Where Jared Diamond Is Wrong on Race and Environment

Jared Diamond’s GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL was a great success with both the elite and the not-so-unwashed-masses. The book argued that the West(and to a lesser extent the East)gained a decisive advantage over natives of Africa, the Americas, and other places due to natural-environmental factors. Soil in the temperate zone was more suited for agriculture. Animals in that zone that could be domesticated for farming(cattle) and transportation(horses). The climate tended to be less extreme or hostile than in other places.
Diamond discusses these factors and dismisses racial theories or biologism to explain the WHY of history.

Diamond’s argument isn’t so much wrong as incomplete. He’s a super smart Jew with an IQ in the area of 190, knows 9 languages, and possesses great erudition. His argument is comprehensive, persuasive, insightful, and brilliant. But, he’s also an ideologue and, as such, is committed to the secular ideology of egalitarianism. Diamond understands that human societies and achievements around the globe are not equal, so he argues that all humans are intrinsically equal–at the biological root–but ended up with different levels of achievement due to natural-environmental factors.

The problem with Diamond’s argument is the hopeless ideological Procrusteanism. I agree with him that the fauna, flora, and climate do have profound influence on the development of human societies. A primitive people with access to horses and cattle are going to have an advantage over a primitive people without such animals. Diamond may indeed be right that the natural realities of Africa precluded the presence of such animals as horses, cattle, and others. And, the soil and climate of Africa may indeed have been less hospitable to agriculture.
What he completely ignores is the fact that humans too were affected–at the genetic level–by the natural environment, just like the flora and fauna were. People are not only limited in their potential development by their natural environment them but also genetically altered and shaped by it. Yet, Diamond argues that all races are essentially the same despite the fact that various races developed in highly different environments. Diamond argues that the activity of people in the arctic are limited by ice and cold and that the activity of people in the tropics are limited by coconuts and heat but that the people themselves are not genetically changed by their natural environment. This goes against all evolutionary theory and evidence.

Of course, Diamond is a clever enough man. He doesn’t say all races are exactly the same. He says they are ‘fundamentally similar’. This is true enough. All races are indeed fundamentally similar. But, there are notable differences among races and, because human society is very complex and specialized, even subtle differences can lead to huge differences among individuals or peoples. It was the subtlety in differences that made Mozart and Beethoven light years ahead of their highly talented peers. When it comes to high achievement, subtle differences make all the difference. There were many super smart men in Einstein’s time, but most couldn’t have arrived at Einstein’s theory. At the extremity or cutting edge of human achievement, razor sharp differences and distinctions do matter, which is why not all strong people excel as boxers or running backs. There is the X factor.

More importantly, not all differences among individuals or races are subtle. Some are notable, even profound. If you were to throw a random Nigerian and a random Guatemalan Indian into a fighting cage, 99 times out of 100, the Nigerian will destroy the Guatemalan. If you were to fill a classroom with 50 randomly picked Ashkenazi Jews and 50 randomly picked Negroes and then provided both groups with same education, the SAT scores of Jews will be much higher than those of Negroes.

Historical developments didn’t happen by accidents alone. They happened through accidents AND the presence of individuals intelligent enough to take notice of the fortunate advantages of those accidents. To a dummy, an accident is just a nuisance or danger. To a smart person, an accident may offer new possibilities or new challenges. This is why stupid apes can only freak out when there’s a fire and flee for safety. Primitive humans were no doubt alarmed by fire but smart enough to see its advantages and then find ways to harness, use, and even start fires.
So, even if most people of any racial group aren’t very intelligent, a racial group with an higher number of intelligent individuals is bound to develop a lot faster than a group with fewer smart people.

Temperament is also important. Individuals cannot achieve things on their own but must work within a community. The community must be supportive of geniuses doing cutting edge work. If Einstein had been born in the Congo where all the Negroes run wild and crazy, he would have had to expend most of his energy looking for food and shelter. It was because he lived in Europe where thinkers and scientists could theorize and experiment in a stable environment that he was able to achieve great things. People who tend to be more temperate in their emotions are likely to achieve more than temperamentally crazy people.
People focus on lower black IQ, but I would argue that black temperament is as important as to why black societies tend to be crazy and violent. Suppose most inner city blacks had low IQs but milder temperaments. That alone would make their communities far better places for everyone.

Of course, it must be said Great Men tend to be a little crazy. This is true of great artists, scientists, visionaries, etc. This is all the more reason why MOST of society must be even-tempered and ‘lame’ and ‘square’; crazy geniuses cannot ply their creative craziness when everything around them is stupidly crazy. Geniuses need the luxury of social stability in order to experiment with their special and rare form of cutting-edge craziness. An ideal society should be generally stable and even-tempered but provide freedom and independence for eccentrics, geniuses, and visionaries to come up with new ideas, new methods, new ways of looking at the world. When the norm of stability becomes repressive, pervasive, and orthodox, society turns stagnant. Just consider the Muslim world or East Asia–prior to 20th century modernization. The social, moral, and spiritual norms became so stifling, heavy, and conformist that innovation was held back for centuries and even talented individuals and eccentrics were afraid to stick their necks out–as happened in Europe during the Renaissance. So, social stability founded upon ‘lame’ and ‘square’ temperance is not enough. ‘Squares’ rarely come up with new ideas or start revolutions. They basically know how to follow the rules and be ‘good’ people. Most people need to be like this because that’s all they are good for. Yet, their preferred norm must not clamp down on the freedom of geniuses. This is why Bush’s stem cell research policy was stupid. It was the tyranny of the moralistic ‘squares’ clamping down on the freedom of scientific and medical geniuses. Of course, things can get even more dangerous when a bunch of radical geniuses or visionaries gain total power to redefine and redesign society as they see fit. This was the danger of Nazism and communism. Marx and Lenin though they were geniuses who had figured out the secret of history–class warfare. Hitler and his cohorts thought they understood the true secret to historical advancement–Aryan genius. They were willing to kill any number of people, start any number of wars, and do other crazy enough to remake the entire world.
The danger for the modern world today is that the cache of ‘cutting edge avant-garde genius’ has fooled a lot of second-raters and third-raters that they themselves are indeed great artists, geniuses, visionaries, radicals, or rebels when in fact they are a bunch of dorks and dufuses. The idea of the Promethean genius accessing and spreading the fire of the gods has been popularized and vulgarized to the point where morons think Alainis Morrisette, Kurt Cobain, and Courtney Love are the great artist-geniuses of the age. Morons also think if they imitate these pop culture clods, they too qualify as cutting-edge artist-geniuses seeking truth unknown to but a few–like a million fellow dolts on youtube.

Anyway, if the natural environment can shape and form the features of animals, the same must apply to humans. Humans, especially primitive humans prior to the rise of civilization, were deeply impacted–even genetically–by their environments. They didn’t just socially or culturally react to their environment but were genetically shaped by it. Whites and East Asians biologically or racially became the way they are because they would have died otherwise in the cold and harsh climate of the Ice Age North. And, blacks are the way they are because being black-skinned and nappy headed protects them from the searing Sun. Today, a white guy can go live in Africa, wear protective clothing, stay indoors, enjoy air conditioning. But, if a white guy had to live in hot Africa on a primitive level, he might not survive as his pale skin would burn up or succumb to cancer. For most of human existence, man was at the mercy of his environment. Only relatively recently did man begin to shape the environment around him and develop technologies that assured protection from the environment–climate, wild animals, etc. It’s now believed that all the non-African races left the Dark Continent about 80,000 years ago. In Africa itself, humans had existed for 100,000s of years. Oldest civilizations–Sumerian and Egyptian–are only 5,000 years old. Chinese history is about 3,500 yrs. Northern European history is less than 1500 yrs. Much of Africa didn’t develop civilization even well into the 20th century. For the most part, American Indians lived in a state of primitive co-existence with the natural fauna and flora of the Americas–like the Germanic barbarians prior to the spread of Roman and Christian cultures. So, even up to relatively recent times, all races have been profoundly impacted and shaped by their natural environments which varied greatly from continent to continent, temperature zone from temperature zone.
Jared Diamond readily admits that the different attributes of animals were determined by the natural environment. For example, he argues that Africa had almost no animal that could be domesticated for agriculture because of the nature of the environment. (Of course, one may argue that there were indeed animals in Africa that could have been domesticated but that blacks lacked the intelligence and the patience to figure out how. After all, domestication of animals took a long time in the North as well and required a good deal of skills, patience, and determination. And, white farmers have done wonders with the African soil–despite the argument of Jared Diamond and his allies that the African terrain is unfit for agriculture–whereas farms which have reverted to black ownership have turned to crap. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that African animals cannot be domesticated.) Diamond argues that Africa has long been teeming with vicious wild animals, and therefore, the prey animals of Africa evolved to be nervous, jumpy, hyper, and difficult to control. The zebra, for instance, cannot be domesticated like a horse because it developed in a world of hyenas, leopards, African hunting dogs, and lions. Zebra is many more times more nervous than a horse. The northern regions also had vicious predators but fewer big cats and, besides, bears were too slow for most animals. Northern wolves were a terror for most prey animals but not as frightening as African predators. So, the zebra, in order to survive, had to be fidgety and ready to run over the slightest hint of danger.

Next, consider the African buffalo. The Asian buffalo has been domesticated and used for agriculture, so why not the African buffalo? Same reason as with the zebra. In order to survive against lions, African buffalo had to be super strong and super aggressive. The Asian buffalo, to be sure, could be a mean animal. After all, Asia did have tigers. But, tigers are lone hunters and more reclusive than lions. So, whereas the Asian water buffalo could be domesticated in places like India or Vietnam, it would have been dangerous for an African Negro to risk his ass trying to turn an African buffalo into a nice animal pulling the plow. Same can be said of African elephant and the Asian elephant. Asian elephant has been successful domesticated and used for various tasks. But, African elephant is not only bigger and stronger but meaner and nastier. If a Negro tried to tame such a beast, his nappy-headed self would have been crushed into a pancake.

What I’m saying is ‘fundamental similarities’ are not good enough. Subtle or obvious differences can make all the difference. An Asian elephant and an African elephant are ‘fundamentally similar’, but one can be domesticated, the other cannot. An Asian buffalo and an African buffalo are ‘fundamentally similar’, but one can be domesticated, the other cannot. The horse and zebra are ‘fundamentally similar’–though it must be said they belong to separate species–, but one can be domesticated, the other cannot. In other words, ‘fundamentally similar’ is not good enough. All dogs are fundamentally similar but try herding sheep with chihuahuas.

Same can be said of the human races. Suppose we say all races are ‘fundamentally similar’ and ban American blacks from playing in the NBA and Olympic basketball and fill up the teams with Vietnamese Americans. After all, all races are ‘fundamentally similar’, right? True, all races are indeed fundamentally similar. They all have capacity for language, capacity for deductive reasoning, can see color, walk upright, and etc. But, there’s no question that some races have more of certain qualities than other races do, just as certain breeds of dogs are more suited–in terms of intelligence, body shape and size, strength, agility and speed, and temperament–for tasks beyond the competence of other breeds of dogs. Dachshunds are not good for racing, and hyper-active collies would make poor tracking animals. If the US Dream Team were to be made up of Vietnamese Americans, forget about US ever winning the Gold–or even a Silver or Bronze–in Olympics basketball ever again.
Or, suppose we ban Jews from science and fill up the scientific ranks with only blacks. Of course, there are plenty of smart black people, indeed even some VERY SMART black people. But, good is not good enough for cutting edge science. There are lots of fast white guys but their speed is not good enough for Olympics tracks. There are lots of smart black guys, but their smarts are not good enough to keep US as the cutting edge leader in science. If only blacks were allowed to go into science in the US, other nations would overtake America in science and technology. So, for Diamond to say all races are ‘fundamentally similar’ is disingenuous. He’s technically right as far as it goes but wrong in implying there are no social consequences of subtle or not-so-subtle racial differences.
True, if all a man is supposed to do in life is to eat, drink, sleep, and shit, then Diamond is right that it doesn’t matter if we’re black, white, yellow, brown, red, etc. But, human civilization is about excellence, competition, and taking human achievement and discovery to new heights. Mere good is not good enough. All races can be taught how to read and write, add and subtract. But, how many people can reach the levels of Einstein’s genius? Even most Jews cannot reach that level; even so, there are more intellectually capable people among Jews than among other peoples. Diamond himself is a major heavy thinker because he’s a Jew. True, he’s dishonest and ideological, but who can deny the man’s brilliance and depth? Why? Because he’s a super smart Ashkenazi.

Anyway, if the African environment made the African zebra, elephant, and buffalo too nervous, aggressive, and hostile for domestication, why wouldn’t it follow that the same environment made black Africans physically strong(more than other races), more aggressive, and more instinctive than intellectual. If blacks had to be constantly alert to the threat of dangerous gorillas, leopards, hyenas, lions, rhinos, elephants, hippos, and etc, they had to be strong and ready to fight like crazy or run-like-a-motha_ucka at any given moment. The weaker and more temperate members among the Negroes would not have survived in an environment favoring badass mofos.
In contrast, the cold climate in the North required whites or Asians to huddle together, cooperate through the long winter months, and conserve their body fat. In the cold climate, body fat had to be saved up for long bitterly cold winter months with little or no food. In such a tight knit world where people had to be very cooperative and even-tempered to survive, a white or Asian guy who acted like a jive-ass Negro would have been exiled from his community for being a nuisance or he would have burned up all his body fat from shaking his booty all night long. If you shake your ass all the time, you’re gonna burn away the necessary body fat for the winter. So, it’s evident that the different climates and animals of Africa and Eurasia were bound to create different races of humans with different attributes and qualities. Also, as it was a greater challenge to survive in the cold, people in the northern zones had to use their brains more than blacks in Africa.
So ask yourself, what kinds of traits were better suited for creating or sustaining civilization? Jive-ass funky hyper blackness OR intelligence and even temperance?
Why do black students cause so much trouble in school? Some people point to lower IQs among blacks, but that’s only half the equation. Forrest Gump was a dumbass but never caused no trouble to anybody. There are plenty of dumb people who are peaceful and cooperative. No, blacks are socially problematic due to their wild and aggressive temperament. What makes it even worse is that they know they can kick the butts of other races. If whites, Hispanics, and Asians were as strong or stronger than blacks, blacks wouldn’t act so cocky, wild, arrogant, and rude. But, blacks grow up knowing that they are the kings of the streets and public spaces. They know they can mess with anyone but no one–except tougher Negroes–are going to mess with them. What makes things even extra-worse is the fact of white historical guilt which makes it impossible to be critical of blacks. There is also the problem of leftist Jewish control of media and social discourse, where racial differences cannot be discussed. Also, there is the matter of white male pride. White males, out of vain macho pride, cannot admit they are scared out of their wits when it comes to crazy Negroes.

Belleville School Bus Attack Was Racial.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/09/tape_shows_beat.php

Initially, the police reported the beating as racially motivated but then back-tracked and stated that it had resulted from a squabble over a seat. I would argue it’s irrelevant whether it was racially MOTIVATED or not. After all, black kids often beat up one another all the time. They sometimes kill one another over gym shoes. So, we cannot say for sure that the white kid got beat up simply because he’s white. True enough.

But, I would argue the beating was still racial IN NATURE even if it weren’t racially MOTIVATED. Consider a case where a man beats up a woman. Suppose he didn’t beat her up because she was a woman but over an argument. Even if the beating wasn’t sexually MOTIVATED, one can still argue that the beating was sexual IN NATURE because the man struck and beat up the woman and not the other way around. Why didn’t the woman beat up the man? Because 99 times out of 100, men are stronger than women. So, even if the man didn’t beat the woman for sexual reasons, the outcome of the violence was sexual in nature just the same. This is why there is a social and moral taboo against men hitting women EVEN when the woman may be in the wrong. Even when a woman slaps a man, we don’t expect a man to beat the crap out of her. At most, we can tolerate him slapping her back or restraining her. A man is not supposed to take advantage of his advantage in physical strength.

So, let us examine the Belleville Overkill again. A black kid first attacked and beat up a white kid who didn’t fight back because he was scared and knew well that if he fought back, he would get hurt even worse. After he got beat up by one Negro punk, others took turns beating him up. Why did the first Negro kid give the white kid a hard time, refusing to share the seat with the him? Because the Negro kid felt nothing but contempt for the weakling white boy. The contempt was racial in nature even if not consciously racially motivated. (Especially with the rise of Rap music, the social ideal within the black community is Da Thug, and ‘faggotyass pussyass mothafuckas’, aka ‘white boys’, are utterly despised.) Why did the Negro boy so readily start punching the white kid? Because he knew that he’d easily whup a white boy’s ass. Why did other black kids enjoy the spectacle? Because it was fun to watch a ‘ faggoty ass white pussy boy’ helplessly get his ass kicked. Why did other white kids in the bus do NOTHING to help the white kid? Because they too feared the stronger and more aggressive black kids. Why did so many blacks find it so amusing? Because blacks routinely make fun of slow, lardy, soft, faggoty ass, and pussy ass white boys are. Black kids laugh at slow white athletes in sports. Black grow up with the full knowledge that in most cases, they can ‘kick the white boy’s ass.’ So, even if the Belleville Incident wasn’t necessarily racially motivated, honest people must say it was indeed racial in nature. Things like that happen all over America–with most of the violence being black-on-white in schools, buses, public spaces, streets, parks, etc–because blacks are stronger than whites.
Why is most sexual violence male-on-female? Because men are stronger. Men don’t walk the streets with fear of female muggers or rapists, but many women do fear male muggers and rapists. Even when women are victims of crime which isn’t sexually motivated, they are victims precisely because they are of the weaker sex. So, male-on-female violence, even when not explicitly sexual in intent, is sexual in nature.
Same must be said for racial violence. How come there are innumerable black-on-white, black-on-Jewish, black-on-Hispanic, black-on-Arab-American, black-on-Asian crime, but relatively few white/Jewish/Hispanic/Arab-American/Asian-on-black street crime or violence? Because blacks know they are the predator and non-blacks are the prey. Lions hunt wildebeests, wildebeests do not hunt lions.

So, the oft-asked question, "was it racially motivated?" misses the point. The real question is, "is co-existence with blacks viable for non-blacks when so many blacks are dumb, aggressive, strong, violent, and filled with arrogant contempt for ‘pussy ass’ non-blacks?"
There are two solutions to this problem. One is segregation or separation of non-black races from blacks. Blacks outside US, Europe, or Canada cannot hurt whites. Jamaicans can only hurt themselves. But, when Jamaicans migrate to UK or Canada, they soon end up kicking the white boys’ ass. Since humans naturally admire and worship power–due to our evolutionary sexual and hunter-warrior instincts–, black men are soon swooned over by white women who become mudsharks having mulatto babies like Barack Obama. And even white boys brutalized and ‘pussified’ by black guys start imitating blackness because it has become the standard of alpha male toughness. Even Mexican-American gangs act and talk black. (Mexican-Americans, by their sheer numbers and lack of politically correct brainwashing, are ganging up together and scoring huge successes against blacks in parts of the Southwest. Though pound-for-pound, a black guy can easily destroy a Mexican-American, blacks have become hopelessly outnumbered by organized Mexican gangs who aren’t paralyzed by historical or social guilt regarding blacks. And, since the liberal Jewish media prop up the Grand Narrative of various peoples-of-color living in peace, the extent of hatred and distrust among blacks and the Mexican-American community has been suppressed.)

If separation or segregation is out of the question, the only other hope for some degree of racial peace is the ostracization of black violence. This has been achieved in the realm of men and women. Though men can easily beat up women, modern Western society has placed a heavy taboo against men using violence against women. Men who attack women are roundly condemned by society as brutes, bullies, a**holes, etc.. There are also laws heavily penalizing male violence against women. The combination of social, moral, and legal pressures on men has led to a great decline of violence against women in the West–at least in sane communities inhabited by mostly white folks(minus white trash folks who still get it on with their younger sisters). There are still many societies around the world where it’s socially and legally acceptable for men to beat up women. In the West, most men don’t hit women because they’ve been inculcated with the ideal that real men don’t hit women; only a bully or a coward hits the weaker or fairer sex.
It may be possible to instill this kind of taboo against black violence. Suppose society spreads the message that since blacks are stronger and can easily beat up non-blacks, it would be bullying and brutish for blacks to take advantage of their superior strength to physically or otherwise assault non-blacks. Perhaps, blacks who attack non-blacks can be shamed by society, just like men who attack women.
There is one big problem with this proposal. It can only be achieved through what might be called the pussification of the white male. For there to be a social/moral taboo against black aggression, society has to assume that white men are to black men what women are to men. The message would be black males shouldn’t attack white males because that would be like men beating up women. Such may indeed reduced the level of black violence through social ostracization–blacks who attack whites would be socially rejected as cowardly bullies who pick on weaker victims–, but the psychological toll on white men would be immense. They would have to live a pussified existence. They would be socially patronized and protected from black violence like women are socially patronized and protected from male violence. If the pussification of white male happens, even more white women will go with black men who are seen as TRUE MEN.

The option I haven’t mentioned is bio-technology. It may be possible in the not–too-distant future to genetically engineer white men who can kick the Negro’s ass. And hopefully, there may be ways to boost white gentile IQs to levels of Ashkenazi Jews or even higher. The reason why Jews dominate America is because they are smarter. The reason why blacks terrorize America is because they are stronger. All this racial equality crap is for the birds. Until the day arrives when we can find bio-technological means to improve the white race–ironically, the discoveries will most likely be made by the super-smart Ashkenazi Jews–all white people can hope for is to be properly racist. By racist, I don’t mean acting like stupid KKK or crazy Neo-Nazis. No, I mean spread the truth about race and know that we are suffering because of intellectual superiority of the Jews and physical superiority of the Negro.
There is power in numbers. There are still many whites, and if we act as a united group, we have a better chance of surviving as a proud and powerful people. The West came to dominate the world not because whites were physically the strongest nor because they were the most intelligent–Asians are comparable in terms of IQ and Ashkenazi Jews are decisively more intelligent. It was because whites found a balance between individualism and communalism, the balance between the spiritual(Judeo-Christian), sensual-creative(Euro-pagan), and rational(Hellenic). It was also because white folks stuck together.

Some Thoughts on the Kanye West / Taylor Swift Incident

Country music studs consider themselves tough, manly, and virile. I’m sure a good number of them boys were at the award ceremony. Yet, none of them came to the defense of the lovely Taylor Swift who was harassed, bullied, and intimidated by Kanye West, a jive-ass Negro of the worst sort.

Now, suppose the award had gone to a popular black female singer. Suppose some white male country singer came on stage, ripped the award from the her hand, and said it should have gone to a white woman singer. You bet the brothas would have made a dash for the stage, knocked that punk out, and restored the award to their sistah. You bet the bros would have stood up for their woman. In fact, I’ll bet the black female singer would have pushed away the rude white boy on her own even before her brothas grabbed him by the throat and kicked his stupid white boy ass.

So, why did all those white country boys at the ceremony do NOTHING when a white female country singer was attacked by a jive-ass no good Negro? Why was she left standing there all alone as the foul Negro berated her, insulted her, and treated her with utter contempt? I’ll bet even if Kanye had proceeded to fondle and rape her, white country boys in the audience would have just sat on their butts. Why? Why? Because black men are stronger, and white boys know they better not make a move lest they get their asses whupped. If white boys had ran up to confront Kanye, other black men would have ran up there to defend Kanye. A melee pitting white guys against black guys will invariably end with black guys kicking the white boys’ ass. How humiliating.

Recently, talk radio and internet blogs were ablaze with a news story–caught on tape–of a white student who got his ass kicked by a bunch of blacks in the bus. There were white students on the bus, but NOT ONE stood up to defend their white brother. Some will say whites don’t group together for their own defense or safety because political correctness has conditioned them against white pride or power. There is some truth to this, but it misses or evades the main truth: White boys are scared of black boys. So, when black guys beat up a white guy, other white guys pretend nothing is happening because if they were to involve themselves, they’d get beaten up and humiliated too.

It’s no wonder more and more white women go with black men. In both the Music Award Incident and the School Bus Incident, white girls observe and realize that white men are yellow, have no balls, are wimps and weaklings when it comes to defending their women or friends from attacks by vile Negroes.

And, we must not forget the power of the liberal Jewish media. If a white male country music singer had ripped an award from the hands of Beyonce and screamed that it should have gone to a white female singer, the Mainstream Media would have been on his ass forever–as with Don Imus. He would have been thoroughly humiliated and then some. A simple apology–like the one given by West–would not have sufficed. His musical contract would have been canceled. He would have become persona non grata instantly. But, what happened with Kanye Negro West? He was immediately invited on the Jay Leno show, allowed to offer a BS apology, and he will surely make tons of money in an industry run by liberal Jews who truly hate gentile white people, especially conservatives and Christians. It’s been said that Obama called West a "Jackass", but it was all done in a joking manner. Indeed, Obama and reporters around him mostly laughed about it. Would they have done so had Beyonce been the winner and had been accosted by a white male country singer?

Now, I don’t want to insult white men who did nothing to defend Swift at the ceremony. And, I can’t blame white students who didn’t come to the aid of the white kid who got beaten up by vicious ape-like thugs on the school bus. After all, self-preservation is what life is all about. Most people aren’t brave nor saintly. But, it’s time for us to recognize the problem of black thuggery. Blacks are not only stronger but know that they are stronger, which is precisely why they are SO aggressive. If white people were stronger or as strong as blacks, would Kanye have done what he did? No, he did it because he felt contempt for white boys and knew full well that not a single white boy would come to Swift’s defense. If white boxers had kicked Mike Tyson’s ass, would he have gone through life with so much arrogance? While it’s true that blacks are naturally more aggressive on an emotional level, the burning intensity of their hostility–against whites, Hispanics, and Asians–is due to the fact of their knowing that they are stronger. They know that whether on the school bus, in a movie theater, at an award ceremony, or at a rally, no one is going to confront them due to fright and fearfulness.
This is one of the reasons why so many whites are crazy about Oprah and Obama. On the one hand, whites have been brainwashed by liberal Jewish media that there is no greater sin or evil than hating blacks–‘racism wacism’. But in truth, many blacks are hateful and disgusting. What are whites to do? They’ve been conditioned to believe that there is no greater virtue than loving blacks, but most blacks are NOT lovable. Oprah and Obama understand this white psychology. One became a billionaire by toying with it, another became president. By supporting such ‘nice negroes’, whites hope that maybe rest of black society will take heart and come to realize that, ‘if we act nice to white people, we will be showered with fortune and fame.’ It’s all such a stupid fantasy. "I have a Dream" has devolved into "We have a Fantasy."

We Must Call the Media Out as Controlled-by-Jews

It’s not enough to talk about the LIBERAL MEDIA. We all know that MSM is liberal-biased. What is truly dangerous is not so much that the media is dominated by liberals but that it is mostly owned and dominated by liberal and leftist JEWS. If we accuse MSM of harboring generic liberalism, powerful media Jews can hide behind non-Jewish liberals(who happen to be far less powerful than the Jews)comprising most liberals. (Though most Jews are liberal, most liberals are non-Jewish). It makes little sense to blame most liberals for media bias since most liberals–non-Jews–have little or no stake or power in the media. How many Catholic Polish-American or Italian-American media moguls or editors do you know? We must be specific in our attack of media bias.
Suppose Mormons had the kind of power that Jews had in the media. Would it make sense to say that the media is controlled by Christian Right? Most Christian Right folks are not Mormon. Thus, powerful Mormons would be able to hide behind Southern Baptists, McChurch freaks, Catholic conservatives, and other such people with little or no control of the media. Mormons are mostly right-wing Christians, but most right-wing Christians are NOT Mormon. So, if indeed Mormons controlled most or much of the media and if we wanted to pressure them to be fairer in their handling of the media, we would need to stress the fact that MORMONS–not all of the Christian Right–are very powerful in the media. If we accuse all of the Christian Right, Mormons can hide among other conservative Christians among whom the blame would be spread wide and thin. Why did we lose sight of Alqaeda and Osama Bin Laden? Because in our fight against terrorism, we broadened our targets to Saddam Hussein and the entire Muslim world. Scattershot approach is for the birds.

So, when we consider the nature of the media, we must remind ourselves that it isn’t so much controlled by liberals–how many powerful Mexican-American liberals in the media?–as it is controlled by liberal Jews. Just look at Hollywood. How many Greek-American liberals run Hollywood? How many Arab-American liberals run Hollywood? No, the truth is Jewish liberals run Hollywood. Indeed, I would dare say conservative Jews–though a minority within the Jewish community–are more powerful in the media than any other group except for Jewish liberals. A whole bunch of conservative talk radio hosts are Jewish. And most conservative journals or magazines are neo-con-ish, published, edited, and mostly written by Jews.
This indicates that Jews of all stripes are very smart, energetic, engaged, passionate, and involved with cultural and political matters, and this is something we should all emulate. That said, power has a corrupting influence. Oftentimes, this corruption isn’t intentional or conscious but insidious, seeping into the hearts and minds of those with great power. All people have a sense of right and wrong, a desired agenda. People with power realize they can do a lot to further their values, ideas, and agendas than other people. With all the power they have, they sense a quasi-divine right to control the destinies of entire societies. They gradually grow impatient with people who disagree with them. They become ever more eager to use their formidable levers of power and influence to get things their way.
This is why people at NY Times are blind to their own corruption. Their sense of righteousness makes them feel entitled to the power that they have. Though they exert huge influence on our society, they feel they don’t have enough power since they don’t have total power to push forth and implement ALL the agendas they believe are crucial to society. Remember Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane? He began as an idealistic newspaper publisher, but the power slowly corrupted him, even as–or especially because–he clung to ‘lofty’ ideals. His righteousness morphed into the Divine Rightness of the Publisher.

We need to specify the Jewishness of the liberals and leftists in charge of the media because not all liberals are alike. Same is true of sports. Most blacks are ‘liberal’, at least in supporting the Democratic Party. Sports are dominated by black athletes who define the nature of the sports with their attitude, style, behavior, and antics, much of which is childish, rude, and obnoxious. So, if we were to criticize the development of sports culture, we need to focus on blacks in sports. Would it make sense to argue that sports culture has gotten ugly because it’s dominated by liberals(on the basis that most blacks are Democratic)? Where are the Mexican, Salvadorian, Chinese, Hindu, or Armenian American liberals in the NFL? If the NFL were dominated by non-black liberals, sports culture could be very different as peoples differ greatly by race, sex, ethnicity, nationality, etc even if they share certain common ideological assumptions. A Jewish liberal is different from a black liberal who is different from a Mexican-American liberal who is different from an Asian-American liberal. Sports culture and pop music cultures have turned to crap in the US because they are dominated by rude, obnoxious, aggressive, and crazy black ‘liberals’. So, it would make little sense to focus on ALL liberals to explain why so many athletes and musical celebrities are disgusting and offensive. We need to look at blackness.

Well, same applies to the Jewish domination of the media. Jewish liberals are different from other liberals. First, no liberal is a pure liberal, and no leftist is a total leftist. Everyone is a tribalist to some degree. So, a Jewish liberal is very much involved in Jewish interests such as Zionism and Jewish American power. Just look at Jewish liberals, and they’ve donated lavishly to specifically JEWISH causes. If they are perfect liberals, they wouldn’t favor Jewish causes nor interests above others. They would be cosmopolitan universalists. But, we know that Jewish liberals care a great deal more about Jewish issues, interests, and agendas. And, we know that black ‘liberals’ care a great deal about BLACK POWER. (Indeed, I use quotes around LIBERAL when I refer to blacks because most blacks are allied with white liberals than truly liberal themselves. They want white liberals to hand over more money, power, and clout over to blacks purely for the sake of BLACK POWER.) And, we know Mexican-American liberals have their agendas and interests. Compare Jewish liberals with Asian-American liberals. Not only are Jewish liberals more intelligent, better organized, more ruthless, more abrasive, and more creative, they have a thing called chutzpah. So, we cannot pretend that ALL liberals dominate the media, nor can we assume that the media would be what they are today IF they were controlled by Mexican-American liberals or Asian-American liberals. The media are what they are because they are controlled by JEWISH liberals. So, all this talk of LIBERAL CONTROL of the media misses the bull’s eye. If we want to pressure the media to be more fair, we have to frighten the actual people who have the power, not scattershot at most liberals who have no control over the media. Most liberals of most ethnic or racial background have little control of the media. It is the Jewish liberals who own and control much of the media. If we accuse ALL liberals of controlling the media, the Jewish liberal bunny can hide among the various other liberal targets of our ire. Our chance of hitting the Jewish liberal bunny is greatly reduced if we accuse ALL liberals.
Indeed, it must also be understood that the reason why so many non-Jews have become liberal is because of the JEWISH CONTROL OF THE MEDIA. Liberal Jews, with their control of history, entertainment, culture, arts, news, and publishing have shaped and molded the minds of ‘the best and brightest’ among all ethnic and racial groups.
The problem is that Jews are the smartest people in the world and also the most liberal. Formidable Jewish smarts serve the interests of liberalism. If United States had no Jews, there would be more media balance because gentiles–liberal or conservative–tend to be of the roughly same intelligence. A conservative wasp competing with a liberal wasp for Ivy League position or media ownership would have a much better chance than a conservative wasp competing with a liberal Jew. A liberal wasp isn’t likely to be all that much smarter than a conservative wasp whereas a liberal Jew is likely to be much smarter. If most Jews were conservative, US would have a solidly conservative media. The most successful, influential, and powerful people in this country would be conservative Jews. But, that is not the case. Most Jews are indeed very liberal.

So, let’s at least get our facts straight. To make a real difference in the media war–in order to really pressure and shame those with REAL media power–, we must spell out who really controls the media. Not liberals of all stripes but Jewish liberals. It’s because Jewish liberals control the media that so many gentiles have been led down the liberal path. It’s because Jewish liberals control the media that so many dimwit gentile liberals have been hired and promoted up the media ranks. Liberal Jews are more likely to hire a dimwit liberal Negro, liberal Mexican-American, or a liberal Asian-American running dog than an intelligent conservative and no-nonsense white conservative(or a conservative black guy, conservative Asian-American guy, a conservative Mexican-American guy).

Finally, it must be up to the Alternative Right to blow the whistle on Jewish Media Control. As Jews–both liberal and conservative–are very powerful, no mainstream conservative media, political, or business figure can survive if he dares to criticize Jewish power. Mainstream figures on the right must play kiss-ass for the time being. We must confront Jewish power step-by-step. We need to think like Saul Alinsky. Gradualism is the smartest policy. We need to inject the topic of Jewish control of the media into the popular discussion, and this must be done by the Alternative Right. It must spread by word of mouth, ear to ear, until there’s a groundswell of awareness of how the media are truly owned and operated in this country and why. Only then will mainstream conservatives be able to pick up on what seems to be the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE and discuss it as a mainstream issue.

Of course, Jewish control of the media is not an original idea, but unfortunately, those who’ve tended to blow the whistle on it have been extreme white right types who go overboard with their Alex Jones-ishness or worse, Hitler apologia or worship. Jewish liberals love Nazi flag-waving, Holocaust Denying, and Hitler worshiping clods because their silly extremist antics discredit whatever ideas or arguments they may have. If people associate criticism of Jewish media power with Holocaust Denial and Hitler apologia, they will consider it radioactive and will not touch it–for good reason. We need an Alternative Right, not a looney right.

Notes on Patrick J. Buchanan's CHURCHILL, HITLER, AND THE UNNECESSARY WAR

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.