What Is a Manufactured Crisis?

Noam Chomsky the famous left-wing Jew spoke at length about manufacturing
consent, about which he must be an expert since he’s been manufacturing ideological
consent among his zombie-followers. Though some people value Chomsky as a voice
that speaks truth to power, he’s really in the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky. Chomsky speaks not so much truth to power but lie to power so as to can hog and control truth himself. A world where the media were owned by the likes of Chomsky would hardly be free. While it is true that
Chomsky has been a tireless crusader against the Consent-driven MSM, he only wants to replace one form of consent with another. To be sure, there are plenty of people on the White Right who would do the same if they had the power. Power is something that corrupts politics, ideals, and souls. We all want and need it, but it often gets the better of us because of the temptation to grab all of it. Even so, some personalities and ideologies are more prone to radical greed for total power than others.
　
Anyway, for the media to manufacture consent, it must first manufacture crisis. By ‘manufacturing crisis’, the media don’t necessarily have to make things up–though that’s done too; just consider the cases of journalists who made up stories(and even won awards for them). In most cases, a crisis is manufactured through selective reporting, suppression of opposing accounts/stories/ideas, exaggeration of truth, emotional heart-tugging, whipping up of mass hysteria, fear-mongering, guilt-baiting, hope-peddling, and a creation of a grand narrative.
There are some crises which are so huge and major that the media simply do their job. 9/11 or Pearl Harbor were prime examples. Of course, HOW the media covered, handled, and shaped them did involve a fair amount of manipulation and bias, but some crises are really worthy of the name. If an asteroid hit Texas or California and killed millions, the media would merely doing their job by reporting the event.
　
But more often than not, the crises we hear in the news are more manufactured than news-worthy. Part of the reason is economics. Nothing sells like crisis and anxiety. TIME or NEWSWEEK sell more copies when they run fear-mongering cover stories about the global warming, how some epidemic is gonna wipe us out, how our educational system is a total mess, how Iran is on the cusp of having nukes, etc. Hope sells too but hope must follow crisis. We cling to hope because we are worried about a crisis. Oprah and Dr. Phil peddle crisis and then peddle hope. You need a downer before you need an upper.
　
But there’s more to the art of manufacturing crisis than dollars and cents. Most people who go into journalism tend to be change-the-world idealists. Today, most of them have been weaned on censorious and self-righteous political correctness. If past journalists grew up in rougher times and came from diverse regions with different experiences–and valued toughness, thick skins, and resilience–, today’s journalists come from nice middle class families, watch the same news, read the same highschool and college textbooks, and have had little experience with the real world. As reporters they finally come to see some of the darker realities, BUT since they’ve been emotionally and intellectually shaped during soft, cushy, and pampered formative years by political correctness, they lack the edge and courage to see beyond their PC blinders. Anyway, what they do have in common with journalists of the past is the change-the-world idealism. To feel morally superior and wonderful about themselves, they report on social crises–poverty, ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, oppression, poverty, ignorance, violence, etc–so as to awaken the nation to confront and fix the problems. And this template especially goes back to the 1950s and 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement was aided and abetted by conscientious and good-willed publishers, broadcasters, and reporters. The role of journalism wasn’t merely to report the news but to change the world. Since there’s no shortage of news and crisis to be found across a country as large as America, the national media have been careful to pick and choose only those stories that suit and serve their liberal agenda. (To be sure, modern journalism has always serve one agenda or another. This has been as true of the Right-wing press as of the Left-wing press. William Randolph Hearst, it is said, used the full force of his media empire to fan the flames of war against the Spanish Empire in places like Cuba and Philippines. He even spread false rumors, a practice that continues to this day, sometimes by mistake, sometimes willfully.)
　
In a country as large as ours, a news organization can select and create any crisis they wish. There’s a lot of black crime, and if MSM were owned by the likes of Peter Brimelow or Jared Taylor, all of America would be talking about the crisis of BLACK CRIME, especially against whites. But it just so happens that liberal Jews own most of the media and choose not to highlight the crisis of black crime. Not only do the liberal Jewish dominated media suppress stories on black crime, they spread the alarm that anyone who blows the whistle on black crime is a ‘rabid’, ‘virulent’ and unforgivable ‘racist’. So, even media outlets owned by conservatives for the most part do not cover stories where blacks in America assault, rape, and murder whites. In Canada, it is illegal for news organizations to even mention the race of the criminals since a disproportionate number of them are black. The media not only can manufacture bullshit crisis but it can suppress real crisis.
This was obviously true enough in Nazi Germany and Maoist China. When Nazis were rounding up and slaughtering millions of ‘subhumans’, there wasn’t a peep about it in the Nazi-controlled media. When 30 million starved to death in China in the late 50s due to Mao’s economic policies, not a single communist controlled newspaper covered it. Totalitarian media are not free, we all know that. They can create monsters out of thin air and hide real monsters.
But it would be foolish for people in democracies to think that they enjoy a truly balanced press. What passes for news in democracies almost entirely depends on what a handful of corporate conglomerates decide is newsworthy. Most of these conglomerates are owned by liberal Zionist Jews. Since the media determine what is true and untrue and can even make or unmake the reputation of politicians, even politicians dare not question the truisms set forth by the media. To be sure, politicians being afraid of the media sounds like a good thing and indeed would be in an ideal world. The real problem is that even good honest politicians are afraid of speaking the truth because the liberal MSM care less for the truth than for the liberal agenda. Suppose a courageous and honest politician wants to discuss the dangers of illegal immigration and what it’s doing to this country. The MSM will tear him down as a ‘racist’ and ruin his career–and then go after his funders and supporters. The MSM, instead of giving voice to contrarian and opposing voices, favor only the politically correct voices who play by the rules. Again, things would not be much better if MSM were controlled mostly by conservatives as power corrupts all. Nevertheless, the point is the MSM, rather than standing up to the government and those in power, merely seek to work–or even collude–with those in power to push certain agendas. The MSM will pretend to represent or give voice to the little people or ‘oppressed’ groups but this has less to do with social reality than with political agendas. We all know illegal aliens are not oppressed. They violated the law to enter into this country by breaking the law. We know that rich blacks step over poor whites via affirmative action programs. We know that rich liberal whites–and even rich conservative whites–made a pact with rich blacks to keep power for themselves while sacrificing the rights of poor whites. Affirmative action doesn’t affect rich whites as it does poor whites. Rich whites generally score higher than poor whites(and/or have political connections), so it is poor whites who are set aside to make way for rich blacks or well-groomed chosen for instant success by the liberal white elite. We know that Jews are the richest and most powerful people in America. But by playing up the Holocaust Card, Jews justify their hogging of the media and academia in the name of serving minority or ‘victim’ interests. Jews are big people acting like little people.
　
Certain crises are indeed manufactured, as in falsely made up. One such crisis was the story that one out of four college girls are raped. This was a cover story in TIME magazine in the late 80s or early 90s. People all across were alarmed and shocked.
It turns out ‘rape’ in this scenario was a semantic sleight of hand. Rape even included sex in which the girl was initially unwilling but changed her mind. In other words, if she first said ‘no’ but then later said ‘yes’ because of sweet nothings whispered into her ears, that counted as rape. Or, if a guy got sex from a girl by showing off his superior status–as an upper class man or as ‘big man on campus’–, that was counted as rape too. (Following that logic, any rock star or athlete who gets sex from his fans is a rapist too.) It was all manufactured bullshit.
In the book BEAUTY MYTH, Naomi Wolf said 100,000s of women die each year from anorexia nervosa, and she blamed this on the beauty ideal erected by patriarchal men. The national media ran with this CRISIS and Wolf became an overnight sensation. Needless to say, she’s a left-wing Jewess. It turns out a only handful of women die from the disease per year. Also, the ideal of super-slimness is not something desired by most men but one favored by gay men who dominate the fashion industry, something feminists like Wolf dare not admit or deal with.
　
Also, why was there so much emphasis on white males raping white females in college? Consider that the majority of American youths don’t go to college. Consider the far more numerous cases of rape and assault among black and Hispanic youths. And consider the problem of black-on-white rape, which has risen to epidemic proportions. Yet, the media suppressed all such real crises. They didn’t fit into the liberal political agenda. Such stories might make blacks come across as savages. And reporting on black-on-white rape may stoke white ‘racism’, and of course, we can’t have that, so says the left-wing Jew.
Instead, the liberal Jew-owned media decided to focus on white college males raping white coeds en masse. Why? The whole story wasn’t really about rape. Indeed, it wasn’t really even a news story but an epic use of liberal Jewish feminist propaganda to make white females fear and hate white males. No race was specifically mentioned, but almost all the news were about white fraternity boys, white seniors, white this, white that. And, most of the so-called victims were white too. The whole bullshit crisis was an ideological program to drive a wedge between white females and white males, between oh-so-sensitive white liberal males from manlier conservative males.
　
And we’ve heard endless stories about ‘campus racism’, though most of the incidents have been carried out by ‘people of color’. But even when the culprits turn out to be non-white, the liberal media turn the stories into issues about ‘white racism’.
And who can forget the Duke Lacrosse case where the entire national media and academic organizations jumped to conclusion and called for lynching of those white males. The liberal Jews in the media have done to white gentile males what Nazis once did to Jews. The liberal Jews are hellbent on dehumanizing white males. Liberal Jews even perform a kind of spiritual or mental eugenics. They may not cut off the actual balls of white gentile males, but white gentile males are utterly feminized and wussified by constant assault on their manhood, racial pride, and sexual health.
　
And there is the issue of ‘gay rights’ and ‘gay marriage’. Though there are indeed instances of ugly gaybashing, we know full well that most gays are getting on well enough. But, you’d think there’s a huge crisis of gays-in-danger all across America. Worse, the targets of the gay agenda are not only violent gaybashers but good normal people who oppose abominations like ‘gay marriage’. (Notice that the clever liberal Jew media now changed it to ‘same sex marriage’ to give it a mainstream ring.)
　
In foreign policy, why was there so much more news about Sudan than about Congo? We were reminded over and over that 100,000s of people were dying in Darfur, but we heard almost nothing about the 3 million that died in the Congo in the same period. Why was Darfur a bigger issue? Because Chinese heavily invested in Sudan, the anti-Chinese liberal Jew media sought to morally and politically embarrass the Chinese. Also, the crisis could be spun as Muslim Arabs killing innocent blacks. In other words, Zionist Jews in the media were trying to send a message to the black community that Arab Muslims are the enemies of blacks–meaning blacks should keep their political alliance with Jews. (The Janjaweed who were accused of the crimes are indeed Arab in the cultural-lingustic sense, but they are mostly racially black., a fact suppressed by the liberal Jew media.) And we know all about how the liberal Jewish media report heavily on Palestinian violence on Jews but under-reports all the violence and oppression committed by Jews against Palestinians. And the liberal Jew media don’t give a damn about crises such as Afrikaner farmers being robbed, raped, and murdered en masse by savage South African blacks.
　
So, what goes by the name of ‘crisis’ in most cases is simply a matter of what the liberal Jews who run the academia and media designate as such in order to push a certain ideological and ethnic agenda. A famous case is the rise of Fidel Castro. When Castro had just a handful of men in the jungles and was on the ropes, NY Times reporter Herbert Matthews wrote up one helluva inspiring story that Castro out to be a shining hero leading an mass uprising. Liberal Jews in this country manufactured the ‘crisis’ and ‘hope’ that led to Castro’s victory. Cuba was a country with many problems to be sure, but Castro couldn’t have come to power without the aid of the Western Press, which is to say the liberal Jew press. So, when you hear ‘crisis’, more often than not, it’s some liberal Jew who’s been taught to cry wolf. And when there’s major crisis, the liberal Jews can always make something up–just like they inflate economic bubbles through their buddies on Wall Street and the Fed. And when a real crisis is the product of liberal policies such as Great Society, the liberal Jews will evade blame by distracting out attention to some new hopeful solution... devised by liberal Jews of course.

--A.F.

Some Thoughts on New York Times(aka Jew York Times) Article on the Ambivalent South Korean Feelings toward the West.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/world/asia/02race.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I suppose South Korea is facing the the kind of social issues that Western nations faced decades ago. Difference is Western nations confronted them from a position of strength and guilt. They were the richest/most powerful countries in the world--and confident and conscientious enough to come to terms with their 'historical crimes'. South Korea is now a developed country but has always been politically weak--subservient to Imperial China, invaded by Mongols and Manchus, occupied by Japan, and then wedded to great powers like USSR, Red China, or the USA. So, Koreans may still feel that they are a colonized people in some sense despite their recent successes. (Japanese also feel this way to some degree: their country had been under Western imperialist intimidation and/or domination since Matthew Perry's ships arrived.) Also, Koreans are less likely to feel guilt as they've never conquered and/or enslaved other peoples, nor had a sizable enough minority in their midst--like blacks in the US or Jews in Poland. Even when they are nasty and vicious, Koreans may see everything through prism of victimhood and powerlessness. In this sense, they share something with blacks and Jews who' vea lways insisted on their victimhood and suffering--even when blacks burn down cities or even when Jews raze Palestinian homes. But, the difference between Koreans and Jews/blacks is that Korean problems are limited to Korea whereas black and Jewish politics and agenda have global import and repercussions.

On the other hand, it could well be that Korea might follow in the footsteps of the West. The article suggests a generational conflict between older people who knew and grew up in a homogeneous Korea and a younger generation hooked to globalism via internet and pop music. Of course, there could be conflicts among young people too: the prosperous globe-trotting liberal/intellectual/yuppie types and those who've fallen through the cracks and feel resentful about having to compete with 'dirty' foreigners.

Koreans, like the Chinese and Indians, send many of their students to the West. This means that the educated elite in South Korea will come under greater influence of 'multi-culturalism' and 'progressive' ideas. They may be more eager to please and win respect from foreigners than be sensitive to the passions and prejudices of their own people. Since East Asians are followers than innovators, their social policies may well follow the Western model for both good and ill. A more tolerant and open-minded society is certainly better, but when the DIVERSITY CULT takes over, big trouble ahead.

The article suggests that Koreans aren't necessarily against race-mixing but have mixed feelings about it. They feel superior to some races, inferior to others. They feel resentful toward the 'superior', contemptuous toward the 'inferior'.

Or, maybe the main issue isn't racial superiority/inferiority but racial comfort. Perhaps, for many insecure or anxious Korean people, their Korean identity is all they have--their country isn't just a nation-state but more like a big family living in one big house in which foreigners can only be bothersome guests if they stick around too long. Since Korean society/culture is all they know, many Koreans could be annoyed and threatened by having to deal with funny, strange, and/or weird foreigners(who don't know the rules inculcated in all Koreans from childhood). In the non-individualist East, one can(or must) lose oneself in the larger culture/crowd. When a unified and common culture--as in Korea or Japan--dissipates, one is surrounded by cultural strangers and forced to assert oneself individually--like people in NY or LA. Problem is East Asians were not raised to think or act that way. Some cultures are more comfortable with individuality; others are not. For a people accustomed to a stricter sense of social place, decorum, and hierarchy, the prospect of a society where people must be judged as individuals for his/her wit, personality, and talent may be distressing. Sheep don't want to forced to behave like wolves. In MERRY X-MAS MR LAWRENCE, Tom Conti says Japanese went crazy because they are an 'anxious people'. Maybe, Koreans too.

-------------------------------------

Problems of Korean Birthrates:

South Korea, CIA, 2000: 1.72 per woman.

South Korea, CIA, 2008: 1.20 per woman.

This is alarmingly low even by Western standards. Could this be the paradoxical product of Korea CHANGING TOO FAST but NOT FAST ENOUGH?
Consider that in a very short historical time period, young Koreans entered the modern world with all the promise of freedom, pleasure, fun, and so forth and so on. They are hooked to American movies, global youth culture, internet, videogames, comic book culture, rock n roll, the ideals of individuualism/freedom/liberty, and etc. They are taught all the correctly progressive things in schools, and things they see on TV and internet indicate they should fully be in the modern world. In this sense, Korea has changed TOO FAST.

But, maybe the wider/deeper Korean social reality isn't what Koreans--especially young people--have been promised by popular culture and progressive education. It hasn't changed fast enough to accommodate the new attitudes and expectations of young Koreans. Maybe, much of Korean society is still rigid, regressive, judgmental, conformist, and intolerant. And, maybe this aspect of Koreanness is most potent and powerful in the culture of marriage: maybe, a young person(especially a girl)has to give up her freedoms and liberty and play second-fiddle to her husband and kiss ass with the in-laws. Suppose some marriages are still de facto arranged. Then, no wonder that many young Koreans don't marry. (Could be the same too in Japan). Well, what about single-mothers? Could be that in a society where a great stigma is attached to having children out-of-wedlock, single-motherhood simply isn't an option for most women. South Korea could be a nation where societal pressure strongly discourages any woman from having kids on her own--unlike in Sweden or in the US. If single-motherhood were more permissible in Japan or Korea, maybe birthrates would be higher.

Also, it could be that Korean men are still louts--even the young ones. In the past, it could be that many women married and had kids because of social tradition and pressure. But, Korea CHANGED TOO FAST, and maybe young men and women now have the freedom to do as they wish. This freedom remains AS LONG AS one doesn't enter into institutional arrangements. In the US or Europe, one is a free individual even after marriage; one has more responsibilties but retains all the legal and social rights and privileges. It could be that one loses a lot of those rights and privileges formally or informally in Asia.

Since there is much less social pressure for girls to get married and raise a family today, many Korean women may prefer to remain free individuals than unfree wives. Better to be lonely and free than married and enslaved.

Besides, with all the electronic gadgets and entertainment, even unwed people can have lots of fun. (Could it be that one of the obstacles to higher birthrates in Asia is that the reality on the ground is so far removed from what Asians have come to desire in their eyes, hearts, and minds? The discrepancy between fantasy ideal and bio-social reality is surely more painfully obvious in Asia--and could also account for the low East Asian birthrates in America. In the West, if a guy can't marry a Cindy Crawford-type, he may still be able to find a decent looking woman on the level of Jennifer Aniston. Or, a woman who can't marry a Daniel Craig-type can still find a good enough looking guy--tall and manly enough if not exactly dropdead gorgeous. But, in Asia, few men or women measure up to the tall and glamorous caucasian types so prevalent in Hollywood movies and American pop culture that dominate global culture. Asian men tend to be short, and Asian women tend to be lumpy. This may not matter if Asians didn't have a culture of excellence and ambition--rising higher always means being more discriminatory; Harvard, for all its professed egalitarian ideals, discriminates in favor of smart/industrious over dumb/lazy people. After all, short stubby Mexicans are happy to marry other short stubby Mexicans and have lots of kids. But, Asian society is very hierarchical and status-conscious, and Asian youths are encouraged to rise up socially and improve themselves through better jobs, higher positions, respectable friends and colleagues, and quality mates--in other words, being more discriminatory. When Asia had been less affected by Western culture, even an Asian guy could look studly to an Asian girl, and even an Asian girl could look sexy to an Asian guy. But today, both Asian men and women are gaga over the Western ideal--consider the rates of plastic surgery in South Korea(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFfz3YFxi9s & Hong Kong women getting impregnated with Nordic sperm as they prefer the Eurasian look over the short Cantonese geeky look. Since more Asians than ever have risen socio-economically, expect and desire higher standards, and can afford to hook themselves to the daily stream of global entertainment imagery and fantasies, what was good enough for their grandparents and parents may not be good enough for themselves. Jews are no less ambitious and always seeking to improve their lot through higher success and quality friends and mates, but Jews are clever enough to act as though--at least in public--that they are all for eglitarianianism and progressive virtues. In practice, most Jews are no different than 'racist' or racialist Asians, but in rhetoric--as the NY Times pieces proves--, Jews are more likely to put on a good show about the brotherhood/sisterhood of men and women; I doubt if NY Times is as judgmental about Zionist chauvinism in US/Israel nor about Jewish groups caling for Jews-marrying-Jews.
The main difference between South Koreans and Jews could be the former are blunt about their prejudices whereas the latter conceal their biases under the veneer of 'social justice' and equality. But, look around and the MOST UNEQUAL people in the world are the Jews! Another thing... maybe marriage/birth rates have gone down in Asia because the rise of individual freedom & modern atomization has weakened traditional matchmaking networks via relatives, friends, work place, etc. The problem could be that even as Asians are freer than ever to choose on their own, they are still relatively shy and timid and don't have the gall or balls to seek mates openly and assertively as people in the West do. Asians could be caught in a no-man's land of individual freedom but lack of individual initiative. They are now free to choose their own mates but don't have the confidence to go-for-it.) 

For more Korean to choose marriage, Korean society-at-large will have to catch up with Korean society-in-the-lead. Koreans rapidly gained freedom but can't use it functionally in much of their country. It's like making a lot of money too fast but not having the shops that sell what you want. More money for less spending. More freedom to do nothing.

-----------------------------------------

NYT article is like so many I've read before.This is less reporting or uncovering something new than regurgitating the same old--mostly liberal Judeo-centric--warnings, pieties, and judgements. A similar article on Poland will invariably be about anti-semitism and how Poles have yet to be good boys and girls. If it's about East Asia or the Middle East, we get the same sermons about 'xenophobia', 'racism', and 'sexism'. These articles tell us little about another culture beyond what OUR main political and sociological hang-ups--shaped by liberal Jewish media--tend to be at the moment. We are supposed to feel glibly superior to those backward people or be warned that we must not slip back to the BAD OLD DAYS when we were like nasty Asians,Eastern Europeans, or Muslims today. I'm not one to disagree that there's a lot of unpleasant things in the non-Western world, but I can't help feeling that international reporting often amounts to little more than EDITORIALIZING BY OTHER MEANS.

After all, why don't these liberal newspapers report equally on problems of homogenophobia, asexism, and interracism? Homogenophobia would be the opposite of xenophobia: irrational fear or dread of wanting to maintain a largely homogenecous/cohesive society. The result? Look at the social ills of Paris, London, and LA. Homogenophobia can destroy entire cities. Asexism would be the opposite of sexism: the belief that there are no meaningful differences between sexes other than socially or culturally constructed ones--'gender' variables. Some good asexism has done to the birthrates in the advanced world! Some good it has done to the relationship between men and women! Interracism is the idea that races are improved by extensive race-mixing. So, is Peru or Brazil a more pleasant or stable place than Japan or Sweden?

NY Times and liberal media report on the evils, dangers, or unpleasantries of racism, sexism, and xenophobia but little on the worse dangers of interracism, asexism, and homogenophobia. Why? Because it is in the interest of liberal Jews to support interracism, asexism, and homogenophobia for the purpose of increasing and securing Jewish power. Jews, as a powerful and wealthy minority elite, don't want to be confronted by a unified people of race or culture. Homogenophobia means more immigration from third world countries, interracism means more race mixing to the point where white race will no longer distinctly exist(no distinct race, then no racial identity nor pride), and asexism means that white men and white women will not play their proper roles for the purpose of raising more children in strong patriotic families. Asexism will drive a wedge between men and women, with both groups comprising selfish atomized individuals.

I'm sick of these international news coverages that do little more than give us pat summaries and contain the same old same old smug assumptions about the 'less advanced and progressive' folks around the world. A Polish friend of mine has long complained about the coverage of Polish society and affairs. From reading American Newspapers, you'd think there is no Polish history, people, society, and culture except one associated with antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Jewish anguish and interests. It's Judeocentrism gone wild. And, all the blame is always on Poles, never on Jews. There's no mention of many Polish Jews having collaborated with Soviet invaders in the eastern part of Poland in 1939. Little mention of high representation of Jews in the Polish communist party after WWII. Worse, there's very little mention of how Poles fought bravely and suffered terribly in WWII.

A sign of good reporting would be a sincere effort to understand another culture and see where it's coming from. Understanding is not the same as agreeing or condoning. When an article contains more self-righteous judgment than understanding, it is lazy editorializing than quality journalism. Besides, I thought multiculturalism is supposed to be anti-Eurocentric! Yet, the NYT piece passes moral judgment on another culture based on the latest Western values.

-----------------------------------------------

I have a sneaking suspicion that NYT is just sharpening their ideological knife on S. Korea as a preparation for a bigger assault on China. Many liberal Jews may see China as South Korea on steroids. China is also largely homogeneous, an economic giant growing bigger by the day, nationalistic, 'xenophogic', chauvinistic, male-dominated(despite decades of communist orthodoxy), and a challenge to the liberal Jewish global order. Not only is China much bigger than South Korea, it is politically independent.
However South Koreans may feel about Americans, they must know that without US presence in the region as an impartial and generally fair-minded peace-keeper, South Korea will be sandwiched by a non-democratic China with no respect for human rights and a potentially re-militarized Japan which still hasn't face up to its imperialist and war-time deeds. One could argue that the 20th century was an anomaly in Korea's history. Traditionally, for 1000s of yrs, it had been a tributary state of China--albeit more harmonious in this role than Vietnam, which was often at war with China. This changed in the 20th century, with Japan becoming the major foreign power and presence for Koreans in the first half of the century. In the second half of the century, the northern part of Korea became close to USSR while the southern part became close to the US.
One could argue that Koreans--at least those in the South--never achieved so much economically, socially, and politically(even a working democracy)as under the protection and guidance of the USA in this period. If Chinese power grows and grows and if US withdraws from its 'empire', Korea will return to its traditional role as a tributary state of China.

And, if Chinese economy keeps developing, Korean companies--auto, cell phones, electronics, computer parts, etc--won't be able to stay ahead of the game. Korean economy will be subsumed into the Chinese, and Koreans will have to play ball with the Chinese to survive. If Japan will have decisive technological and scientific edge over the Chinese for the forseeable future, it's possible that China will overtake Korean technological edge in 10-20 yrs.

So, critiquing the problems of Korea could really be a roundabout way of bringing attention to the social ills of and ideological problems posed by China. If South Korea, a nation of 45 million is such an unpleasant place despite the wealth it has accumulated, think of the nasty horrors of BIG CHINA whose main ambition is not only to become a giant economic version of Korea, Taiwan, or Singapore but even to become a superpower.
 
-----------------------------------------
 
"Today, the mix of envy and loathing of the West, especially of white Americans, is apparent in daily life."
 
-- New York Times.

Isn't this a case of pot calling the kettle black? Indeed, the description just about sums about how liberal Jews--best exemplified by NY Times--feel about the White West or White America. Jewish ambivalence--admiration and malevolance--can also be gleaned in shows like MAD MEN. On the one hand, Jews have admired and desired the blonde Aryan or All-American types to have as friends, mates, role models, trophy partners and hirelings. But, Jews have also resented white gentiles for the history of anti-Jewishness, better looks and physicality, and golden boy aura & firm manly handshakes. Jews have also held whites in contempt for their lower intelligence. Just consider the average Jewish feelings about Sarah Palin; Jews have openly ridiculed her as a 'bimbot'. Plain-faced but smart Jewish women have especially been resentful of prettier but less intelligent 'shikses' being preferred by (especially Jewish)men of power/wealth.

So, it's rather funny that the liberal Jewish NY TIMES should be wagging its fingers at Asians for harboring mixed and frustrated feelings about white Westerners. With Jews, this sort of feeling has gone on for centuries and still hasn't abated; indeed it has only gotten worse. Jewish support of Barack Obama has less to do with 'social justice' and more to do with sticking it to the White Gentile for the sake of Jewish revenge and power.
Of course, if anyone wrote an article about Jews akin to the NY Times article on Asians, Jews would scream BLOODY ANTISEMTISM and do everything in their power to get the writer fired and blacklisted.

The Law of Compensation Regarding Conservatives and Zionism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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