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’.

Commentary on "A Toronto School Where the Kindergarten Students Speak 40 Languages"

Whiteness -- white people and white-made institutions and economies -- is a magnet for the entire world. Diversity is not the product of people seeking Diversity. Rather, it's the accidental product of people around the world seeking whiteness.
As Canada is a white nation made by whites, countless non-whites want to move there(or to the US or EU). If people love diversity, they should stay in their own nations because most nations already have lots of diversity. Every African nation is tribally diverse. India and Pakistan are very diverse, as are Indonesia and Iran. Latin America is more diverse than the US in the sense that whites are already a minority in most of them. So, why do these people move away from their own diversity to nations like Canada or the US that are still white-majority? Or to EU nations, the homeland of whites? It's not because they are seeking Diversity. It's because they are attracted to Whiteness: White-run institutions, white-created industries, white beauty or white people as sex-partners, etc.

Diversity in the West is not the result of non-white Love of Diversity but of non-white attraction to Whiteness. If there were a nation filled with diversity -- lots of blacks, yellows, browns, reds, and etc -- but NO whites, most people would NOT want to go there. If most people were given a choice between moving to an all-white nation and Brazil(or India), they will go to an all-white nation. India is a very diverse nation but almost no white people. So, who'd want to move there on a permanent basis?

So, why do all these non-whites attack whiteness even as they want to be where white people are? Because in order to gain access to white lands, they must lower white defenses with 'white guilt' about 'racism'.

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Response to "Hungarian Foreign Minister DEMOLISHES triggered BBC reporter calling for open borders in Europe"

Actually, this is what the Hungarian Foreign Minister should have said:

Diversity works only within the EUROPEAN Union. In order for the EU to be European, it must be by Europeans and for Europeans. As it currently functions, the EU might as well be called the World Union, or especially the Afro-Islamo-European-Union. It says something about current EU that it is so hostile toward fellow whites in Russia and Hungary and Poland while being so celebratory and welcoming of Africans, Arabs, and Asians. So, basically, the current EU wages war on White Europe and tries to unite Europe with non-Europe. Furthermore, it wages war on the meaning of what it means to be European. According to EU, a 'European' is anyone who just comes to Europe and signs a piece of paper. So, history, culture, and blood no longer matter. A European with 10,000s of years of racial evolution in Europe and 1,000s of years of cultural history in Europe is NO MORE EUROPEAN than a newly arrived African or Arab who just learned the language and signed a citizenship paper. Basically, it means that the roots of a European has NO meaning. It doesn't matter if your roots in Europe racially go back eons and culturally go back millennia. You are NO MORE EUROPEAN than some Arab or African who just came for free gibs and to assimilate to globo-homo Hollywood-Rap culture.
Calling Africans, Arabs, and Asians the 'New Europeans' is a sleight-of-hand trick. It's like replacing orange juice with lime juice and labeling it as 'new orange juice'. Suppose I take over your house and call myself the 'new you'. That way, YOU didn't lose your house to me because I'm the 'new you'. So, the house still belongs to you because I am 'you', or the 'new you'. Isn't that ridiculous? It's all semantic BS.

Hungary joined the EUROPEAN Union to cooperate more fully with fellow Europeans. It didn't join to become one with Afro-Islamo-European Union. Also, Hungarians know what a real European is. He is a person with deep racial, historical, and cultural roots in Europe. But EU has changed rules so that ANYONE can become an Insta-European by signing a piece of paper. The rich stream of European blood has been replaced with the stamp of globo-homo ink. A true European has no more claim or birthright to Europe than billions of non-Europeans around the world. (This is the logic of colonialism and imperialism. Just like European imperialists tried to suppress the birthrights of the peoples they conquered, the globalist project of EU seeks to suppress any notion of ancestral claim and birthright among Europeans in their mother-continent.) EU will say dumb things like 'Europe was always a world of immigrants', but virtually all those peoples were fellow whites, fellow Europeans. Surely, a bunch of blacks going from one African nation to another is less jarring than a bunch of non-Africans settling in Africa. The same is true of Europe. A bunch of Poles going to Germany or UK is less jarring and disruptive than millions of black Africans and Arab Muslims taking over entire areas of Europe. Also, the history of Europe was about resistance against foreign invaders. Mongols invaded Russia and even reached Poland. They were eventually pushed out. Moors invaded Sicily and Spain. They were pushed back to North Africa eventually. Turks invaded Greece and parts of Balkans; they tried to invade more. Europeans rolled back the Turkish tide. Europe wasn't about inviting invasions by non-Europeans but about repelling them.

Anyway, it is not Hungary or Poland that violated the agreements of the European Union. It was the globo-homo elites of EU who've decided to collaborate with the Empire of Judea. They are not real leaders but comprador-collaborators. Their duty was to keep Europe European and to facilitate easier and more efficient cooperation among Europeans, but they undermined their own project by effectively uniting Europe with Africa and the Middle East(and even Asia). Meanwhile, they badmouth Russia because they're puppets of Jewish Supremacists filled with hatred for Putin who said NO to Homomania(as proxy of Jewish Domination).

Also, there is no greater human right than for a nation to survive as a people and culture. Demographic Imperialism that replaces the people and culture is a form of geo-ethnocide. It's obvious from the creation of Israel that massive movements of peoples can lead to a destruction of a people and culture. Massive Jewish demographic imperialism led to the eradication of Palestine. Palestinians live like animals in a zoo in Gaza. They live under Apartheid conditions in the West Bank.
After WWII, the anti-imperialist struggles of Third World peoples were all nationalist. Hindus in India told the British to go home because India is for Indians. Africans told Europeans to pack up and leave because black Africa belongs to black Africans. Anti-imperialism founded on the principle of universal nationalism was the most fundamental form of human rights. Before we can have individual rights and liberties, we must be free as a people from foreign or imperialist domination. For example, Palestinian individuals in Israel have many individual rights and liberties, but they are NOT free as a people. Their nation, Palestine, has been taken over by Jews, and all Palestinians, no matter how rich or free as individuals, don't have a nation because their land now belongs to Zionist overlords. If it happened to Palestinians, it can happen to anyone. Consider how Kosovo had once been the sacred homeland of Serbians. But over time, Albanian Muslims moved in and settled in Kosovo under Ottoman rule, and the Serbs lost their ancient homeland forever. But I suppose EU can advise Serbians to just see Albanian Muslims as 'New Serbians'. Of course, Albanians don't see themselves that way.

Also, Diversity has many meanings. The World is Diverse, after all. So, Diversity as a condition of the world isn't a problem. The world will always be diverse, made up of various races, ethnic groups, nations, cultures, religions, regions, and etc. But Diversity as PC formula is about forcing Demographic Imperialism on each nation(except Israel). Every nation must be made into a mini-world. But why? Hungary is Hungary, and it should be Hungarian. If you want to see China or Africa, visit China or Africa. Why bring China, Africa, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and etc. into your own nation, especially if it's small? If rising Diversity is such a huge headache for massive nations like the US and Brazil with so much space, imagine its impact on smaller nations like Hungary and Poland? At the very least, white Americans can flee from Diversity. In small European nations, you are stuck with it right outside your door.

The kind of Diversity pushed by EU is really a form of imperialism. Diversity as a condition of the world is just a reality. But Diversity as a formula is about coercing all nations(except Israel) to surrender to massive demographic imperialism and replacement. It's usually about higher-IQ prosperous nations with low-birthrates being demographically taken over by low-IQ peoples from poor nations with high birthrates. The result will be loss of entire civilizations. Just do the math. Over time, the current Diversity policy of EU will turn all of Europe into something like Morocco. Is Morocco a happy place? If diverse North Africa is so great, why do people there want to move to white Europe?

Also, EU's pontificating about Human Rights is so much BS. If EU really cares about non-whites, why doesn't it ever stand up to Jewish-run US neo-imperialist policy that destroyed so much of the Middle East and North Africa? For the most part, the EU didn't do anything about George W. Bush's illegal war on Iraq. EU was silent about Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright's sanctions that killed 100,000s of Iraqi women and children. The EU has continued to support Israeli occupation of West Bank. EU has gone along with US sanctions against Iran that hurt so many people. EU supported Obama-and-Hillary's destruction of Libya even though Gaddafi made peace with the West. EU worked with the US to aid terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart. 400,000 people died. EU never stood up to Jewish-run US empire that destroys millions of lives in the Muslim World.
Indeed, the so-called 'refugee' crisis is the result of Jewish-run US neo-imperialism in Middle East and North Africa. But the EU, that is gutless in standing up to Zionist-American power, huffs and puffs about Hungary and Poland whose only desire is to protect their nations. It is the Jewish-run US that is pushing the Invade-Invite Policy. It says the US should freely invade and destroy nations around the world(especially to serve Israel's interests), and as millions and millions of people will be displaced by such invasions, the white world must 'invite' those people as a 'humanitarian' gesture. So, Jews use Western Power to destroy all nations hated by Israel, and then, Jews morally pressure white nations to accept the 'refugees'. Of course, Israel takes none and won't even give back Golan Heights that was stolen from Syria. What a bunch of a**holes.

Finally, Diversity-as-Formula is a form of imperialism. Nazi Empire was about diversity. It was about many peoples being forced to live under the Nazi umbrella. Soviet Empire was diverse. It was about many peoples being forced to live under Soviet Hegemony. The EU is now about forcing demographic imperialism on every European nation to make them more diverse. Just like Nazi Empire forced Slavic lands to accept German settlers, the EU forces European nations to accept African and Muslim invaders displaced by Jewish globo-homo imperialist wars in the Middle East and North Africa. (Jews apparently want to use wars to empty the Middle East so that they can grab more territory.)

The EU project could have worked if it had remained European and respected the national rights of all European peoples. But it turned into an arm of Judeo-Globo-Homo project. As such, it went from a sunny project of uniting and preserving Europe to a stormy project uniting Europe with Africa, Muslim World, and South Asia. It came to be about forcing the Diversity Formula or the Demographic-Imperialist Agenda on each and every nation.

So, why did so many white people fall for this poison pill? Because Political Correctness imbues vain white people with a new kind of supremacism. If imperialist whites of the past were racial supremacists, today's whites are moral supremacists. They think they are soooooooo very goody-good and holier-than-others because they are so obedient to the Globo-Homo Agenda that demeans anything white and patriotic as 'racist' while extolling anything Diverse(usually black) as sacrosanct. So, just by mouthing sacramental platitudes about 'diversity' and 'human rights', these insufferably smug PC whites think they are superior to nationalists and patriots. But then, communists also felt morally superior by mouthing off platitudes about 'equality' and 'revolution'. Just another form of supremacism among people for whom every corner of the world must be made to cave to their dogmatically imbecile notion of right-and-wrong.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Response to "Voters elect against dividing Koreatown to include Bangladesh Town"

When US cities were white, non-white immigrants sought to assimilate with whiteness.

The idea was US is essentially a white nation but open to others as well.
The idea was that white people had the power, wealth, and good stuff. So, whiteness was the ideal, the standard. Quintessentially American. John Wayne stuff. After all, the immigrants left their own nations. And they didn't want to go to non-white nations but to white majority nations, especially America.

So, as long as whites had the numbers, prestige, and power, all non-white immigrant groups shared something in common: Respect for whiteness and wish to merge with whiteness. Whiteness lessened non-white vs non-white tensions because all non-white groups could ignore one another and move toward whiteness.

But over time in many cities, whites lost the numbers, the power, and the prestige(due to Jewish-controlled PC). So, in a city like LA, there are lots of non-white groups living alongside one another. But none of them represents something that all non-whites would want to move toward or merge with. Non-white groups once valued the movement-toward-whiteness as the process of 'Americanization', but the same cannot be said for movement-toward-non-whiteness(even though the official narrative is that 'American' is purely ideological and has nothing to do with race or even culture). (The exception is movement-toward-blackness in style and attitude but certainly not in jobs, schools, and residence.) It was once considered(and still is, albeit mutedly) prestigious for non-whites to merge with whiteness --- synonymous with becoming 'Americanized' --- , but the same cannot be said for merging with, say, Mexicans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Hindus, and etc. Even though the official ideology says Mexican-Americanism and Vietnamese-Americanism are just as American as white-Americanism, no one really feels this way in real life. Diversity really means the desire by non-whites to be included in the White or White-made world. Diversity without whiteness would be like building a model without glue. The structure wouldn't hold together. It's been said that Diversity means 'no more whites', but that'd be self-defeating like a model set without glue. Indeed, diversity without whiteness isn't appealing to most people. Latin America and North Africa are very diverse, but neither has enough whites. India is very diverse, but Hindus prefer to move to a white nation. Most people in diverse nations with no or few whites prefer to move to white nations. Ideal Diversity requires the White Magnet. Hindus don't want to be with blacks or even with fellow Hindus. Black Africans don't want to be with Hindus or even with fellow black Africans. Both want to be with whites, and the Diversity in UK is the result of non-whites preferring whites over non-whites(even their own kind).

If an Asian-American moves to a white community, he or she feels 'Americanized'. Indeed, he or she is willing to surrender his or her own identity to take up this new prestigious ersatz-white identity. But would Chinese-Americans want to give up their identity to merge with Mexican-Americanism, Hindu-Americanism, or even Korean-Americanism? I think not.

Indeed, it's interesting that Chinese have been in Southeast Asian nations for so very long BUT they've mostly retained their Chinese identity and pride. In contrast, so many East Asians in white nations instantly surrender everything about their race, culture, and language to merge with whiteness or 'westernness'. People will surrender their culture for something higher but not for something lower. Chinese will surrender Chineseness to become 'white' or 'western'(deemed superior to Chineseness) but not to become 'Filipino' or 'Indonesian'(considered lower than Chineseness). Maybe Sephardic Jews mixed more with Muslims and Arabs because they weren't all that smarter, whereas Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, being markedly smarter, were less willing to merge with goyim. I dunno.

If Los Angeles had lots of whites, this 'fancy' Asian vs 'jungle' Asian dichotomy wouldn't matter. Both the 'fancies' and 'junglies' would focus on merging with whiteness as the American Ideal. Indeed, Asian women find it most ideal to marry white and have white-looking kids. And even in Asia, lots of Asian women get plastic surgery and dye their hair brunette or blonde to look like cartoon-white-people.

But because whiteness is becoming a more precious commodity in places like LA, the 'fancies' and 'junglies' are becoming more ghettoized in their own identities. Vanishing of whiteness means less of something for which Asians(or other non-white groups) are willing to surrender their own identities in order to merge with something higher or more quintessentially American.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Response to a Comment on "Bullseye" by Steve Sailer. Jewish Scholarship vs Jewish Merchants.

“Jews prioritize scholarship and have been widely persecuted, therefore Jews don’t really tend to have genes that correlate with intelligence.”

Jews were rarely persecuted for their scholarship, at least until the late modern era. It was usually for their business practices and promotion of vice in culture. This hatred of money-makers can be found in Jewish culture itself. Much of the Bible is about moralistic prophets condemning the materialist money-grubbing Jews. Greed eventually leads to decadence, and Prophets warn of God's wrath that descends upon Jews to teach them a lesson over and over and over. Much of the Bible is about the scholarly moralism of Jewish prophets vs wanton materialism of Jewish merchants who lose their way in favor of idolatry.

Same can be found in Chinese culture. Confucianism prized the scholar and hated the merchant, considered the lowest of the low. And anti-Chinese sentiments in Southeast Asia had little to do with Chinese-devotion-to-books. It's because they love money. I doubt if any Indonesian attacked Chinese because the latter was reading the Analects or Tao Te Ching. It was about Chinese business acumen and practices.

For much of Jewish history, there was a kind of understanding between the Rabbis and Merchants... just like the Saudi Royal Family(of tycoons) arrived at an understanding with the Wahabi sect.
Jewish merchants would make lots of money but donate generously to Rabbis who, in turn, would be less judgmental about avarice. Same kind of relationship existed between the Church, Aristocracy, and Merchants in Christian Europe.
And even though Confucianism officially condemned merchants, it was the business class that made the economy work, and so, it was tolerated and protected by the Power managed by the scholar class. And today, the rich class in the West maintains a wink-wink pact with the Prog-priesthood of PC. Homo Worship binds them together.

Still, there was a strain of Jewishness that was virulently anti-Jewish-profiteering. Christianity began this way, with Jesus condemning the close ties between Temple and Money. And Confucianism was anti-Chinese-profiteering. It favored scholars and peasants(at least in prestige) over the merchants.

This all came to a head with Marxism. He declared War on Greed. It was a new round of Jewish prophets vs Jewish merchants. But if this sort of thing was limited to the Jewish community in the past, it became international because Marx was a Christianized atheist German living in the center of World Power. If ancient Jewish prophets kept the debate within the community, Marx universalized the conflict within the Jewish Tribe between prophets and merchants(just like Jewish feminism later projected Jewish male/female neurosis on the rest of humanity). Unlike Christianity that has a passive and otherworldly element, Marxism said heaven could exist on earth.
This did make Jewish scholarship dangerous and threatening in ways that past Jewish scholarship hadn't been. For most of Jewish history in Europe, the main reason for the anti-Jewish hatred was Jewish 'merchantry'. Most Jewish intellectual ideas were for fellow Jews and remained in the community. So, Christians had little interest in Jewish learning or ideas. But Marxist scholarship spilled out into the larger sphere and affected all of humanity. Many goyim welcomed it as liberating and empowering. Many goyim opposed it as radical, repressive, and Jewish. Granted, it wasn't technically Jewish since Marx was irreligious, didn't consider himself Jewish, and called for World Revolution. But it was especially appealing to Jews just like Freudianism was. The prophetic style of Marx was very much in keeping with Jewish tradition.

Marxism spread to China, and Maoism was maybe the greatest war on greed in the name of virtue. But, both Jews and Chinese learned that you can't run a society on moralism and prophecy alone. So, both peoples have arrived at their own 'end of history' of coordinating moralism with materialism. This is maybe easier for the Chinese because China is about Chinese ruling Chinese. Chinese leaders figure that common and basic morality would be good for most Chinese. Wealth is good but must be built on the shoulders of virtuous people. Excessive capitalism has made Chinese overly materialistic and soulless, and the regime wants to change that.
In contrast, Jewish scholarship is more ambivalent about moralism. While goy majority moralism may make for a more orderly and sound society, it also cuts into Jewish profits in Vice Industries like gambling. Also, moralism makes the larger community feel proud and confident. Christian moralism certainly strengthened goy righteousness. To weaken the goy majority, Jewish merchants and Jewish scholars work together to theorize and market immorality-as-the-new-morality. The result, from stuff like 'gay marriage', is quite obvious.