Is it part of the American DNA to dominate, transform, and convert the entire world with missionary zeal?
The Founding Fathers warned against US involvement in overseas affairs. To be sure, Americans were too occupied with settling a vast wilderness to dream of overseas empire.
Still, the political philosophy of America was not about an ‘exceptional’ right to go all over the world and flex its muscles.
In many ways, American political philosophy was ‘isolationist’, not least because US is so vast. It is like a world unto itself. Even without the rest of the world, Americans have a huge world of their own to themselves.
Americans were not keen on getting involved in WWI. And after the war, America drastically cut military spending and downsized the military: One of the reasons why Japan thought it could take on America. And the great majority of Americans didn’t want to get involved in WWII. It was only Japanese attack that roused Americans for entry.
And Americans were confused about Asian policy. Should America save China after WWII? Or just let it fall to communists? Should US involve itself in Korea? Or just move out? Initially, US decided to leave Korea and let the North have the South. But then, it changed its mind.
Also, the Cold War was mostly defensive. While US did prop up allies around the world, it was not the case that Americanism was aggressively knocking on every door. Maybe with Coca Cola and Pop Culture. But politically, US lived in fear of spread of communism, not least because so many Third World nations had been former colonies of Europeans and took inspiration from Soviets, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and later Castro and Che.
While not all national liberation struggles were communist, many looked to Soviets for inspiration or support. Some turned to China. If Africa and Asia had been European colonies, things were trickier in Latin America, a US backyard along the Monroe Doctrine. Yet, Latin America was a most strange case because it had double layer of Western imperialism: Latin Imperialism over natives and mestizos(and blacks in some parts), and Gringo Imperialism over Latin imperialism over natives and mestizos. This meant native/mestizo resentment toward white Latin elites. But it also meant Latin white resentment at the Yanqui or Gringo.
Some Latin whites collaborated with Yanqui who favored right-wing Latin elites over mestizos and natives who might rise up like the colonized in Africa, Asia, and Middle East. But some Latin whites decided to lead the natives and mestizos against both Latin elites and Yanquis. Pinochet or Che.
Because of post-colonial themes, US didn’t fight the Cold War aggressively but defensively. The question was not turning communist nations into capitalist ones but defending as many nations(esp non-white ones) as possible from turning communist or pro-Soviet.
So, even as the Cold War led to huge American expenditures, its theme was not about American Exceptionalism and spreading the American Way to other nations.
In both Korea and Vietnam, US struggled to prop up its client states against determined enemies who sought to unify the nations. And US failed with Bay of Pigs in Cuba and didn’t try again. And US shat bricks about Marxism spreading like wildfire all over Latin America. And US was upset that India, though not communist, was allied with the USSR.
Periods of American ‘exceptionalist’ jingoist-crusade had been rather limited. It only took off with the end of the Cold War.
The first round of US globalist imperialism was when Americans had finished the settling of the American West and looked elsewhere for spoils. And they saw an easy target in the rotting corpse of Spanish Empire. Taking Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Philippines was a cinch since the Spain was the dying man of Europe. As for the Monroe Doctrine that’s been around, it wasn’t about American messianism in Latin America. America more or less accepted Latin America for what it was after it had gained liberation from Spain under Simon Bolivar. America was content merely to have military superiority and some economic stakes. US had no designs to transform it.
Such missionary zeal was aimed really at Hawaii and Philippines. But they were pushovers and small potatoes, though Filipinos put up some resistance that led to bloodbath.
At any rate, near the turn of the century, US wasn’t looking to conquer the world, control the world, and etc. US took it for granted that European powers would rule much of the world: the Brits and French mostly but there were also Germans, Dutch, and others. US would go for easy picking like Hawaii, Philippines, and Cuba. And it would go for accommodation in China which would be cut like a cake among the various big powers, Japan included.
So, the US wasn’t looking for too much. It had reasons to be content because its own nation, along with Alaska, was so huge. What need to control the world when US itself is a world unto itself?
US messianism really came into being AFTER the Cold War. And to understand this, we need to understand the nature of Jewish Political Psychology(along with that of homos).
When US emerged as the top power after WWI, it could have played for supreme power in the world or at least a model beacon to the world. And to be sure, Wilson did try to propose the American Way to the world. But did Wilson really mean it? No. He was really talking about democratizing parts of Europe. He didn’t much care for the non-whites whom he saw as backward and inferior.
Also, the fact that US soon lost interest in Europe and turned inward goes to show that the American DNA was not infected with messianism and ‘exceptionalist’ world domination. If anything, many Americans began to feel that US involvement in WWI was a big mistake. US cut down its military and lost interest in much of the world. It didn’t care what was happening elsewhere. And Americans had to be dragged into WWII via Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
One could say FDR was the first truly globe-shifting American. He wasn’t content to defeat Germany and Japan in WWII but pressured Europeans to let go of their empires after WWII. He didn’t like Churchill’s jokes about the Hindu darkies. But was FDR being idealistic or was he imbued with global ambition in which America would become the new hegemon along with the USSR, for which he had a soft spot.
Did he want Europeans to drop the empire so US could pick them up? Or did he just want non-white peoples to develop their own nations and have good relations with US whose intentions would NOT be imperialist and exploitative? I dunno. At any rate, it appears FDR wasn’t interested in dominating the world or have US be the sole superpower.
And then, the Cold War mostly had US shitting bricks playing a defensive role. The problem wasn’t only containing communism but preventing the alliance of non-communist non-white nations(rich with natural resources and populations) with the USSR, as happened with India and Egypt(before Sadat switched alliances).
Anyway, the kind of ‘exceptionalism’ that became the globo-neo-imperialism really only took hold after the Cold War. And we have to consider the Jewish Factor in this. Indeed, Jews were the great exceptionalists even during the Cold War.
American Policy during the Cold War was to accommodate the non-white peoples(even supporting them against former European colonizers) so that they would lean toward the US than to the USSR. And US could have done this in the Middle East and North Africa. As US had more to offer in terms of aid, all those nations should have leaned to the US than to the USSR. But why did some key Arab nations turn to USSR? Because of Israel. From the viewpoint of foreign policy, US support of Israel made no sense.
Why sacrifice alliance with key major Arab nations by supporting a small state of Israel that was NO strategic importance to the US? It was because Jews had great power in the US and were in the process of turning the Holocaust into a religion that had to be worshiped. The real McCarthyism of American Politics has been the witch-hunt for anyone who is not 100% committed to Israel and Holocaust as religion.
Jewish interests became an exceptionalist factor in America no matter how irrational they were.
American attitude after WWI goes to show that Americans were generally content to operate within the national model. And Americans might have done the same thing after WWII. It was the Cold War that forced Americans to become involved all over the world. Actually, not just the Cold War but the collapse of the European Colonial Order. IF the only two nations left in the world after WWII were US and USSR, US might have just ignored the commie USSR and went about its way. But the fall of the colonial order meant the possibility of the Third World lurching to the commie side. Unless US stepped into the fray of the Cold War, much of Asia, Africa, and Middle East could turn communist. And then the majority mestizos and natives of Latin America might rise too, either led by Latin leaders or by native/mestizos. And of course, US had to defend Western Europe too.
Anyway, when US saw China fall to the communists in no time, it began to shit. Just how did that happen? Maybe FDR invited Soviets cuz he wanted the commies to win. I dunno. Or maybe he underestimated the full implication of his Asian policy. It’s hard to discern what he really wanted cuz he was a devious man yet not without genuine ideals. Whatever the case, US fought the Cold War in the mode of Damage Control and to stop the bleeding, not to spread American domination all over the world. The main theme was “Don’t join the Soviets” than “Be sure to Join us” or "Be just like us."
But one thing for sure, after the Cold War, there really was no reason for US to get overly involved with the world. It could just trade with other nations, and that was it. Communism was dead. Even Latin American guerrillas pretty much gave it up.
North Vietnam may have won the war, but US won the peace, as Asian nations allied with the US made the real achievement in economy, politics, and health.
Russia ended the communist party and was ready to do business. The fall of the Berlin Wall earlier was epic. Soviets were willing to let its former subject nations go. Amazingly, the Russians went further and dismantled even the USSR itself. Russia gave up huge swaths of territory, especially Kazakstan and even Ukraine, culturally so close to Russia. And with no more Soviet support, Third World Marxist insurgencies were totally dead.
So, why didn’t America do what it did after WWI? Just mind its own business?
When WWII ended, the Cold War loomed. But when the Cold War ended, the global war was really over. There was no more need for more mega-conflicts. Francis Fuku was right on this. Even if the American/Western ideology won the great battle of ideas, most Western Europeans and Americans had no desire to transform the world.
But what Fuku failed to understand is that civilizations are not only ideological. They can be ethnological. If patriotic Anglo-Americans had firm control of the US after the Cold War, maybe things might have been different. But the so-called End of History also brought about the End of Anglo rule and rise of Jewish rule. And that changed everything.
When WWI ended, Anglo-Americans and other white Americans could just turn inward and be happy as Americans. They could accept the national model.
But Jews have always been uneasy with the gentile national model. It could mean gentile majority against Jewish minority. So, Jews feel safer playing with the globalist model. It weakens the national identity and loyalty within gentile nations. It turns white elites away from white masses(the coming apart) and makes them identify with the World as ‘global citizens’ and the source of masses of new immigrants. Globalism could undermine gentile unity in every nation. This is why Jews hate Viktor Orban in Hungary and the angry patriotic Poles. And of course, they hate Russian’s neo-nationalism that united Putin and other Russian elites with Russian masses. This has thwarted the Jewish takeover of Russia. Russia is friendly to Jews, but that isn’t enough. Jews feel that unless majority gentile power is totally destroyed, they won’t be safe as supremacist overlords. Jews have strange dreams of naked Trumps and Putins coming after them with Nazi armbands and SS dildos to shove up their arses. (Indeed, American Exceptionalism is as much about the American gentile masses surrendering to the world as the world surrendering to American power. Invite/Invade. And American Values are to be decided by Jews and homos rather than by gentile straights who make up the great majority, whose fate is to be rendered into just another minority by mass immigration. American Exceptionalism is not about the world being transformed by the values/culture of the white Christian majority. It is about both the world and white American Christian majority surrendering to the power of Jews, homos, and gangster rappers. If anything, even as American Exceptionalism imbues Americans with special pride and power, it also fills white Americans with guilt, shame, and inferiority for not working hard enough to transform America faster into a multi-culti state like Brazil. This 'exceptionalism' is as much about White America being demographically conquered by the world as American Power conquering the world via finance, bombs,and trash culture. American Exceptionalism is a crazy game where white Americans are told that they are winning by losing.)
So, after the Cold War, Jews pushed US into a globalist mode. They cooked up this notion of ‘proposition nation’ and ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation that must involve itself with the rest of the world(usually for the sake of Zionist interests, which is why most of US wars have been in the Middle East and North Africa and other Muslim nations than elsewhere). What has happened to the US as the result of Jewish takeover since the end of the Cold War is sickening. So much of US aggression and justification thereof around the world are fantastic, gratuitous, surreal, ludicrous, and etc. Since Jews cannot say they are steering US policy for their own tribal interest, they cook up all sorts of crazy stuff. Jews especially use homos as their proxy. I mean the idea of a ‘new cold war’ with Russia because homos are not allowed to prance around on Red Square. I mean who would have thought such a day would have been possible during the real Cold War? Even Mad Magazine would have passed it over as loony even for humor.
What is so exasperating about Jews is they mask their supremacism with hysteria about ‘white supremacism’. Take the Jewish hostility against Donald Trump. Trump isn’t anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. He is calling for civic nationalism. Too many Americans haven fallen behind, and American workers need something too after globalists and upper crust have been devouring most of the economic pie. Also, too much money has been spent on overseas wars and too many American soldiers have come back wounded or worse. So, let’s intervene less, let’s have good relations with Russia, and let’s offer something for the American Worker and blacks too(who also must compete with immigrants, though, to be sure, maybe some blacks want immigrants to work, pay taxes, and support the government that supports them).
Trump’s ‘America First’ means America should go into national mode and take care of its own citizens first. There is nothing supremacist about it. Also, Trump’s policies would be better for Muslims and Arabs since fewer US wars will lead to fewer destruction of Arab/Muslim nations.
But Trump is seen as Hitler by so many Jews. Of course, Jews know he is NOT Hitler. So, why are Jews so upset? It’s because Trump’s civic nationalism gets in the way of Jewish Hitlerism or Jewish supremacism. Fewer wars in the Middle East means less chance for Zionists to destroy Arab/Muslim nations for the sake of Israel.
And if Americans go into national mode and try to do things that are good for American people as a whole, there might be more scrutiny into Wall Street and other such institutions. Rich Jews would have to be more mindful of doing things that are good for all Americans instead of just themselves. America that thinks nationally than globally will pay more attention to all the social and political ills IN America, and that means the rulimg elites will be made more accountable.
End of mass immigration(at current levels) means American elites, Jews or otherwise, must be more responsive and accountable to American citizens. In contrast, more immigration means they can renege on such duty. How? They can exploit the immigrant labor willing work like slaves from gratitude of having been allowed entry. Also, as the elites praise the immigrants as the ‘true Americans’, native-born majority Americans will have to take the backseat. If native-born Americans complain, the elites can show off their ‘moral credentials’ as the champions of ‘diversity’ and the ‘huddled masses’, especially against ‘ugly’ nativism and ‘xenophobia’. This way, Jewish supremacism is protected.
Also, globalism means the US keeps finding new enemies around the world. Thus, by directing American rage at Russia or Iran or whatever, dumb Americans pay less far less attention to their real problems at home created by their rotten ruling elites.
America in National Mode means most Americans will pay attention to domestic affairs and call out on elite abuse or corruption. But America in global mode means the elites can divert American attention from domestic abuse and corruption to Evil Foreigners. It is surreal that Jews who accuse patriots of ‘xenophobia’ have no qualms about fanning hatred against certain other nations. So, never mind what the Wikileaks say about the massive amount of domestic corruption and collusion. Just remember that Russia and Putin are behind it, and Trump is their ‘puppet’. Jewish supremacist oligarchs are behind Hillary, and they push globalism to expand Jewish ethnic power, but they hire lunatics like Anne Killer of Forward to bitch and whine about how naked Trump is Hitler whose policy of banning Muslim immigration is Holocaust for Mexicans who apparently make good interfaith daughters for Jewish lesbians.
The world is a dangerous place because of Jewish Dominationism. It is the only Dominationism left standing even though Jews keep projecting it onto other groups, especially Russians and Iranians(though at times at Chinese too).
Dominationism used to define much of the world until the end of WWII, though vestiges lasted until the end of the Cold War.
Several nations, mostly European, once sought domination over the world. They didn’t necessarily want to rule the whole world but they either wanted to be #1 or one of the very great powers. The British were into dominationism, especially after they eclipsed the Spanish in naval domination. The French were full of dominationism, especially under Napoleon who sought to control all of Europe and even invaded Russia.
Dominationism is about more than being dominant in one’s own nation or domain. It is a ambition to gain disproportionate control over a domain much larger than one’s homeland. Romans were dominationist.
Japanese ruling over Japan was not dominationist, but Japanese designs on rest of Asia was dominationist.
In contrast, even though the Chinese practiced middle kingdom arrogance and regional dominance, they weren’t truly dominationist because they were content with control over their core domain.
In contrast, Spain was dominationist and so was Portugal. They tried to become the dominant powers in the world through navigation, trade, and colonization. But Brits and French overtook them, and they too went into dominationist mode. And they fought many wars, often with one another. And then later, Germans caught the same bug. They too wanted to build a huge navy and grab imperial loot. And Russia began to conquer and dominate non-Russian lands in Central Asia and Eastern Europe and even Scandinavia. These contentions led to Napoleonic Wars and finally World War I. And Japan caught the dominantionist bug in Asia, first taking small pieces but then targeting China and Southeast Asia.
No nation that would be a ‘great power’ was content with its own nation and borders. It had to control other territories, other nations, other kingdoms, other regions, the seas and skies. Japan wasn’t content with Japan. Germany wasn’t content with Germany. Italy wasn’t content with Italy. It too wanted to be great, a neo-roman empire with African territories. Brits and French ruled over vast empires. Germans and Japanese, both latecomers, wanted their piece of the pie. Japan invaded China, Germany invaded Russia in WWII. In WWI, the great powers and would-be-great-powers beat the crap out of each other. The Ottomans, a once great power, clung to its fading empire by latching onto the Germans.
WWI dealt a huge blow to dominationism, but it didn’t die. France and Brits lost a lot of people and the war was costly, but they managed to hold onto their empires and still qualify as great powers. Japan expanded its position in Asia. Italy got to feeling big about itself, and Mussolini came to power. Germany and Russia seemed like the two big losers, but communism armed Russia with new expansionism, and Germany turned to the most extreme form of dominationism with the rise of Nazism.
Back then, there were several dominationist contenders: Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia. The Turks were out as they wisely made peace with the loss of the Ottoman Empire, and they went about minding national issues.
But it wasn’t long before WWII cured all those nations of dominationism. Both winners and losers lost taste for it. Germany got defeated horribly, many times worse than in WWI. Japan got demolished. France was humiliated in defeat at hands of Germans and had to be saved by detested Brits and Americans. Italy was exposed as a paper tiger. Russia prevailed and even took over Eastern Europe, but the war was so costly and destructive that Russians were mostly involved with rebuilding. And its military was designed more for defense than offense contrary to US fears that USSR might swallow all of Europe. And the prospect of nuclear war tempered both US and USSR.
Europeans decided that the sane thing is to live with one another instead of seeking domination over one another. So many horrible wars had been fought among Europeans over domination, empire, territory, revenge, and hatred. Some of these wars were near-genocidal, like the Thirty Years War. But just as Catholics and Protestants had earlier decided to just respect one another and stop butchering one another, modern European peoples finally decided to bury the hatchet after WWII. No more hard feelings and vengeance. It’s like, at some point, Christendom and the Muslim world had also decided to just leave each other alone and stop bashing one another. (The Zionist destruction of the Muslim World, broken borders, and mass migration of Muslims/Africans into Europe may lead to new 'clashes of civilizations' in the West: National Whites vs Cuck Whites vs Jews vs Muslims vs Africans.)
Europeans were able to overcome dominationism because of the horrifying lessons of the war. Also, as Jerry Muller wrote in Foreign Affairs, it was because the borderlines and population transfers after WWII produced homogeneous nation-states. With each nation being made up mostly of its own kinfolk, there was less need for tension and conflict. (In contrast, Soviet Occupation of Eastern Bloc nations led to East German rebellions, Polish riots, Hungarian uprising, and Czech uprisings; and the diverse crazy quilt of Yugoslavia led to the wars in the 90s.) The miracle of post WWII was that Europeans discovered they could live with one another in mutual peace and forgiveness as long as each people relinquished dominationism.
Europeans began to care more about goodness than greatness, cooperation than domination.
Even in the Soviet-occupied Eastern Bloc, there was relative peace since Soviets allowed each Warsaw Pact nation to mind its own affairs within its borders. It was empire by indirect rule. For so very long, Europeans had thought such peace was impossible. Each nation once had so many narratives and legends of their great heroes fighting the evil nasty bad guys of other kingdoms or nations. Each side felt so justified, even to the point of bloodlust toward other peoples.
And Europeans once harbored such feelings toward Jews. The Jewish Question was asked over and over whether Christian folks can live with Jews. But after WWII, Europeans decided Jews are okay too. Everyone could get along as long as they all relinquished dominationism. After all, dominationism had led to so many wars over the centuries that sometimes led to near-genocidal wars. So many people got ‘genocided’ in WWII. Not only Jews in holocaust but millions of dead Poles, Germans, Russians, etc. Who needed more of this? Even though WWII was more destructive than WWI, there was less bad blood after it ended than following the previous war. Paradoxically, the total-shit-facing of just about every nation taught it a most valuable lesson. Supremacism and chauvinism lead to mayhem and disaster for all. Therefore, much of the hatred that once seemed ineradicable among nations and ethnic groups melted away. Also, France and UK soon lost their empires and returned home. They made peace with the outcome, even though there were some hard-fought wars, especially in Vietnam and Algeria. Europeans learned to get along and do business with non-whites without dominationist empires.
And in the East, Japan lost its entire empire, renounced war, and decided to be a good nation and trading partner with the world. No more banzai imperial rising sun crap.
Americans could have been filled with dominationism as they were the undisputed great power after WWII, not least because its homeland was untouched by destruction. But America didn’t go into dominationist mode. Though it totally crushed Japan, it generously aided its rebuilding and even felt a bit sorry for having dropped the two big ones. And instead of gloating as the dominant power, it came up with Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and was ultimately magnanimous with Germany that soon rebuilt itself into the main economy of Europe.
And in the Cold War, US mostly played a defensive role to contain communism and spread of ‘world liberation movements’ allied with Soviets(who themselves didn’t know what to make of these movements). Even in Vietnam, US wasn’t trying to take north Vietnam but only trying to save the South from communism up north.
And US took weak measures against Castro’s Cuba. Maybe American elites felt some degree of guilt of having treated Cuba like a sleazy whore for too long. They could see that Castro and revolutionaries were inspired and popular whereas the most prominent Cuban exiles were gangsters, oligarchs, playboys, sharks, or stooges of the CIA.
Anyway, the 80s showed that Wasps, Russians, and Chinese were not into dominationism either. China under Deng wanted to change and just develop economically. Russians had enough of the Cold War. They wanted peace and were even willing to give up Eastern Bloc on promise that US would not seek dominationism by exploiting Russian weakness. And Reagan, upon sensing good will in Gorbachev, was eager to end the Cold War as soon as possible. With the end of the Cold War, it could really have been the end of dominationism all over the world.
But, there was one group that was not willing to give it up. The Jews.
This is rather odd. While it’s true that Jews did have problems with Europeans and Christians for a long time — just like French, Germans, Russians, Poles, Brits, Turks, Greeks, and etc had problems with one another, sometimes leading to horrible wars and retaliations — , Europeans and Christians really buried the hatchet with Jews after WWII, especially in Western Europe(though things got a bit hostile in Eastern Europe once Zionist Israel allied with the US). As the Germans, French, Brits, Italians, and etc were all getting along with another — and despite the Iron Curtain, the relations between Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans were cordial on a personal/social basis — , Jews could have joined in like everyone else. After WWII and Holocaust, most Europeans lost the stomach for antisemitism, especially the overt kind, and new generation of kids were raised to tolerate and accept Jews, even love Jews. It was much the same in the US. So, Jews and whites could have gotten along famously after WWII. There was no more need for bad blood.
But Jews felt otherwise. Why?
Did Jews have dominationism on their minds from the outset? Or did they become addicted to power as they came into vast wealth, power, and influence? It seems much of Jewish vitriol against Trump and Putin has nothing to do with prospect of New Nazism. There is zero chance of gentiles rounding up Jews and doing horrible things. What Jews fear is the loss of their supremacist status, their dominationist control over others. At one time, immediately following WWII, it is possible that Jews mainly had survival and well-being on their minds. But as they rapidly gained in power, privilege, and influence, they got accustomed to an existence that has value and meaning ONLY IF Jews are at the very top and bossing everyone around, even to the point of telling them not to use the word ‘bossy’.
Consider Putin and Jews. There are lots of rich Jews in Russia. Putin goes out of his way to accommodate the Jewish community. But that isn’t enough for Jews because Russian nationalism stands in the way of Jewish supremacist domination of the kind that defined Russia in the 90s. Jews prefer a Russia where most Russians are defeated & humiliated while Jews rule supreme than a Russia where things are good for both Jews and Russians.
And there is nothing in Trump’s platform that would do any harm to Jews. There are no anti-Jewish laws or anything of the kind. The only difference would be that a new civic nationalism would require Jews to be mindful of what is good for ALL Americans. Jews simply cannot abide by this. It’s either their way or.. it’s the Holocaust!! Anything other than Jewish dominationism and Jewish supremacism is the ‘Holocaust’ as Jews see it.
And this mindset is so deeply embedded in the sicko American political landscape(shaped by Jewish power) that we get strange statements about Israel and Palestinians. So, if anyone makes the slightest suggestion that Palestinians be given some consideration in the West Bank, we have shrill hysteria(from both Democrats and Republicans, even from Trump) that this is ‘throwing Israel under the bus’, it is ‘new holocaust’, and etc. I mean Zionists have total domination over Palestinians who still live under Occupation. Yet, even a modest proposal for some justice for Palestinians is seen as ‘new holocaust’ on the horizon for Jews. The most supremacist people bitch incessantly about how they are about to be destroyed by antisemitic supremacism when most critics of Zionism are only calling for a fair resolution to the West Bank crisis.
Jewish supremacists sound so much like the Nazis. Nazis sought supremacist control over other peoples, but they constantly bitched about how the poor poor Germans were being oppressed and done wrong by other peoples. In a way, even Nazi German complaint had more validity than the current Jewish hysteria. After all, Germans were treated badly in Sudetenland; and Stalin’s fate for Baltic Germans were pretty grim. But Jews are doing fine in America, EU, and Israel, even in Russia. Jewsare well-protected even in Iran. If some Jews are periodically attacked in EU, it’s because of massive immigration of Muslims(with full support of Jewish globalists). And if there is some Palestinian violence against Israelis, well, the Occupation is still going on, and Israelis keep building more settlements.
Holocaust Cult has blinded Jews to the idea that they themselves could become evil and supremacist. They are so used to seeing themselves as victims of Nazi racial supremacism that they are blind to their own abuse of power and overly sensitive to any criticism of Jewish power.
And spectacular Jewish success in so many fields have accustomed Jews to the mindset that they are entitled to lead super-privileged lives with complete obedience from the gentile population. Jews have become so spoiled in the US and EU — where Holocaust Cult is a religion — that they expect the same kind of treatment all over the world and get awful angry when they don’t get it. So, they use the might of US and NATO to smash any gentile nation they don’t like, mostly in Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe as Russia is in the crosshairs.
The tragedy of WWII led to one great moral triumph for most peoples: the abandonment of dominationism and willingness to respect other nations and get along in peace and mutual respect. Just a decade after WWII, it was amazing how the Europeans were getting along and cooperating. One might think the greatest war in history never happened. They were willing to bury the hatchet,and this goodwill was extended to Jews as well.
But Jews, due to Holocaust neurosis, radical personality, new-found arrogance of great success, or whatever, decided to work in bad faith and serve their own dominationism. And American Jews dragged Anglo-cucks into this madness, and we have whores like Hillary and John McCain barking at Russia and arming Jihadis in Syria to take down secular modernizer Assad.
We have a useless ‘new cold war’ that makes no sense apart from Jewish ethno-supremacism. We have these horrible wars in the Middle East and North Africa that were concocted by Zionist-globalists. And with the massive migration of ‘refugees’ and migrants from Africa and Muslim world to Europe, national borders are in tatters.
The great achievement of end of WWII was the clear demarcation of national borders and the creation of stable national populations. But Jews have this crazy idea that the gentile national model means new rise of Nazism, and so, Jews support open borders and diversity so that gentiles will be forever in conflict with other gentiles.
And so, the world is going to pot once again. The golden opportunity was lost.
And who knows? If things get so horribly bad in Europe, maybe there will be the rise of new extreme antisemitism once again.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Monday, September 26, 2016
Race-Mixing and Diversity are the Result of Imperialism
If you got most of your news, ideas, and information from modern Western media and schools, you likely associate 'racial purity' with hate, war, genocide, slavery, imperialism, conquest, and oppression. And you likely associate 'race mixing' with love, tolerance, equality, 'diversity', and liberation. The prevailing narrative owes mainly to four factors: Anglo-imperialism, American slavery, National Socialism(or Nazism), and Jewish control of the media and elite academia.
Perhaps no people in history conquered and controlled as much as the Anglos with only limited race-mixing. Also, American slavery was very race-conscious, and most whites didn't mix with blacks. And then, there was the racial ideology of the Nazis that obsessed about 'Aryan' racial purity. Finally, Jews, having been among the main victims of Nazism and ever so paranoid and fearful of Anglo-American whites as their main rivals, developed and disseminated an ideology that came to see 'racism' as the source of all great evil. To counter and eliminate such 'evil', Jews have put forth the ideology of 'diversity' and race-mixing. Indeed, the main reason for Jewish support for Obama is he serves as the poster-boy of mulatto-ism. He's the product of a white woman sexually surrendering herself to a Negro. The fact that so many white women swoon over the punk and so many white guys get thrills from being politically cuckolded by his ilk shows how low the white race has fallen in the modern world.
But, let us look at the real history of race-mixing. Only recently has race-mixing been a matter of individual choice and personal freedom. For most of human history, race-mixing was generally the product of violence, invasion, oppression, slavery, imperialism, genocide, and what have you. If race-mixing has such a wonderful history and pedigree, I suppose we should laud the Mongol hordes who came stampeding into Eastern(and even parts of Central)Europe to rape white women. You see, the bad guys were not the interracist Mongols but the white warriors who resisted them. How dare all those 'evil racist' white males not welcome the Mongols who were only trying to spread their race-mixing love! Following the logic of Political Correctness, any Russian or Polish guy who was enraged by Mongol abduction and/or rape of white women were 'evil racists' or proto-Nazis, just like the proud white men of THE BIRTH OF A NATION or Ethan character(played by John Wayne) in THE SEARCHERS. According to Political Correctness, it is wrong for white men to feel protective of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters even against vicious raids by Indian tribes. Using this logic, I suppose Russians should forever have yielded to 'progressive' interracist Mongols who were only trying to mix the races. But seriously, Mongols were among the most brutal conquerors in history, and they were TOTALLY into race-mixing. Mongols have often been compared with the Nazis, but if 'racial purity' is the source of all evil, how could a people as interracist as the Mongols commit such horrors? Wouldn't it have been better for Europeans--and other victims of the Golden Horde--if the Mongols had been into racial purity--like the Japanese for most of their history--and remained in their own little Mongol world? I mean the epic Mongol experiment in race-mixing wasn't exactly fun for most people--unless they happened to be Mongols thugs raping Chinese, Persian, Russian, and other women.
Ottoman Turks were also interracists, but were they peaceful? No, they used extensive violence to control vast territories. They ruled over Greece for nearly 400 yrs. During that time, many Greek women were abducted and raped by Turks. And many Christian Greek boys were conscripted and raised as Janissaries--fanatical Muslim warriors against Christendom. Just think about it. Wonderfully interracist Ottomans kidnapped and brainwashed Greek boys to wage war their own kind--Christian Europeans. Greece under Ottoman rule was not a happy place as any Greek who knows his or her history can tell you.
But then, Greeks too have their long history of interracist violence. Though Ancient Greeks were proud to be Greek and some city-states insisted on Greek purity, the fact is Greeks invaded and enslaved a lot of non-Greeks, and through rape of these conquered peoples, Greek blood got mixed with non-Greek blood. And when Greeks joined Alexander the Macedon's invasion of North Africa and the Orient, a whole bunch of them went into interracist mode, Alexander leading by example. While some Greek leaders resented Alexander's 'race-mixing', it became more and more necessary as Macedonian and Greek men became further separated from their homelands. They conquered foreign lands and took foreign women. So, all this supposedly wonderful interracism came with imperialism, conquest, slavery, and mass bloodshed.
Arabs, Moors, Muslims, Persians, Moghuls, and other great empire builders were also interracists. Arabs enslaved and raped all sorts of people. They enslaved black Africans, captured and sold white slaves. Many of them, especially among the whites, were women. Lots of interracist Arab men raped white women. Arab pirates didn't just plunder white wealth but sexually ravaged white women. Moors conquered large swaths of Southern Europe and raped a lot of white women. So much for the wonders of interracism. And of course, Jews in Europe often aided and abetted in the Muslim conquest of Europe. Jews were also involved in slave trade and sold white women to Arabs and Muslims. Do you suppose all those white women who were enslaved and raped had a good time because the 'love-making' happened to be interracist? Today, the Jewish shmafia lures many Slavic women with false promises and turns them into sex slaves in brothels that cater to men of all races from around the world. White women are used as interracist sex slaves. Is that progress? It may be a great boon to greedy Jews who control pornography and white slavery, but what do white men and women gain from it? And who are these craven Jews to tell you or me how we should think about race and racial politics? Of course, Israel has very stringent laws and policies against non-Jews, and recently, Israel used harsh measures to round up and expel a whole lot of black African migrants and refugees. And Jews constantly talk about maintaining their genetic integrity, and even when they mix with other races, they are very selective, careful to mix with gentiles who are either very good looking or very intelligent; in other words, Jews steal beauty and IQ from other races. Jews act like this, but we don't hear any outrage from MSM because Jews control most of the media.
Though Anglo-imperialism is most often associated with the evils of white oppression, historical truth says otherwise: the most brutal form of European imperialism was perpetuated by interracist Portuguese and Spanish. Portuguese created Brazil, and the main reason for its huge number of mulattoes owes to the fact that Portuguese, far more than Anglos, created an empire of interracist rape as well as of slavery. So-called 'racist' America imported only 300,000 to 400,000 black slaves. Brazil alone is said to have imported anywhere from 3 to 5 million black African slaves, which is more than all the rest of the New World combined. So, just think about it. The most interracist colony/nation in the New World was more committed to slavery than all the others.
The rest of Latin America came under Spanish rule, and how did the 'mestizo race' come about? Free love, 'tolerance', and 'multi-culturalist' ideology? No, it came about through imperialism, conquest, slavery, mass rape, and the like. More often than not--at least among white Latinos--, all this politically correct 'diversity' mongering-and-promotion is essentially a justification for their sordid history than anything else. It's a very convenient way for white Latinos to convert their 'historical crimes' into 'historical virtues'. Though Hispanic and Portuguese whites created the mestizo and mulatto races in the New World by conquest, slavery, rape, plunder, and imperialism, they can make believe that it was all ultimately for the good since it led to the creation of the wonderful new race of mestizos and mulattos. That way, white Latinos can justify their own history and place all the blame on Yanquis and gringos who'd been less into race-mixing. Latin whites essentially say, "We conquered, enslaved, and exploited the non-whites, but we racially mixed with the victims and acquired some 'victim blood' ourselves--even if it's only a tiny drop--, and so that expunges whatever guilt we might have had." If 'one drop rule' in America made even very light-skinned mulattos count as 'black', the one drop rule in Latin America makes even the whitest Latin elite a member of the 'people of color'. It is no wonder that so many white Latinos in America insist on being part of the 'people of color' and bitch endlessly about being 'oppressed' and 'marginalized' by Yanqui blancos, which is rather ironic since it is the Yankee states in the North that embrace the new hysteria of 'diversity' as the solution to all problems.
Anyway, all said and done, the racial history of Latin America is many times more violent and sordid than what happened in United States and Canada--or Australia for that matter.
While it is true that the theory of racial purity and the practice of imperialism don't mix well in the long run--especially if the racial ideology is as radical as that of the Nazis--, the fact is many nations that upheld the ideal of racial purity tended to be peaceful and non-aggressive. After all, it was the racially less pure Southern Europeans who'd pioneered imperialism and world conquest. It was the Greeks, Romans, and then Spanish and Portuguese who were ahead of the curve in conquering, exploiting, and plundering the world. The British and the Dutch were relative late-comers, and among the Northern Europeans, only the Anglos became prominent players in world conquest. Germans came to imperialism rather late. Bismarck the famous builder and modernizer of Germany hated the idea. He was for Germans focusing their energies on Germany. He fought wars but mostly against other Germans in order to create larger German state. He had no wish to grab non-German land and deal with non-German peoples. If anything, it was the relatively more interracist Russians who'd invaded and plundered whole swaths of non-Russian territories in Asia and Muslim lands.
Indeed, both among reactionaries and progressives, interracism was often used as a disingenuous justification for conquest and imperialism. French were interracists in North Africa and Southeast Asia and portrayed themselves as spreading the blood of higher civilization in both the figurative and literal sense. This accounts for the rise of the Eurasian elite under French rule in Indo-China. And why did so many Vietnamese become 'Amerasians' in the 60s and 70s? Leftists call the Vietnam War an act of American Imperialism, and if that was indeed the case, then it was American Imperialism that practiced interracism during the Vietnam War. One might even call it a form of sexual imperialism or sexual conquest since almost all Amerasian children were born of American(white or black)men and Asian women. Throughout the history of interracism, generally the males of the powerful side took the women of the oppressed, occupied, or conquered side. So, interracism was very often an act of sexual imperialism by the males of one race against the females of another race. It not only meant the sexual conquest of the women but the sexual humiliation of the defeated men who could do nothing about it. What could Trojan men do when the interracist Greeks enslaved surviving Trojan women to be used as servants and sex slaves? When Germans invaded France, French women went with German men while French men could only watch as 'limp-dick' losers. When Soviets steamrolled into Germany, they practiced 'interracism' on a large scale, raping millions of German women while all German men could do is watch. When Americans occupied Japan, whole bunch of Japanese women became interracist prostitute-stooges of American G.I.'s while Japanese men were reduced to a bunch of dorks. In other words, so much of the history of interracism is 'unfair', unequal, violent, oppressive, and cruel. If you have a time machine, take a trip to Nanking when Japanese soldiers were rampaging through the city and raping scores of Chinese women. I'll bet those women wished Japanese hadn't been into interracism. Japanese also practiced 'interracism' with Filipino and Korean women who were lured to China with promise of jobs--just like Slavic women are lured to Israel under false pretense--but were then turned into sexual slaves who had to put out to Japanese soldiers all night and day. The history of interracism sure was bright and wonderful.
Now, I don't wish to come to the fallacious conclusion that because the history of interracism has been violent and sordid, every case of interracism is of that nature. Many individuals sincerely fell in love with members of other races/nations/religions/ethnic groups and found true love and bliss. I'm not one to tell who should marry whom--though interracism on a large scale will always compromise the racial-and-cultural integrity of a people. And even though a new social order may have been created via violent and oppressive use of interracism, the new population eventually come to some kind of accommodation. Whatever one may say about the history of Mexico--and it's very bloody one--, most Mexicans of mixed racial heritage today just go on with their lives.
But then, we must be careful not to apply the same kind of fallacy to racial purism. Just because Nazism was an especially evil case of racial purism doesn't mean that all forms of racial purism or racial consciousness are evil or 'hateful'. Just like there's free interracism(of individual freedom) as opposed to violent/forced interracism, there's racial purism or intraracism--racial sexualism within the race--that doesn't deny OTHER peoples the right to the preservation of their own cultures and nations. Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations on Earth, but it has also been one of the least aggressive. Except for Hideoyoshi's attempts in the late 16th century and modern Japan's invasion of Asia--enabled and encouraged by European powers, one might add--, the racially pure Japanese have been content to mind their own business. It was not Japan that invaded India, the New World--north or south--, Greece, Africa, and etc. The interracist Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs, Moors, French, Turks, and Mongols did far more conquering than the Japanese ever did.
Also, intra-racism was the impetus behind many national liberation struggles. Why did the Third World rise up against Western Imperialism? Because most non-white nations wanted self-rule. Indians wanted to rule over Indians, and Indians wanted to be ruled by Indians. They wanted the British to go back home. Vietnamese wanted to rule over Vietnamese, and Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by Vietnamese. They didn't want to be ruled by the interracist French. Algerians wanted to rule over Algerians, and Algerians wanted to be ruled by Algerians. They too didn't care for the interracist French who insisted that France and Algeria were one nation and one people. Algerians did not wanted to be ruled by foreigners even if the foreigners were willing to 'make love' to them.
Many 'progressives' criticize the Vietnamese for their discrimination against 'Amerasians', but to many Vietnamese, such children are the racial-sexual products of interracism of Western imperialism. Indeed, racial purism or intra-racism has generally been defensive than offensive. If Bolivian Indians at the time of the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors had expressed a wish for racial purity and self-rule, would they have been 'evil' and 'Nazi-like'? Only according to the logic of Political Correctness--but then PC generally only attacks the white race for harboring intra-racist feelings. This is really a Judeo-centric view for it's the Jews who have most to lose if white Europeans and white Americans were to realize the worth of preserving their own races and cultures and stood up to venality of Jewish Supremacism.
Nazi racial policies became dangerous only when they were exported outside Germany. Within German lands, Nazi ideology did much good as it encouraged a sense of national unity, national health, national purpose, and national pride. Why shouldn't Germans be into German blood and soil, German 'race', German culture? The real problem of Nazism was less the emphasis on racial purity than the ambition for grabbing more land(populated by huge numbers of civilized peoples; it's one thing to grab mostly barren lands but quite another to invade heavily populated civilizations; the Anglo conquests of Australia and North America were doable since the territories were vast and sparsely populated; Russians were able to secure control over vast Siberia because despite its great size, the entire population was less than ten million. But it was another thing when Germans tried to conquer Russia or when Japanese tried to conquer China.) German purity in Germany was not a problem. But German purity in non-German lands was a violation of the idea of nationalism. But would it have been much better if Nazi Germans had been interracists like Japanese and Spanish? The reason why Nazi soldiers generally didn't commit mass rape--like Japanese did in Nanking--was because the ideal of racial purity demanded that German soldiers not mix with non-'Aryans'. If Hitler had been more like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, he might have ordered his men to rape a whole bunch of Russian women and Polish women in the name of 'interracism'. I don't see how that would have been any more civilized. Indeed, whatever one can say about Anglo-American slavery, it led to less rape of black and brown women than in Latin America. Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have been racially more arrogant, but it also meant mostly leaving non-whites alone sexually.
There was nothing wrong with Japan's belief in their racial uniqueness as long as the Japanese minded their own business and didn't invade other nations. If intra-racism leads to 'evil conquest and oppression', how come Japanese didn't go to Africa and bring millions of black slaves to Japan? It was the interracist Portuguese who brought millions of blacks to Brazil. Should Japanese have been happily interracist and welcomed the Spanish and Portugal to do to Japan what had been done in the New World? Rape millions of Japanese women and create a mestizo race of European and Asian blood? I guess the Japanese were too 'evil and racist' to accept such a wonderful bargain. I mean interracist Peru and Bolivia are wonderful nations whereas intra-racist Japan today is a basketcase nation of no hope & progress.
And let us condemn all those Tibetan intra-racists who want to be rid of Han Chinese interracists who want to mix the races and make every inch of Tibet into part of the Han empire. You see, the wonderfully 'progressive' Chinese wanna be one with the Tibetans, but Tibetans insist on their own blood, their own soil, their own language and culture, their own religion, and their own power. What a bunch of Nazis! We must stop Tibetan intra-racism because if we allow it to grow, it will invade Poland any time soon, and then Russia. It might even go about killing six million Jews!
Perhaps no people in history conquered and controlled as much as the Anglos with only limited race-mixing. Also, American slavery was very race-conscious, and most whites didn't mix with blacks. And then, there was the racial ideology of the Nazis that obsessed about 'Aryan' racial purity. Finally, Jews, having been among the main victims of Nazism and ever so paranoid and fearful of Anglo-American whites as their main rivals, developed and disseminated an ideology that came to see 'racism' as the source of all great evil. To counter and eliminate such 'evil', Jews have put forth the ideology of 'diversity' and race-mixing. Indeed, the main reason for Jewish support for Obama is he serves as the poster-boy of mulatto-ism. He's the product of a white woman sexually surrendering herself to a Negro. The fact that so many white women swoon over the punk and so many white guys get thrills from being politically cuckolded by his ilk shows how low the white race has fallen in the modern world.
But, let us look at the real history of race-mixing. Only recently has race-mixing been a matter of individual choice and personal freedom. For most of human history, race-mixing was generally the product of violence, invasion, oppression, slavery, imperialism, genocide, and what have you. If race-mixing has such a wonderful history and pedigree, I suppose we should laud the Mongol hordes who came stampeding into Eastern(and even parts of Central)Europe to rape white women. You see, the bad guys were not the interracist Mongols but the white warriors who resisted them. How dare all those 'evil racist' white males not welcome the Mongols who were only trying to spread their race-mixing love! Following the logic of Political Correctness, any Russian or Polish guy who was enraged by Mongol abduction and/or rape of white women were 'evil racists' or proto-Nazis, just like the proud white men of THE BIRTH OF A NATION or Ethan character(played by John Wayne) in THE SEARCHERS. According to Political Correctness, it is wrong for white men to feel protective of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters even against vicious raids by Indian tribes. Using this logic, I suppose Russians should forever have yielded to 'progressive' interracist Mongols who were only trying to mix the races. But seriously, Mongols were among the most brutal conquerors in history, and they were TOTALLY into race-mixing. Mongols have often been compared with the Nazis, but if 'racial purity' is the source of all evil, how could a people as interracist as the Mongols commit such horrors? Wouldn't it have been better for Europeans--and other victims of the Golden Horde--if the Mongols had been into racial purity--like the Japanese for most of their history--and remained in their own little Mongol world? I mean the epic Mongol experiment in race-mixing wasn't exactly fun for most people--unless they happened to be Mongols thugs raping Chinese, Persian, Russian, and other women.
Ottoman Turks were also interracists, but were they peaceful? No, they used extensive violence to control vast territories. They ruled over Greece for nearly 400 yrs. During that time, many Greek women were abducted and raped by Turks. And many Christian Greek boys were conscripted and raised as Janissaries--fanatical Muslim warriors against Christendom. Just think about it. Wonderfully interracist Ottomans kidnapped and brainwashed Greek boys to wage war their own kind--Christian Europeans. Greece under Ottoman rule was not a happy place as any Greek who knows his or her history can tell you.
But then, Greeks too have their long history of interracist violence. Though Ancient Greeks were proud to be Greek and some city-states insisted on Greek purity, the fact is Greeks invaded and enslaved a lot of non-Greeks, and through rape of these conquered peoples, Greek blood got mixed with non-Greek blood. And when Greeks joined Alexander the Macedon's invasion of North Africa and the Orient, a whole bunch of them went into interracist mode, Alexander leading by example. While some Greek leaders resented Alexander's 'race-mixing', it became more and more necessary as Macedonian and Greek men became further separated from their homelands. They conquered foreign lands and took foreign women. So, all this supposedly wonderful interracism came with imperialism, conquest, slavery, and mass bloodshed.
Arabs, Moors, Muslims, Persians, Moghuls, and other great empire builders were also interracists. Arabs enslaved and raped all sorts of people. They enslaved black Africans, captured and sold white slaves. Many of them, especially among the whites, were women. Lots of interracist Arab men raped white women. Arab pirates didn't just plunder white wealth but sexually ravaged white women. Moors conquered large swaths of Southern Europe and raped a lot of white women. So much for the wonders of interracism. And of course, Jews in Europe often aided and abetted in the Muslim conquest of Europe. Jews were also involved in slave trade and sold white women to Arabs and Muslims. Do you suppose all those white women who were enslaved and raped had a good time because the 'love-making' happened to be interracist? Today, the Jewish shmafia lures many Slavic women with false promises and turns them into sex slaves in brothels that cater to men of all races from around the world. White women are used as interracist sex slaves. Is that progress? It may be a great boon to greedy Jews who control pornography and white slavery, but what do white men and women gain from it? And who are these craven Jews to tell you or me how we should think about race and racial politics? Of course, Israel has very stringent laws and policies against non-Jews, and recently, Israel used harsh measures to round up and expel a whole lot of black African migrants and refugees. And Jews constantly talk about maintaining their genetic integrity, and even when they mix with other races, they are very selective, careful to mix with gentiles who are either very good looking or very intelligent; in other words, Jews steal beauty and IQ from other races. Jews act like this, but we don't hear any outrage from MSM because Jews control most of the media.
Though Anglo-imperialism is most often associated with the evils of white oppression, historical truth says otherwise: the most brutal form of European imperialism was perpetuated by interracist Portuguese and Spanish. Portuguese created Brazil, and the main reason for its huge number of mulattoes owes to the fact that Portuguese, far more than Anglos, created an empire of interracist rape as well as of slavery. So-called 'racist' America imported only 300,000 to 400,000 black slaves. Brazil alone is said to have imported anywhere from 3 to 5 million black African slaves, which is more than all the rest of the New World combined. So, just think about it. The most interracist colony/nation in the New World was more committed to slavery than all the others.
The rest of Latin America came under Spanish rule, and how did the 'mestizo race' come about? Free love, 'tolerance', and 'multi-culturalist' ideology? No, it came about through imperialism, conquest, slavery, mass rape, and the like. More often than not--at least among white Latinos--, all this politically correct 'diversity' mongering-and-promotion is essentially a justification for their sordid history than anything else. It's a very convenient way for white Latinos to convert their 'historical crimes' into 'historical virtues'. Though Hispanic and Portuguese whites created the mestizo and mulatto races in the New World by conquest, slavery, rape, plunder, and imperialism, they can make believe that it was all ultimately for the good since it led to the creation of the wonderful new race of mestizos and mulattos. That way, white Latinos can justify their own history and place all the blame on Yanquis and gringos who'd been less into race-mixing. Latin whites essentially say, "We conquered, enslaved, and exploited the non-whites, but we racially mixed with the victims and acquired some 'victim blood' ourselves--even if it's only a tiny drop--, and so that expunges whatever guilt we might have had." If 'one drop rule' in America made even very light-skinned mulattos count as 'black', the one drop rule in Latin America makes even the whitest Latin elite a member of the 'people of color'. It is no wonder that so many white Latinos in America insist on being part of the 'people of color' and bitch endlessly about being 'oppressed' and 'marginalized' by Yanqui blancos, which is rather ironic since it is the Yankee states in the North that embrace the new hysteria of 'diversity' as the solution to all problems.
Anyway, all said and done, the racial history of Latin America is many times more violent and sordid than what happened in United States and Canada--or Australia for that matter.
While it is true that the theory of racial purity and the practice of imperialism don't mix well in the long run--especially if the racial ideology is as radical as that of the Nazis--, the fact is many nations that upheld the ideal of racial purity tended to be peaceful and non-aggressive. After all, it was the racially less pure Southern Europeans who'd pioneered imperialism and world conquest. It was the Greeks, Romans, and then Spanish and Portuguese who were ahead of the curve in conquering, exploiting, and plundering the world. The British and the Dutch were relative late-comers, and among the Northern Europeans, only the Anglos became prominent players in world conquest. Germans came to imperialism rather late. Bismarck the famous builder and modernizer of Germany hated the idea. He was for Germans focusing their energies on Germany. He fought wars but mostly against other Germans in order to create larger German state. He had no wish to grab non-German land and deal with non-German peoples. If anything, it was the relatively more interracist Russians who'd invaded and plundered whole swaths of non-Russian territories in Asia and Muslim lands.
Indeed, both among reactionaries and progressives, interracism was often used as a disingenuous justification for conquest and imperialism. French were interracists in North Africa and Southeast Asia and portrayed themselves as spreading the blood of higher civilization in both the figurative and literal sense. This accounts for the rise of the Eurasian elite under French rule in Indo-China. And why did so many Vietnamese become 'Amerasians' in the 60s and 70s? Leftists call the Vietnam War an act of American Imperialism, and if that was indeed the case, then it was American Imperialism that practiced interracism during the Vietnam War. One might even call it a form of sexual imperialism or sexual conquest since almost all Amerasian children were born of American(white or black)men and Asian women. Throughout the history of interracism, generally the males of the powerful side took the women of the oppressed, occupied, or conquered side. So, interracism was very often an act of sexual imperialism by the males of one race against the females of another race. It not only meant the sexual conquest of the women but the sexual humiliation of the defeated men who could do nothing about it. What could Trojan men do when the interracist Greeks enslaved surviving Trojan women to be used as servants and sex slaves? When Germans invaded France, French women went with German men while French men could only watch as 'limp-dick' losers. When Soviets steamrolled into Germany, they practiced 'interracism' on a large scale, raping millions of German women while all German men could do is watch. When Americans occupied Japan, whole bunch of Japanese women became interracist prostitute-stooges of American G.I.'s while Japanese men were reduced to a bunch of dorks. In other words, so much of the history of interracism is 'unfair', unequal, violent, oppressive, and cruel. If you have a time machine, take a trip to Nanking when Japanese soldiers were rampaging through the city and raping scores of Chinese women. I'll bet those women wished Japanese hadn't been into interracism. Japanese also practiced 'interracism' with Filipino and Korean women who were lured to China with promise of jobs--just like Slavic women are lured to Israel under false pretense--but were then turned into sexual slaves who had to put out to Japanese soldiers all night and day. The history of interracism sure was bright and wonderful.
Now, I don't wish to come to the fallacious conclusion that because the history of interracism has been violent and sordid, every case of interracism is of that nature. Many individuals sincerely fell in love with members of other races/nations/religions/ethnic groups and found true love and bliss. I'm not one to tell who should marry whom--though interracism on a large scale will always compromise the racial-and-cultural integrity of a people. And even though a new social order may have been created via violent and oppressive use of interracism, the new population eventually come to some kind of accommodation. Whatever one may say about the history of Mexico--and it's very bloody one--, most Mexicans of mixed racial heritage today just go on with their lives.
But then, we must be careful not to apply the same kind of fallacy to racial purism. Just because Nazism was an especially evil case of racial purism doesn't mean that all forms of racial purism or racial consciousness are evil or 'hateful'. Just like there's free interracism(of individual freedom) as opposed to violent/forced interracism, there's racial purism or intraracism--racial sexualism within the race--that doesn't deny OTHER peoples the right to the preservation of their own cultures and nations. Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations on Earth, but it has also been one of the least aggressive. Except for Hideoyoshi's attempts in the late 16th century and modern Japan's invasion of Asia--enabled and encouraged by European powers, one might add--, the racially pure Japanese have been content to mind their own business. It was not Japan that invaded India, the New World--north or south--, Greece, Africa, and etc. The interracist Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs, Moors, French, Turks, and Mongols did far more conquering than the Japanese ever did.
Also, intra-racism was the impetus behind many national liberation struggles. Why did the Third World rise up against Western Imperialism? Because most non-white nations wanted self-rule. Indians wanted to rule over Indians, and Indians wanted to be ruled by Indians. They wanted the British to go back home. Vietnamese wanted to rule over Vietnamese, and Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by Vietnamese. They didn't want to be ruled by the interracist French. Algerians wanted to rule over Algerians, and Algerians wanted to be ruled by Algerians. They too didn't care for the interracist French who insisted that France and Algeria were one nation and one people. Algerians did not wanted to be ruled by foreigners even if the foreigners were willing to 'make love' to them.
Many 'progressives' criticize the Vietnamese for their discrimination against 'Amerasians', but to many Vietnamese, such children are the racial-sexual products of interracism of Western imperialism. Indeed, racial purism or intra-racism has generally been defensive than offensive. If Bolivian Indians at the time of the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors had expressed a wish for racial purity and self-rule, would they have been 'evil' and 'Nazi-like'? Only according to the logic of Political Correctness--but then PC generally only attacks the white race for harboring intra-racist feelings. This is really a Judeo-centric view for it's the Jews who have most to lose if white Europeans and white Americans were to realize the worth of preserving their own races and cultures and stood up to venality of Jewish Supremacism.
Nazi racial policies became dangerous only when they were exported outside Germany. Within German lands, Nazi ideology did much good as it encouraged a sense of national unity, national health, national purpose, and national pride. Why shouldn't Germans be into German blood and soil, German 'race', German culture? The real problem of Nazism was less the emphasis on racial purity than the ambition for grabbing more land(populated by huge numbers of civilized peoples; it's one thing to grab mostly barren lands but quite another to invade heavily populated civilizations; the Anglo conquests of Australia and North America were doable since the territories were vast and sparsely populated; Russians were able to secure control over vast Siberia because despite its great size, the entire population was less than ten million. But it was another thing when Germans tried to conquer Russia or when Japanese tried to conquer China.) German purity in Germany was not a problem. But German purity in non-German lands was a violation of the idea of nationalism. But would it have been much better if Nazi Germans had been interracists like Japanese and Spanish? The reason why Nazi soldiers generally didn't commit mass rape--like Japanese did in Nanking--was because the ideal of racial purity demanded that German soldiers not mix with non-'Aryans'. If Hitler had been more like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, he might have ordered his men to rape a whole bunch of Russian women and Polish women in the name of 'interracism'. I don't see how that would have been any more civilized. Indeed, whatever one can say about Anglo-American slavery, it led to less rape of black and brown women than in Latin America. Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have been racially more arrogant, but it also meant mostly leaving non-whites alone sexually.
There was nothing wrong with Japan's belief in their racial uniqueness as long as the Japanese minded their own business and didn't invade other nations. If intra-racism leads to 'evil conquest and oppression', how come Japanese didn't go to Africa and bring millions of black slaves to Japan? It was the interracist Portuguese who brought millions of blacks to Brazil. Should Japanese have been happily interracist and welcomed the Spanish and Portugal to do to Japan what had been done in the New World? Rape millions of Japanese women and create a mestizo race of European and Asian blood? I guess the Japanese were too 'evil and racist' to accept such a wonderful bargain. I mean interracist Peru and Bolivia are wonderful nations whereas intra-racist Japan today is a basketcase nation of no hope & progress.
And let us condemn all those Tibetan intra-racists who want to be rid of Han Chinese interracists who want to mix the races and make every inch of Tibet into part of the Han empire. You see, the wonderfully 'progressive' Chinese wanna be one with the Tibetans, but Tibetans insist on their own blood, their own soil, their own language and culture, their own religion, and their own power. What a bunch of Nazis! We must stop Tibetan intra-racism because if we allow it to grow, it will invade Poland any time soon, and then Russia. It might even go about killing six million Jews!
Thursday, August 18, 2016
How Progs Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Warfare State
Globerals made imperialism, militarism, and war-mongering ‘cool’ and ‘hip’.
How? They SJW-ed the US military. By allowing Sikh-Americans to wear turbans, by allowing women into combat, by allowing homos to boof and suck dick in military bases, and by letting trannies to strut around in high heels, the US military has taken on ‘progressive’ sheen.
So, it doesn’t matter if Obama and Hillary are War Criminals who destroyed Libya and Syria. It doesn’t matter if US military is recklessly needling and provoking Russia in the Baltics and Poland.
US military now flies the homo ‘rainbow’ flag as its banner. So, it made imperialism ‘hip’ and ‘cool’.
It is incredible that the very people who marched in the streets by the 100,000s in denunciation of Bush II’s Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are now cheering for Hillary the War Criminal and the 4 star clown at the Democratic Convention who called for Diversity-Imperialism. You see, US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation because US military might has Muslim soldiers, homos, trannies, and women. Yippie yay. That means whatever the US War Machine does is ‘progressive’ since Army of Diversity does it. So, US militarism is Inclusion-Invasion. A War Machine that is ‘inclusive’ has the right to be invasive. American supremacism(“we are soooo exceptional”) and chauvinism(“we are soooo indispensable”) are wonderful to Libs and Progs as long as US imperialism is seen as ‘progressive’.
I suppose it’s like the French Revolution’s Wars too. Initially, they were defensive and justified. But under Napoleon, they became imperialistic and expansive and jingois-istic.
French Revolution turned into French Empire Building. But because French imperialism became associated with ‘spreading enlightenment’, the French radicals and French masses went along with Napoleon’s mania for expansion and domination.
The very people who once abhorred war as abominable ventures of vain kings and princes were exulting in it as the way to spread Reason.
Even people who should hate and oppose wars love them when wars become associated with their symbols of their cause.
The genius of Bill Clinton was taking GOP ideas on ‘free trade’ and ‘law and order’ and turning them into ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal issues’ by fusing Big Money with Homomania and hipster urban gentrification.
The trick of Obama/Hillary is taking GOP themes of patriotism and militarism(often disdained by Liberals) and making them palatable to the Progs by re-inventing the military into a SJW outfit. With all those trannies, homos, women in combat, and etc., how can Liberals oppose militarism and the War State?
It’s Homo Jima Time.
http://insider.foxnews.com/sites/insider.foxnews.com/files/styles/780/public/070115_iwojimaphoto.jpg?itok=Ed9F2yD8
There is a genius to this because anti-war fury usually came from the left while the right usually supported the military. So, making military into SJW unit was bound to neutralize leftist opposition.
There has been conservative critics of war and US military, but the Right almost never marched in the streets or made a lot of noise about war. Also, even those who opposed the war in principle supported the troops when the war was on.
In contrast, the Left often objected to war in principle and could get very violent in opposition with massive marches and riots.
So, the best way to undermine opposition to the military is by making it palatable to the Left. And Obama and Hillary, under instruction from their Jewish GLOB masters, achieved this by turning the US military into a SJW experiment.
So, even the Progs are now chanting for US war-mongering and going USA USA USA. They don't mind that Obama and Hillary destroyed Libya and Syria. They don't mind their war-mongering in Ukraine. You see, the US military is all about Inclusion, and that means it has right to push Invasion of any nation, especially ones that aren't homomaniacal.
How? They SJW-ed the US military. By allowing Sikh-Americans to wear turbans, by allowing women into combat, by allowing homos to boof and suck dick in military bases, and by letting trannies to strut around in high heels, the US military has taken on ‘progressive’ sheen.
So, it doesn’t matter if Obama and Hillary are War Criminals who destroyed Libya and Syria. It doesn’t matter if US military is recklessly needling and provoking Russia in the Baltics and Poland.
US military now flies the homo ‘rainbow’ flag as its banner. So, it made imperialism ‘hip’ and ‘cool’.
It is incredible that the very people who marched in the streets by the 100,000s in denunciation of Bush II’s Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are now cheering for Hillary the War Criminal and the 4 star clown at the Democratic Convention who called for Diversity-Imperialism. You see, US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation because US military might has Muslim soldiers, homos, trannies, and women. Yippie yay. That means whatever the US War Machine does is ‘progressive’ since Army of Diversity does it. So, US militarism is Inclusion-Invasion. A War Machine that is ‘inclusive’ has the right to be invasive. American supremacism(“we are soooo exceptional”) and chauvinism(“we are soooo indispensable”) are wonderful to Libs and Progs as long as US imperialism is seen as ‘progressive’.
I suppose it’s like the French Revolution’s Wars too. Initially, they were defensive and justified. But under Napoleon, they became imperialistic and expansive and jingois-istic.
French Revolution turned into French Empire Building. But because French imperialism became associated with ‘spreading enlightenment’, the French radicals and French masses went along with Napoleon’s mania for expansion and domination.
The very people who once abhorred war as abominable ventures of vain kings and princes were exulting in it as the way to spread Reason.
Even people who should hate and oppose wars love them when wars become associated with their symbols of their cause.
The genius of Bill Clinton was taking GOP ideas on ‘free trade’ and ‘law and order’ and turning them into ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal issues’ by fusing Big Money with Homomania and hipster urban gentrification.
The trick of Obama/Hillary is taking GOP themes of patriotism and militarism(often disdained by Liberals) and making them palatable to the Progs by re-inventing the military into a SJW outfit. With all those trannies, homos, women in combat, and etc., how can Liberals oppose militarism and the War State?
It’s Homo Jima Time.
http://insider.foxnews.com/sites/insider.foxnews.com/files/styles/780/public/070115_iwojimaphoto.jpg?itok=Ed9F2yD8
There is a genius to this because anti-war fury usually came from the left while the right usually supported the military. So, making military into SJW unit was bound to neutralize leftist opposition.
There has been conservative critics of war and US military, but the Right almost never marched in the streets or made a lot of noise about war. Also, even those who opposed the war in principle supported the troops when the war was on.
In contrast, the Left often objected to war in principle and could get very violent in opposition with massive marches and riots.
So, the best way to undermine opposition to the military is by making it palatable to the Left. And Obama and Hillary, under instruction from their Jewish GLOB masters, achieved this by turning the US military into a SJW experiment.
So, even the Progs are now chanting for US war-mongering and going USA USA USA. They don't mind that Obama and Hillary destroyed Libya and Syria. They don't mind their war-mongering in Ukraine. You see, the US military is all about Inclusion, and that means it has right to push Invasion of any nation, especially ones that aren't homomaniacal.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Zionist Hypocritical Personality
Of course, in the long run, Trump has no chance since the Zionist powers-that-be are aligned against him. But he has stirred up something, and it might not go away for some time.
Obviously, the main issue is Jews vs Trump. Trump isn't anti-Jewish but he is not solely Jew-centric, and this upsets Jews. Jewish Neocons think GOP exists to serve Jewish and Zionist interests first and foremost.
We hear all these Jews complaining about how Trump is all about the Authoritarian Personality and Paranoid Style in American Politics, but this is rather amusing coming from Jews, the most authoritarian(even totalitarian) and paranoid people in the world. Jews see Hitler everywhere. Every time there is someone in the world they don't like, he is the 'new hitler' and US military must get ready to squash him. Or US must economically sanction and destroy that nation.
Trump's business associates are Jewish. His daughter is married to a Jew and even converted to Jewishness and raised kid as Jew. But he is 'hitler' because he won't give Jews 100% on everything. If Jews say Russia must be destroyed, it must be destroyed. The fact that Trump wants good relations with Russia makes him Hitler. This is rather amusing since Neocon Jews and Obama(tool of Liberal Zionist Jews) worked with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to topple the government. And US's invocation of human rights is so hollow since it is such close allies with Saudi Arabia, which still practices Medievialism, and with Israel, a nation founded on European Imperialism and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. Afrikaners imposed separateness but didn't throw blacks out of black lands. If anything, more blacks were attracted to white-ruled South Africa. In contrast, so-called Israel Democracy was made possible only because Jews secured majority status by expelling 800,000 people from Palestine. And West Bank is still under occupation and Israel used horrible violence to crush enemies in Gaza and Lebanon. (US imperialism cynically uses 'democracy' to invade and control other peoples. So, Zionist destruction of Palestinians was justified because... uh... Israel is a democracy and has 'gay parades'. US does this all over the world. Economically or militarily destroys other nations in the name of spreading democracy and 'western values', which now amounts to planting homo flags and flooding the airwaves of other nations with Miley Cyrus concerts. If US wants to wreck another nation, we know how it will play out. US will say it was for 'human rights' and to spread 'democracy'. Yeah, like in Iraq and Libya. And to support 'moderate rebels' in Syria when, in fact, they are just Alqaeda with a new name. But then, US is is the nation that once supported Osama Bin Laden as 'freedom fighter'.)
US cooked up bogus claims against Gaddafi to crush him and destroy Libya but allows Israel to amass 300 illegal nukes and go on occupying and stealing Palestinian land. US thinks it is morally superior and has the right to push the world around because... uh.. lessee... it has 'gay marriage'. Imagine that. So, Russia is Eeeeeeeeeevil because it doesn't have 'gay marriage' and doesn't permit homo paraders to desecrate Red Square that commemorates the sacrifice of 25 million Russians in WWII.
We know that the homo agenda is the proxy of Jewish globalist imperialism. It is funded by Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Harvard, Yale, and etc. dominated by Jewish interests. It is to undermine national cultures and make them easier for globalist penetration. In the US, you will now be destroyed professionally if you express disdain for homosexual lifestyle. That is called 'freedom' and 'tolerance'. Jews are very clever. They gain AUTHORITARIAN control over us but then call it 'freedom' and 'liberty'. We live in a nation where someone cracking a joke about Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner can end up in hot water. And millennials raised by PC helicopter parents no longer value free speech. 70% of millennial freshmen want free speech suppressed if it offends certain favored groups, esp Jews, blacks, and homos. As for Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, and etc, they can still be bashed since Jews hate them.
Look how Jewish Neocons are using Poles against Russia, Japanese against China, and the vile Saudis against Iran. The Saudi case shows that the Jewish-Homo campaign is a cynical ploy. If it is so important, why push it on Russia and Japan but not on Saudi Arabia? Because Saudis are close allies of the US. It comes under NO human rights scrutiny. Obama and Hillary, both shills of Jews, call Putin the 'new hitler' even though homosexuality is legal in Russia, but shake hands with Saudi royals who preside over a nation where homos and others can be beheaded for the slightest infraction.
Anyway, just look how Jewish Power and AIPAC pressures all US politicians to pledge to Israel. What do Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders have in common? They both cheered the mass killing of women and children in Gaza. Even though Jews occupy Palestinian lands, we must make believe Jews are under attack by 'nazi' Palestinians.
Jews are only 2% of population but control so much. But Jews see no problem with that. Jews bitch about how 'white privilege' is unfair and that certain groups are under-represented, but that's all just smoke-and-mirrors to hide the fact that it is Jewish privilege, not white gentile privilege, that is totally out of control. Indeed, white gentile representation in elite colleges is way below the national share of the population. But Jews hide Jewish privilege behind 'white privilege' and then blame white gentiles, indeed as if Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc are dominated by Southern hillbillies and Texan cowboys.
And look at the Fed. It's been Jewish controlled for as long as I can remember. This Yellen is yet another Jew, and she got some guy named Fischer, an Israeli to boot, to work alongside her. Now, if someone noticed that there are 'too many Jews', Jews would scream antisemitic. But these Jews always bitch about 'too many whites'. The Hypocritical Style of Jewish Politics is incredible. And it is Ethno-Authoritarian, predicated on the notion that the 2% should rule over the 98%. Jewish attitude toward Americans is like British attitude toward Indians during imperialism. The small minority should rule over the rest. Yet, Jews bitch about Authoritarian Personality. Talk about projection!
Neocons are a small percentage of the Republican Party, but they insist that GOP serve Zionism and Jewish centrism above all. Talk about authoritarian, or even totalitarian, personality.
Hillary is supposed to be a 'progressive', but she turns her nose up at Palestinians who still live under occupation because she takes money from Goldman Sachs. And so-called 'progressive' Jews find nothing wrong with Jews getting special favors from Hillary and other whore politicians.
But if you notice Jewish power, you end up like Rick Sanchez or Helen Thomas(whose great sin was having said that European Zionist imperialists should go back to Europe. Why is that offensive? Was Gandhi wrong when he said Brits should go home? Was Ho Chi Minh wrong when he said Americans should go home? Were the Algerians wrong when they said French imperialists should go home?) Jews bitch about authoritarian McCarthy, but McCarthy was around for just few yrs. Jewish authoritarianism that destroys careers and silences voices never goes away.
It should be obvious that Jews were never about free speech. They just invoked it to gain power. It was all about SPEECH CONTROL. When Wasps had speech control, Jews resented it because they wanted it for themselves. So, Jews invoked 'free speech' to weaken and undermine wasp power. But once Jews gained the power, they began to silence and destroy everyone they didn't like.
This is classic Jewish Authoritarian Personality in action.
GOP welcomed Neocons into the party, but when Neocons took power, they purged everyone they didn't like. They acted just like the Bolsheviks.
Yet, these Jews bitch about how OTHER people suffer from 'authoritarian personalities'.
So, what Jews really wanted was not free speech for all but free speech as temporary weapon to gain power of speech control. Now that Jews got speech control, they wanna shut people down and push European-like laws where people can be fined and jailed for speaking truth to Jewish Power. Jews cleverly use terms like 'hate speech', but of course, they decide what is 'hate speech'. Zionism, an ideology that called for massive ethnic cleansing, Jewish racial consciousness, Jewish nationalism, and ruthless violence against Palestinians is NOT hate speech according to Jews. But if you one notices the truth and says 'Jews control US politicians like so many whores', oh that is 'antisemitic hate speech'. Very very clever.
Now, I think mindless anti-Jewishness is wrong because there are plenty of conscientious and decent Jews. But most Jewish people don't have the power. We have to focus on Jewish Power, and it is evil, corrupt, dishonest, repressive, and exploitative. Just like there were many decent Germans in Nazi Germany but were ineffective against evil Nazi power, there seem to be many good Jews in the US but are ineffective against Jewish Elite Power that is hellbent on spreading wars all over, destroying lives who don't celebrate homosexuality, silencing and purging all critics of Israel and Zionism, the hate ideology of Jewish supremacism against Palestinians.
The evil Powerful Jews in California and Florida are even passing laws banning BDS movement and forbidding anyone associated with it from doing business with the government. Imagine that! And there is total silence about this even in the Liberal Jewish community.
When Jewish power runs amok, it does things like this:
Given what happened to Russia due to globalist Jewish conniving, you would think at least the nice conscientious Jews would try to understand the Russian position and work toward mutual understanding. stephen Cohen is one such Jew but a rare bird.
Instead, Jews push pussy riot and homo agenda on Russia as part of globalist Zionist-US imperialism, and when Russia pushes it back, Jews cry 'authoritarianism' and 'repression'.
Now, are Russians trying to force Russian Orthodox ideology or Russian nationalism on Americans? NO. Russians just wanna mind their own business. it is the Jewish-controlled US that uses its military and financial and cultural power to force the homo agenda on other nations. So, Jews are the aggressive cultural aggressors but cry 'victim' when other nations say
"No, we don't want this garbage."
While tolerance for homos is a good thing, why would any nation want to celebrate homsexuality? How would Americans like it IF, say, the Chinese were into incest and tried to push 'incest marriage' and 'incest pride parades' on the US and then accused US of being 'new nazis' for not allowing it?
But this is what Jewish globalist imperialists do with the homo agenda. It is a new form of imperialism masked as 'spreading human rights'.
Of course, US is a paragon of human rights because Christian bakers who won't bake cakes for 'gay weddings' are fined, economically destroyed, and sent to jail.
Imagine if incest-lobby forced 'incest marriage' on everyone and then used government to destroy businesses that won't cater to 'incest marriage'.
This homo stuff isn't about equality. It is about homo supremacism promoted by Jews to institutionalize elite minority domination, an idea favored by Jews because Jews are elite minorities in US and EU.
Of course, what I've just written would be called 'hate speech' in so-called bastions of higher education that are supposed to encourage free debate and speaking to power. There is no way to rise up in academia or media unless one kisses the ass of Jewish supremacist power. No matter how respected your reputation, if you displease Jews, you are finished and will end up destroyed and lonely like Helen Thomas. No one came to her aid when she was destroyed for speaking up for her ethnic brethren.
American moral logic goes as follow:
If a Jew says "It was great for European Jews to drive out indigenous Palestinians and grab the land and force Palestinians to live under Jewish occupation", he or she is showered with prizes and given a seat at Harvard, Goldman Sachs, and the Fed.
If an Arab-American says, "European Jews who stole land from Palestinians should return the land and go back to Europe", he or she is destroyed on the spot, and no one come near him or her lest they be destroyed for 'guilty by association'.
Yet, Jews bitch about how OTHER people suffer from 'authoritarian personality' disorder.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Problems of Homomania
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/clintons-gender-wars
Homosexist Supremacism is crime against Moral Freedom, the freedom to be moral & decent and not aid & abet what is gross, foul, wicked, and evil.
The state says you MUST bake the Gay Wedding Cake that associates marriage with the fecal penetration of narcissistic sexual deviants who have the support of Jewish globalist imperialists who use the homo agenda as their proxy. Jews are the ruling minority elite in gentile nations. /this makes Jews nervous, so they try to normalize minority elite supremacism by promoting homosexuality as the New Normal and Homomania as the new religion(that must even invade and take over churches).
Russians must never surrender their Moral Freedom to Homosexist imperialism.
Homosexist Supremacists are not content to have the freedom to indulge in gross, deviant, and foul acts of fecal penetration and mutilating sexual organs for purposes of 'changing' sexes.
They want to take away your MORAL FREEDOM to not involve yourself in their degenerate behavior.
So, marriage has been turned into a decadent institution to serve the vanity of homos, women's restrooms & showers have been turned into place for men with wigs & dresses, and decent bakers must be fined and driven out of business because they refuse to believe that a homo's fart/poop hole is the equivalent of a woman's vagina that births life.
Homosexist narcissism isn't about the freedom to be homo and do homo things. It is about the homos taking away the right of Moral Freedom from those who refuse to see homomania and transmania as healthy moral/cultural developments.
Homosexist narcissists say a man's fart-hole is no less a sex organ as a vagina.
If that is so, this must be sweet music and shit must be equal to a baby.
https://youtu.be/XpQQpIOCp_A?t=1m3s
'Gay marriage' is anti-true marriage since it equates perverted 'sex' among homos with real sex between men and women that makes natural sense and produces life. 'Gay marriage' also argues that a homo's fecal anus is the 'sexual' equivalent of a woman's vagina that produces life. It's an insult to womanhood, esp considering the pain a woman goes thriugh in child birth.
Equating homosexuality and real sexuality is like equating evolution with creationism in the name of 'science equality'. In fact, creationism is bogus. Pro-creationists might argue that they are for the equal teaching of both instead being against evolution, but when falsehood is made equal with truth, it is anti-truth. The idea that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality between men and women is like saying a lie is worth the same as truth. Why is a penis being smeared with fecal matter of equal value with a penis fertilizing the egg in the female organ?
EQUALITY doesn’t mean that perversion is equal to decency. It doesn’t mean that two guys indulging in fecal penetration are doing something of equal biological and moral value as man and woman having real sex. As marriage has biological and moral value, it makes no sense to pretend that homosexuality and trans-genderism have equal value with true sexuality.
If everything should be hailed as ‘equal’, then teach Creationism in schools in the name of SCIENCE EQUALITY. Don’t ‘discriminate’ against Creationists.
And
Promote voodoo medicine in the name of ‘medical equality’. Don’t use ‘Euro-centicism’ to ‘privilege’ Western empirical medicine over non-white supernatural medicine. That’s ‘racist’.
—–
There are so many circles of lies here.
It goes to show that the search for truth can slide into a cesspool of lies.
There used to be a time of undue panic about homos. People sought all sorts of ‘scientific’ reasons to treat it as a mental sickness.
But then, it was realized that homos are just born that way, and there was nothing that can be done about it.
So, the idea was that homos should be allowed to do their homo things.
Still, it was understood that homo stuff was biologically useless, gross, and/or ridiculous because factually it is. Fecal penetration among men indeed.
There was truth all around: homos are born that way AND homo-ness is a natural abnormality that turns off most people for obvious reasons. So, let homos be homo, but let’s not pretend that it makes biological or moral sense..
But then the lies began, and one lie began to snowball into other lies.
1. We were told that homosexuality is ‘rational’ and ‘natural’–meaning naturally normal than naturally abnormal–, and if you find it gross or weird, you are a ‘homophobe’ suffering from an ‘irrational’ and ‘unnatural’ extreme aversion to something healthy.
In fact, ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. People’s aversion to homosexuality is natural. What are unnatural is homomania and homophilia. Indeed, the fact that 24/7 homo propaganda costing billions has to promoted constantly to make us support the agenda is proof of how unnatural homomania is. It’s like North Korea has to push the cult of great leader day in and day out to perpetuate the myth that the fat Kim is a great man. End the propaganda and indoctrination, and people will see him for the pig he is. Turn off the lie machine and people will quickly revert to the truth on the true nature of homosexuality.
2. We were told that homos were pure-as-snow victims of AIDS only because of Reagan’s ‘indifference’ and that the spread of AIDS had nothing to do with wanton homo behavior.
3. We were shown so many homos on TV and in movies that American public began to think that 25% of Americans are homo even though homos are only 2% of the population.
4. We were only shown clean-cut idealized images of homos while anyone who opposed the homo agenda was portrayed as a degenerate pervert. Audiences are shielded for the most part from the gross physical side of homosexuality.
5. We were told that homo agenda is about choice and freedom, but then anyone who uttered anything critical about homosexuality or the homo agenda was shot down, reviled, and attacked.
6. We were told that homo agenda would simply allow homos to their own thing without interfering with our values or institutions. Clinton signed marriage act and Obama voted for religious freedom act. They were both lies and tricks.
7. Homo agenda went from a matter of free choice among homos to mandatory requirement among straight people to not only tolerate homos but to mute their own criticism of homos, then to praise homos, then to celebrate homos, then to worship homos, and then to attack anyone who doesn’t do likewise. In big cities, politicians don’t have a chance unless they attend homo ‘pride’ rallies. It is a mandatory requirement.
Why must straight people grovel and worship homos? What is so great about men porking each other in the fecal hole, or women having ‘sex’ by humping a hole with a hole, or men/women undergoing genital mutilation to become the opposite sex?
8. Then, the homo agenda said that homo should get ‘married’ on the basis that homosexuality is just as ‘naturally’ normal and rational and moral as real sexuality. This led to the crazy notion that ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies’ can have kids. We were supposed to pretend that if a lesbian has a man impregnate her, she had the kid with her lesbian lover/wife than with the man.
Lies and lies, but in a corrupt society made up of cowards(who shudder at the feet of Jews who chose homos as their favored allies), even conservatives have kept their mouths shut. While hysterically howling about Israel and Iran, they don’t dare take a strong stand against the homomaniacal policies favored by Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews as well.
9. Then, homos began to infiltrate the churches and turn church after church into swallowing the nonsense that Christianity is compatible with the homo agenda and ‘gay marriage’.
10. People were told the lie that the homo agenda is ‘leftist’ and about helping poor helpless victims when, in fact, it’s been the favored agenda of the oligarchic class that has long appreciated the loyal service of vain and power-hungry homos.
———-
This brings us to a problem. All these lies began with the truth. The truth was homos are born that way, and they can’t do anything about it, so they should be allowed to do their homo things on their own.
So, why couldn’t homos be content with the truth? We accepted that they are born fruity and tolerated their homo stuff among themselves. Why couldn’t it end there?
It’s because we overlooked the homo psychology. By nature vain, narcissistic, hissy, sneering, ooh-lala, whoopity-doo, bitchy, queenie-ish, and snotty, it was never enough for homos to just be tolerated. They have a pagan-god complex and wanna be worshiped as royalty and Adonises. They have personalities of ‘radical will’ that wants to be center of the world.
I mean, just think about it. They are so pushy and deluded that some of them put on women’s dress and makeup and really believe that they look like hot stuff. Indeed, they are so demanding that they insist that WE find them ‘beautiful’ too. Now, it’s become bad form according to PC for us to laugh at and mock trannies who look ridiculous.
We want to accept the truth, but sometimes there’s more to the truth than we may have originally assumed. Even as we accepted the truth of homosexuality, there was a hidden truth that we ignored: that homos have a problem with the truth. i.e. even as we accepted the truth about them(they were born homo and have a tendency to indulge in gross and weird ‘sexual’ behavior), they could not handle the truth about themselves. They wanted to believe the lie that their ‘sexuality’ is biologically the equal of ours, that their ‘morality’ founded on biological lies is not only as good as our morality but even better, indeed to the point where we should get on our knees and bow down before them.
Indeed, the very nature of homosexuality is deceitful. It is a natural lie. Nature produces sexually dysfunctional people such as homos who believe that the male anus is a ‘sex’ organ. It produces men who want their penis removed and fitted with fake vaginas that they believe to be just as good as real vaginas.
Homosexuality produces feelings and mind-sets in homos that prefer the lies about biology.
Homosexuality produces lesbians who rub pooters together and produce no life but then hire a man to become pregnant and then lie to themselves that THEY had the child together.
But then, lies + power = forcing everyone else to swallow the lie as well or else.
As Jews have the power over media and government, they can force or brainwash us all to swallow the lie pushed by homos.
So, what is to be done? I’m not a religious nut who wants to say “God hates fa*s.”
I accept the biological reality/truth about homosexuality, BUT, homos, being vain and egotistical and queenie-meanie, cannot accept the truth of their biology. They not only say that they were born that way(truth) but insist that their ‘sexuality’ is just as normal, valid, and rational as real sexuality is(lie) and that a homo’s anus(that excretes feces) is just as much a ‘sex organ’ as a woman’s vagina that produces life. A tranny’s fake vagina is just as real as a real vagina. And ‘two daddies’ can have kids together. And anyone who disagrees is a ‘homophobe’ with mental problems and is a moral degenerate to boot.
I can accept the truth about homos but homos can’t.
This is the nature of the conundrum:
Suppose someone is a compulsive liar, and we try to make him stop lying. But suppose it turns out that he can’t help it. He was born with the compulsive lying gene. He feels this powerful compulsion to lie and simply can’t stop.
So, we accept the truth and allow him to be a compulsive liar.
Good for everyone, right? He gets to compulsively lie, which he can’t help. And we tolerate the fact that he loves to lie.
No, it doesn’t end there. Being a compulsive liar, he not only lies but insists that he is telling the truth. He then says his lies or ‘truths’ are just as valid as our truths. Then, he accuses us of telling lies and says his ‘truths'(lies) must be favored over our ‘lies'(which is actually the truth).
Now, what would happen if such compulsive liars were to be favored by the rich and powerful(esp the untouchable Jews) who use all their financial, governmental, legal, cultural, and media power to promote the compulsive liars as ‘the greatest truth tellers’ whom we all must all obey? Sheeple can be made to believe in anything through media manipulation and mass education/indoctrination, especially if they’ve been cut off from deeper truths of biology, morality, and culture.
But Cons are to blame too because their ideology has become a big lie. It is based on the false premise that Jews are totally wonderful, the best friends of conservatism and Christianity, and that serving Jews is what conservatism is all about. In truth, Jews have been at the forefront of pushing the homo agenda.
As for the religious right, they can’t accept the truth of evolution and biology, such as that homos are born that way.
Anyway, it’s not enough for us to accept the physical truth. We need to understand the psychological truth. Physical truth is that homos are born that way and that their ‘sexuality’ is biologically worthless and morally dubious(as it is a natural lie).
But there is also the psychological truth that says homos are vain, pushy, bitchy, and can’t accept the truth that their ‘sexuality’ is not equally valid as ours.
For this reason, the acceptance of the truth about homos can lead to a slippery slope of lies because, once homos are given even the slightest bit of legitimacy, they work obsessively to force all of us into believing that EVERYTHING about them is just as good or even better than our sexuality.
So, fecal penetration among men become the equivalent of real sex between men and women.
So, a tranny with fake vagina is as much a real woman as a real woman.
And such stuff are like the ‘rainbow’.
An empire of lies.
Homosexist Supremacism is crime against Moral Freedom, the freedom to be moral & decent and not aid & abet what is gross, foul, wicked, and evil.
The state says you MUST bake the Gay Wedding Cake that associates marriage with the fecal penetration of narcissistic sexual deviants who have the support of Jewish globalist imperialists who use the homo agenda as their proxy. Jews are the ruling minority elite in gentile nations. /this makes Jews nervous, so they try to normalize minority elite supremacism by promoting homosexuality as the New Normal and Homomania as the new religion(that must even invade and take over churches).
Russians must never surrender their Moral Freedom to Homosexist imperialism.
Homosexist Supremacists are not content to have the freedom to indulge in gross, deviant, and foul acts of fecal penetration and mutilating sexual organs for purposes of 'changing' sexes.
They want to take away your MORAL FREEDOM to not involve yourself in their degenerate behavior.
So, marriage has been turned into a decadent institution to serve the vanity of homos, women's restrooms & showers have been turned into place for men with wigs & dresses, and decent bakers must be fined and driven out of business because they refuse to believe that a homo's fart/poop hole is the equivalent of a woman's vagina that births life.
Homosexist narcissism isn't about the freedom to be homo and do homo things. It is about the homos taking away the right of Moral Freedom from those who refuse to see homomania and transmania as healthy moral/cultural developments.
Homosexist narcissists say a man's fart-hole is no less a sex organ as a vagina.
If that is so, this must be sweet music and shit must be equal to a baby.
https://youtu.be/XpQQpIOCp_A?t=1m3s
'Gay marriage' is anti-true marriage since it equates perverted 'sex' among homos with real sex between men and women that makes natural sense and produces life. 'Gay marriage' also argues that a homo's fecal anus is the 'sexual' equivalent of a woman's vagina that produces life. It's an insult to womanhood, esp considering the pain a woman goes thriugh in child birth.
Equating homosexuality and real sexuality is like equating evolution with creationism in the name of 'science equality'. In fact, creationism is bogus. Pro-creationists might argue that they are for the equal teaching of both instead being against evolution, but when falsehood is made equal with truth, it is anti-truth. The idea that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality between men and women is like saying a lie is worth the same as truth. Why is a penis being smeared with fecal matter of equal value with a penis fertilizing the egg in the female organ?
EQUALITY doesn’t mean that perversion is equal to decency. It doesn’t mean that two guys indulging in fecal penetration are doing something of equal biological and moral value as man and woman having real sex. As marriage has biological and moral value, it makes no sense to pretend that homosexuality and trans-genderism have equal value with true sexuality.
If everything should be hailed as ‘equal’, then teach Creationism in schools in the name of SCIENCE EQUALITY. Don’t ‘discriminate’ against Creationists.
And
Promote voodoo medicine in the name of ‘medical equality’. Don’t use ‘Euro-centicism’ to ‘privilege’ Western empirical medicine over non-white supernatural medicine. That’s ‘racist’.
—–
There are so many circles of lies here.
It goes to show that the search for truth can slide into a cesspool of lies.
There used to be a time of undue panic about homos. People sought all sorts of ‘scientific’ reasons to treat it as a mental sickness.
But then, it was realized that homos are just born that way, and there was nothing that can be done about it.
So, the idea was that homos should be allowed to do their homo things.
Still, it was understood that homo stuff was biologically useless, gross, and/or ridiculous because factually it is. Fecal penetration among men indeed.
There was truth all around: homos are born that way AND homo-ness is a natural abnormality that turns off most people for obvious reasons. So, let homos be homo, but let’s not pretend that it makes biological or moral sense..
But then the lies began, and one lie began to snowball into other lies.
1. We were told that homosexuality is ‘rational’ and ‘natural’–meaning naturally normal than naturally abnormal–, and if you find it gross or weird, you are a ‘homophobe’ suffering from an ‘irrational’ and ‘unnatural’ extreme aversion to something healthy.
In fact, ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. People’s aversion to homosexuality is natural. What are unnatural is homomania and homophilia. Indeed, the fact that 24/7 homo propaganda costing billions has to promoted constantly to make us support the agenda is proof of how unnatural homomania is. It’s like North Korea has to push the cult of great leader day in and day out to perpetuate the myth that the fat Kim is a great man. End the propaganda and indoctrination, and people will see him for the pig he is. Turn off the lie machine and people will quickly revert to the truth on the true nature of homosexuality.
2. We were told that homos were pure-as-snow victims of AIDS only because of Reagan’s ‘indifference’ and that the spread of AIDS had nothing to do with wanton homo behavior.
3. We were shown so many homos on TV and in movies that American public began to think that 25% of Americans are homo even though homos are only 2% of the population.
4. We were only shown clean-cut idealized images of homos while anyone who opposed the homo agenda was portrayed as a degenerate pervert. Audiences are shielded for the most part from the gross physical side of homosexuality.
5. We were told that homo agenda is about choice and freedom, but then anyone who uttered anything critical about homosexuality or the homo agenda was shot down, reviled, and attacked.
6. We were told that homo agenda would simply allow homos to their own thing without interfering with our values or institutions. Clinton signed marriage act and Obama voted for religious freedom act. They were both lies and tricks.
7. Homo agenda went from a matter of free choice among homos to mandatory requirement among straight people to not only tolerate homos but to mute their own criticism of homos, then to praise homos, then to celebrate homos, then to worship homos, and then to attack anyone who doesn’t do likewise. In big cities, politicians don’t have a chance unless they attend homo ‘pride’ rallies. It is a mandatory requirement.
Why must straight people grovel and worship homos? What is so great about men porking each other in the fecal hole, or women having ‘sex’ by humping a hole with a hole, or men/women undergoing genital mutilation to become the opposite sex?
8. Then, the homo agenda said that homo should get ‘married’ on the basis that homosexuality is just as ‘naturally’ normal and rational and moral as real sexuality. This led to the crazy notion that ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies’ can have kids. We were supposed to pretend that if a lesbian has a man impregnate her, she had the kid with her lesbian lover/wife than with the man.
Lies and lies, but in a corrupt society made up of cowards(who shudder at the feet of Jews who chose homos as their favored allies), even conservatives have kept their mouths shut. While hysterically howling about Israel and Iran, they don’t dare take a strong stand against the homomaniacal policies favored by Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews as well.
9. Then, homos began to infiltrate the churches and turn church after church into swallowing the nonsense that Christianity is compatible with the homo agenda and ‘gay marriage’.
10. People were told the lie that the homo agenda is ‘leftist’ and about helping poor helpless victims when, in fact, it’s been the favored agenda of the oligarchic class that has long appreciated the loyal service of vain and power-hungry homos.
———-
This brings us to a problem. All these lies began with the truth. The truth was homos are born that way, and they can’t do anything about it, so they should be allowed to do their homo things on their own.
So, why couldn’t homos be content with the truth? We accepted that they are born fruity and tolerated their homo stuff among themselves. Why couldn’t it end there?
It’s because we overlooked the homo psychology. By nature vain, narcissistic, hissy, sneering, ooh-lala, whoopity-doo, bitchy, queenie-ish, and snotty, it was never enough for homos to just be tolerated. They have a pagan-god complex and wanna be worshiped as royalty and Adonises. They have personalities of ‘radical will’ that wants to be center of the world.
I mean, just think about it. They are so pushy and deluded that some of them put on women’s dress and makeup and really believe that they look like hot stuff. Indeed, they are so demanding that they insist that WE find them ‘beautiful’ too. Now, it’s become bad form according to PC for us to laugh at and mock trannies who look ridiculous.
We want to accept the truth, but sometimes there’s more to the truth than we may have originally assumed. Even as we accepted the truth of homosexuality, there was a hidden truth that we ignored: that homos have a problem with the truth. i.e. even as we accepted the truth about them(they were born homo and have a tendency to indulge in gross and weird ‘sexual’ behavior), they could not handle the truth about themselves. They wanted to believe the lie that their ‘sexuality’ is biologically the equal of ours, that their ‘morality’ founded on biological lies is not only as good as our morality but even better, indeed to the point where we should get on our knees and bow down before them.
Indeed, the very nature of homosexuality is deceitful. It is a natural lie. Nature produces sexually dysfunctional people such as homos who believe that the male anus is a ‘sex’ organ. It produces men who want their penis removed and fitted with fake vaginas that they believe to be just as good as real vaginas.
Homosexuality produces feelings and mind-sets in homos that prefer the lies about biology.
Homosexuality produces lesbians who rub pooters together and produce no life but then hire a man to become pregnant and then lie to themselves that THEY had the child together.
But then, lies + power = forcing everyone else to swallow the lie as well or else.
As Jews have the power over media and government, they can force or brainwash us all to swallow the lie pushed by homos.
So, what is to be done? I’m not a religious nut who wants to say “God hates fa*s.”
I accept the biological reality/truth about homosexuality, BUT, homos, being vain and egotistical and queenie-meanie, cannot accept the truth of their biology. They not only say that they were born that way(truth) but insist that their ‘sexuality’ is just as normal, valid, and rational as real sexuality is(lie) and that a homo’s anus(that excretes feces) is just as much a ‘sex organ’ as a woman’s vagina that produces life. A tranny’s fake vagina is just as real as a real vagina. And ‘two daddies’ can have kids together. And anyone who disagrees is a ‘homophobe’ with mental problems and is a moral degenerate to boot.
I can accept the truth about homos but homos can’t.
This is the nature of the conundrum:
Suppose someone is a compulsive liar, and we try to make him stop lying. But suppose it turns out that he can’t help it. He was born with the compulsive lying gene. He feels this powerful compulsion to lie and simply can’t stop.
So, we accept the truth and allow him to be a compulsive liar.
Good for everyone, right? He gets to compulsively lie, which he can’t help. And we tolerate the fact that he loves to lie.
No, it doesn’t end there. Being a compulsive liar, he not only lies but insists that he is telling the truth. He then says his lies or ‘truths’ are just as valid as our truths. Then, he accuses us of telling lies and says his ‘truths'(lies) must be favored over our ‘lies'(which is actually the truth).
Now, what would happen if such compulsive liars were to be favored by the rich and powerful(esp the untouchable Jews) who use all their financial, governmental, legal, cultural, and media power to promote the compulsive liars as ‘the greatest truth tellers’ whom we all must all obey? Sheeple can be made to believe in anything through media manipulation and mass education/indoctrination, especially if they’ve been cut off from deeper truths of biology, morality, and culture.
But Cons are to blame too because their ideology has become a big lie. It is based on the false premise that Jews are totally wonderful, the best friends of conservatism and Christianity, and that serving Jews is what conservatism is all about. In truth, Jews have been at the forefront of pushing the homo agenda.
As for the religious right, they can’t accept the truth of evolution and biology, such as that homos are born that way.
Anyway, it’s not enough for us to accept the physical truth. We need to understand the psychological truth. Physical truth is that homos are born that way and that their ‘sexuality’ is biologically worthless and morally dubious(as it is a natural lie).
But there is also the psychological truth that says homos are vain, pushy, bitchy, and can’t accept the truth that their ‘sexuality’ is not equally valid as ours.
For this reason, the acceptance of the truth about homos can lead to a slippery slope of lies because, once homos are given even the slightest bit of legitimacy, they work obsessively to force all of us into believing that EVERYTHING about them is just as good or even better than our sexuality.
So, fecal penetration among men become the equivalent of real sex between men and women.
So, a tranny with fake vagina is as much a real woman as a real woman.
And such stuff are like the ‘rainbow’.
An empire of lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)