Monday, November 12, 2018

Commentary on "11/11/18: Nationalism vs. Imperialism"


Nationalism is always anti-imperialist.

It’s not so simple. Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along with others. But as it became richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.

Initially, German provinces were unified to create a nation. But Germany became the most powerful nation in Europe, and the logic of power is to expand. So, nationalism can serve as a base for imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British National/Racial Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK) from invasion(by foreign armies or hordes). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.

The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country of Imperial Britain. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, they sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t pan out, but the young nation moved Westward to take land from American Indians and then waged war on Mexico to wrest the SW territories. So, the historical theme of US has been both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spanish Empire to grab more territory and gain foothold for worldwide hegemony. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spanish Empire withdrew into humble nationhood.
But the horrors and the heavy cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough here’ and 'we just about had enough over there'(meddling in European affairs led to huge headaches). But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, not to develop them further. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State became addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.

For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political territoriality was always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of bond with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you've never met in life and will never know. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than with capitalist Italy or France. Germanism trumped economic theory. West Germans and East Germans shared common ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians. And secular Jews feel closer to religious Jews than to secular non-Jews. A secular Jew may work together and be friends with a secular Arab, BUT he will feel a closer brotherly bond with religious Jews in Israel. And the secular Arab will feel closer to Muslim Arabs.

Imperialism today is an insane idea, but it had its place in history as a useful and constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world, which would likely be ruled by local elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades.
In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants beneath them were stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, clearing the way for the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model of the people as fellow countrymen than mere subjects of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites depending on the circumstances. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. In such cases, the Western imperial fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees(the comprador elites). The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that pushed for something new. Still, because the collaborationist native elites came to be seen as toady puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost prestige and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people. No one admires a puppet king.
Anyway, if not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who ruthless suppress any possibility of change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but, in time, developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.

That said, whatever good imperialism may have done in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. We can acknowledge of the benefits of past imperialism without calling for more imperialism. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists may have committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. They now do a lot of trade with each other due to the World Order created by European/American Imperialists. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by Western exploration, discover, and conquest. So, we have to give imperialism its due. Now, globalism would be fine as long as it's about the world trading and communicating with one another. Sadly however, globalism has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means violating of border security by masses of migrants who’ve been given the green-light to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.

Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism AND nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire could be a friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, European Christendom in WWI is a bloody stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.) French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism. Though China and Japan are currently not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation(Japan or Vietnam) seeks alliance with a great imperial power(the US) to gain leverage against the bigger national power(China). So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear. There have also been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.

Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is now possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about in its founding. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals in America. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions, but if he murders a homeless person, he has face the Law. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples. Weak people had few protections or rights.
European Empire was the biggest the world had ever seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial in their logical implications. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind in non-white cultures and civilizations. Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees than in most of the non-West. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this mutual-solidarity led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the acts of conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers trampling on their subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elite who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this proved fatal to Western Imperialism.

Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project following WWII when so many newly minted nations emerged from the collapse of European Empires. But United Nations is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity. Non-whites once valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights and security from bigger powers. As the non-West was far less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to regain hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. In both cases, it was about helping to protect national independence from the other Evil Empire, be it American(from the communist perspective) or Soviet(from the capitalist perspective). Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message in the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.

But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The Third World went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.

It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better in their own homelands. Instead, they are glued to the TV or smart-phone beaming fantasies of the US as paradise of Cool & Wealth or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire and serve its aims.

While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence. It turned non-whites into Caravandals.

Monday, November 5, 2018

Commentary on "Hate Messages Show Up on University of Manitoba Campus"

‘Hate Message’ now means any message hated by PC.

Now, why would it be wrong for whites to feel OKAY in being white? Because the only way to gain power over whites is to dehumanize them. Once dehumanized, white can gain(or regain) a bit of human worth only by seeking the approval of the Humanized Races. It’s like a dog’s sense of worth depends on the approval of its master. Dog is, by nature,submissive and seeking of approval.

Under slavery, the servant-caste must be dehumanized. As such, a slave, lacking autonomous human worth, can gain value and meaning only by attaining the approval of his master. After all, the master is humanized while he, the slave, is dehumanized. The dehumanized depends on the approval of the humanized.
If the slave were to feel that he is fully human, why would he need the approval of the master? He would feel equal to the master as a human being. He would have human agency and autonomous worth WITHOUT the approval of the master.
This is why the master needs to denounce any sign of human assertion on the part of the slave as ‘uppity’.

White people are still economically and demographically dominant in Canada, but they’ve been ideologically and intellectually enslaved by PC that is enforced 24/7 by academia and media(and cucked out churches). Therefore, dehumanized whites can gain(or regain) humanness only by cucking out to and seeking approval from the humanized races, especially Jews, blacks, and homos who aren’t only humanized but ‘sacralized’.

According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are the sacred groups. Non-whites are the humanized groups. And whites are the dehumanized group,and among them white males are the most dehumanized and have the most to atone for. As such, the ONLY way whites can gain humanness is by cuckery and dog-like toadiness to the humanized and especially ‘sacralized’ groups. Notice that the ‘sacral’ Jews count for much more than merely ‘humanized’ Palestinians. And in the case of brown George Zimmerman and black Trayvon Martin OR the Muslim store-owner and black Michael Brown, the ‘sacral’ blacks trumped the merely ‘humanized’ Muslim merchant.

That is why even an innocuous sentiment like “It’s Okay to be White” is regarded as ‘hate speech’ by PC. It doesn’t say whites are better or should rule the world. It only humanizes whites, but THAT is threatening to PC because globo-homo supremacism depends on White Submission. If whites regain humanity and autonomy, they will no longer feel that they must cuck out to OTHER groups to possess human worth. They will feel they have innate humanness regardless of what others think. Then, globo-homo will lose control of whites. There is a movement, MGTOW(men going their own way), but that is silly as men cannot survive without women. But WGTOW(whites going their own way) is sound because whites can do just as well(actually much better) without non-whites and other hostile groups constantly berating and leeching off them.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Commentary on "Bolsonaro: a Monster Engineered by Our Media"(by Jonathan Cook)

Image result for bolsonaro

Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Nothing will make sense unless we mention Jewish control of much of Western Media and Finance. And of course academia that produces all the 'thinkers' and strategists and enforcers of law firms, courts, and deep state. While ALL global oligarchs and corporations have some things in common, ethnicity and group-identity do matter. Jewish oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, Chinese oligarchs, Iranian oligarchs, and etc. are all in the Game for Wealth and Privilege, but they don't think alike. The reason why Jewish Power hates nationalist candidates is because nationalism means 'our nation, our people, and our land first'. America First or Brazil First. This is bad for Jewish globalist supremacism because nationalist regimes will put their nation before Jewish globalist interests. Generally, a nation is defined by its majority population. Poland has minorities of non-Poles, such as Vietnamese, but Core Poland is the Polish people. So, a nationalist Poland is about prioritizing the identity and pride of Poles. Now, this shouldn't be a threat to ordinary Jews or even successful Jews. After all, Poland is open to world trade and has gotten over its worst anti-Jewish excesses. So, why are Jews so pissed? Because they seek world dominance and hegemony. And that means making white nations(and some others) prioritize Jewish-controlled globalism over nationalism. Also, nationalism, because it boosts national and ethnic pride and identity, is more difficult for Jews to manipulate. In order for Jews to gain control over a people, they need to suppress national pride in favor of 'white guilt' or Homomania or Afromania. Nationalism is like a heavily shielded phalanx. This is why Jews push Diversity, Homomania, Afromania, and White Guilt. Diversity makes it more difficult for white nations to pull together into one. Homomania undermines moral integrity, and young ones become most excited about waving 'gay' flags in honor of homo fecal penetration. Afromania undermines white manhood by presenting blacks as superior studs with more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. It infects white women with Jungle Fever and white boys with cucky-wuckery. It says black race is superior to the wussy white race that needs to be mixed with cooler blackness. And White Guilt makes whites feel that they are uniquely guilty of historical 'sins', and therefore, the ONLY permitted pride among whites is the Pride of Redemptive Self-Loathing. Then, Jews can manipulate whites into supporting Jews, the people with Sacred Victim Identity.

The problem with Jonathan Cook's brand of leftism is it analyzes the world only in terms of Economic Interests, as if the world is made up of Noble Poor and Evil Rich. He also assumes that all the Rich think alike. Not so, especially when a Rich People happen to have a strong ethnic identity. Jews do have a strong identity, and therefore, Jewish Rich aren't only out for money. They are out for Power in service of Jewish supremacism. Consider the sanctions against Iran. From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense. Lots of Jews can make tons of money dealing with Iran. Iran would be happy to do business with Jewish oligarchs in US and EU. So, why the sanctions? Why are Jews sacrificing business opportunities in Iran? It's because they, as an ethnic-minded people, see Iran as a threat to Israeli hegemony. And take Russia. Jewish bigshots can make tons of money by encouraging more trade with Russia. So, why the sanctions? Because Russian brand of nationalism(though mild) and sovereignty inspires other nations to defy the Jewish globo-homo hegemony. So, unless Cook mentions the Jews, he won't get at the heart of what is going on. Indeed, one reason why even non-communist Jews valued Marxism and ideology of Class Conflict was because the theories obfuscated the level of Jewish involvement in capitalism. By turning the conflict into one between the Workers and the Generic Bourgeoisie, it led people to overlook the fact that Jews had a special role in world capitalism, especially in finance. People don't live on bread alone. Money is nice but ultimately meaningless. Like Sheldon Adelson said, he found true meaning in life by becoming an avid supporter of Israel. Money gave him privilege and power, but Zionism gave him meaning. Granted, there are lots of rich people without meaning. They just rake in all the dough. But such people eventually end up serving those with meaning(whatever it may be) because power is like electricity. In and of itself, it has no higher purpose. It has to be directed at something. So, power from an electric generator is used to power TVs. Or radios. Or computers. Jews use the Juice to serve the Jews. This is why they are so powerful. They not only have money but meaning. In contrast, deracinated creeps like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have no meaning except money, money, and money. So, when it comes to meaning, they follow the lead of the Jews who do have meaning. So, Bezos' Washington Post continues to shill for Israel and Jewish supremacism even though Bezos the Bozo isn't Jewish.

Simon Jenkins:
When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.

Of course, Jenkins is full of BS. Not because he's wrong about much of social media but because he'd be fine with the lies, fake stories, vulgarity, and stupidity AS LONG AS the political outcomes favored globo-homo hegemony. After all, homomania was spread through trash culture, celebrity nonsense, PC mobs on social media, and lots of herd-like hysteria. But people like Jenkins never protested the trashiness as long as it served their agenda. Also, the reason why there are so many crazies in social media is because the globalists have pushed the erosion of roots and culture. So, we have too many clowns who get swept up with the latest trends, fashions, and hypes. If there is one good thing about the spread of nationalism via social media, it is the desire to reconnect with roots, identity, and heritage that give life meaning.

Also, even if social media are full of fake news and conspiracy theories, they are beneficial as counterweight against the power of Deep State and Corporate Media. Alex Jones spread lots of nonsense, but his conspiracy theories did encourage his fans to be more critical and less trusting of the Deep State and globalism. Given that the Deep State is a warmonger and that the big corporations brainwash us with endless BS advertising, it's not the worst thing to be more distrustful and cynical about the Powers That Be. Under Limbaugh-ism, many Americans were led to support the Iraq War. But under Jones-ism, Americans are far more likely to question the US aggression. Indeed, Jones condemned Trump for his attacks on Syria. Social media are filled with lots of alternative truths and lies. But even alternative fake stories are still preferable to fake stories by MSM because, whereas MSM tells lies to support globo-homo imperialist hegemony, alternative fake stories are made to question the Power and oppose imperialism. So, even if not every alternative 9/11 story is true, it still encourages people to ask more questions than just TRUST the Power, which by now is utterly corrupt, not least because it is concentrated in the hands of Jews who, unlike Wasp elites of old, will not tolerate any criticism of them. Jews say we must condemn 'white nationalism' but ignore the fact that 'white nationalism', like other forms of nationalism, is a reaction to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews in media say they are going to do to white people what they did to Palestinians -- replace them permanently -- , of course nationalism against Jewish supremacism is going to be a response. Jews claim that they stand for a polyglot multi-cultural society against 'white supremacism', but Jewish vision of Diversity isn't about all peoples sharing power equally and proportionately. No, it's about Jews at the top using the Diverse Mass against white people. It's like British using their multi-colored troops to put down national resistance in the colonies. If Jews were truly for equality and proportionality, they would be pushing for a New Social Order in which Jews own only 2% of wealth, 2% of media, 2% of Wall Street, 2% of Hollywood, 2% of gambling, 2% of Silicon Valley, 2% of Law firms, and etc. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population. But Jews never seem alarmed by the fact the the 2% is gaining more of the wealth, privilege, and power. So, Jewish opposition to white nationalism is to protect Jewish supremacism. Jews seek to use Diversity to create divisions against goyim so that the 98% won't be able to unite against the 2% that rules the West.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.

If Trump is an intensification of the worst impulses of neoliberal order, why are Jews and Deep State so angry at him and even cooked up Russia Collusion nonsense to derail him? If neoliberals are all about greed, why do they oppose Trump's wish for peace with Russia? It will mean more business opportunities for US corporations and businessmen? NeoLiberal is Judeo-Hegemonic, and Jews put their identity and power above all things. The fact is the US is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth. So, when Trump says he is a nationalist, it is a green light for other nations to follow suit. Neoliberals hate this because their increased profits depend on Free Trade Globalism. Also, Jewish supremacism depends on suppression of national identity and pride in goy nations, esp white ones. Money isn't everything, and Jews know this. Germany is the biggest and richest nation in Western Europe, but it is politically among the weakest. Why? It's nationalism and identity have been totally suppressed by Shoah-Worship and German Guilt. So, Jews can run circles around Germany despite its great wealth. In contrast, Hungary, though much smaller and poorer, has pride of identity, and that makes it difficult for the likes of Soros to run roughshod over it. It's not only about money and class. Jews know that national identity is the most unifying force in a nation. Indeed, even a poor backward nation like Vietnam was able to expel a superpower like the US because of the power of nationalism. Rich people, middle people, and poor people can become one under nationalism. Even socialism works best along with nationalism. Nationalism breeds trust and shared sense of destiny. Socialism works better within homogeneity than amidst diversity where some groups feel they are being robbed by others. Because socialism works best within the national framework, the fascist-socialism is the best kind. Sweden's success didn't owe to democracy or liberalism. It owed to homogeneity, intelligence, trust, and unity of rich-middle-and-poor. But look how the social fabric and social welfare in that country is beginning to fray with Diversity Invasion that fills the nations with leeches.

Trump and Bolsonaro are not logical CONCLUSIONS of the world order. They are limbo-figures. What they stand for is inconclusive and contradictory, not least because the nations they rule over are now so diverse, fractured, and messy. Trump has been all over the map, partly due to his impetuous nature but also due to Deep State obstacles that have sabotaged his plans for making up with Russia, ending war in Syria, and erecting a wall along the border. Because of these pressures, Trump has been forced to be even tougher on Russia to prove he's not a Russian agent.
While the super-rich may prefer Trump's tax cuts, they are not just about money. Most of the super-rich hate Trump because they are either Jewish and/or Globalist. Jews hate Trump for reviving nationalism(that may stand in the way of Jewish supremacism), and globalists like Bezos hate Trump because they are post-national and see the entire globe as their oyster for the taking. A nation, even a nation as big as the US, is too small for their scope and ambition.

Do the globo-oligarchs prefer 'fascists' like Trump and Bolsonaro over true socialists? Maybe, but keep in mind that Bernie Sanders stood with the globalist oligarchs against Trump in 2016. Also, Sanders seems to be just as anti-Russia and anti-Syria. So, is Sanders really a Socialist First or Zionist First? As for Jeremy Corbyn, the Establishment's opposition to him has little to do with his economic policies. The Power knows they can always pull the strings and manipulate things to rein in socialism no matter who wins. The reason for all the ire against Corbyn has been his pro-Palestinian stance. Most media are owned or financed by Jews. If Corbyn just played at being socialist and waved the Israeli flag, Jews would be seeing him as their boy. But Corbyn has often sided with Muslims and Palestinians, and this pissed off Jews. British Jewish elites pushed mass-immigration-invasion into the UK to use non-whites against whites. The Jewish narrative was 'we noble Jews and you noble colored against those evil racist whites'. But Corbyn listened to Muslims who said, "Racist Jews are killing Arabs and waging evil wars in the Middle East" and agreed, even if mildly. And that set off the media firestorm against him.
So, what do Corbyn and Trump have in common despite their different economic theories? They are both hated by Jews. Jews hate Trump for igniting 'white nationalism'(against Jewish supremacism), and Jews hate Corbyn for supporting Palestinian nation-hood(against Zionist supremacism). The failure to mention the Jewish Power in this is either a blindspot or craven cowardice on the part of Jonathan Cook.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US... Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz InĂ¡cio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule.

Hugo Chavez became virtual dictator. He rose through army ranks, and he used cronies in the military to back him. The reason why his successor is still in power is due to strong-arm tactics. Also, Chavezism failed for two reasons. Total dependence on high oil prices and promising freebies to masses of Diversity. Even as Chavez railed at Uncle Sam, his nation's economy depended totally on American capitalism. Without US consumers buying Venezuelan oil, there was no economy to speak of. Also, Venezuela is a low-trust and low-talent society. All that race-mixing led to too much low IQ and high-impulse African genetics. And, Diverse societies lack trust. White elites in Venezuela don't feel a common bond with the masses. And mixed-race people are confused in identity and feel nothing in common with native Indians. With such low talent, its economy depended on selling oil. And when oil prices were high, Chavez could dole out freebies to the masses to gain popularity. But he did nothing to expand industry or encourage enterprise. When oil prices plummeted, the whole thing collapsed. Socialism only works in tandem with nationalism and productive capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth that can be taxed. No taxation, no socialism. Communism was about all the economy run by the state, and that was one huge failure. Also, socialism requires trust. People must think in terms of paying into the system and getting things back. In low trust societies, people try to pay nothing in while getting everything out. Now, a homogeneous people can be lacking in trust too. Look at Greek national character(though, to be sure, Greeks are much mixed due to endless invasions). But diversity makes it even worse. This is why any socialist who rejects capitalism and nationalism isn't for real. Socialism must rely on healthy capitalism that can be taxed. Socialism must maintain national unity that allows for trust and common bonds. This is why Swedish socialist policies must be for Swedish. If Swedes conquered Poland and Hungary and tried to maintain socialism for all three peoples, it'd be a mess as there would be too many divisions. How did Soviet socialism work throughout its vast diverse empire? Non-Russians got tired of Russian imperialism, and Soviet elites got sick of providing free stuff to an empire of leeches who did minimal work but demanded maximal benefits.

The real problem of Latin America isn't socialism or lack of socialism. It's diversity. Socialists will say all the world will become nice if they adopt Swedish social democracy, and libertarians blame the failure of Detroit on 'socialism' of the Democratic Party. It's all BS. Swedish social democracy worked for Sweden due to its racial, social, and cultural factors. Sweden will fail as it fills up with Diversity. Its social democracy will not work in an African nation with too many contentious tribes, low IQ, and lack of cultural capital. But then, libertarianism will also fail in places like Detroit because blacks are predisposed by genetics to be wild and crazy. Yes, that is race-ist but race-ism is truth. Races evolved differently to have different talents. Blacks are talented at chucking spears at hippos and running from them. They didn't evolve for civilization. They were not domesticated by evolution. Bringing them inside civilization is like bringing in coyotes and badgers into the house. They still got the wild genes.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America.

What about Cuba? Castro gained total power, and while the Cold War was on, the Soviet Union provided it with generous subsidies. But what did Castro create? Nothing. His entire economy depended on freebies provided by the Soviet Union.
There are good things about capitalism and socialism, and societies need combination of both, but Cook's worldview is simply, "It failed because socialism wasn't allowed to take over totally." Has he forgotten about how the Chinese rejected Maoism? How the Soviet Union collapsed? Communism doesn't work. Also, history teaches us that capitalism isn't a universal panacea either. While capitalism allows for great freedom and opportunity in business, it is also fiercely competitive, and some nations are bound to do better than others(or some groups in any nation are bound to do better than others). So, Hindus are far more adept at business than blacks in Africa. Chinese, with their generally higher-IQ population, have done better with capitalism, along with Japanese. In contrast, low-IQ nations failed with capitalism. Chinese have also done much better under capitalism than the native populations of Philippines and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, socialism isn't some panacea. I know socialists feel justified in pontificating about it because socialism is about 'social justice', but the world doesn't work simply on the basis of chest-thumping 'good will' and 'righteousness'. The fact is too many Latin American nations are too diverse, too divided, too low in IQ, and etc. to succeed with either capitalism or socialism. So, both libertarians and socialists are wrong when they apply their theories on the global scale. The best that such nations can hope for is a kind of humanist national neo-fascism where elites instill the people with some positive national character. It won't fix problems overnight but can set the nation forth on a sound long-term path that favors the right kind of genes and habits. Bolsonaro isn't such a character because he's essentially a lout.

Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

It's about the Jews. Jews hate Corbyn because he's pro-Palestinian. It's not about socialism. Jews and British oligarchs don't fear socialism because they can easily pull strings to undermine it, like they've done under both Blair and Cameron. What they can't stomach is how Corbyn gave moral support to Palestinians and Muslims opposed to Neocon wars. That is the good side of Corbyn. And his socialism isn't bad either. But he too is an idiot because he's for mass colonization of UK by Africans and Muslims. Ironically, even as he denounces Zionist colonization of West Bank, he totally supports the Third World colonization of the UK. This is why being a socialist isn't enough. One must be a social-nationalist.

Finally, the problem of putting socialism or class consciousness at the center of meaning is that class is too fluid. Consider all the immigrants in the US who began on the bottom but whose children rose to the top. If someone has a working-class father but becomes a rich person, what should be his 'class consciousness'? There are legit class interests, but class is not a deep identity(and ever-changing along with technology). Also, a society cannot function with a single class; communism tried to utter failure. It's natural to have several classes(and many sub-classes) due to differences in talent and specialization of tasks. So, how can the various classes co-exist and cooperate? With nationalism. Nationalism instills the elites with the sense that the masses are part of the national family to guide than merely economic units to exploit. And nationalism instructs the masses that the rich elites are okay as long as they use their wealth and talent for the good of the national community.
But globalism undermined this. Globo-elites, libertarian or proggy, pretend to care for ALL humanity, but that is of course impossible. So, they end up making noises but doing nothing except fill their own pockets... like Bono. It's like a parent who neglects his own children by pontificating that he loves all the children in the world. All talk, no walk.

The best societies are ones where socialism serves nationalism. The cooperation among the classes based on shared identity, trust, and culture of responsibility. Globalism and Diversity undermine all this.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Commentary on "A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism”, Part II"(by the Saker)

The Unspoken Truth about the history of American Power is that went from Wasp Elite to Jewish Elites. It didn't go from Wasp Elites to All Americans.

‘Antisemitism’ is now a trick term used by Jewish Elites to discredit any criticism of Jewish power and influence.

Contra the prevailing PC Narrative, the Power didn’t go from Wasp Elite Rule to All-American-rule(or power dispersed equally and proportionally among all groups of Americans). In other words, the power didn’t go from the Wasp tower to the American square. Rather, it passed from Wasp tower to Jewish tower. It went from Anglo-elitism to Judeo-elitism. THAT is the crux of the problem of American Power. If anything, the New Elitism of Jewish domination is even more unequal and unfair than the Old Elitism of Wasp domination. After all, Anglo-Americans made up a huge part of America. So, Wasp elites were representative of large section(the majority well into the 20th century) of America. In contrast, Jews are only 2% of America, and that means Jewish Elite Rule is really about domination over the 98% by the 2%.
Now, Jews may flatter themselves by claiming that their power is used for the good of all Americans and all peoples around the world. Really? Just ask the Palestinians. In fact, Jewish power compels the US to support Zionist mass murder of Palestinians. And Jews use US power to subvert Russia, Iran, Syria, or any other nation hated by Jews. Also, Jewish Power shuts down BDS movement in the US. Also, Jewish power favors the network of Jewish oligarchs in Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood who rake in all the profits for the globo-expansionist Tribe. And the ONLY reason Jews push for Mass Immigration-invasion is to increase Diversity among goyim so as to play divide-and-conquer over them. Notice Jews do NOT push for non-Jewish immigration to Israel.... even as they demean Hungary and Poland for wanting to maintain their ethnic, cultural, and territorial integrity.
According to the Jewish Narrative, Bad Old America was about Wasp elites hogging most power and privilege for themselves. So, the rise of Good New America was about the Power passing to All Americans equally. But it didn’t happen that way. The once-Wasp-Power went mostly to Jewish elites instead of to All of America equally. THIS is what Jews are trying to hide. They want us to believe either that

(1) The Power went from Wasp elitism to All of America equally(than to Jews)


(2) The Power still remains with Big Bad White Male Privilege, and therefore, Jews and non-whites must work together to bring down this Nasty Wasp Country Club Power.

The problem with this Narrative is that it totally ignores the fact that Wasp Elite Power passed over to Jewish Elite Power. In other words, Jews are the ‘new wasps’. Actually, it’s worse. If Wasp Power was out in the open, Jewish Power remains hidden. It is plain-as-day for anyone who wants to notice, but if the observer is honest about what he sees, he is denounced and destroyed as an ‘anti-Semite’.
If awareness about ‘antisemitism’ in the past was about protecting vulnerable Jews from bigots, it is now about safeguarding the ultra-power of the super-privileged Jewish elites. Jewish elites simply want us to remain blind, deaf, and mute about the fact that Wasp elite power did NOT surrender to All-American Power of All Groups, white and non-white, but instead surrendered to Jewish elite power.

Jews want non-white Americans to see Jews as allies and fellow comrades against white elite power. In other words, the American People are to believe that Jews have been anti-elitist and working hard to transform the elitist nature of American Power(in the hands of Wasps) into something more democratic and egalitarian. Burn down the white-shoe country clubs of privilege and turn American Power into one big square for everyone.
But in fact, Jewish Power did no such thing. Rather, it took over the elite institutions from the Wasps and has been ruling America on the basis of “Is it good for the Jews?” Jews didn’t burn down the country clubs. They took them over or built bigger and more lavish ones for themselves. To hide this fact, Jews train and hire yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong to bark at the ur-specter of White Privilege.

The fact that Jewish power hates Populism with such rabid virulence gives the game away though. Elitism is their thing. As for the former Wasp elites, they carry on with the charade of dominance even though they take their orders from the Jewish Bosses. Why? Because as long as they obey the New Jew Bosses, they are given a seat at the table. Clintons, Bidens, and Bushes can have a seat at the table as long as they sing hosannas to Jews and Israel while turning up their noses at Deplorables and Palestinians. So, we have Wasp politicians signing on to Wars for Israel and promoting Hatred against any people Jews don't like: Palestinians, Russians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. Also, cucky Wasp toadies kinda like the idea of 'White Privilege' because, despite its anti-white rhetoric, it gives the impression that Wasps still have the Top Power. Thus, craven Wasp cuckery can masquerade as magnanimity. Thus, Wasp comprador elites(who suck up to Jews) can play at being generous and 'inclusive' of non-whites and helpful to Holy Holocaust Jews even though, in fact, they are just toadying up to Jewish Power that uses the smokescreen of  'white privilege' to conceal the reality of Jewish Dominance.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Commentary on "Is Google Biased?"

Is Google Biased?

Of course Google is biased.

But the real problem is not so much that it is biased now as that it was UNBIASED(relatively speaking) at the beginning.

Google began with DON'T BE EVIL statement of principles. It claimed to be a fair, neutral, and unbiased arbiter of searches and information. THAT is why so many people signed onto Google and trusted it. That is why it got so big.

When Google's Israeli employees were caught messing with 'Pat B', Google fixed the problem. We were led to believe a few bad apples did it. It wasn't the official policy of Google.

If Google had candidly started out with a statement of its political biases and agendas, at least half of current users would have used another search engine. Google would never have grown into a monopoly IF it had openly declared its intentions at the outset.

Same with Paypal and Twitter. They got so big because it was understood by all that they would be un-ideological, unbiased, and neutral, fair to all. If either had started out by declaring Liberal or 'leftist' bias, many would have sought out another service or platform. They were supposed to be neutral-Libertarian.

Because these companies gained monopoly status only by having promised everyone neutrality and fairness, they must be attacked for deviating from their original intent.

Imagine if a closet-rightist Arab-American began Facebook with the idea that it would be fair and neutral to all. Suppose everyone signs up from far left to far right. But once Facebook becomes a giant monopoly, he says it's his company and he can do as he pleases and begins to shut down leftist pages and suppress Liberal news; he also shuts down Zionist pages and hires BDS to monitor for 'hate', most of which is identified with Jews and Israelis. The issue wouldn't simply be one of a private company doing what it wants. It would be about a monopoly reneging on the very promise that made it a monopoly in the first place. After all, many Zionists and their allies would never have signed up to the platform IF they knew from the beginning its ideological agendas and tribal biases.

Imagine if Zuckerberg began Facebook with a statement that it would favor Jews/Zionists over Palestinians and would be working with Jewish-controlled groups to censor or suppress pro-Palestinian, pro-Iranian, pro-white, and pro-Christian voices in favor of Zionists, homos/trannies, radical feminists, and black thug culture(of rap). Many people would have steered clear of Facebook, and many people would have gravitated to an alternative social network site, one that is conducive for conservatives. Zuckerberg is now working closely with Neocons to shut down 'hate'. Knowing neocons, we know that Wars for Israel aren't acts of hate BUT the Palestinian desire for liberation is 'hateful' and 'terroristic'.

These are not just private companies but monopolies, and they became monopolies because ALL OF US were sold on the idea that they would be fair to all sides. They lied to us. They pulled us all in with that false promise. Now that they got the power, they are using their monopoly position to favor certain views over others.

Also, when they invoke 'hate speech', they don't mean Zionist hatred against Palestinians, Iranians, and Syrians. They don't mean Jewish vitriol, paranoia, hysteria, and derangement syndrome about European patriots, American nationalists, Russians, and Hungarians.

It's gotten to the point where the Right should wage its own war on Hate Speech, that of Jews, homos, and black rappers/lunatics.
The problem is Free-Speech-Only is morally defensive. The Right is saying 'We defend ugly speech because of the Constitution.' It is legally sound but comes across as morally tainted. In the end, emotions can win over reason. The consecrated righteous can win over constitutional rights. Righteous are morally aggressive.
To fight fire with fire, the Right needs to identify Zionism, Homomania, radical feminism, and black thug culture as HATE and condemn them as spreaders of dementia and violence. And Diversity has to be associated with immigration-invasion and ethnic replacement. No one won a fight just by playing defense only.
Paypal denies service to Jared Taylor and Alex Jones for 'hate'. But George Soros and Zionist war-mongers(whose policies have turned millions of Muslims into refugees if not corpses) can rake in billions and use whatever payment platform they wish.

Shame Paypal for offering services to Zionist warmongers, Obama the war criminal who wasted Libya, Victoria Nuland the recruiter of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, Albright the killer of 100,000s of Iraqi kids, Hillary Clinton the terrorist-loving butcher of Syria, the moguls who promote gangster rap, and etc. Paypal is Hatepal.

Another thing. This isn't primarily about ideology but about identity. It's a myth that Silicon Valley and Jewish globalists are 'leftist'. Jews and globalists use 'leftism' as a ruse to push agendas that are good for the Tribe. If anything, Jews and their globo-cucks HATE leftists who are consistent in their principles. Jeremy Corbyn and Norman Finkelstein, like them or not, are consistent and principled universal-leftists. Corbyn attacks ALL nationalisms, even that of Zionism. And Finkelstein believes the US should treat Jews and Palestinians equally. And guess what? Jewish Power hates them.

Google pretends to be 'leftist' by hiring SJW nitwits to run funny doodles and hold anti-white-male struggle sessions. But this is all just for show. Notice it's always WHITE privilege but never JEWISH privilege that is condemned. Jewish elites are protecting Jewish Power by using 'white evil' as bogeyman. And all this Homomania is good for the Power Elite because vain homos serve the rich. And despite the tiresome PC slogans about Diversity, we know that Silicon Valley will be ruled by Jewish moguls, white execs, and Asian middle management and coders. Google Doodle is just a ruse, as are feel-good movies like HIDDEN FIGURES which gives the false impression that Hollywood Jews are really committed to black women running space programs.

Whenever people on the Right label globalists and Jewish elites as 'leftist', they are doing their enemies a favor. Globalist hegemonists and Jewish supremacists love being associated with the Left because it creates the impression that they are for the little guy, the downtrodden, the marginalized. The fact that homos and immigrant-helot-scabs than the native working class now define the 'Left' is proof that the Elites rigged the algorithm of Leftism to destroy True Leftism. If anything, today's Right(the real right, as opposed to cuckservatives) is more genuinely leftist in that it cares for the middle and working classes.

Also, the secret to Jewish Power was the use of left and right to serve Jewish identity. Jews make ideology serve identity. Without identity, ideology veers out of control. It's like without the sun, the planets will just fly off into space. Jewish rightism and Jewish leftism were given meaning, focus, and limits by the gravitational pull of Jewish identity.
Without an identity to serve, leftism becomes radical universalist nonsense.
Without an identity to serve, rightism becomes elite tyranny, like in the Age of Aristocrats when the elites looked down on the masses as mere serfs or cattle.
It is identity-as-covenant that makes the elites feel something for the people.
And it is identity that keeps leftism real. Leftism is good in championing the rights of the People. But which people? No ideology can serve All the people. Leftism works best in the national setting, as with the New Deal, Social Democracy in Northern Europe, and universal health care in Japan.
It is identity that humanizes the right(by making elites identify with the people) and keeps leftism real(by reminding the leftists that they should serve the nation than the world; the only reason Bolshevism survived was because Stalin opted for National Communism).

Because Jews have a strong identity, their leftism and rightism revolve around identity. Because whites now have a weak identity(unlike during the New Deal era), their leftism flies off the handle and obsesses over unrealistic things like 'endless refugees welcome' or 'Sweden as moral superpower must take in and save all of Africa and Afghanistan'.
Or their rightism turns into Ayn-Randian libertarian obsession with the successful, rich, and powerful with NO feeling for the white masses.
In the end, Chinese identity saved China from Mao's ideological madness. Even the nutty Chairman scaled back the Cultural Revolution because he grew worried about escalating Sino-Soviet tensions. Needs of national identity trumped ideological purism.

What Jews fear most is not white leftism or white rightism. They know white leftism will be too much about 'save the world' or 'worship the homo' to ever be about white unity. And they know that white rightism will be too much about 'muh money' and 'muh success' to be about unity of white elites and white masses. Paul Ryan the 'far right libertarian' only cares about the Koch brothers, not the white working class that is dying of opioids. What Jews fear most is white left-rightism. The unity. They call it 'fascist'. I call it 'neo-fascist'. But that is the secret to Jewish Power. Jewishism has always been quasi-fascist.

Finally, Jews pretending to be a Victim Group is as ludicrous as White Hispanics pretending to be People of Color. White Hispanics held tyrannical power over POC in Latin America forever, but now, they continue to hold elite positions in the US as the voice of the Hispanic Community BUT as members of POC. White Hispanics oppressed and raped browns forever in Latin America, but they dominate the Hispanic Community in the US in the name of the browns.
It can't get any lower than that. Well maybe not. Paul Ryan denigrating white identity(97% of him) but celebrating the 3% of him that is Jewish is even lower in character. Such a total cuck to Jewish moguls and oligarchs.

Friday, September 7, 2018

Commentary on "Regime Change — American Style" by Patrick Buchanan. Of Conspiracy Theorists and Conspiracy Realists.

All of this proves there are conspiracies afoot everywhere.

Indeed, it's a fact of power. In politics, media, academia, government. Think Enron. Think Neocons and WMD. Think how Bernie Madoff was able to get away with so much for so long. He had powerful friends and connections. Or why virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for financial crisis of 2008. Or how the Democratic Party undermined Bernie Madoff in 2016.

To see conspiracies, we don't need to make stuff up. We just need to closely look at the facts. That way, we can be Conspiracy Realists than Conspiracy Theorists. The problem with Alex Jones is he sometimes uses a telescope when he should be using a microscope. Instead of looking closely and clearly at facts through a microscope, he sees blurred images through a telescope and comes up with ridiculous theories. Uncovering conspiracies is usually mundane than mind-blowing. It requires more patience and perspiration than passion and inspiration.

There is NO need to make stuff up. Take the case of Sabrina Rubin Erderly and Jackie Coakley(and the made-up character of Haven Monahan). That was like a 'Consensuspiracy'. Even though Erderly didn't get together with rest of the media to defame the fraternity, the hive-mindedness of the Establishment Opinion-Makers was willing to endorse her story and spread far & wide WITHOUT checking the facts or raising obvious questions. The Narrative Consensus has been so geared toward shaming Evil White Males that most of MSM was willing to take her at her word, as was the case with Duke Lacrosse case where the Jew-and-Cuck-run media were all too eager to believe in the hoax about evil white boys raping a helpless black woman when, if anything, most real rapes in the US are overwhelmingly black-on-white. Now, how did the bogus UVA story become discredited? Key individuals just looked closely at the story, raised questions, and teased out the facts. And the story turned out to be total fiction.

The Deep State is filled with Conspiracy Practitioners, and they try to discredit their critics as 'conspiracy theorists'. Unfortunately, showmen like Alex Jones were all-too-happy to rant like lunatics and cook up crazy theories for sake of sensationalism and popularity(as people are drawn to wild stories). So, he was easy to debunk as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

But most honest journalists are, in effect, Conspiracy Realists. Their job is to look beyond the official story and uncover how abuses, frauds, or massive corruptions happen as the result of collusion among the 'connected'.

The fact that there are laws against insider-trading proves that conspiracies and collusion happen all the time. If they didn't, there would be no need to criminalize them. Sometimes, it's a case of conspiracy vs conspiracy. The men around Richard Nixon conspired to burglarize Watergate, and if Pat Buchanan is correct, the Deep State conspired to oust Nixon(even though it had conspired to protect men like Kennedy and Johnson of worse abuses). Politics of Scandal says what goes by the name of 'scandal' is more a media construct than objective truth. Because there is so much corruption in government, just about anything can be construed as a 'scandal' to bring down someone. Or, total fantasy, like the 'Russian Collusion' scandal, can be created out of the thin air to spread the impression of how Trump as the Siberian Candidate.

Maybe from all this mess, Alex Jones will finally grow up and go from being a Conspiracy Theorist to a Conspiracy Realist. We need more Conspiracy Realists when so many journalists in MSM are PC-addled scribes, propagandists, or even agents of the Deep State.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Commentary on "Economist: 'What Is Racism Now?'"

The Economist's Lexington's yammering about 'white racism' is so much bogus nonsense. If anything, the real moral scandal is that white power is being currently used to serve Jewish supremacism.

Read Lexington's stupidity in the link below:


The Economist article by ‘Lexington’ makes no moral sense.

White people conquered and took land from Indians. Okay, one could see tragedy there. In order for the US to have come into existence, the native American Indians had to go. White people should acknowledge that historical fact and make amends. Fair enough.


White people bought slaves from African kingdoms and brought them to North America. These blacks were brought by force and toiled as slaves. And later, they were denied freedoms and rights that were secured for whites. White people should acknowledge that as part of their history. Fair enough.

One can speak of White America's historical wrongs to Indians and blacks(who were brought as slaves). But WHAT WRONG did the US do to the rest of the world? Why does White America have to make amends to the entire peoples of the world via endless immigration-invasion when the US was not founded and developed by taking their lands or enslaving them?
By what right or moral justification do peoples around the world have the moral license to enter the US and take over stuff founded and built by whites? What historical or moral claim do they have on White America? "Hey, I'm Nepalese. White Americans owe me stuff. If they don't let me in to leech off their achievements, they are 'racist'." Huh?

At least American Indians can argue, "This was our land". At least blacks of slave ancestry can say, "Our ancestors picked cotton but weren’t properly rewarded for their work."
What claim does the rest of the world have on White America?

Also, let's give white race-ism some credit. If anything made the US possible as a great rich powerful nation, it was white race-ism. Sure, it had its dark and violent side, but there was NO WAY the US could have been possible without the White Race War on the Indians. For starters, even if whites had approached Indians with the utmost love and peace, Indians would still have said NO to the American Project because it would have meant the extinction of the Indian way of life as happy savages romping around with bisons and wolves. (The only reason why so many peoples all over the world want to come to the US is because white race-ism conquered land from Indians and built a rich modern nation that became the envy of the world. ONLY white race-ism could have done it. Give white race-ism some credit.)

Also, the reason why the US expanded and developed so fast and powerful was because its immigration policy was race-ist and let in mostly whites. This was most useful because whites had the cultural assets and intellectual capital to create a modern society. Also, racial homogeneity led to greater unity and higher levels of mutual trust, something non-existent in Latin America where excess racial diversity and race-mixing led to social confusion. Also, as whites were elite minorities in Latin America, they never felt a real sense of unity with the teeming brown masses. If anything, the (white)elite oppression of the (brown)masses became more intense in Latin America, like the caste system in India.
Imagine if the US had a colorblind immigration policy from the very beginning. Suppose US became 80% non-white already by 1850. It would have been just another failed Latin American nation. Or, imagine most of the 13 colonies been settled by non-whites. Would the American Project have been possible? Virginia settled by Chinese, Carolina by Hindus, New York by Muslim Arabs, Pennsylvania by Turks, Massachusetts by Zulus, and etc. Could it have formed into a single nation or developed as a modern Western democracy?

Also, even though blacks were clearly oppressed in the US, negative white feelings towards blacks were partly justified. Whites had made a huge mistake by importing a savage race that is more muscular and aggressive. So, granting equal freedom to blacks risked unleashing tons of social problems, and boy oh boy, haven't we seen a lot of that, especially since the 1960s. And Europe is now seeing a lot of it too due to endless waves of Afro-Invasions.
Even though this will be sound morally problematic for many, the US probably gained from the suppression of blacks for much of its early history. If blacks had been granted equality much sooner, Detroit would have become 'Detroit' much sooner. Look where South Africa is headed as the result of black takeover.

At any rate, the Moral Argument of globo-homo PC makes no sense. Its ludicrous logic says, because past whites committed wrongs against Indians and blacks, current whites must atone for their historical 'sins' by letting their New World creation be taken over by invasive peoples from all over the world despite the fact that white Americans hadn’t taken their lands or used them as slaves.

Now, it could be argued that the US did wrongs to other nations. But these issues can be resolved on a nation-by-nation basis. US fought bloody wars in Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and problems still linger. But that is an issue for diplomacy. If there are still people in Vietnam who suffer from Agent Orange, maybe US can offer medical help or offer some kind of reparations. But there is no moral claim for Vietnamese to flood into the US.

If anything, it is the nationalists, especially of the white kind, who are calling for NO MORE WARS and no more neo-imperialist interventions(especially at the behest of Israel and Zionists). They don't want white people to take part in new wars of aggression or intervene in other nations. They detest Deep State machinations around the world by CIA and other psychopathic agencies.
They bemoan how America's lone-superpower antics(after the end of the Cold War) led to so much grief in the Middle East and North Africa. All that madness was steered by people who claimed to be for 'liberal democracy', 'human rights', and 'anti-racism', but, seriously, who did more harm to the Middle East and North Africa? John McCain(the Grand Wizard of the CCC or Cu-Cucks-Clan) or Peter Brimelow(or Jared Taylor)? Funny that the so-called white 'racists' want to leave the world alone and be left alone in turn, whereas the 'anti-racists' want to destroy other nations, restart a 'cold war' with Russia(to the point where relations between US and Russia are worse than during the real Cold War), and flood the West with non-white moochers whose children are instilled with anti-white vitriol by PC education and pop-culture.

In truth, this anti-white globo-homo nonsense isn’t really about fighting 'white supremacy'. It's about maintaining Jewish Supremacy. After all, if white people thought in terms of white identity and interests, they will focus on their own limited racial-national affairs and leave the rest of the world alone. But, that means they won't be serving Jewish interests and agendas on the world stage. Jews have globalist ambitions of dominating all the Middle East and North Africa.
They got White America to smash Iraq and Libya. They got White America to make a mess of Syria and Ukraine. They got White America to sing hosannas to Israel's oppression of Palestinians.
Indeed, Zionism is dangerous because it actually appeals to Implicit White Supremacism. Its subtle appeal to whites is essentially neo-imperialist: Great White Jews beating up on Brown Arab Barbarians. Thus, Jewish supremacism becomes a proxy of repressed and lingering traces of white supremacism-imperialism. If we really want to end white supremacism once and for all, we need to end white support of Zionism and Jewish globalism. We need to stop making white people savor supremacism-by-other-means. Since they can't be proudly white-supremacist-imperialist anymore, they relive the glory and spectacle of past imperialism by serving Jewish supremacism. Because white Americans see the Middle East Conflict in terms of White Jews whupping Brown Arabs, their support of Zionism is clearly an alternative form of white supremacism: Go White Jews, beat them Brown Arabs, or ‘muzzies’ or ‘ragheads’. If we really want to end white supremacism, we need to say NO MORE to white support of Zionist imperialism. And then, whites can focus on the limited needs of white identity and white interests within the national setting. That is modest and humble in range and goal. As Patrick Buchanan characterized it, 'Republic, not an Empire'. White interests should remain within white nations and white-made nations that, by the way, have every moral right to remain white(just like any black African nation has the right to remain black and African).

The crazy thing about the current state of affairs is that Jewish supremacism relies on white support, and this makes Jews nervous. Jews got power and influence but can't really do anything around the world without white talent, skills, and support. It's like the Brits in India had great power and wealth but lacked the numbers, therefore, their power was vulnerable IF the Indians were to disobey and refuse to serve British interests.

Zionism and Jewish ambitions in the Middle East(and even against Russia) cannot be sustained without white support of Great White Jews. Do blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. really care about Middle East issues or about Russia? No, Jews are obsessed about them, and Jews got whites to support them; and whites support Jews because they implicitly see Jews as the Other Whites, the 'good whites'(because they got the holocaust victim card as moral shield).

But this poses a problem. It means Jewish Power is aided and abetted by White Power. It is white goy power that allows white Jews in Israel & West Bank to beat up on brown Palestinians. It is white power that allows white Jews to engineer a foreign policy that has destroyed countless non-white brown Arab and Muslim lives. So, Jewish power draws from the well of white power. And as white Jews in the Middle East are clobbering brown Palestinians, it means white Jews and white goyim are working together to terrorize and oppress non-white brown people.

This is very inconvenient for Jews because it means Jewish Supremacism and White Power are joined at the hip. To cover up this fact, Jews push a narrative in the US that disassociates themselves from whites. Even as Jews call on whites to support Zionism and Wars for Israel(and new cold war with Russia) OVER THERE, they use their control of media to promote themselves as best buddies of people-of-color against those 'racist' and 'supremacist' whites OVER HERE. So, Jews want white soldiers to smash and kill Arabs in the Middle East and demand that white politicians 'stand with Israel' even as it crushes Palestinians, but then, these very same Jews indoctrinate, hire, and coddle rabid yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong to bark at the Eternal White Goy as the fount of all evil. But here's the paradox. How can whites atone for their 'white evil'? By supporting White Jews to beat up on Brown Arabs.

By the way, returning to the Economist piece, as long as we are playing the game of Associative-Morality, how about associating Immigration with Imperialism and even 'genocide' and slavery? After all, it was the mass immigration of whites that led to American Indians losing their lands. More immigration meant less and less land for Indians who got squeezed out by immigrant-invaders. (Also, those railroads laid down by the Chinese hastened white takeover of more Indian territory. So, yellows participated in the 'genocide' of Indians too.)
Also, what was the slave trade but Forced Immigration or Forced Migration? And weren't blacks out-competed from many jobs by arrivals of more immigrants? So, immigration = imperialism = slave trade = 'genocide' = black disadvantage. And Jewish immigration sure led to the demise of Palestine. And Han Chinese mass-migration into Xinjiang had led to internment of who-knows-how-many Uighurs.

If Chinese one day think like the PC West...
"Hey Uighurs and Tibetans, we're sorry we took your lands. We are racked with this awful yellow guilt, and we want to make amends by inviting ALL THE WORLD to take over your lands as well. Boy, that sure makes me feel so much better."

Funny, but despite America’s evil history, blacks with only 300 yrs of history in the US don’t want to go back to Africa, but blacks in Africa with 100,000 yrs of history there want to flock to white nations, even the US that once enslaved their kind. So much for black pride.

Friday, July 27, 2018

Commentary on "The Sartrean Existentialism of JFK's 'We Choose to Go to the Moon'" -- Threat Posed by the Black De-Facement of the White

"Whatever happened to existentialism."

The term ‘existentialist’ is hardly heard anymore but we hear A LOT about how such-and-such is an ‘existential’ threat. Russia is an ‘existential’ threat. Iran is an ‘existential’ threat. Nationalism is an ‘existential’ threat. But mass invasion of Africans into EU and mass invasion by world into US are not ‘existential’ threats... so the GLOB tells us.

The real existential threats were best understood by Pierre Boulle and Jean Raspail than by heavy-duty French philosophers who obsessed over abstractions or committed themselves to ultimately bloody radical agendas.

PLANET OF THE APES and BRIDGE ON RIVER KWAI were about Role-Reversals, with the Other on top and with white man as the slave. And THE CAMP OF SAINTS warned of Cuck-extinction(or Cuckstinction or Cuxtinction) of the West by invasion of the Other. Amusing that writers of popular fiction were closer to the truth than abstract theorists and radical intellectuals.

I wonder why Jean Raspail made the invaders a bunch of Hindu Dotkins. Blacks are far more threatening because they take over the Face of the nation EVEN WITH VERY FEW NUMBERS.
Every society is made up mostly of faceless people, and only a few people with faces. Take any sports spectacle. All those fans have no faces. They are just the mass of people cheering, part of the wave. Most in coaching and management have no faces. All those millions upon millions watching the game on TV have no faces. Even most athletes haven’t much in the way of faces. For example, in most football teams, many players are hardly known by name or face. Many are backup players. It is the few STARS who get all the attention, glory, and love. Michael Jordan got 90% of the attention during the heyday of the Chicago bulls. In boxing, 0.1% of the boxers, the champs, get 99% of the attention. As Jordan Peterson said in his book, few in certain fields get most while rest get crumbs. Communism tried to counter this, but it led to a few getting all the political power. The chosen few become the heroic, representative, and idolized FACE of society or nation. If lots of Hindus enter France, at the very least they won’t threaten the FACE of France. Frenchmen can beat Hindus in sports, and I don’t think Hindus would dominate pop music either. So, French men would remain as the Face of French heroism, manhood, aura, and pride... as Sports and Pop Music idolatry mainly define the representative and emblematic Face of a people. People like the notion of Idols and Champions. Most Ancient Greeks did not look like the idealized figures depicted in Hellenic sculptures, but those iconic images were prized as the preferred Image of the Hellenes. In the Golden Age of Hollywood, women across America(who were, on average, homely) looked to few Hollywood stars as the Idols. Most women were faceless and looked to the Idols & Celebrities to represent the Faces of America. This is why Harry marrying a mulatto is threatening to the Politics of Face of Britain. Royalty is more than a family. It is the Face of Britain. The Royal Face is worth a million common faceless faces. The fact that Jews put a face on a victim of Shoah made a huge difference. Anne Frank gave face to the tragedy, just like the appeal of Christianity was it added a Face to God. In contrast, the victims of the Ukrainian famine are faceless and nameless. They're just a boring statistic even if people know millions died.

In contrast to non-African non-whites who settle in the West, just a handful of blacks can upset the Native White Face because blacks are so much better at sports and sassier in music. Just a few blacks in Canada led to its top runners being black, its top boxers being black, and etc. So, even though Canada has a relatively small black population, blacks have become the FACE of Canadian manhood, heroism, pride, and etc. Same in the UK, France, Holland, etc. And the fastest runner in Japan is now some half-black guy. So, in a nation where blacks are tiny in number, a black guy has become the FACE of Japanese sports. (And Mongols have become the FACE of sumo. Japanese are becoming faceless in their own nation despite Japan being 97% Japanese. Again, most people are faceless, and the Face of a Nation is defined by few idolatrous fields such as sports and pop culture. When not ceding to blacks and Mongols as the New Face of Japan -- even Miss Japan was a black woman born of black guy humping a yellow woman -- , Japanese hide behind anime and manga depiction of Japanese as fantasy-whites.) The black threat to the National Face seems to be the one crucial thing Raspail overlooked by making Hindus the main invaders in his novel. (Do other races join the invasion? I haven’t read the novel.) While Too Many Hindus can surely cause problems, they won’t rob the French of the National FACE. In contrast, Blacks will do just that, indeed with just a small number. This is why black invasion is most dangerous. Black invasion isn’t just a matter of Demographics but an act of De-Facement of the Nation. (Imagine if whites are faster and tougher than blacks. Suppose only a few whites can upset the Face of a Black Nation. Suppose white 'migrants' enter an African nation where they become 5% of the population while blacks remain the 95%. Suppose whites come to dominate sports and black cheerleaders dance for white hero-idols while black cucks or blucks admire white guys as the representative symbol of manhood in a nation that is 95% black. They even believe tons of black women should put out to superior white guys. How pathetic would that be?) Just a few blacks can mean blacks taking over the areas that are most representative of the National Face, National Pride, and National Manhood: Sports and Celebrity mainly in pop music. With even just a few blacks, the new National Heroes become the black runner, black boxer, black footballer, black rapper, and etc. As idolized 'heroes', their Faces are revered by the faceless masses. The native masses no longer revere a hero/face of their own kind. They worship the black as the New Hero, the New Face. And that means blackness is prized, and this paralyzes the Will to say NO to more invasion by blacks since blackness has become a sacred icon of national glory. Consider France. After those blacks brought home the World Cup, can the admiring French say NO to more African invasion? The FACE of France is now black, while the masses of whites are just faceless cuckois fans who cheer for blacks. If Blackness is the New Face of France, then saying No to More African Invasion would be an Affront to the New Face of France... which is black. So, France can't say to Invasions such as this:
(It’s getting to the point where white athletes increasingly cannot compete in a globalized sports world where superior black muscle is key to victory. So, not only the US but EU is becoming Afro-athleto-colonized. As for black Africa, they can’t win much globally because there is little in the way of infrastructure and funding for athletes. Africa has lots of raw talent but hardly any system of coaching, training, and funding. So, much of the talent goes unharnessed. But in the West, there is the combination of white-made-and-sustained infrastructure, management, & funding AND profusion of superior black talent. So, whites work and pay to maintain a complex system of sports facilities, media, and finance to promote and celebrate black athletic talent as the New Face of Afro-Aryan Manhood. White ants work to maintain a system to hail and honor the high-jumping black grasshoppers. Faceless whites as workers and fans sustain a system to give the Official Face to black stars. But if blacks keep invading Europe that becomes Afro-Colonized territorially and sexually, for how long will Europe be able to maintain the infrastructure and systems necessary for modern sports facilities and complexes? If Europe becomes too much like Africa, it will end up with African-level infrastructures, the kind too often found in Detroit and Lagos. Without white work and management cucking out to black sports glory, blacks can’t achieve much in sports. For blacks to succeed in NFL, NBA, & European soccer, those elaborate business enterprises must be run by people other than blacks.)

In the ILIAD, most of the characters are faceless. Only a handful of characters are given prominent faces and personalities. Achilles, Hector, and etc. And of course, the gods. The rest of the soldiers are rabble(just like we don't know 99.99% of people who fought in WWII and mainly focus on a handful of Faced commanders like Patton, Rommel, MacArthur, Yamamoto, and etc. The Alt Right may be 'based', but it's the blacks who are 'faced'.) So, most people don’t count in the national imagination. When Greeks heard Homer tell his tale, they didn’t hear details of EVERY Greek involved in the battle. The narrative centered around a handful of key figures. Same in Arthurian legends. Only a few characters represent the hopes and dreams of all.  Even in the vast and sprawling WAR AND PEACE by Lev Tolstoy, only a few characters stand out. So, it really matters WHO is the face of heroism. To the Greeks, Achilles was one of their own, just like Hector was one of the Trojans. But blacks have a way of taking away the FACE from whites. Even a few blacks will lead to Athleto-Colonization-and-domination of a nation, and this will lead to cuck mentality of faceless white minions all slobbering over the Black Other as the New National Hero. Because blacks have become the New Face of manhood in the West, even historical white heroes like Lancelot and Achilles are being retro-fitted as black by BBC(which, in meme-o-sphere, has come to stand for big black cock) and other Western media. Colonization isn’t just about the numbers but about the idols. Black presence smashes white idols of manhood in white nations and replace them with black idols. Only blacks can do this to whites because only blacks can out-perform whites in athletic prowess, vocal volume, dance, and dong-booty-shaking. Indeed, the Black Face is winning not because black facial features per se are more appealing. Even today, most women prefer white face over the black face.  But black muscle beats white muscle, black dong is bigger than the white dong, and black voice is more powerful than the white voice. MLK cult is built around the voice. So, black advantages in those areas have become associated with the black face. A France that is 20% white and 80% Hindu could still have a White Face as National Idol as the French could out-do the Hindus in sports and music. (Bollywood music has only camp value.) But a France that is 5% black can smash the White Face as the National Face and replace it with the Black Face. As white men cannot compete with black men in raw manhood, whites must seek total separation from blacks in order to preserve white manhood(so essential to white survival as women mate with men with manhood) and to Re-Face the West with whiteness. Re-Face-ment must be a key element in Pan-European Revival. Afro-imperialism must be stopped. Afro-colonization and Afro-imperialism work according to the same logic as Western Imperialism of old. In the past, the West's rationale and justification for invading and colonizing all the world were simply that the West was superior in industrial output, organization, management, military might, and etc. West was more powerful, therefore it had the 'right' to conquer and rule over inferior non-white powers. Based on raw meritocracy of power, this made sense. Power over the Cower. But the non-white world resisted and said non-whites should rule themselves even if they were in inferior in industry, military, and knowledge. They could restore national pride only by gaining independence from Western Superiority. So, meritocracy wasn't everything. In order for each people to have pride, they must choose their own kind as rulers, icons, and idols over those of the Other even if it is more powerful and accomplished. This didn't mean that one couldn't admire and learn from the talents and achievements of the Other. Still, the Other must be regarded as the Other than the New Ours.

Imagine a white society where immigration reduces whites to only 50% of the population. The newcomers are Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, Hindus, and etc but No Blacks. Demographically, whites will have lost a lot, but they still get to dominate as the National FACE because whites will continue to dominate the most symbolically rich areas of sports, music, and etc. (Now, some may argue that people are stupid to fixate so much on such things, but the fact is people do. It's a reality, not least because of the Western obsession with competition going back to Greeks who turned everything into an Olympics of sorts.) But suppose some blacks enter, and they make up only 5% of the population.
But that small number will pose an essentialist threat to the White FACE as representative of National heroism and manhood. Races are different. If you invite a race that is tougher and stronger than you, then even a small number can demote and destroy your kind as the FACE of your nation. That essentialist threat eventually turns into an existential threat because white women will look to the Black Face as the New Idol of Western Manhood, and this will lead to ACOWW or the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs by Blacks. Imagine how many white European women those Africans on the French soccer team will hump in the coming months. Also, even non-athlete blacks will benefit from the trickle-down effect of Black De-Face-ment of White. As white women come to associate blackness as Western Manhood, they will go with ANY black guy as being a member of the People of Real Manhood. It's like when Obama won the presidency, Europeans were suddenly nice to All Americans in Europe as the 'people who voted for Obama'. Fringe benefits of Idol Politics or Idolitics.

So many Mexicans took over California but they remain faceless because they can't make it as athletes and rappers. Japan and Asia make so many electronic gadgets used all over the world, but Asians remain mostly faceless in the global use of those devices because Asians can't compete athletically, pop-musically, and sexually on the global scale. China held the Olympics, but most Chinese remained faceless while few black faces hogged all the limelight on the track fields. Because Asians can't win in real sports, they rely on the pop fantasy of Kung Fu masters in movies. (Asian women do have sexual value but only as me-so-horny objects to be taken by superior non-Asian men.) Asians make the smartphones but people around the world use them to send back and forth far more images and sounds of blacks who as seen as cool grass(hip)hoppers in contrast to diligent but boring yellow ants. Blackness is prized so prized globally as superior in the 'cool' areas that even Japan and rest of Asia are cucking out to blackness in imitation of the still dominant West.

Idol-Colonization or Idolonization is worth looking into. Globalism isn't about all the world sharing all their cultures, powers, and values equally. It is about Whatever is deemed the Best, Most Powerful, Most Popular, and/or Most Pleasurable dominating all the world as the Sole Superpower. So, the US military must rule all the world. Jewish finance must dominate all the money. Hollywood must dominate all cinemas. Rap and Twerking must be the music culture of all. US fast food must feed and fatten everyone. Homomania must be the new world religion. Globo-Homo America can meddle in all elections, but no one better mess with the US. Mandela must be the father of all peoples(but never mind Arafat) because Jewish Media as the Main Media(and Jews control Google, Facebook, and most platforms) say so. Black sports must take over all nations. There is a raw kind of meritocracy to this, but it means a few Winners dominating all the world as the Only People Deserving to Win.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Commentary on "Turning Turk"

“Continentalism,” a modern version of the old concept of Christendom, appears to appeal to virtually none today. Which might be too bad.

Problem of continentalism is it is prone to momentum-ism.

Some ideas have momentum, some do not. Some ideas are fixed and limited. Some ideas, by their very nature, build into a momentum. It's the mentality of game shows vs a specific task.
Suppose you're supposed to do a certain job for certain sum of money. It's a fixed proposal or idea. You'd make $1,000 and walk away after it's over. But game shows work on momentum-ism. Psychologically, it makes you want more. So, if you won a 1,000, it teases you with 10,000, then with 50,000, then with 100,000, etc.

This is why continentalism has been problematic for Europe. It set off a momentum that went from nationalism to Europeanism to something even bigger. Once the momentum is for something bigger, the elites want to think ever bigger and play for greater stakes. First, weaken national sovereignty for European Unity, and then weaken European Unity for Euro-Arabo-African Unity. The logic of the Romans. Once it went from Republic to Empire, the momentum just sought more and more.

Now, European cooperation is a good and necessary thing. But it must be based on nationalism or national sovereignty. It must be an agreement and collaboration among free and independent nations. But what happened with EU? It led to the megalomania of bureaucrats and elites(mostly from the top three nations, Germany-UK-France) who just wanted to play a bigger and bigger game.

European Unity than European Union should be the goal. Union means a literal unification of all of Europe under single auspices of power and control. It is political. In contrast, Unity is essentially of the spirit and sense. Free independent European nations should, in good spirit, work for greater unity and cooperation. But this should be realized by respecting national rights than trampling on them.
Indeed, without nationalism to act as counter-balance, the momentum for continentalism will lead to elites seeking to play an ever bigger game. EU began with much promise but went sour when it went from unity of free nations to the suppression of national rights and freedoms by globalism.

Also, as globalism in the EU is largely dominated by the US that is dominated by Jews, there was greater pressure -- intellectually, morally, ideologically, politically, financially -- for cucky-wuck post-European Elites to wage war on ideas of nation, identity, history, and territory. Also, the elites of smaller and poorer nations could easily be bribed to piss away national sovereignty for thirty pieces of silver. But populism led to rise of leaders who wouldn't or couldn't just take the thirty pieces of silver. This makes men like Viktor Orban truly remarkable in our time.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Commentary on "San Francisco is a Sh*thole" by Paul Joseph Watson

More cognitive dissonance or cogdis. Problems of 'Progilege' or Proggy-Privilege. People who live and work in San Francisco are obviously elitists who love their privilege and advantages. Okay, nothing wrong with that. People want the good things in life. More money, more luxury, more fancy stuff. And SF has lots of that, the kind of lifestyle affordable only to those who got credentials, connections, and/or money. But SF elites are not only materially vain but morally vain. They are proggy as well as privileged. As the most sacred values of current proggism are ‘diversity, tolerance, and inclusion’, these rich SF’ers not only want to enjoy exclusive material advantages but come across as ‘inclusive’ and welcoming. So, they make the right noises about how 'more evolved' they are. But the fact is SF is only affordable with those with money. So, what happens to all the derelicts, losers, lunatics, and ‘migrants’ who heed the call of SF’s welcoming tolerance? They end up in the streets. Tentrification follows Gentrification because the elites are doubly vain, materially and morally. In truth, they want material exclusivity and only want to virtue-signal without paying the price of their espoused ideas. But those ideas have real-life consequences as more and more bums hear about how SF is so welcoming and tolerant. They flock there(and also Portland, which is becoming Portosan-land) and make a mess of things in OCCUPY SAN FRANCISCO style. And even though SF elites really want to evict these bums, they don’t have the heart to take action because it would expose their ‘inclusive’ values as phony. SF elites were deviously clever in using economic power to gentrify and muscle out those who couldn't afford the rent, let alone home prices. It’s been an effective way to expel law-abiding lower class people, but what about those who don’t mind living in the streets? They can’t be priced out via gentrification because they’ll just put up tents or sleep on park benches. So, the Summer of Pooper Scooper. Looks like they got a black woman to be the front of taking tough measures to clean things up. If a black person does it, at least it’s not ‘racist’.