Monday, December 19, 2011
Andrea Ostrov Letania: The Left, the Politics of Eternal Victimology, and the Problems of Freedom.
There’s a saying, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. But, great or not, with any power comes some responsibility. Everyone has some power, and so he is responsible to the extent of the power he has. Even a poor man has power over his children or dog or cat. Freedom is a kind of power. Though often defined in opposition to power, power simply means more freedom to do as one pleases. And when people demand more freedom, they are demanding more power--even if the pursuit of power is individualistic than authoritarian or collective.
When young people plead for or demand more freedom from their parents, they are saying they want more power to do as they please--and all actions have consequences, direct or indirect.
One may draw a distinction between power-over-others and power-for-myself, and this distinction is important. Libertarians say they want every person to be empowered as an individual than have power over others or be under the power of others. But, in the end, all forms of power has a way of exerting themselves on others. A junkie doesn’t merely ruin his own health but could well ruin the lives of his children, and the ruined lives of children can have a ripple effect on the larger society. If a businessman makes a lot of money and influences politics, he’s not simply acting as an individual but as a force with considerable impact on the whole of society. Individuals who own and control the media have great control over the hearts and minds of individuals who may, in time, lose the ability to think and act as individuals. And taking a closer look at human nature, more people tend to be conformist sheep than individual wolves or contrarian owls. Even much of what passes for non- or anti-conformism is just another variation of conformism. Many forms of non-conformism have their own rules, icons, dogmas, styles, and hangups. So, rappers dress alike, metalheads have similar tattoos, punks have same attitudes, etc. Most people aren’t bold, independent-minded, and/or creative. They long to belong to a group. And even the bold, independent, and strong-willed people wish to create a new order in which people are united by a common bond. Fidel Castro and Gaddafi were political visionaries, but the ‘new’ world they created was one where the people had to conform to Castro-ism or Gaddafism. And T. E. Lawrence, a maverick though he was, was trying to create a new order for the Arabs to call their own.
The problem with the Left’s concept of Freedom and Power rests in its Manicheanism. Seeing the world divided into oppressors and oppressed, the assumption is that ALL THE POWER is in the hands of the oppressors while the oppressed have NO POWER AT ALL. This mentality has its roots in Christianity, with the world divided between the rich/powerful and the meek/weak. Of course, Jesus’s view of humanity wasn’t that simple, but Christian ethics have often seen and judged the world between powerful and powerless, haves and have-nots, proud and humble. Karl Marx divided the world between the rich capitalists growing richer and more powerful and the masses of poor people growing ever more pauperized and impoverished. A handful of capitalists at the top would amass all the power and wealth while the masses would have no power and no wealth... at least until the contradictions of capitalism inevitably led to a radical overthrow of the capitalist order to be replaced by an egalitarian communist one.
We are now living in the post-Christian and post-Marxist(which itself owes a lot to Christianism) age, but socio-moral dichotomy laid forth by those belief systems don’t seem to be going away. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Leftist mental habits shape people’s thoughts and public policies. The most egregious example is the case of the Jews. Most Jews are on ideologically on the Left, and many Jews subscribe to the notion of all-powerful oppressors and all-powerless oppressed. Since Jews belong to the historical victim category--indeed they promote themselves as the ‘eternal victims’ of an eternal hatred going back to the beginning of time and lasting til the end of time--, Jews are completely blind to their own formidable wealth/power and keep insisting that they are surrounded by all-powerful Nazis and anti-Semites. (Paradoxically, the more powerful Jews become, more powerless they feel. Wealth and power of the few attracts attention--envy, resentment, suspicion, fear, etc--of the many, and so, the more powerful and wealthy Jews become, more worried they become of the goyim rising with pitchforks to overthrow the Jewish elite that is perceived to be ‘too rich’ and ‘too powerful’. So, as Jews become more powerful and richer, shriller they become in seeing ‘anti-Semites’ everywhere. This is why rich Jews donate tens of millions to ADL and $PLC. Not because Jews really respect Abe Foxman or Morris Dees and not because Jews really think there are Nazis everywhere but because Jews fear that the increase of Jewish power and wealth may one day unleash ‘antisemitic’ rage among the resentful goy masses.) According to ADL and $PLC, you’d think the KKK has more power in America than Jewish-controlled Wall Street, mass media, Hollywood, academia, Silicon Valley, most departments of US government, etc. If a Jew has a million dollars and a goy has one dollar, the Jew will insist that he is an utterly powerless victim of the all-powerful goy. The way Jews see it, ten Jews with a million dollars each are, in the long run, no match for a hundred goyim with one dollar each. In a way, Jews have a point. Whites in South Africa were(and still are)many times richer than most blacks, but blacks outnumbered the whites, and, as they say, demography is destiny. This is why Jews want to maximally diversify the goy population so that no single goy group could unite to take on Jewish power.
Manichean powerology is what happens when a historical-social-moral dichotomy becomes a mental habit, and we need to examine its lineage in Leftist ideology. Ironically, this is aided and abetted by the Rightist mental habit of thinking in terms of its own Permanent Power. When a people have held great power for a long time, they develop a mental habit of thinking that their power is permanent. They even think they have the power long after they lost most of it: Consider the long decline of the Byzantium Empire or the Spanish Empire; even after they became mere shells of their former glories, the myth continued--even amongst their rivals--until the moment of rude awakening. For the Byzantines, it was the fall of Constantinople to the Turks; to the Spanish Empire, it was the totally humiliating defeat at the hands of Americans in the Spanish-American War, which was like the older Ali getting whupped by Larry Holmes in his prime. It was myth vs the man.
Having gotten accustomed to ruling over others, many white conservatives still think they matter even though their ‘power’ is just an empty shell of what it had once been. So, if Jews seem incapable of opening their eyes and seeing that they are no longer victims but the biggest victors in the world, many white gentiles seem unable to wake up to the fact that their power is not it once had been. White people in America face great dangers as a result from drastic demographic changes, but most of them seem not only unworried but welcoming of the new order. Having become so used to stability, privilege, comfort, and power--and the notion of ‘great moral responsibility’ attached to it, especially to redeem the abuses of power in the past--, white people think their main agenda should be generosity and magnanimity to non-whites and Jews. It doesn’t occur to a lot of white people that Jews are many times more powerful. They’re blind to the fact that Mexican illegals often harbor indifferent or hostile attitudes to white America and that black crime and violence--sexual, economic, political, etc--against whites is endemic and appalling. Though white people are being robbed, raped, and murdered in great numbers in South Africa, the image that is stuck in the minds of white people in the West is ‘evil powerful whites oppressing or having oppressed poor helpless noble blacks’).
This isn’t to say whites are now the powerless while non-whites have all the power. Next to Jews, white Americans still have far more power than any other people. But, they don’t have anything like ALL the power. And Jewish power, the biggest power in America, is virulently hostile to white interests. And regionally, non-whites wield considerable and growing power. Asians are powerful in the California college system. Mexican-Americans have major political clout in the Southwest. Blacks rule many communities, streets, and public areas with their fist and savagery. Also, blacks hold key power in many branches of government--not least because blacks, due to their lower intelligence and work ethic, are more suited to tax-payer-funded ‘public service’ than free enterprise.
Above, I said Jews seem to be blind to their own power. But appearances can be deceiving. It’s more likely that Jews--at least smart and rich ones--know the truth about their awesome power. So paradoxically, Jewish ‘leftist’ insistence on their powerlessness could really be a means of concealing their real power since if the people--most of whom are goyim--were to realize the truth, they would finally begin to challenge Jewish power and demand that ‘with great Jewish power comes great Jewish responsibility.’ To be sure, some Jews do admit that Jews are very successful and influential; they argue that Jews remain on the Left and support underdogs against forces of oppression and privilege because of their great sense of responsibility. Though some Jews are sincere in their conviction--it’s never hard to fool onself--, Jewish alliance with ‘underdogs’ is really just a means to maximize Jewish power. After all, notice how selective Jewish sympathies tend to be. Jews make noise about the violence in Darfur but remain mum about Zionist oppression of Palestinians. Worse, Jewish-dominated media present Palestinians as little more than crazed terrorists. On the occasion that some Jews sympathize with Palestinians and criticize Zionist brutality, they place most of the blame on the Likud-Christian-Evangelical alliance. Their silly idea is that rogue ‘far right’ elements in Israel, in cahoots with insane right-wing Christian looneys in America, have hijacked what was and should be a humane and liberal Zionism, which is hilarious when Israel was created by ideologically left-leaning Jews through the use of terrorism and massive ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians. So, how ‘liberal’ was Golda Meir when she said, “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people”?
Anyway, while people with more power need to be more responsible, the world is not so simple that it consists of the all-powerful who need to be all-responsible and all-powerless who needn’t be responsible for anything. This poisonous Leftist mentality has corrosive impact on Western society.
It has led to a condition where everyone demands more freedom but doesn’t want to take responsibility for what they do--especially if one belongs to a ‘victim group’ or ‘oppressed group’. We see this tendency among the young, gay people, women, non-whites, the underclass, the working class, unions, and especially blacks. (When blacks had less freedom and power, the idea was that they should prove themselves as a ‘credit to their race’ to prove themselves worthy of equal power and freedom possessed by whites. Now, this was a condescending and hypocritical attitude to some degree. After all, there were plenty of rotten whites who were no credit to their own race but enjoyed full freedom and power. Why should it be any different for blacks? Purely as an ideological or moral argument, the “credit to one’s race” argument carries little water. But given the biological and cultural differences between whites and blacks, there was something of value in expecting blacks to ‘live up to ideals of freedom’. Culturally, Africans were backward compared to Europeans, and this was true of American blacks as well--though partly because white Americans willfully kept the Negro ignorant and less-educated. Biologically, blacks are less intelligent, wilder, stronger, and more aggressive. So, if blacks were to obtain the same freedom and power as whites, there was the danger that blacks would use their new liberty not to be decent Americans but to be wildass jungle-boogie ‘niggers’. Though white liberals poo-pooed such fears as ‘racist’ and ‘paranoid’, I don’t see too many white liberals signing up to integrate with all those blacks whose communities unleash waves and waves of ‘youth mobs’. Though blacks had every right to be demand equal freedom and power, the fact is the biological differences between the races complicated matters. Suppose women and men were separate races. Suppose weaker and gentler women used the iron whip to keep down and tame beastly race of men. Suppose men demanded equal freedom and power. Would it be wrong for the women race to fret about men race that, with their newfound freedom and power, might use them to overpower and rape the women race? White race in contrast to the black race is the feminine race. With black males whupping white males, white females are fated to become sexual possessions of Negroes while white males will be reduced to pussyboy status. This is the real agenda behind the Jewish support of Obama. He is the product of a Negro boffing a white woman. That so many white men and white women voted for this SOAM--son of a mudshark--signals the end of white pride and power, which means the end of white race itself. When their interracist boy Obama won, Jews were popping champagnes and cackling with joy. I’ll bet James Toback got together with some Negroes to bang some more blonde shikses to celebrate on election night, which for Jews, was erection night.)
Freedom means more power, and having more freedom means having more power. Since the 1950s, there has been an explosion of freedoms for all sorts of groups. The youth rebellion of the 50s and especially 60s brought forth a wide-ranging social revolution. Soem of it was exciting and ‘cool’. But then, the “don’t trust anyone over 30" mentality came to divide the world in terms of Oppressive Old vs Oppressed Young. So, even as young people got more freedom to use drugs, have sex, act wild, and etc, they refused to take responsibility for their own actions. The young were habitually locked into a mindset where Old Folks had all the power while they themselves, the Young and Noble, had no power at all. Take the Woodstock concert. It had some nice things, but it was also a gathering of 300,000 young idiots. They spoke in idealistic terms of the young standing up to the system--especially one that sent young people to kill and die in foreign war--, but the young seemed blind to their own power and their abuse of it. They turned what had been idyllic farmland into a vast disaster area that would smell like human feces for the next ten yrs. Young people at Woodstock fixated on the mythology of themselves standing up to the powers-that-be but closed their eyes, ears, and noses to their own power to turn acres of farmland into debris-strewn field of mud, slime, and shit.
Similar idiocy is to be found in the gay community. That some people are born homosexual should be obvious to anyone. Since sexuality is a powerful emotion, society should allow gays to do their gay stuff. But there is a dangerous side to gay sexuality, especially among homosexual men. Fecal penetration--aka anal sex or sodomy--is a disgusting and dangerous form of ‘sex’ prone to the spread of infections and other ailments. Also, the bohemianism and subversiveness prevailing in the gay community encouraged greater sexual risk-taking through wantonly degenerate acts--in bath houses for example. This made the gay community a fertile breeding ground for the spread of various diseases, the most deadliest of which was AIDS. The disease ended up killing lots of gays and even came to affect the non-gay community through blood transfusions and drug use. Worst of all, the cost on society as a whole was tremendous. With HIV-infected people requiring expensive drugs-and-care, all of society was taxed heavily to foot the bill.
You’d think the gay community would accept blame, but no. It entirely blamed the Christian Right and Ronald Reagan for the epidemic. While it’s true that the ‘God Hates Fags’ Christian Right says ridiculous things and while it may have been true that Reagan didn’t respond to the disease with sufficient alarm--at least initially--, the reason why the disease spread was because of the sexual degeneracy of gays(and of course blacks). Though AIDS is a problem all over the world, it’s been especially problematic for black Africans and gays because of their outrageously disgusting sexual behaviors. Black African males screw just about anything, and black women happen to be very lascivious, thinking more with their booties than their brains. But instead of blaming blacks and gays, we have blacks and gays--with full backing of ‘progressives’--blaming the rest of us for ‘not caring’ and ‘not doing enough.’ So, we have posters like this one:
It says: KISSING DOESN’T KILL: GREED AND INDIFFERENCE DO.
Since when did ‘indifference’ spread HIV? So, if I don’t pay attention to blacks and gays, my inattention is spreading HIV in the black and gay community? (Speaking of greed, isn’t it greedy on the part of blacks and gays to do as they wish--against good advice--and then dump the costs on the rest of us? It’s like Jewish-controlled Wall Street using banks and stock market like a casino and then having the rest of us bail them out when their chips are down. I suppose degenerate gamblers are poor victims too. When people in the Tea Party opposed the bailing out the greedy banksters--who funded Obama and McCain’s campaign--, they were accused of ‘greed’ for not wanting to help out poor Wall Street!) And whoever said the problem was ‘kissing’? Most people know that kissing, in most cases, do not spread HIV germs--unless both kissers have serious problems with bleeding gums. What the poster really should have shown were black African males having orgies with monkeys and lots of skanky black women--as well as raping young girls--and gay men buggering hundreds of other gay men; and the poster should have said, “Wild crazy sex among savage blacks and endless series of fecal penetration by gay men--and sharing needles among junkies--kills by spreading the HIV virus.” Yet, the very people who caused the problem took no responsibility but accused the rest of society for the deaths through ‘greed and indifference’. If some idiot takes a baseball bat and hits himself in the head, should I be blamed for ‘indifference’ to his dumb use of freedom of taking a bat to his own head?
Furthermore, were we really indifferent? Didn’t we warn blacks that wild sexuality would be the cause of serious problems? Didn’t we tell gays that their lifestyle was risky and dangerous? But when decent and normal white people advised blacks to act more ‘middle class’ and warned gays that an overly fruity lifestyle was prone spreading deadly diseases, what did these two groups--and the ‘progressive’ community--tell us? They called us ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, and told us to go fuc* off. They told us that black funkiness was cool and being wantonly sexual was what being a Negro was all about. They told us that gay lifestyle and gay behavior have nothing to be ashamed about or apologize for. So, since they told us to get lost, we figured, oh well, what can we do? So, Negroes acted like wild Negroes and gays acted like crazy gays. And then sexual diseases spread all over their communities. Yet, blacks--both American and African--are never to be blamed. Gays also never get blamed. When Magic Johnson contracted HIV, he didn’t say it was his fault. Instead, he was treated as a hero for going public with his disease. He was treated like a gay ‘proudly’ coming out of the closet. Never mind that Johnson got the disease by having sex with thousands of women--by acting like a typical tribal African male. Since he’s black and since he got a politically correct disease, that made him a hero regardless of how he got sick. And never mind all the millions spent to provide him with the best medical care, something that ‘progressives’ tell us should be made available to every gay person or African with HIV.
(In the past, the Left had this view of the working class as a responsible people who were owed a decent wage and basic services. Now, the Left has this idea that the people should mess up their lives through all sorts of excessive and wanton behavior but should never be blamed for their problems. Instead, the people are all victims and need to be taken care of by taxing the ‘greedy rich’. Ironically, even as the Left promotes wantonly deviant and hedonistic lifestyles among the people--especially the young--, it also says we need more regulations and programs to control people’s appetites because too many people are fat and unhealthy. But the message is never ‘people should take the responsibility to take better care of themselves’. Instead, it’s the people are victims who cannot act rationally and responsibly, and so, progressives should be allowed to create more government programs and regulations for the sake of the people. Of course, if people became more self-responsible, they would be less likely to do excessively dumb things, and that would mean less need for ‘social workers’ and government programs. So, the left encourages people to be irresponsible and cause problems, and then, it steps in to offer solutions to those problems. But the left is helped by this by consumer-capitalists who will pander to the lowest common denominator to maximize their profits by treating the masses as pigs at a trough. Only neo-fascism can break people out of this disgusting trap formed in collusion of the statist left and the capitalist trite.) Magic Johnson was even appointed by President George H.W. Bush for some AIDS panel, which goes to show Republicans are a bunch of slavish tards when it comes to public policy. (His son, George W. Bush, of course, sought praise from the liberal establishment by contributing tens of billions of US tax payer dollars to the African HIV treatment.) But did Johnson show any appreciation? No, he soon quit the panel by complaining that Bush wasn’t doing enough about HIV. Here’s a gazillionaire basketball star who contracted HIV due to his out-of-control sexual behavior, but he took no responsibility but instead blamed Bush. By the simple virtue that he’s black and contracted HIV--the holy disease affecting and anointing mostly gays and Negroes according to the ‘progressive’ community--, he was a saint than a scumbag.
Johnson was different from blacks of the past who really didn’t have full freedom and equality. He came to prominence when blacks could rise as high as possible, and he reached the top in his profession. He was adulated by millions of fans. He made lots of fame and fortune. Yet, when he abused his power and freedom and ended up with HIV, he didn’t point the finger of blame at himself, and the mass media dominated by Jews and gays played along. As long as he belonged to the ‘victim race’ and got the ‘preferential victim disease’, he was perceived as a powerless saint-hero whom all decent people should admire. As long as blacks feel a part of some Eternal Powerless Group, they will never acknowledge their power/freedom(and abuses of that power/freedom). Even when blacks in Africa carry out horrendous genocides in places like Rwanda, the first reaction is to blame it on ‘European racism’, as if ethnic and tribal genocides were alien to African history. I suppose the expanding domination of Bantus over Khoisan in southern Africa over 100,000s of years didn’t entail massive killings and slavery but only love and kisses. Using the logic that blames Belgians for the genocide in Rwanda, we might as well blame Jews for the Nazi German Holocaust. After all, Jews created the notion of the One and Only God, the intolerant religion of monotheism, and the concept of the Chosen People with pure blood. So, maybe this Jewish sickness came to infect Germans through the religion of Christianity, which, after all, grew out of Judaism. And maybe we should blame Darwin for placing biology on the map in human discourse. So, Germans during the Nazi era weren’t really responsible for their actions. They were just victims of ideas that arose from Judeo-Christian heritage and the Anglo science of Darwinism. (Pat Buchanan does make an argument along that line, making a total fool of himself.)
There is no doubt that some groups are more powerful than others, collectively speaking. But, the nature and character of power are different among various groups, and these differences need to be both acknowledged and appreciated if we are to understand what is really going on and to formulate policies to solve problems--if they can be solved at all. Some groups are powerful due to their numbers. Mexican-Americans aren’t particularly powerful in business, culture, sports, and creativity, but they have a sizable and growing presence in sheer number. Jews, with their high IQ, social networking, and wily personalities, are powerful in many elite fields; but Jews are not powerful in terms of numbers. Blacks are powerful in the streets and public places as the members of the strongest and most feared race. Many places in cities and towns are practically owned by blacks even if blacks don’t legally own the properties on the block. They own the streets, which is why most non-blacks and some decent blacks stay clear of black dominated areas. And blacks also have immense power in sports because of their athleticism. Blacks are also prominent in popular culture for their charisma, funky personality, rhythm, and sexuality. (Increasing numbers of white women are flocking to Negro men in the spirit of ‘go black, you can’t go back’. The pussification of the white male is happening at rapid pace while black males are being sexually empowered with each passing day.) Blacks are also big in numbers: almost 50 million in America and growing. With big numbers came considerable political clout, especially in big cities. Also, the issue of slavery has given blacks ‘moral capital’ or ‘moral power’ with which to guilt-bait white Americans--oddly enough, even white people who had nothing to do with slavery. (In America, recent Polish-Americans are penalized by ‘affirmative action’ while recent African immigrants--whose ancestors surely sold blacks to white slavers--are beneficiaries of racial preference.) With such clout, blacks have been favored for many government positions and jobs. But, certain forms of black power have ironically undermined black power. Consider this: thanks to their athleticism, blacks have gained mythic-iconic status among many Americans. White boys and girls alike worship black athletes. White boys watch college and professional football and pee in their pants; their big dream is having their footballs autographed by Negro stars. And white girls’ big dream in life is to put out to Negro studs. But, for every star Negro athlete, there are many more thousands of black thugs with big muscles. Black thuggery has alienated many non-blacks(and decent blacks), who’ve chosen to move away from blacks. Thus, many blacks have been isolated and ‘neglected’ precisely because of their physical power. Non-blacks don’t want to live in a neighborhood filled with the likes of Mike Tyson? It’s be like living with wild gorillas.
Cuban-Americans are powerful because they are prominent in Florida, a key swing state. If the Cuban-American population weren’t thus concentrated, it’d be far less powerful. Asian-American power derives from a certain dependable diligence. Asian-Indians and Chinese-Americans have been known for their work ethic and devotion to family. Asians are not particularly intelligent or wily(and creative)like the Jews, and so they tend to be successful than truly powerful. And they don’t have the numbers like Hispanics and blacks do.
Even among whites, there’s a wide variance of power(and the nature of power)among regions. Certain white groups--Christian Right Evangelicals and Seattle liberals--don’t see eye-to-eye on much of anything. In sheer numbers, whites are the most powerful in America. Even when whites no longer become the outright majority, they will be the biggest ‘minority’ for quite some time. And many whites are rich and influential. But the white middle class has been eroding, and the rich whites who keep getting richer don’t care a damn about fellow white people who have less. If black elites serve as leaders of blacks, Jewish elites serve as leaders of Jews, Asian elites serve as leaders of Asians, Mexican elites serve as leaders of Mexicans, and etc, white elites do NOT serve as leaders of whites. So, there’s a divide between white elites--mostly liberal and globalist--and the white masses who still believe in the bonds of the nation-state.
Whites are also more divided along ideological lines than other groups. Most Jews are Democratic, most blacks are Democratic, a large majority of Hispanics are Democratic, a decisive majority of Asians are Democratic, but whites are still fatally divided between Democratic and Republican.
There is also a powerful regional divide between North and South. The divide between white North and white South is deeper than the divide between black North and black South, or between brown Northeast and brown Southwest. Why would this be so? One reason is that minority groups tend to stick together. Since blacks in both the North and South feel ‘oppressed’, there is a more powerful sense of blackness. But the other reason is history. Though there are many blacks in the North, almost ALL blacks in America have roots in the South(as slaves). So, even Northern blacks share in the narrative of Southern slavery and Emancipation. And even Mexican-Americans in Chicago and New York share with Mexican-Americans in the Southwest the narrative of originating from Mexico and the dream of ‘reconquista’. So, there is a common historical thread among all blacks and among all Mexican-Americans. But many white Southerners only know the South. Their ancestors settled in the South long ago, and they remained rooted in Dixieland. And many Northern whites only know the North. Their ancestors settled in the North and only know the North. If Northern whites moved, it was likely westward than southward. And most of the immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe settled in the North and moved out westward from Northern cities like New York without ever having set a foot in the South(which is one reason why the Wasp-dominated KKK in the South came to be so anti-white-ethnic-and-Catholic). So, many Northern whites ONLY know the North while many Southern whites ONLY know the South. Also, if the slavery narrative unites blacks because it imbues them with the nobility of suffering, the history of slavery and the Civil War divides whites in the North and South. Northern whites don’t want to identify, in any shape or fashion, with Southern slavery maintained by Southern whites. If anything, white Northerners are repelled by it. Rather, they want to emphasize the fact they courageously took a stand against Southern white evil and even waged a war on the behalf of the blacks to free them from ‘racist’ white Southerners.
The Civil War narrative and WWII narrative are used as parallels by American liberals--and dearly exploited by Jews. In both cases, relatively ‘good’ whites took a stand against ‘evil’ whites and fought for the higher good by coming to the rescue of non-whites(if we count Jews as non-whites). In WWII, Anglos and Anglo-Americans allied with the ‘Asiatic’ Russian hordes against the pure ‘Aryan’ Germans in the name of combating the evil of white supremacism--or at least that’s how the story came to be interpreted and remembered. This has been a sticking point for some on the Right. The real message of Pat Buchanan’s UNNECESSARY WAR is Wasps should have sided with their racial cousins Germans against Jews and Russians. And neo-Confederates curse the damn Yankees as ‘race traitors’ who waged war on fellow whites for the sake of the Negro and some abstract notion of ‘higher justice’. (Ironically, Germans sided with the fully Asiatic Japanese and the Italians, whom Hitler derided as inferior due to their mixture of Negro blood, in his war for conquest. And in WWI, Germans sided with Muslim Ottomans who would end up killing over a million Christian Armenians. Though Buchanan attacks Churchill and Roosevelt for siding with non-whites or lesser-whites against pure-blooded whites, the Germans, it seems to escape his notice that Germans opportunistically did much the same for their own national interests. During WWI, German militarists lent aid to Bolsheviks in the hope that a communist revolution in Russia would lead to German victory on the Eastern Front. The Germans helped send Lenin back into Russia.)
However, Jews stress that Northern whites, though better than Southern whites, were also guilt of oppression of black since all of America profited from the slave economy. Besides, the North wasn’t all that hospitable to blacks either, and there was that business with taking the land from the Indians. (By the way, if Jews are so appalled by what white Americans did, why did they come to America, an evil nation founded on slavery and genocide, to make their fortune? Why profit from a political and social order created by ‘evil racists’?) So, Northern Whites must also share in the historical guilt. Eager to cleanse themselves of this guilt, Northern whites go out of their way to attack Southern whites. Southern whites, surrounded by millions of vicious Negroes, naturally have much more to fear from the Negro and aren’t so generous and/or naive in their racial sympathies. Of course, this is rather amusing since some of the most racially segregated places are actually in the North(and most of this segregation is the result of black crime and violence, which Northern white liberals are scared to death of as well). Though all whites are made to share in the guilt, Northern whites are less guilty, and so they cling to this ‘better than Southern whites’ status zealously.
Similarly, though white Americans fought bravely to defeat Nazi Germany and saved many Jews, Jews stress that America did NOT do enough. Jews also tirelessly remind Americans that groups such as America First had argued against non-intervention because of their crypto-German-or-even-Nazi sympathies. (But did American Jews call for war on the Soviet Union when millions of Ukrainians were being murdered by Stalin and his Jewish henchmen? Did American Jews care when two million Cambodians were being murdered by the Khmer Rouge? If I call, most American Jews were cheering for communist victory in Southeast Asia. Though Noam Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, he is much admired by the leftist Jewish community. Some say he’s anti-Zionist, but the dirty Jew blames the problems of Zionism on white Americans and would have believe that Israelis are mere puppets of American goyim! Did American Jews demand something must be done to save Tutsis from the Hutus in the Rwandan genocide? Did any Jew volunteer to go fight to save people from being slaughtered in other parts of the world? I don’t think so. So, why do Jews think it was some special moral obligation for white American parents to send their kids to die in foreign wars to save the hideous Jews? Given the nature of Jewish power in America and its vicious anti-white agenda, it seems rather obvious that no sane white person should risk his life for the sake of Jews. It’s like chickens going to war to save foxes and then bringing the foxes into the henhouse.) So, even though white Americans were better than Nazi Germans, Jews still insist that white Americans too have been guilty of antisemitism, even if their strain of the virus wasn’t as virulent as one that affected Germany. So, white Americans are not really good but only ‘gooder’ than Nazi Germans. The only truly GOOD people are noble and saintly Jews and Negroes, and all white people must do everything to show that they love every Jew and every Negro. (This mentality has taken such deep root in the American consciousness that conservatives are, in some way, more Philosemitic than American liberals. Since they cannot hate or criticize Jews, they’ve turned their newfound love-of-Jews into a new version of right-wing nationalism. By supporting Zionism and Israel, they’ve woven a new narrative of Western Judeo-Christian peoples and values at war with those vile barbarian Muslims. What white conservatives used to say about Jews have been transferred to Muslims. And Jews, whom white conservatives used to dislike and even hate but can’t hate anymore due to the religion of Holocaustianity, have been turned into the banner of Western values and decency against ‘evil antisemitism’. Never mind that Jews don’t play along with this New Conservative fantasy scenario--with the exception of Neocons who pay lip service only to garner dumb white goy support for Israel. Never mind that Palestinian resistance to Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitic ideology and everything to do with the fact that they lost their land to Jew imperialist-conquerors. But alas, Palestinians are not Jews or Negroes. ‘Who, whom’ is all important in world politics. In South Africa, we were told Negroes were the good guys because they were oppressed by whites. In Israel, we are told Palestinians are the bad guys even though they are the oppressed. Dirty disgusting white conservatives have projected the guilt of Nazi mass-murder onto Palestinians who had NOTHING to do with the horrors. Another outrageous example of ‘who, whom’ hypocrisy was when New York Times reported the mass rape of a 11 yr old Hispanic girl by nearly 20 blacks. The news report tried to ‘understand’ the blacks. When blacks commit an obviously foul act, the Jew-controlled media go for empathy-to-sympathy than judgement. Of course, NY Times and rest of Jew-run media flipped out over the bogus story of the Duke Lacrosse case when some nappy-headed black ho accused rich white boys of raping and beating her. This double-standard shows the Jew-controlled liberal media still wants us to see the world in terms of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. One of main Liberal tropes during the Civil Rights Era was that black men were not sexual predators but nice Negroes railroaded into rape charges by evil white men and women. In truth, blacks are indeed the biggest rapists in the world, and the case of black gang rape of an 11 yr old was clear evidence of a real sickness among disgusting jive-ass blacks. But since we’ve been conditioned to permanently think of blacks in terms of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and since the gang-rape of the 11 yr old Hispanic girl didn’t fit into this ridiculous liberal narrative, NY Times spun a weird apologia for black rottenness. Similarly, when Omar Thorton the thieving Negro thug shot dead eight white people at a beer packing plant, the New York Times treated rampaging Omar as the victim of the narrative. The story went from ‘black thug kills eight whites’ to something like ‘did eight racist whites deserve to die for oppressing a noble Negro who just couldn’t take it no mo?’ Given the vileness of Jews who run this country, it is NOT difficult to understand why ‘antisemitism’ has been around for so long. Most American Jews agree with the New York Times, which means that the majority of Jews are a foul and disgusting people. And Jews throughout history shared the same attitudes and personalities. Thought not all Jews are like Abe Foxman or the Neumann character on SEINFELD, enough of them are. Jewish hideousness and vileness know no bounds, no shame, no limit.)
Anyway, the fact that one people are collectively more powerful than other groups doesn’t mean that other groups should merely play ‘victim’. Such cops-and-robber victim mentality exists on both the Right and Left, though it’s the Left that turned it into a state ideology. But it’s there on the Right too, especially on the Far Right. Consider three examples of ultra-rightism: Neo-Nazi Right, Nation of Islam, and Ultra-nationalist Japanese. Neo-Nazis think that just because Jews are very powerful, Jews must be all-powerful. So, everything wrong with the world is blamed on Jews. While it’s true that Jews run the exploitative porn industry, it’s not like Jews go around capturing white girls. No, the kinds of white girls who go into porn have been abused by their ‘white trash’ relatives. Many come from broken homes and some have been molested from a young age by lecherous uncles or boyfriends of their idiot mothers. Jews are hideous in their exploitation of white misery, but much of white misery is caused by whites, and whites need to blame themselves when it comes to the socio-cultural rot and idiocies in their own communities. Another reason for white failure is the rise of an idiotic strain of Evangelicalism. If you raise your kids to believe in stuff like Creationism, you’re telling them to be DUMB AND STOOOPID. Stupid people don’t succeed in the world. Much of white idiocy is self-inflicted. There’s something very wrong with a political culture that produces the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Of course, white liberals have their own idiocies, but as they say, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Neo-Nazis, because of their view of all-powerful Jews and all-innocent ‘Aryans’, cannot even accept the truth of Hitler’s genocide of Jews. In their idiot minds, it’s just not possible that good decent Germans could have killed all those super-powerful Jews. (Oddly enough, Neo-Nazis who insist that Hitler didn’t kill millions of Jews say he should have killed all those Jews. They are moral degenerates as well as hypocrites.)
Then there is Nation of Islam as led by Farrakhan. Now, Farrakhan pays lip-service to criticizing the black community and stressing responsibility, especially among black males. That was supposedly what the Million Man March was all about. But, Farrakhan’s real message is blacks must wake up and unite precisely because whites and Jews are the Devil and out to hurt the naturally wonderful black race who’ve been torn out of their idyllic Edenic paradise. Also, his idea of responsibility is blacks sucking up to his megalomaniacal self as a kind of black Muhammad, the prophet of the brothers, or brophet. And his criticism of blacks always portrays blacks as innocent lambs whose minds have been corrupted by evil whites and Jews. So, blacks are not really responsible for their bad ways but merely victims of other peoples’ machinations. Farrakhan admits blacks are naturally partial to ‘silly things’ like blings and funkiness, but he makes it all out to be childlike and innocent instead of ugly and disgusting. So, when blacks act like lunatics and ruin entire neighborhoods, the problem rests less with blacks than with Jews and whites who’ve corrupted black childlike innocence into savage soulless materialism. There is some truth to the charge that Jews and the consumerist-hedonist economy have made fools and clowns of all of us, but black problems simply cannot be explained in terms of natural black spontaneity perverted by the profiteers of sleaze. If anything, white people had long worried about the rise of wild ‘niggerishness’ among blacks and urged blacks to be more sober. The rise of black lunacy was largely the creation of blacks themselves. Whites, after all, didn’t like Jack Johnson. Whites, after all, had tried to tame Africans brought to America and wean them from ugaguba jungle savagery. It was blacks who turned more militant and wild and then just plain crazy. As long as black problems and failure are explained in terms of “what had been done to blacks by whites and Jews”, blacks will never take responsibility for what has gone wrong. (It must be said, however, that Jews would have no problem with Farrakhan if he only blamed whites. The problem is he blames Jews as well as whites, thereby upsetting the Jewish narrative that Jews and blacks are noble victim allies resisting evil white power.)
One of the most acute examples of the Iron Law of Leftist Victimology was seen in the London Riots of 2011. It began with a bunch of blacks running around looting and burning. Yet, the overwhelming narrative was about the need to ‘understand’ why this happened.
The powers-that-be refused to recognize and understand the real reason why this happened. Instead, they tried to fit the events into their Procrustean doctrine of political correctness. So, all those black kids were merely ‘youths’ or ‘teens’. We were told the ‘youths’ were rebelling against government cutbacks or out of frustration because they had ‘nothing’. On the rare occasion that a commentator did mention that blacks led the riots, the idea was floated that blacks turned out this way because of past ‘racism’, i.e. the first waves of blacks arriving after WWII were very decent and peaceful but white ‘racists’ gave them a hard time, and that’s why British blacks became mired in poverty and rage. (Following this logic, shouldn’t Jews be rioting all over Europe since they’d been treated hostilely by gentile populations? Though black hostility toward whites may owe something to history, the manner in which it plays out(violent riots)--whereas Jewish hostility plays out in Jewish control of media and governments--speaks volumes about the truth of racial differences. Blacks, being less intelligent, vent their rage with fists and fire. Jews, being more intelligent, vent their resentment and rage by controlling institutions of information and governance.) While blacks may have reasons to feel a certain anger toward whites, that simply doesn’t explain, let alone justify, their recent behavior. American Indians, Chinese-Americans, and Japanese-Americans were treated badly too by white Americans at one time--indeed much worse than Carribean blacks were treated in UK in the 50s and 60s. Yet, how many Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Japanese-Americans riot in America? For all we know, Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans may be seething with rage, but their style of rage is different from that of blacks because of racial differences.
But because of the Iron Leftist Law of Victimology, blacks are always seen as powerless victims rebelling against powerful whites. During the London Riots, much of the violence was black against Asian-Indian and black against poor whites. Why was this? It was not because of black sense of powerlessness but because of their power-lusting contempt for whites and Asian-Indians. Blacks know that they are tougher, rougher, and stronger. So, black thugs look down on ‘faggoty ass, pussy ass whiteboys.’ Blacks know that whites are afraid of them. Blacks grow up beating up white boys, intimidating white boys, stealing white girls from white boys(with white boys sheepishly walking away without a fight). Blacks see that white boys are so awed by Negroes that many white boys ape black culture. And interracism between black males and white females is among the highest in England. So, it was not about black powerlessness rebelling against white power. It was black arrogance and impatience over the fact that mere thug-power isn’t enough for them to dominate all of society. In their own communities, black thugs dominate by sheer thuggery alone. They push people around, intimidate teachers, bully white kids, and walk around like they own the streets. But a community run by thugs is going to be a poor one. And thugs who don’t do well in school don’t do well in life, and that means widespread poverty. Animal thuggery only goes so far. This is what frustrates many blacks. In their idiot fantasies, the dude with the loudest voice, hardest punch, biggest dick, and firmest muscles rule everything. That’s what they see in sports, hear in rap music, watch in porn, and see on the streets(and at school, where even teachers are afraid of Negro kids). Yet, thugs go nowhere in life because they aren’t good for anything but acting criminal and stupid--unless they have a gift for foul-mouthed nursery rhymes, in which case they can rake in millions in the rap music industry, but then they’d only be spreading more idiocy in their community(and in the so-called ‘chav’ white community as well, which, since the age of punk music, has rotted in its own special way.)
Blacks, like everyone else, have legitimate grievances in both the US and UK, but the narrative of ‘blacks as utterly powerless victims’ obfuscates the a far more complex reality. (One constructive thing about the Obama presidency is it undermines the notion that blacks cannot do anything in America because white people are so utterly ‘racist’. I suspect some whites subconsciously voted for him just for this reason.)
Many people refuse to face the fact that blacks are naturally better fighters than whites. Many blacks won’t say so publicly because it might raise alarm bells in the white community that blacks are indeed a racial danger to whites. Whites will finally have a good moral argument against the whole notion of ‘racial equality’ since the races are naturally unequal. If white males had faced up to the truth in the 19th century or even early 20th century, the black danger would have been acknowledged and justify the removal of blacks from white communities and nations.
Jews are allergic to any notion of racial differences because once you open that can of worms, people will begin to discuss the real reason for Jewish wealth and power over non-Jews: higher Jewish intelligence.
And the some members of the White Right, especially the males, cannot accept the reality of black physical advantage because of white male vanity and pride. Alternative Right still runs idiotic(and therapeutic) articles saying that black dominance in the 100 m sprint is just a self-perpetuating myth. Or, some white guy will admit that blacks are indeed better in the 100 m sprint, but since whites dominate the walking competition, one cannot say blacks are athletically superior to whites but merely different. I suppose one could likewise say Germans are not better athletes than Singaporeans since the latter are better at badminton. Germans can only jump, swim, run, punch, wrestle, and lift better, but hey, they aren’t as good at swatting the birdie. This is rather like saying blacks aren’t less intelligent than whites but merely have a different kind of ‘intelligence’, such as more rhythmic ability to shake their booties.
But if we cut the bullshit and have the courage to face the truth, there is no question that the black man naturally has superior fighting abilities over the white man--of course, not in every case but generally speaking. Why is it that even small number of blacks will go into white areas to terrorize whites while a small number of whites would never even think of doing the opposite in a black community? Imagine a bunch of white guys in Harlem terrorizing blacks.
In the summer of this year, there was news report that Oak Street Beach in Chicago was closed due to excessive heat. The real reason was black thuggery. Oak Street Beach is in the heart of luxurious Chicago, and most of its patrons are whites. Yet, gangs of black thugs felt no fear in randomly attacking whites in a mostly white beach. Blacks knew that they were tougher and white folks were too afraid to do anything about it. It’s like hyenas or lions will run into an area with hundreds of wildebeests. Wildebeests, afraid of predators, just run even though they outnumber lions and hyenas. Similarly, though whites vastly outnumbered blacks at the Oak Street Beach, the sight of blacks acting thugs paralyzed most white people. White guys didn’t go to help white people being attacked by blacks. Instead their dicks shriveled up and their balls turned into size of pinto beans, and they just watched helplessly.
In the past, whites would have acted collectively to fight back and throw out the ‘fucking niggers’. After all, even a grizzly bear will lose to a wolf pack. If whites aren’t individually as tough as blacks, they can still counter black thuggery with white unity. But Oak Street Beach is the heart of Chicago yuppie liberalism, and of course, the SWPL or swipple crowd are not supposed to think in terms of white identity, white unity, white security. Though white people saw black thugs attacking white people, they repressed the fact that their own kind was being attacked by thug elements of another race. Instead, most white Chicagoans settled for the narrative that ‘teens’ or ‘youths’ went wild at the Chicago beach.
Anyway, imagine a bunch of white thugs randomly attacking blacks at a black dominated beach. For starters, even before whites could pick on blacks, blacks would have picked on whites. And if whites attacked blacks, the very blacks who’d been attacked would have fought back and whupped the white thugs. And most likely, whole bunch of blacks on the beach would have gone wild and joined in on whupping the faggoty-ass white boys. This is why we don’t see white thugs randomly attacking blacks in black areas--or even in white areas.
Of course, if whites were to unite to fight against black thuggery, they would be accused of ‘racism’. On the other hand, if blacks were to unite to fight white thuggery, they would be commended for working together to fight ‘racism’. Whites can never win in a Jew-dominated world.
The Left is especially confused on race because it employs double-standard and double-logic, especially when pertaining to blacks and Jews. When blacks are perceived to be the victim, the Left emphasizes blackness and remind us that, “blacks are suffering, blacks have been targeted by ‘racism’.” But when blacks do wrong, the Left pretends either that it’s not a black thing or that blacks were merely responding to ‘racism’. So, when black mobs go around robbing and looting, the media tell us it’s ‘teen mobs’. (By the way, if it’s unfair to associate all blacks with criminal black mobs, why is it okay to associate all youths with criminal youth mobs? Is profiling by age any better than profiling by race? This raises the question, is it right for insurance companies to charge more for young males than for any other group? Isn’t that both ‘age-ist’ and ‘sexist’ profiling?) Half the time, the Left emphasizes, “it’s black, black, black” but other half the time, the Left says, “what, who, or why is it black?”
While it’s true that many whites took part in the British riots in 2011, there is no mistaking a particularly black nature to the violence--and that many white kids were aping blacks. On the other hand, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the decline of white working class culture in Britain precedes the arrival of Rap music and culture. The foul Punk culture had a disastrous impact on the British working class. Marxism was evil, but it instilled pride and dignity in work and sobriety, and in that sense, it was trying to redeem the Proletariat via liberation from ‘exploitative’ labor.
In contrast, for all its ideological conceits, Punk culture’s only purpose was to corrupt poor and working class whites into a foul-mouthed and retarded morons, and it succeeded all too well. That the intellectual class took up Punk culture as something worthy to promote and emulate speaks volumes about the corruption permeating every corner of modern society. And today, the cultural and intellectual elites are treating Rap music and culture as something ‘innovative’, worthy of ‘emulation’, messenger of ‘truth’, vehicle of rebellion, and etc. when it’s nothing more than thug-porn. Many people think Rap has great value since it’s popular all over the world. But then, so is soda pop, but how good is sugary drink for one’s health? Billions of people would love cocaine too if it were legal, but how good is that? Chinese took to opium like crazy, but was that good for society? Porn is more popular than ‘art films’, so does that mean porn has greater cultural value? McDonalds is the most popular eatery in the world, but how healthy are Big Mac and McFries? Syphilis was once common all over the world. So, does that mean it was good to be infected with the syphilis virus? HIV is prevalent all over Africa. Does that make it good? Rats and roaches are found everywhere. So, are they good?
Rap is everywhere because it has spread like junk food and germs. Rap music has direct appeal for its pornography and instant-will-to-power thuggery. And like rats, roaches, and germs, it feeds on the degradation of the human soul, which is common enough around the world. Yet, this garbage musical form is hailed by intellectuals and commentators all over the world. Why? Jews makes lots of money by controlling the music industry, and rap is a formula that sells. Leftist narrative of ‘blacks as eternal victims’ has added a cachet of political relevance to rap rage. People, including intellectuals, are addicted to the pornographic imagination and will-to-power-lust. There is also the interracist jungle feverism among both white males and females. White female wanna have sex with muscular Negroes while pussifed white boys want to whank off to it via porn. White males have lost their alpha male status vis-a-vis black males. Though white nationalist males resist this landmark change in cultural psychology, they are at the losing end of history. They have absolutely no power in the media, academia, and etc. Most white males have accepted their loss of status as alpha males of the West. Especially in our sports/pop music/porn-obsessed culture, white males worship Negro males. As such, white males feel that they are women-in-relation-to-the-Negro. Negro male is the man, white boy is the girl. Since the white man no longer has primary claim to white female, he is sexually confused. White girl, as the primary sexual prize in the West, now belongs to Negroes--at least in the popular imagination(which is having a real impact on society as a whole, what with more interracist coupling happening all over the place.) So, when a white boy fantasizes about or watches interracist sex/porn involving black male and white female, he identifies with both the black male and white female. He wishes he too were as big and strong like the Negro male who seems to be giving the white woman an orgasm that no white man could give her. But the white boy also identifies with the white woman. Since he is now a pussyboy or a boy-girl, he is awed by the idea of being sexually dominated by a Negro. This may explain why interracist porn is most popular among white males. Having been pussified, they get something like a double-orgasm: they share in the orgasm of the Negro stud and in the orgasm of the white girl. He gets off fantasy-identifying with both the big dominant Negro and with the ravished white girl. Jews, of course, know all about this psychology. The pussification of the white male has essentially bi-sexualized and gay-ized all white men into honorary ‘faggots’ whose minds are toyed by Jews and whose manhood has been raped by Negroes. What Jack Johnson did to Jim Jeffries has been done to all of white male kind. White man is now the bitch of the black man and the hideous Jew.
But we cannot discuss this truth because political correctness and the Iron Law of Leftist Victimology only allow us to see reality in terms of ‘powerful whites’ and ‘powerless blacks’. So, whenever blacks run wild in acts of violence, we are told it’s up to whites to understand why blacks or ‘teens’ act this way. When the Katrina fiasco hit New Orleans, all the blame was placed on whites, especially George W. Bush. Bush was an idiot, but how was he to blame for the full extent of the disaster? Meanwhile, blacks who just sat around on their ass or ran around robbing, looting, raping, and murdering were presented as mere victims. Some commentators said blacks were unable to cope because they’d been ‘neglected’ by white community for too long.
Well, it’d be nice if blacks neglected other races too. Blacks, as you may have noticed, do not neglect other people. Instead, blacks like to involve themselves in other peoples’ lives by robbing, howling, raping, murdering, looting, acting rude and stupid, etc. Of course, black people ignore and neglect naively idealistic white teachers who go to teach in inner-city schools. Students never listen to lessons or do homework. And on the occasion that blacks do pay attention to white teachers, it’s to hurl insults or to beat him or her up. But again, the media will have us believe that the fault is not with blacks. After all, they are ‘powerless’. So, if blacks run wild and free and beat up white people in the streets, it’s a case of ‘powerless’ Negroes rebelling against the ‘powerful’ whites who are either ‘racist’ or ‘overly privileged’--though NY Times never mentions the fact no people are as privileged in America as the damn Jews. And if white people flee from crazy and violent Negroes and choose to settle in a safe white community, they are ‘neglecting’ wonderful Negroes who need a helping hand.
I do not say this to ignore or whitewash the real history of black suffering and humiliation throughout American history. Rather, the point is that when a certain historical narrative is turned into a Iron Law by which we must explain and judge everything, it makes not only for stupidity but insanity that may prove far worse than the earlier history. For example, it was this failure to see reality as reality that led to the current South Africa. I do not argue that Apartheid should still exist. But based on racial differences between blacks and whites, I do argue that South African whites should have called for racial separation than a one-state solution where whites and blacks are supposed to co-exist peacefully together. Such ‘dreams’ turn to nightmares. Michael King(aka Martin L. King) pontificated about his dream, but white South Afrikaners have a nightmare in their hands. But even as empowered black thugs rape and murder whites, globalist Jews who control the world media only see the situation in terms of ‘powerless blacks’ and ‘powerful whites’. So, even when a black thug rapes and kills a white woman, NY TIMES sees it as a powerless Negro acting against a powerful white person.
The problem of blacks is bad enough but when mixed with the problem of youth, it becomes downright maddening. Eternal Black Victim mentality mixed with Eternal Youth Victim mentality has become one of the most toxic bio-cultural brews in the West. Because blacks feel forever ‘oppressed’, they never take responsibility for their idiotic actions. Because young people feel forever ‘suppressed’, they don’t realize how stupid and destructive they often act. Blacks are naturally more aggressive and wilder than other races. Young people--especially males--tend to be the most aggressive and reckless. With young black males feeling that they are the most oppressed people in the world by the simple virtue of being black and young, they do as they please, justify their actions as ‘rebellion against oppression’, and take no responsibility. Ironically, the favorite cultural expression of these moronic thugs is Rap music, which is all about arrogantly flaunting one’s power. Rap music says, “I’m the baddest motherfuc*er in the world and I can whup your ass!!” So, one would think Rap music is a Black-Youth-Male supremacist song, and of course it is in a way. But the historical context of ‘white racism’ would have us believe that even when young black thugs scream and howl about their badass power, they are really resisting against The Man. So, the music of black male arrogance and power has been interpreted and justified as righteous rage and rebellion-for-justice music of the powerless. Thuggery has been ideologicalized and sanctified as something noble and good--just like thug Jack Johnson has been rehabilitated as an icon of black nobility and pride.
When the two most dangerous elements of society, black males + youth, have thus been ideologicalized and ennobled, it’s no wonder we’re seeing the trouble we’re seeing. Young black males, by their very nature, are bound to cause most problems because (1) blacks are more aggressive and stronger than other races (2) young males are most wild and reckless. But instead of sending a message to young black males to watch themselves, we not only encourage but morally reward them when they act most crazy. Even as white people vote with their feet to move away from dangerous blacks, in the fields of pop culture and politics, the crazy aggressive wild black male has been into a noble and glorious icon. Though young black males act the thug in Rap culture, the media spin the thug as ‘noble hero of the black community combating racism and promoting racial pride.’ It’s like a case of ‘hug the thug’, at least symbolically. (Maybe conservatives will take to this narrative too and cook up something like Atlas Thugged.)
Rap culture is a contradictory phenomenon, and its success owes something more than to thuggery alone. If Rap music had remained only in its street thug formula, it might have died as a fad. If it had stuck only to the narrow ideology of socio-political rebellion--as punk had done--, it would have fizzled. But street thug rappers, once they made a lot of money, put on the slick shiny mega-rich attire and attitude. Rappers began to flaunt their wealth and naked materialism--and their harems of women. Whatever one thinks of the Sex Pistols or the Clash, they stuck to their ‘ideology’, which wasn’t very appealing to consumerist masses. Sex Pistols were anarchists pissing on everything and going out of their way to be as unpleasant as possible. The Clash promoted a kind of pop-Marxism thick in its own twisted kind of puritanism.
Rap had a wider appeal in the long run because, even as rappers-turned-rich continued to bitch and taunt, they were also into rich-and-flaunt. There was the narrative of rap-to-riches. Though rap styles are cheesy and trashy, rappers flaunted their limos, expensive clothes and jewelry, women swarming all over them, and the naked materialism of the glitzy gangster lifestyle. Punk rebellion was ideological, gangster rebellion was criminal. And in pop culture, the criminal is more appealing than the revolutionary. Would you rather see SCARFACE or CHE? Would you rather see HEAT or LUMUMBA? Pop music is about fantasy, and it’s more fun to fantasize about money, power, women, guns, jewelry, fancy clothes, big mansions, etc. than sacrificing everything for the cause Though early rap may have been more ideological--more into politics of ‘black rage--later rap became more nakedly materialistic.
Sure, rappers continued to bitch about The Man, the Powers-that-be, and all that, but the main appeal of Rap was the fantasy that any hood could become a badass big boss mofo with limos, mansions, Tony Montana suits, lots of guns, and tons of women sucking his dick.
Yet, despite all this, Rap music still has a cachet among Mr. Jonesy(“Ballad of a Thin Man” by Bob Dylan)white liberals as the ‘music of the powerless and disenfranchised’. This may be true to the extent that many poor black kids listen to rap--and rap is also the favorite music of many oppressed peoples around the world, like Palestinians--and rap originated among the black underclass, but Rap Culture has been less about fighting-for-justice than fighting-for-my-chunk-of-cash-and-my-harem-of-hos-to-suck-my-dick-all-night. It’s not about Robin Hood but Robbin’ Hoodlum.
Though not all rap music is alike, all rap share the similar spirit. Even rap songs that don’t blatantly call for violence convey emotions that open the Pandora’s Box of arrogance, contempt, hostility, savagery, ugabugary, etc. Rap is the fullest expression of black thuggery + young male thuggery. Regardless of its lyrics, its expression is one of hostility, arrogance, contempt(especially for the weak), and stupidity.
It is ironic that the most power-mad and megalomaniacal form of music has come to be associated with the ‘powerless fighting for social justice against the powerful’. Now, one may argue that the exaggerated power-madness in rap actually betrays the real powerlessness of the black underclass. Maybe, black rappers act so power-mad to compensate for their lack of real power. It could be fantasy power for those without real power, rather like geeks reading and writing superhero comic books. Similarly, one might say Jews created the all-powerful God precisely because they felt weak as a people compared to other tribes with greater military might. And why is rap music such a big deal to Palestinian youths? They are powerless, and so they sing rap to FEEL the power, something they don’t possess in real terms. Similarly, one could say loser guys without women watch extreme porn to feel a degree of sexual power(and this seems to be the case in Japan especially, what with series such as RAPE MAN). Also, the riches flaunted by famous rappers is something most young black males don’t have. Most underclass black males relish in the vulgar fantasy of riches, just like poor Mexican housewives watch soap operas about rich beautiful blonde women.
But again, it would be foolish to say blacks are ENTIRELY powerless. Nor should we confuse the fact of having-less-wealth with having less power. A person with lots of wealth is certainly more powerful than those who have much less. But those who have more are not necessarily more powerful than those who have less. It’s like civilized man has supremacy over nature; almost no one in America is endangered by dangerous animals. But being human in and of itself is insufficient for a person to be safe from dangerous animals. Many people still are killed by wild animals in India and Africa. While all men are more intelligent than animals, that alone doesn’t ensure safety of all men. For man to be safe from wild animals, he has to be lived in an advanced civilization.
Similarly, if you’re very rich, you can afford to be safe from all sorts of crime. You can choose to live in a nice place, travel around safely, hire security guards, etc. Thus, it could be said you have a lot more power than poor people. This is true of most Jews.
But if you’re a middle class person, that doesn’t necessarily mean you have more power than a poor person. In fact, the poor thug could have power over the middle class person. A middle class person has more money than a poor person, but he may not be sufficiently rich to remove himself threats from criminal elements. He may have to share the same streets with the criminal poor. His house may be only blocks away from the poor person’s house(especially thanks to Section 8, which brought tons of blacks into working class and middle class white communities). Bill Gates is many times more powerful than any Negro thug, but this cannot be said for some white working class guy. He may have more wealth than a Negro, but he may still have to encounter Negroes in his neighborhood; or his kids may have to attend schools with some asshole Negro kids. So, if you have a lot of money(like the damn Jews), you are indeed more powerful than poor people. But if you’re middle class or working class, poor people can have power over you. Look at most integrated schools, and most violent incidents involve poorer blacks attacking better-off whites or other poor whites.
But, we tend to ignore all that and focus on ridiculous generalities where ‘whites are powerful and privileged’ and ‘blacks are powerless and poor’. Even after Zimbabwe has brutalized most white farmers and driven them away, the Western world still cannot think in terms of blacks-doing-harm-to-whites. Even when blacks in South Africa are raping and murdering whites all over, we cannot think in terms of black power hurting white people.
As I’ve said earlier, this has roots in Christianity. Even after Christians gained power and destroyed pagan temples and rounded up and killed ‘heretics’, Christians would only see themselves as ‘victims’. Even as they threw pagans--as ‘witches’--into bonfires, they could only see themselves as helpless victims fed to lions by pagan Romans. Even as they beat up and killed Jews, they only thought in terms of Oppressive Jewish Killers of Christ. Even when Jews became victims of Christians, Christians only could think in terms of Jews as persecutors of Christians(in the early days of Christianity). This is what happens when Victim-hood turns into a spiritualized ideology and sanctified narrative. Even when the ‘enemy’ is no longer dominant, it is perceived as all-powerful. And even when one’s own side has gained great power, one only thinks of one’s own group as Eternal Victims.
And so, Jews today act as though they themselves are utterly powerless while the KKK is on the loose all over America. Or $PLC would have you believe that Neo-Nazism is on the rise. And Zionists still act as though Muslims have dominance over Jews when, in fact, Israel is the big bully in the Middle East and the oppressor of Palestinians. In the ‘war’ between Israel and Gaza, Israel’s mass killing of thousands of Gazans was seen as necessary to counter a MORTAL THREAT from Palestinians. This isn’t to say Israelis had no right to retaliate but only to point out that the permanent fixture of Jews in the Pantheons of Victimhood blinds us to the fact that today’s Jews are far from the Jews who staggered out of the Nazi death camps. (Also, it’s not like all Jews suffered the Holocaust experience. While many Eastern European Jews were dying, American Jews were having the time of their lives. Also, Soviet Jews had collaborated with Lenin and Stalin in the mass murder of Christian Slavs. Also, Jews wouldn’t have been so hated if they hadn’t acted so hateful, which they continue to do to this day. Just look at hideous Jews like Frank Rich, Tim Wise, and James Toback.)
Jews today are the most powerful people in the world. But Jews, being smart, know that power is all the more effective when wielded behind the curtain of powerlessness. When Romans owned the power, they couldn’t flaunt it enough. They declared to the world that they were the mightiest, the greatest, and the most powerful. Thus, Romans justified their power on might. They were feared and even respected; but they were also envied and resented because of their great power. Jews want the wealth, influence, and power but don’t wanna attract attention as having wealth, influence, and power. On the occasion that they do admit that they are rich and powerful, they cleverly emphasize that Jews use their power to help the powerless because Jews understand what it mean to be oppressed due to their long history of suffering.
But if one observes Jews closely enough, Jewish sympathy is never genuine but selective depending on “what is in it for us?” When Israel was close to Turkey, Jews certainly didn’t make much a fuss about the mass killing of Armenians. As far as Jews were concerned, Turkish-Israel partnership was more important. Jews express concern over the people of Darfur but nothing about the mass killings in the Congo. Why? Could it be to emphasize the Arab vs Black violence so as to turn American blacks against sympathizing with Arabs? Or to morally humiliate China, a heavy investor in Sudan and a challenger to Jewish-controlled America-centered globalism? Jews say nothing about how Mexico treats its illegal aliens but profess sympathy for Mexican Illegals in the US and use their control of media to depict all white Americans opposed to ‘illegal immigration’ as crypto-Nazi ‘xenophobes’. Jews didn’t much care about the horrors in East Timor, but they suddenly got interested in human rights violations in North Korea. Because Jews really care about the plight of North Koreans? No, because North Korea sold missiles to enemies of Israel. Jews profess deep sympathies with the Chinese victims of Japanese imperialism, but is this sympathy genuine or is it a means to justify their own moral blackmailing of Germany to fork over ever more Holocaust payments? After all, if other peoples demand historical redress from a former ally of Nazi Germany, Jews will continue to feel justified in needling Germany(and rest of Europe)for more cash, more reparations, more apologies. But if Jews are so sympathetic and sensitive about historical injustices, why are they mostly silent on what happened to Ukrainians under Bolshevism? Or the destruction of 50,000 churches in the Soviet Union? Or the vast Jewish role in the communist horrors of Soviet Russia? How amusing that Jews want us to remember certain events as having an Eternal significance and value while they want us to conveniently forget other horrors, especially where Jews were the villains.
Jews shape our collective memories and our collective amnesias, and the logic behind both is “what is good for the Jew?” And dumb Christians, who can’t face up to the fact of Christianity’s hostility toward Jews over the millennia, make believe that Christians and Jews are the best of friends by bending over backwards to do everything for Zionism and by calling for mass murder of Muslims in the name of ‘defending Israel’. Is there anyone as demented as Michelle Bachmann in mainstream politics? Anyone as pathetic? Most Jews despise her while a few neocons dickslap and cum on her ONLY BECAUSE she’s a running dog to Israel, but she lives in her own fantasy world where Christians and Jews are the best of friend united against evil Muslims.
It used to be freedom meant responsibility. Kids are not free, and so they are not entirely responsible for what they do. This is why when young kids do wrong, parents have to take the responsibility. Parents have power over kids, which means parents must raise the kids right and teach them the right values. Gradually, kids grow older and gain more freedom. But they also realize that having more freedom means taking on more responsibility. If your parent drives you places, it’s the parent’s responsibility to drive the car safely. But once a young person gets behind the wheel, he or she must be responsible for safe driving. Freedom means more power, and power means responsibility. So, more freedom means more power. And that means more responsibility. And this used to the core value system of the American republic. But something went wrong in the 60s. Suddenly, young people not only demanded more freedom but shirked their responsibilities. They said they wanted to have lots of sex and use all sorts of drugs. But when things went badly, they didn’t take any responsibility. They just went to their parents and asked for more money. Or when drug users ended up diseased and homeless, leftists said it was OUR responsibility to take care of them. And when black teens began to have wild sex and have kids out of wedlock, it was not their responsibility but ours to take care of them and their kids. And when gays went crazy and buggered one another in endless orgies and spread disease all over, they didn’t do anything wrong; they weren’t responsible for anything. No, it was OUR responsibility to find a cure for AIDS and provide everything to gays who were depicted as saintly victims. Though the AIDS epidemic spread like a wildfire through the gay community due to gay lifestyles, it was as if Jerry Falwell killed all those gays in what amounted to a Homocaust.
It’s bad enough that so many freedoms were abused by young people, Negroes, leftists, and gays since the 60s. What’s worse is that we are not even supposed to comment on this fact. .
The reasons for the silence are five-fold. (1) Politics of Guilt (2) Politics of Influence (3) Politics of Fear (4) Politics of Power and (5) Politics of Hipness.
In the case of politics of guilt, white people are simply not supposed to criticize blacks.
In the case of politics of influence, the powers-that-be(mostly Jews in the media and academia) spun the bullshit narrative that gays aren’t responsible for the AIDS epidemic that killed so many gays(and cost the rest of us dearly).
In the case of politics of power, a giant bureaucracy and industry have grown around nanny-statism catering to ‘victim groups’. There are millions of ‘leaders’, managers, agents, and workers whose very power and livelihoods depend on doling out services to the ‘needy’--of course at the expense of the rest of us.
In the case of politics of fear, critics--especially conservatives--are afraid of being labeled as ‘callous’, ‘divisive’, ‘uncaring’, and ‘bigoted’ if they condemn rather than sympathize with the ‘victims’--even if the so-called ‘victims’ victimized themselves.
In the case of the politics of hipness, the educated elites believe it’s cool to tolerate and even encourage certain lifestyles no matter how stupid and destructive they are. So, despite the problem of single-motherhood, the 90s TV show MURPHY BROWN promoted single-motherhood as a form of liberated lifestyle for the modern women. It appears rich privileged people in a cocooned world of their own.
In a nutshell, leftists have been promoting and apologizing for dangerous lifestyles, destructive attitudes, and reckless actions in the name of greater freedom, liberation, and justice, but when such things have led to serious social problems, the leftist explanation is that people in trouble are ‘victims’ who deserve not criticism but our love, compassion, and money.
So, if black males wanna listen to rap and act the thug, wonderful. If gays wanna bugger a hundred fecal holes, wonderful. If women wanna have children out of wedlock, wonderful. If kids wanna dress and act like porn stars, sluts, and prostitutes, that’s wonderful too--even according to today’s neo-feminists.
This social sickness cannot simply be blamed on the lower elements or the dregs of society. Many of these news ideas originated from higher institutions in the academia and media funded by superrich elites. It was not the Negroes who cooked up Great Society but the so-called Best and the Brightest intellectuals from Ivy League schools. Not every gay person is as demented as the members of the gay elite who control the so-called ‘gay agenda’. And young people listen to music and follow fashions marketed to them by movers and shakers of the industry dominated by well-educated cynical Ivy Leaguers(many of whom are hideous Jews).
There’s been a strange and sickening convergence between intellectual corruption at the top and populist corruption at the bottom. When the well-educated elites of Great Britain speak of Rap music--at least the ‘good kind’--as a positive, creative, and transformative force for young people, what is there to say? So, you see, we must not be too quick to judge. Ah yes, the real problem with the London Riots was that black kids were listening to the ‘wrong kind of rap music’. There is ‘good positive rap music’ that might heal British society--presumably about how black males should be humping white ho’s than thumping white bros. You see, there is ‘good’ mindless black rage and vulgarity in rap as opposed to ‘bad’ mindless black rage and vulgarity in rap. If blacks were only to go with the ‘good’ kind of mindless rage and vulgarity, racial tensions may finally go away. Sounds like a Monty Python skit, doesn’t it?
Similarly, Mexicans aren’t really blamed for all the problems they cause in Mexico. Mexicans too have a habit of blaming gringo for all their problems. Mexicans too have jumped on the victimology bandwagon. So, never mind Mexicans have been illegally crossing into America for all sorts of free public services(as well as opportunities to commit crime)--and never mind Mexico treats illegal aliens in Mexico very harshly. No, the blame falls completely on Americans, especially white Americans. When a Mexican van loaded with illegals crashed into police cars to break through the American border, the Jew-run media’s focus was on the American police using violence to stop and arrest illegal Mexicans, NOT on the fact that Mexicans had violently entered into America by endangering the lives of American police officers and border patrol guards. There is something ridiculous when millions of illegal aliens march in open daylight waving Mexican flags and demanding ‘justice’. We didn’t force them to come here illegally. They broke into America; they broke American laws. Yet, they demand that they be recognized as legal residents and be given equal rights under the protection of the law, the very thing they violated to enter America illegally. And the hideous and dirty Jews are on the side of the illegals against American citizens and the American Constitution, for which Jews have little use EXCEPT WHEN it protects Jewish interests. Principles mean nothing to Jews though no people make as much noise about principles. Anyone who has listened to Alan Dershowitz on a few occasions know this, but the vile famous Jew lawyer continues to yammer on as if he’s the most principled person in the world when all he’s ever done is manipulate principles to serve the interests of filthy Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Leon Wieseltier is hardly different from Dershowitz, though his low-key style may fool some people. Weasel-tier is for using Americans against Muslims in the Middle East and using Muslims against American Christians in America. This way, Jews sacrifice Christian life and limb in the interests of Israel, all the while supporting Muslims--as yet another ‘victim group’--against white American Christians, whom Jews still see as the main obstacle to total Jewish power. So, Jews, through their control of foreign policy and control of media, rile up white Christian anger at the Muslim world and send our boys to fight wars for Israel. White Christians bark at Muslims because they’ve been thus trained by Jews, but then Jews say white Christians are rabidly ‘Islamophobic’ and therefore American Muslims need to be protected from vicious Christians by the wonderful Jews. So, Jews create idiot rabid dogs like Sarah Palin(who sent her son to fight Wars for Israel) and John McCain to bark in the name of Zionism, but then Jews complain the dogs are barking mad and need to be restrained.
In the end, the only thing that matters with Jews is ‘what is good for us?’ This is what the Wasps never really understood. When the up-and-coming Jews criticized Wasps for not playing by the rules, Wasps looked in the mirror squarely at their own hypocrisies. They accepted Jewish criticism as fair and principled and moved aside to make room for the worthier Jew in the naive faith that the newly empowered Jews would truly live up to the principles of America, something Wasps had failed to do due to their ‘racism’ and ‘white privilege’. But in reality, Jews don’t have a principled bone in their body. What Jews today have and enjoy is the giddy feeling that they are so powerful, influential, cunning, and clever that they can fool all of goyim forever and ever. That is what makes the Jew feel orgasmic. Remember the scene in JURASSIC PARK when the fat Jew(Neumann on SEINFELD) looks at the shaving cream can designed to conceal dinosaur embryos? The fat Jew cackles and giggles like crazy. He takes pleasure in fooling others. Similarly, Jews are privately giggling with joy about how easy it is to manipulate and fool the goy idiots. If the relatively intelligent wasps were so easily duped by Jews, imagine how simpler and easier it must be to fool Negroes, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, etc.
That’s how things stand today. It doesn’t matter what young people, blacks, illegals, gays, Jews, feminists, and other groups stamped with the approval of ‘victimhood’ do to make things worse for themselves or everyone else. They are always to be perceived and treated as poor helpless victims never to be held accountable for their misuse and abuse of freedom, power, and influence. So, if black males use freedom to run wild and beat up people, let’s either ignore the crime or pretend ‘teens’ did it. If we do, on occasion, do admit that blacks did it, let’s spin it as ‘the powerless rebelling against the powers-that-be’.
If gays continue with their dangerous massive fecal penetrative life-styles and spread deadly diseases, let’s never ever say that gay sex is dangerous or less worthy than real sex. That would be so square, reactionary, and ‘homophobic’. If gay men do get sick from their form of ‘sex’, let’s not blame them but blame ourselves for not doing enough to take for the wonderful gay community. Indeed, let’s even award ‘gay parents’ with children produced by normal (hetero)sex and pretend that two gay fathers or two lesbian mothers produced the kids through fecal penetration or poon-grinding.
If Jews use their financial power to rob us blind, let’s never say that Jews are responsible for what amounts to highway robbery. Instead, let’s spin the massive heist so as to make Jews the main victims of the economic disasters that they themselves created; indeed, let’s convince ourselves that Jewish Wall Street banksters are victims deserving of sympathy and bailouts paid for by the rest of us. And if we need a scapegoat, let’s blame it all on Bernie Madoff and pretend Jews were the main victims of his financial malfeasance. Or let’s round up a bunch of Asian-Indians and make them the posterchildren of the greed on Wall Street.
And let’s tell girls to act like sluts, but if they’re treated like sluts because they act like sluts, let’s not blame the sluts but the men who sexually harass sluts by calling them ‘sluts’. It is this kind of socio-political-moral retardation, especially given that the West is now ruled by hideous Jews and teeming with violent Negroes(and corrupted by degenerate gays), that will bring about the downfall of civilization. But the problem goes deeper. Today’s consumer-capitalism follows the same logic. In the past, capitalism meant ‘work, save, pay for what you can afford, manage your money well’. Today, consumer-capitalism means, ‘Work and spend and spend and spend and borrow to spend some more. If you don’t work, have government give you money and force banks to lend you money to spend and spend and then demand more money to spend more and more.’ In other words, we went from responsible worker-saver-spender capitalism to irresponsible spender-borrower capitalism. People without financial responsibility are going to end up in bad straits. When they get burned, the lesson should ideally be the realization that they’d behaved like idiots. But according to the current logic of consumer-victimology, you never blame yourself for your debts, bankruptcy, or terrible credit-rating. No, plenty of companies and ‘consumer rights’ agencies encourage you to see yourself as a victim who is being ‘hassled’ and ‘harassed’ by credit companies and collection agencies. So, no matter how irresponsibly you’ve borrowed and spent, you didn’t do anything wrong; YOU are the poor victim. This victim mentality exists from high to low in the our consumer-capitalist victimology. So, all those idiots who couldn’t afford homes but got ninja loans to buy McMansions are said to be victims of ‘predatory lenders’. Meanwhile, the very banks that pushed those crazy loans are supposed to be victims of ‘predatory borrowers’. So, under Obama, there’s been massive welfare for the predatory borrowing class and massive bailouts for the predatory lending class. You see, everyone is a poor poor victim.
The GOP may be less into victimology than the Left... except when it comes to Wall Street bankers. So, there’s Rush Limbaugh acting like Wall Street bankers are innocent lambs who were hoodwinked to lending all that money to poor people to buy homes because of the Community Reinvestment Act. But, wasn’t Rush one of the biggest fans of the housing boom when it was happening under Bush II? As for Michael Moore, the fat slob of the Left, it never occurs to him that one of the problems with health care costs in this country is there are too many disgusting fat pigs like him who cannot control what they eat. Many American problems are the product of excessive gluttony. But then, I suppose fat people are just victims too. One black father tried to sue McDonalds for his fatassness of his daughter. Yeah, just blame the corporations for one’s own corpulence. What do you expect from a shameless society where too many people eat like pigs, growing grossly fat, getting sick, and demanding that their doctors do something about it. But if the doctors point out that the ‘patient’ has health problems because he or she is a big fat gross pig, he or she plays victim and threatens him with a lawsuit. No shame for me but all blame for you. Freedom used to be something sacred, something worth fighting and dying for. Because it was valuable, people didn’t take it for granted. Freedom wasn’t free and freedom meant responsibility. But for the merchants of consumerism, peddlers of guilt, and brewers of blame, freedom means no responsibility at all, especially if it stands in the way of profits. Since 70% of the American economy depends on consumer spending and since big media--part of big business--cares for nothing but profits, the message is ‘spend and spend and then borrow to spend.’ In the current state of quick profits and boundless greed, virtues such as responsibility and restraint(and modesty) stand in the way of ‘economic growth’ and ‘creation of wealth’. So, Paul Krugman attacks people who dare save their money instead of going out to SPEND it as soon as they earn it. Whatever you have, just spend. Buy something, even if it’s something you don’t need or might actually do you harm--morally, health-wise, or financially. If the GOP and Donkey Party are agreed on one thing, it is the importance of making people spend as much as money as fast as possible. But what if massive credit leads to massive debt and what if the whole thing busts? Ah, there is the government to bail everyone out, so go on spending--especially since we can rely on dirt cheap Chinese and Indian labor to keep supplying us with cheap goods and services. And not to worry when we can’t pay back our debts to China or India. Clever Jews will cook up some excuse to squeeze out of it.
Similarly, Rights used to mean the right to certain liberties and to use them properly. Now, Rights have been degenerated into ‘right to own a TV set’. We went from America the land of the free to America where the lunch is free. I’m afraid the conservative value system may be lost forever, and part of the blame must fall on conservatives who’ve come to worship at the altar of the Almighty Market--even most conservative churches are now megamall affairs. For example, conservatives decry liberal attempts to ban sugary drinks and candy bars from public schools. Now, conservatives have a point about freedom of individual choice. The problem is the freedom of choice works properly only in a community of responsible people. If kids have been raised to be responsible and to feel shame for being excessively fat, then social pressures work to counter the misuse of individual freedom. Though kids have the freedom to drink and eat junk, community values would serve to counterbalance their piggish appetites. But ours is a shameless society where kids think it’s perfectly okay to be slobby, fat, lazy, moronic, infantile, and idiotic. So, if you allow kids to eat like shit, they will eat like shit.
So, the conservative defense of freedom must work in tandem with conservative support of virtues and values. But what is the face of modern conservatism? Rush Limbaugh, the fat disgusting pig. Rush’s conservatism is NOT about the freedom to carry the burden of one’s own responsibility. At the very least, William F. Buckley was devoted to his wife and watched his weight. Limbaugh has been nothing but a gluttonous playboy who sits on his fatass five days a week and dishes out babytalk to millions of morons whose only vocabulary is ‘dittos, Rush’.
The recent Occupy Wall Street protest divided Americans into 1% and the 99%. I don’t doubt that the superrich in this country have gotten fabulously richer while most Americans have economically stagnated. And many of the superrich got superricher through nefarious means, made all the easier by globalism that made it easier to move one’s money and capital all around the world. So yes, the top 1% rich must be specially held accountable for the things they do. But the 1% vs 99% dichotomy is just another grand victimological narrative which would have us believe that 1% is all-powerful(therefore entirely responsible for all that is wrong with the world) while the 99% are all-powerless(therefore not even responsible for their own stupid actions; just look at those stupid college students who’ve taken out loans to get degrees in bullshit majors but now demand that their debts be forgiven and they be provided with decent jobs and decent wages though they have no talent for anything but wearing Che Guevara t-shirts ).
While I’m all for bringing bankster crooks to justice, the fact remains that many Americans face problems and cause problems for other people because they’re louts and punks within their own sphere of personal power. If a Negro steals, he’s a thief. It would be absurd to say, “well, he’s one of the 99%, so he has ‘nothing’ and what he stole is peanuts compared to what the banksters stole.” It was such logic that turned entire black communities into blighted zones of under-investment. Who wants to invest in a community where everyone feels owed because he or she is a ‘permanent victim’ who has ‘nothing’ and is owed everything--and will even get it through theft? So, employees steal, government workers steal, neighbor steals from neighbor, and everyone has an excuse as righteous ‘victim’. It’s not long before the black community turns into a hellhole.
So, while more power means more responsibility, any power--even if it’s not much--should be held responsible for its own actions. And it is only thus that poor people can hope to be make any social gain. After all, the sort of poor people who improve their own lives tend to be those with a strong sense of shame and responsibility. It’s too bad--and ironic--that Jews, a people who rapidly rose through the ranks of American society due to many positive traits--work ethic, family cohesiveness, intellectual seriousness, diligence, and etc--are now peddling some of the worst values and attitudes among poor blacks and whites. The agenda of Jews in the popular entertainment industry is to turn masses of white and black gentiles into whores, sluts, thugs, morons, idiots, and buffoons. If Jews are truly a decent people--which they claim to be--, they would share their positive values and secrets of their success with the goy population instead of turning masses of goyim into Oprah drones, Jerry Springer dolts, Maury Povich idiots, MTV retards, etc. But Jews are Jews, a people who, across the millennia, have despised and held goyim in utter contempt. It would be most foolish to expect Jews to ever admit they have The Power and to treat us goyim as humans of equal worth, respect, and consideration.