of the best and the brightest minds came up with or espouse them. But, it doesn’t matter how smart someone is. Knowledge and understanding are always limited to a person’s narrow experience. Also, people are capable of denial even when reality is right in front of their faces either due to cowardice, social pressure, dogmatic indoctrination, or sense of shame(if they were to think ‘taboo’ thoughts).

Elite liberal assumptions may indeed work in a world where everyone shares the qualities of elite liberals. They would not only believe in big government but would be imbued with values related to personal responsibility, diligence, shame, accountability, and contributing to society(as opposed to mere taking). Elite liberals believe in giving-and-taking, but they practice more giving than taking. Also, elite liberals have a moral and theoretical understanding of the tenets of liberalism. They are not liberals only for the sake of self-interest. Indeed, as many liberals are rich, they would be financially better off under conservatism–lower taxes. But, many rich people support liberalism because they see it as a set of moral principles and imperatives, a kind of secular religion and mission; as Jesus said, man doesn’t live on bread alone. (Just like soldiers need not only guns and ammo but a cause to fight and die for, rich liberals need not only success and wealth but causes to live for and champion.)

Rich liberals tend to be knowledgeable and well-read. But, as we go down the social ladder, liberalism becomes less a set of moral and social principles than an easy way for the masses to get freebies. All those welfare mommas in Detroit and South Side of Chicago don’t give a shit about the values or theories of liberalism. They aint never heard of John Rawls or some do-gooder Jew-ass mothafucka. For them, it simply means, ‘them honkeys gonna gimme me mo free lunch. Dang!!!’ All those illegal aliens who cross the border into this country don’t give a shit about the values of ‘sharing’, ‘cooperation’, and all that. They only care for Mexican power and nationalism and getting freebies from gringos. All those white trash who live off the government dole don’t give a crap about the responsibilities of citizenship. In all these cases, it’s about the government giving them more free stuff so they can fatten their asses and have more fun while contributing nothing to society.

So, what started out as a positive, constructive, cooperative, and useful socio-economic theory at the top turned into the worst and lazy kind of self-interest and self-indulgence among the slobs. (To be sure, there are elite liberals who espouse liberalism mainly as an effective means to gain power and privilege.) Just compare the Ivy League educated Jewish liberal with the welfare momma in the black inner city with her 10 idiot children. Just compare the Japanese-American professional liberal with some black thug dope dealer with guns and bling blings. What applies at the top doesn’t apply at the bottom, not even in the middle. (It’s like the physical laws governing the stars don’t apply to the laws governing subatomic particles.) And, the arrival and support of Obama-ism is partly an admittance on the part of liberals that what I say is true. For instance, many affluent white liberals thought the black style of acting, talking, behaving, and feeling was so cool and liberating. A lot of privileged and affluent white kids(especially Jews)put on black airs and disseminated it throughout the culture. Affluent white liberals found it very refreshing, fun, and ‘liberating’. But, what was only a matter of style(like clothes to put on and off) for white liberals was the very substance(the very flesh and bones) for the masses–especially among blacks and trash elements of other races. It’s one thing to be a Jewish liberal who goes to school, does his homework, and gets good grades to enjoy Richard Pryor or some Rap music. It’s quite another to be a stupid Negro who has no father, fails in school, despises his teachers, and is problematic to embrace stuff like Richard Pryor and Rap music. For the Jewish liberal, the black jive-ass act is merely fun stuff to spice up his mostly sound and stable life. For the Negro kid, the jive-ass act becomes the very heart and soul of his being. (Alcohol means different things to a responsible drinker and to an alcoholic.) So, the impact of permissive cultural liberality is very different for the elite liberals and for the trash elements.

Much the same can be said of libertarianism, another intellectual and elaborate but essentially naive ideology. Let us return to the metaphor of the snow at the top of the mountain peak and what happens as it melts and flows down the slopes all the way down to the lagoon. Libertarianism, like liberalism, sounds pretty good when expounded at the top. It is about personal freedom and liberty after all. Who can be opposed to that?

The problem is what libertarians theorize and propose up in their ivory towers don’t translate into their preferred reality on the ground. Libertarianism would work just fine and dandy IF most people thought and acted like elite libertarian theorists, that is to say they not only embraced the philosophy of unfettered individual freedom but also were capable of restraint & rational behavior, accepted full responsibility for their actions, and didn’t blame society for their problems.

What happens is that only the crudest and most easily accessible aspects of any philosophy or theory come to be understood and practiced by the masses. Consider the fact that Freudianism came to mean, for most people, the idea that having free sex is good(thought that’s NOT what Freud meant). For most people, libertarianism is that cool ideology that says you can do whatever you want that gives you maximum pleasure. On that level, most liberals and blacks are libertarian. They want to be left alone to pursue their fun. Liberals want to be left alone to use drugs. Blacks want to be left alone to buy and carry guns and sell drugs. Many people want the freedom to go gambling, buy pornography, and all that stuff. So, the part of libertarianism that means ‘freedom to do as you want’ is understood and even embraced by a lot of liberals. The problem is the responsibility part. Ideological or intellectual libertarians see that as crucial to the philosophy–that a person must have freedom and make his own choices BUT also act rationally and take responsibility for the choices he makes. The latter part of the philosophy just doesn’t trickle down to the masses. Masses are crude, stupid, and childish. A child wants to play with toys but doesn’t want to clean up after playing with them. Similarly, people want to play with freedom but don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of all of their freedoms. They want full freedom to do as they please, but if they mess up, they prefer to blame or scapegoat others and make others pay for and clean up the mess they’ve created. Again, the icy pure reason of libertarianism at the mountain peak turns into muddy water filled with impurities and bacteria once it flows down to the masses. All these theories can work ONLY IF the masses accept not only the freedom(libertarianism) or services(liberalism) but also the responsibility and appreciation. One must appreciate freedom to use it intelligently, and one must have strong values to have the will and courage to admit mistakes, learn from mistakes, and take responsibility for one’s own actions. Too many people don’t fit that mold. Similarly, one must appreciate big government services if one is to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, without such appreciation, one never knows the limits of what one may take from the system; he just keeps demanding more and more(always complaining that it’s all unfair because some people have more); and unscrupulous demagogues like Obama or Chavez will come along and play on such emotions to gain power for themselves.

It is for this reason that both liberalism and libertarianism cannot work without a firm foundation in conservatism. ‘Conservatism’ can mean different things, but for modern societies it means a set of moral principles that have stood the test of time. Fads and fashions come and go, but basic truths about humanity remain the same. Of course, both liberalism and libertarianism are not without moral values, but they tend to be vague and negative than positive. Freedom, for instance, can mean freedom to do anything; and even if some freedoms don’t violate others directly, they are personally corrosive. Also, helping mankind(liberal value) is only a vague moral value because collective morality is faceless. If you help out a friend or family member out of personal obligation, there is a strong moral element in your deed. But, if you pay taxes for the good of society, whom is your money going to? It could go to deserving people or it could go to mere parasites. You would never know. And, who handles the government in charge of such things? Paper-shuffling faceless bureaucrats whose main interest is to expand government as much as possible for their own power and benefit.
There is a vague moral component in the idea of everyone helping one another, but the actual practice of such is diffuse and can be immorally exploited by too many people–lazy parasites.
Liberalism also teaches people to be tolerant, and tolerance is a value of sorts, but it too is vague and a negative value. It tells people NOT to do certain things, like calling someone a ‘kike’, ‘nigger’, ‘faggot’, or ‘chink.’ Not acting nasty and rude is indeed a good thing, but liberalism doesn’t fill the individual with the values and virtues necessary for him or her to succeed in life, make wise decisions, or be a good individual(as opposed to merely a good citizen). One cannot succeed or be a functional member of society simply by not doing some bad things. Even if you’re not hateful or hostile toward people of other races, nationalities, religions, or sexual natures, you could still be a stupid, dishonest, lazy, idiotic, childish, egocentric, obnoxious, moronic, and insufferable fool. And, there are many such people in our society. Having been raised under politically correct indoctrination, they know well enough NOT to say certain ‘hateful’ things. They tend to support generic ‘progressive’ policies such as ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’. But, those misguided or vague moral values teach them nothing about what it means to be a good person, a responsible person, a decent person, an honest person, a hardworking person, a good family man, and so on.

In some ways, those vague values undermine stronger moral values. For example, if you’re told that you must take care of society, you would be a fool to work hard since you’d be forking over much of your wealth to the government so that bureaucrats and bums can leech off your labor. (Besides, ‘you should take care of society’ can also mean ‘you should take care of society,’ in which case you might as well try to take it easy so that others will take care of you.) Also, tolerance has limits; beyond a certain point, its moral value becomes as worthless as inflated paper currency. Complete tolerance is at best amoral and at worst, completely immoral. We are seeing the product of this craziness already in Canada and Europe.
The ultra-liberal governments in those places insist and enforce laws that require the majority populations to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of diversity. So, if some white European or Canadian badmouths Muslims, blacks, or gays, he can be put behind bars. This is done in the name of tolerance for minorities and different cultures. But, what if the culture or population that is being protected is itself intolerant, illiberal, or crazy? This is a problem that the liberal West has not been able to resolve. In the name of protecting a (rapidly growing)minority from bigotry, liberalism is actually giving protection to a growing social reality that may indeed come to destroy the West along with its liberal values.

Every idea or policy has its useful limit beyond which it becomes destructive or suicidal–just like medicine; too much will kill you. Imagine having a baby tiger cub in your midst. It is small and cuddly. Suppose there are several storeys in a building. Those at the topmost storey have the most power. As the baby tiger grows, it starts to claw at and bite people at the lower storeys. They complain about the growing power of the tiger and its increasing erratic and aggressive behavior. But, the people at the top are not sympathetic to the complaints of humans below. They don’t want to look at the people below but only cling to the belief that the tiger cub is essentially good, innocent, and nice even if it acts increasingly troublesome. Also, let us suppose the people on top feel a certain guilt because they had long mistreated the tiger cub’s mother. As time goes by, the tiger cub grows bigger and bigger, more confident and aggressive.. The people begin to complain that this tiger is posing a big threat to them and has already killed and devoured some of the people below. But, suppose the people at the top, committed to the religion of tolerance for the tiger, refuses to heed to the cries and demands. Besides, as they are safe and well-protected at the higher storeys, they don’t have to worry about the tiger attacking them or their kids. Of course, eventually the tiger will grow big and strong enough to attack even those at the top, but it will too late by the time the people on top realize the true nature of the tiger.

For this reason, it is misguided for patriotic white folks in America and Europe to see the minorities as their main threat. The main threat is the people at the top who control, shape, and command the national information, ideology, and policy. So, it’s stupid for the white masses to keep pleading with those at the top for attention and help. The people at the top will not listen to white people’s cries. In America, the elite compromises mainly liberal and left-wing Jews, which means they have a special interest to weaken gentile white power as much as possible. In Europe, the Jews are less powerful but the people who control the media, government, and institutions are mostly also of the left. This is partly the legacy of WWII, which morally and mortally discredited the Right thanks to the insane policies of Adolf Hitler. Though most of the Right had nothing to do with Hitler, they got associated with the radical right anyway. Guilt-by-association employed by the resurgent left against the white right did a lot of damage. But, there’s another reason for the cultural weakness of the Right. Because the Right has been so religious and traditionalist, it rejected or dismissed intellectualism, critique, and such things. As we all know, modern societies empower the best educated and the intellectually-oriented(whether their ideas are sound or not) in the fields of media, arts, culture, academia, government, and so on. Because of the Right’s disdain for intellectualism and creativity, the Left naturally took over the institutions that command our social, political, and moral ideas. The stupid thick-skulled religious leanings of the Right has even turned off many conservatives, which explains why so many flocked to the libertarian brand. What intelligent or educated person would want to be associated with the sermons of Pat Robertson or other such banalities?

At any rate, both individual freedom and collective cooperation are useless unless a society is mostly made up of sober, responsible, decent, and steadfast individuals, and the values that imbue individuals with strong moral sense are conservative. Liberal tolerance can be a good thing within reason. Collective sharing can be beneficial if modest in design. Individual freedom that libertarians love so much is crucial to a democracy’s health and progress. But, all must be rooted in and restrained by strong moral values of conservative character. And, people must understand that morality cannot be completely tolerant. Any set of values must discriminate and dismiss other values(or anti-values). Diligence is the opposite of laziness. Honestly is at odds with dishonesty. Decency is the enemy of rudeness and barbarism. But, just look at the kind of culture our society embraces. Liberals defend rap music on the basis that it’s essentially black and that we must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of black culture. But, what are the ‘values’ of rap music/culture? Decency? No, it’s about savagery, rudeness, and thuggery. Self-criticism? No, it’s about self-centeredness, self-promotion, and self-aggrandizement. Honesty? No, it’s about fooling, jiving, hustling, conning, and ‘dissing’ the ‘mothafackas’? Friendliness? No, it’s about saying bad things about other guys, women, and their friends and relatives. Law and order? No, it’s about the thrill and fun of criminality, robbery, and rape. Curiosity and intelligence? No, its attitude is that the only cool things in the world be your ego, your guns, your dick, your ho’s, your drugs, and etc. Obligation to family, friends, society, ancestors, relatives, etc? No, it’s about you, you, and you and ‘fuck’ the rest. Rap is liberalism and libertarianism at their worst. It exists under the liberal rubric because stupid white liberals believe that it’s wonderfully ‘tolerant’ to appreciate non-white cultures(no matter how pathological and disgusting they happen to be). It also falls under the libertarian umbrella because Rap is all about me, me, me, my freedom, my passions, my desires, etc. But, notice that the rap community has no appreciation for the liberal concept of mutual tolerance, mutual appreciation, and mutual obligation, and it has no appreciation for the libertarian values of personal restraint and self-responsibility. People of the rap community have little or no interest in the cultures of other people, nationalities, communities. Indeed, they dismiss most of that stuff as ‘pussyass’ or ‘faggotyass’. Also, the egocentrism at the core of rap doesn’t inspire or encourage appreciation of things that aren’t loud, sexy, badass, or toughass.
If Nazism’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures was based on a sense of Aryan cultural and racial superiority, Rap culture’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures are based on the notion that nothing has any value unless it can kick ass and get as many pussies as possible. Nazism was the radical ultra-arrogance and intolerance of High Culture whereas Rap-ism is the pathological ultra-arrogance of low culture. Rap-ism, were it to take over society would leave behind an even worse impact than Nazism because it would simply end civilization itself. Nazism, had it prevailed, would have established an evil civilization, but a civilization with some noble things just the same. But, rap-ism, which grew out of the jungle-pathologies of black genetic nature, is something that can bring on a PERMANENT Dark Age since blacks cannot create and maintain civilizations. Uganda under Idi Amin was like a society taken over by rap thugs. And, much of Africa has come under that kind of mind set. That kind of mentality cannot set up complex businesses, produce doctors/scientists/engineers, run a responsible government, produce an intelligent and sober electorate, or make way for any social progress. People with rap mentality know how to demand, how to complain, how to bitch and whine, how to shake their fists, how to destroy, how to act wild and crazy. They don’t know how to build, how to learn, how to appreciate, how to make peace, how to cooperate, how to self-criticize, how to make amends.

Our society is producing more and more people with rap mentalities because of the rise in black populations and because so many whites and Hispanics are aping the blacks–a natural process in a society which is obsessed with sports/sex/pop music. As long as blacks dominate sports and popular music, more and more kids of all background will try to adopt or imitate blackness in order to be hip, cool, badass, and etc. Fascism understands human nature correctly for people gravitate toward power.
As Jews gained intellectual and cultural superiority in the West, many gentiles became slaves of Jewish ideology and values. Radical feminism, for example, was created by ugly Jewish hags, but as it was intellectually more sophisticated and elaborate(even if wrong)than what gentile women came up with, gentile women all tried to write, think, and act like the Big Jewish Sister. In the arena of sports and pop music, blacks are the toughest, roughest, meanest, and baddest. So, naturally boys and girls want to be black or black-ish. They respect Power and become the emotional and cultural slaves of blackness. If whites were stronger than blacks and if gentiles were smarter than Jews, this would not have happened. So, despite all the leftist Jewish crap about fighting oppressive power, the real oppressive power is being concentrated in the hands of Jews(intellectual, cultural, economic, political) and blacks(athletic, streets, crime, sexual, etc).

And of course, our pop culture industry promotes, markets, and disseminates much of this. Now, why would well-educated white(largely Jewish)people spread this garbage far and wide? There are three main reasons. One is the simple profit motive. For pop culture industries to compete and win, they need to market what most people want, and most people happen to be dummies. Another reason is many highly intelligent and well-educated people think stuff like Rap has real cultural value. Though rich liberals are part of the elite, they are eager to prove that they are egalitarian. To prove their street cred, they parrot and promote the garbage that issues from the street. Even so, it must be said that many worthy arts and culture did come from below. Though a person who cannot appreciate high culture nor distinguish between a work of art and mere junk is no better than an ape, a snob who cannot appreciate genius and brilliance simply because it didn’t issue from the top is an idiot. Even so, most of what passes for pop culture range from banal/ harmless to demented/destructive.
The third reason why rich liberals shamelessly promote dangerous and corrosive stuff like rap music is many of them have been taught by their radical professors and learned from books that truly progressive people must take a hateful and antagonistic stance against the ‘conservative’ majoritarian forces of society. This explains why someone like Margaret Cho has become a major star in pop culture. She’s ugly, disgusting, and repulsive–an Asian version of Rosie O’Donnell or Sarah Silverman–but, she and her fans fool themselves that her stupid and retarded anti-social attitude amounts to some kind of meaningful statement for the sake of liberation and freedom. It may well be that she had problems growing up and has issues she needs to resolve, but notice that she blames society than coming to terms with herself and accepting that society can never be perfect. But, the idea of people like her is that society is essentially evil–as long as straight white people are in the majority–and the only way to fight for freedom and noble causes is to be ‘badder’ than society. Lots of Jews like Lenny Bruce were the pioneers of this kind of attitude, and we can now see where it has taken our society.