The Right Must Fight with Bad Faith when It Comes to Free Speech.

The Left has several advantages on the issue of Free Speech and Hate Speech. They have a long record of fighting for free speech going back to days of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. When conservatives went after communists and fellow-travelers, leftists and liberals–many of them Jews–took a seemingly principled stand which called for absolute freedom of speech. Back in those days when white people freely expressed their hostility toward communism and called non-white people ‘niggers’, ‘kikes’, ‘chinks’, and ‘spicks’ with impunity, they didn’t fear their speech of freedom being curtailed or controlled. People who feared government control or being blacklisted were communists, fellow travelers, and trouble-making radical leftists of all kinds. Since there was no possibility of the Left taking away freedom of speech from white people(even of the far right), the most that the Left hoped for was total freedom of speech for everyone like the Constitution says in order to, at least, protect their own freedom of speech. If the Left in the 40s and 50s had called for banning ‘hate speech’ of the Right, anti-communists could have argued for banning dangerous and subversive communist or far-left speech. After all, if far-right speech should be controlled lest it lead to social harm, why shouldn’t leftist speech be controlled lest it cause similar harm? Besides, with the fall of Nazi Germany and heating up of the Cold War, America’s main enemies were on the Far Left soon after World War II.
The Left back knew they had to fight an uphill battle. So, instead of calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, they called for total freedom of speech for everyone–for Nazis and communists too, for white bigots and black bigots.

Even people who hated communists and leftists had to admit this was a principled stand, one upheld by the constitution. But, the clever Leftists knew that if you allow equal free speech to the Left and the Right, the Left would eventually come out on top since it had far more original, intelligent, brilliant, and dedicated thinkers than the Right did. Liberals far outshone conservatives in artistic, cultural, and intellectual pursuits in the modern era. And, the far left produced a number of brilliant and influential thinkers even if their ideas were ultimately wrong-headed and harmful.

The Far Right, on the other hand, was not only morally and intellectually bankrupt but associated with the unpardonable crime of the Jewish holocaust. Though communists murdered a lot of people too, they could stand proud as the vanquishers of Nazi Germany. As US had fought Far Right Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan–and had been indelibly altered by the long Liberal reign of FDR–, US was essentially placed on the liberal path even if it was anti-communist.
At any rate, there were numerous leftist and Marxist thinkers and artists of great talent in the post-war period. Though there had been talented rightist thinkers in pre-war Europe, they had vanished by the end of the war. The fall of Germany, the revelations of crimes, and etc made it difficult for anyone to be a respectable rightist intellectual or artist. Worse, those on the Hard Right in the post-war period tended to be criminal types, thugs, lunkheads, and dolts.
So, total freedom of speech for both left and right was bound to favor the left because the left made far better use of that freedom than the right. The left, populated with many intelligent Jews, wrote books, published fancy journals, directed plays and screenplays, made movies, wrote laws, etc.
The right, populated with crusty complacent wasps or ape-like rednecks, put on silly airs(like Bill Buckley) or waved the Conderate Flag and made Nazi salutes.
It was no contest. In time, the smarter and more creative Left won out over the Right in the so-called Culture War. Culture belongs to those who remember it, preserve it, and make it. You’d think the Right would at least preserve and remember their ‘proud’ culture, but your average American rightist was more into country music, silly pulp novels, and TV shows than culture. Even if Leftists waged war on tradition, they were far more likely to read the classics, think them through, discuss and dissect them, and write about them. Why is it that the English Department is run by Marxists and feminists? Partly because leftists who rule the roost favor their own kind for promotion, yes. But, the main reason is most people devoted to arts and humanities are found on the Left than on the Right.
Also, you cannot win a culture war if you don’t produce any ammo. Where are the conservative artists of note? The Right made a big deal out of Mel Gibson, but Gibson is no great artist. He’s good, and it’s nice to have him but he’s outgunned 100 to 1. And, if conservatives cannot stand Hollywood, why can’t they form their own film companies?
Leftists and liberals also tended to be more interested in journalism, a key area through which we learn about the world. For every Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak who went to journalism school, a 100 liberals and leftists majored in the field. Also, many rich liberal Jews bought up most of the media conglomerates or built them up from scratch with their brilliance, energy, and cunning.
Also, because conservatives tended to be anti-government, far more liberals entered government and took over all the bureaucracies. Instead of being for sound and clean government, conservatives were kneejerkedly for NO government. But, the fact is there will ALWAYS be government. Just as the Sunni boycott of elections in 2004 handed all the power to Shias and Kurds in Iraq, conservative animosity and defacto boycott of government handed all the levers of power in government to the liberals so that even when Republicans run the White House and Congress, all the agencies are managed and controlled by liberals who can stall, undermine, subvert, and counter everything Republicans try to do.

Anyway, in due time, Leftists and liberals won the culture war, the legal war, the social war, the media war, and took over the most powerful institutions in this country. In the 60s and early 70s, they completely triumphed over the Right on the issues of free speech. This was possible due to the consistency of their argument and logic, the aid of the liberal media and academia, and the tenacity/passion/talent of their members. Before political correctness appeared on the scene, liberals argued CONSISTENTLY(and correctly) that freedom of speech/expression meant freedom of ALL speech/expression.
When the issue of porn movies tore the country apart, liberals supported legalizing it as freedom of expression. Liberals were for the freedom of filmmakers to use greater violence on screen. Liberals were for use of foul language. Hollywood had been constrained for decades up to the early 60s by various moral groups–led by the Catholic Church–which said you couldn’t show this, you couldn’t say that. It got so ridiculous that one couldn’t even use the word ‘pregnant’ in an old Hollywood movie. A married couple had separate beds in the same room.
Of course, onne could make a compelling argument that these censorious controls kept filth out of the screen and had constructive social value. Even so, they did violate constitutional right of free speech. In the 60s and 70s, ACLU, though mainly a Jewish organization serving leftist causes, loudly supported free speech for all. In some cases, ACLU went out on a limb to defend the KKK and Neo-Nazis. (The fact that right-wing groups had to rely on the legal expertise of liberals and leftist shows you how intellectually–and financially–bankrupt the far right had become). However one may feel about them, people like Alan Dershowitz won grudging respect from all sides for their intellectual consistency. Dershowitz may be a "weasly Jew" but he stuck to what he said on the issue of free speech(though his recent derailing of Norman Finkelstein’s tenure at Depaul was a low blow of the worst sort). As the Far Right was both intellectually and financially bankrupt, it even became dependent on organizations like ACLU to defend its freedoms against local groups who were angry with the KKK’s right to light crosses or Neo-Nazis’ right to hold rallies in certain communities. So, even people who hated Jews–and denied the Holocaust or wanted to gas Jews themselves–came to rely on Jewish legal expertise to enjoy their right of extreme speech in all communities across this nation.

As time passed, with liberals and leftists(Jews prominent among them) controlling most schools and colleges, most media outlets, most popular entertainment industries, most publishing, most law firms, most radio(even conservative Talk Radio is downright slavish when it comes to Jewish/Zionist interests), and so on, it dawned on the ‘progressive’ community that it no longer needed protection of the constitution. Why would people who own and control the apparatuses of the nation need its protection?
When the left had been a pariah in the political wilderness during the early stages of the Cold War, it needed protection of the constitution. By the 80s, the left had become deeply entrenched in all the powerful institutions. Even if the 80s were the Reagan decade, the power and control of liberals(especially Jews) over institutions were near total.
Though Reagan was allowed to be anti-communist against foreign nations, he could not go after domestic communists and leftists INSIDE the US. He could only go after communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Reagan got a blessing to do this from many in the Jewish community(even among liberals) because the Soviet Union had turned anti-Jewish despite its ideological and historical roots in Jewish radicalism. By the 70s and 80s, most Jews were thinking in terms of ‘Save Soviet Jews.’ The very movement that the Jews had supported in 1917 had viciously turned on them since Stalin’s final days.
Reagan was also acceptable to the Jews for he was archly Zionist as opposed to his predecessor Jimmy Carter who angered the Jewish community by sympathizing with Palestinians and pressuring Israel to make concessions. In 1980, Reagan incredibly got nearly 40% of the Jewish vote(and lots of Jewish support in the media). Though most Jews despised Reagan on social and cultural matters, they wanted to use him to bring down the ‘antisemitic’ Soviet Union and to strengthen Israel’s hand in the Middle East. Anyway, Reagan’s anti-communism could only be aimed at enemies outside America. The Iron Rule in the media allowed the far right to be depicted as evil both abroad and in America, BUT the far left could only be shown as evil abroad. In other words, Hollywood movies could show heroic guys blowing away Nazis in Europe or mowing down subhuman ‘white supremacists’ in the US–like Clint Eastwood did in "Pink Cadillac." But, it was generally not permissible to show far leftists or communists as enemies IN America. They had to enemies abroad. Take Rambo where Sly Stallone fights Vietnamese commies and the Soviets but not commies and leftist radicals in the US. Even "First Blood" had Sly Stallone inexplicably at odds with rightwing rednecks than with leftwing reds. "Red Dawn" by John Milius took place on American soil but all the enemies were Soviet invaders. There was no American-born leftist collaborator in sight.

What was true with movies was true with Reagan politics. He could brashly attack communism abroad but he couldn’t go after leftists IN America. For any government official or big businessman to go after or denounce far leftists IN America was said to be ‘red-baiting’ or ‘McCarthyism’.
The liberal media and academia had pulled off a clever trick after the excesses of McCarthy. Though McCarthy had largely been right about the communist subversive threat, he had played his cards sloppily, drunkenly, paranoid-ly, boorishly, and stupidly. Instead of being surgical and cautious, he went the shotgun approach and hurt people whose connections to communists were dubious.
Because McCarthy came to be nationally disgraced in the most humiliating way, ALL of his ‘victims’–even real commies–were rehabilitated as innocent saints and ‘patriotic Americans’ whose constitutional rights had been violated. The liberal media and academia lost no time replaying this political soap opera narrative over and over. Though FDR had used similar means to suppress the anti-war Right and even locked up 130,000 mostly innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, the liberal media and historiography declared that US had never faced such a danger to its democratic freedom as during the McCarthy period(and again during Nixon’s Watergate scandal though it was small potatoes compared to what Woodrow Wilson and FDR had done during wartime. But what do you expect from liberals? They complain that Bush was acting like a dictator but don’t mind that Obama has become a ‘sort of god’).

It is for this reason that there has long been a double standard in American culture and politics. It’s wrong to ‘red-bait’ but it’s okay to white-bait. If you burn the American flag and attack this country from the leftist perspective, liberals defend and even praise such expressions as what America is all about–dissent and freedom of speech. But if you attack the far left or Marxists, you are said to be a paranoid McCarthyite red-baiting lunatic with no respect for free speech nor for American values of radical dissent.
According to liberals and leftists(especially among the Jewish kind), radical dissent is more truly American than conservative values. For liberals and leftist, the True America is that which the country must become in the future. The REAL America and its past are regarded as essentially negative and hypocritical. This is why 60s radicals and the KKK get different treatment in the media. Though some 60s radicals have been shown in a negative light to some degree, they are seen as essentially well-meaning, idealistic, and ‘ahead of their time.’ They are shown to be essentially good people who got overzealous and did bad. Indeed, even Jim Jones–the original Mr. Kool Aid–was partially idealized in a recent grisly PBS documentary. Though the documentary showed the murderous excesses of Jim Jones’s movement, it ended on a kind of hopeful note, as if to say Jim Jones had wonderfully utopian ideas but failed to see them through because he was sick in the head(the implication being that his rage was the product of our refusal to recognize and support the goodness of his movement and his followers).
.
In contrast, KKK people are shown to be evil incarnate. Naturally, liberals and leftists in the media and academia favor the far left over the far right even if both are deemed dangerous in the larger sense. Anyway, we saw the final culmination of this double standard in the 2008 election. Obama got off scot-free though his political origins are of the radical left and though he hung around radical lunatics like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright all his life. If McCain had such connections, he would have been shot down right away.
The rationale employed by liberals to justify this double standard has a degree of validity. Generally, we believe that those with great power should be held to greater account and responsibility than those with less power. Since whites had long discriminated against blacks and are still dominant in the politics/economics of this country, it could be argued that blacks have more of a legitimate gripe against white society than vice versa, notwithstanding the fact that in the past four decades, black crime and violence have been endemic in robbing, raping, and murdering white folks. It could also be argued that the Far Left, no matter how wacky, are closer to the letter and spirit of the US constitution than the Far Right is. Though the Far Left rejects individualism, personal liberty, and private property, it does subscribe to the notion that all people are created equal and should be treated equally in a color-blind manner. Leftists have never lived up to these principles, but as far as ideas go, it is true enough that Leftism and the US constitution agree on the universality and equality of man–though the definition of ‘equality’ isn’t uniform across the Leftist spectrum. The Far Right–whether it be the KKK or the Black Muslims–, on the other hand, reject the notion of equality of man, universality of human rights, and the brotherhood of man. The Far Right tends to be bio-realist or tribalist whether on cultural grounds or national scale. Because the Far Right is based more on animal instincts of clannishness and us-against-them, it is bound to come across as uglier, meaner, and less moral than the ‘noble ideals’ of the Left. In as much as The West has been deeply influenced by Christianity, a egalitarian and universalist doctrine, and Hellenic philosophy, which sought the universal and unifying truths across the, the Left will enjoy a moral advantage over the right at least in the ideological and intellectual sphere... unless the Right makes a powerful and effective argument for biology as the fundamental basis of our social reality and functionality.

Anyway, Leftists have arrived at a time and place where they no longer have to struggle or plead for freedom of their own speech. They control most of the levers of society determining laws, ideas, values, fashions, and trends. Since their speech can no longer be threatened, they are now looking for ways to control the speech of their enemies. But, Leftists and liberals know that they cannot do this overnight. After all, they would come across as sheer hypocrites. People would wonder how activists who’d been at the forefront of Total Free Speech in the 50s, 60s, and 70s suddenly morphed into a political force trying to control speech by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. How is it that liberal free speech activists, who used to throw fits about curtailment of speech for communists–and even aided Neo-Nazis and KKK in free speech cases to show that it supported Free Speech for EVERYBODY–, have been so silent about the erosion of free speech due to the machinations of liberals and leftists? Why aren’t members of the Free Speech Movement getting out there to fight for the free speech of ALL people, even of the radical right? It’s because the radical left is no longer threatened. The Radical Left controls all of the academia, runs Hollywood and makes movies like V for Vendetta which dehumanizes white gentile males, and control the news media. Heck, the radicals even ideologically prepared and groomed Barack Obama who is now president despite his disgusting associations. Most trial lawyers are liberal or leftist, and most legal scholars are liberal or leftist. Even most capitalists–educated by leftist professors–are socially and culturally leftist.

So, the Left is now poised to take away our free speech. But, being clever and patient, the Left will not try to enact their laws overnight. They don’t want to look like hypocrites after decades of having fought for total free speech for everyone. If they suddenly called for curtailing far right speech or ‘hate speech,’ people would realize that the Left(mainly controlled by Jews) had acted in BAD FAITH all along.
So, leftists and liberals must make it appear as though the NEW GENERATION of good decent people are DEMANDING ‘hate speech’ laws in order to create a better society. Though the older generation of liberals and leftist had called for Absolute Freedom of Speech, they instructed their own students and audiences(via popular culture) to view The Right as disgusting, evil, vile, hideous, gross, sick, demented, and etc. Though the new generations since the 70s grew up under a system of total free speech, they were emotionally and mentally conditioned to virulently and rabidly hate the White Right. By the 90s and 2000s arrived, the new generation had grown into politically indoctrinated young adults incapable of critical thinking. They were brainwashed into thinking ‘blacks, Jews, homos, and feminists are GOOD’ and ‘whites, especially white gentile males, are BAD’. They were told that EVERYTHING wrong with the world–poverty, oppression, corruption, crookedness, etc, etc–was the product of white ‘racism’, imperialism, and blah blah blah. Since young ones, indoctrinated by political correctness, are loudest in calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, the previous generation of ‘progressives’ who fought for Total Free Speech can pretend that ‘hate speech’ laws are not their doing but demands made by idealistic younger generations whose feelings we should respect. Though people like Alan Dershowitz and Ira Glasser will pretend to oppose the new censoriousness, they will only go through the motions without really putting up a fight. Indeed, almost all liberal and leftist Jews–even or especially those who had called for total freedom of speech in the past–privately want ‘hate speech’ laws. Indeed, the whole Free Speech Movement wasn’t meant as an END but only as a MEANS to bring about the real goal which is ‘hate speech’ laws so that the Left will have freedom of speech to itself while the far right and even the mainstream right will be hamstrung.

It’s a very clever trick, which goes to show that one should NEVER underestimate the brilliance of the left-wing Jews. Notice that though Alan Dershowitz and Nat Hentoff are still officially committed to Total Free Speech for all, they barely stand up to the Leftist PC Police nor to the liberal efforts seeking to institute ‘hate speech’ laws. They make just enough noises and complaints to show that they are still free speech stalwarts, but deep down inside, I’ll bet both leftist Jews are happy that The Right is poised to lose their freedom of speech–like already happened in Europe and Canada.

This is a very dangerous time for the Right. In Europe freedom has already been lost. Only violent uprising can save Europe as white people no longer have their freedom to save their own countries from social decay and foreign invasion. We still have freedom of speech in the US, but with the liberal and leftist control of institutions and shifting demographics, the white right is bound to lose their rights of free speech in the US as well.
This is why we must FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. USE BAD FAITH AGAINST BAD FAITH. You see, the Liberals are playing it both ways. By supporting extreme leftist and anti-American speech–‘dissent’–, liberals claim that they are defending total freedom of speech. After all, they are even defending the right to desecrate the American flag or to denounce the US government–as long as the hostile speech comes from the Left(radicals) or People of Color(‘underdogs’) of course.
But, Liberals also win moral points for standing up to HATE. They say that as important as free speech is, freedom of dignity is even more important. So, they take pride in opposing ‘hate speech.’ Of course, by HATE, liberals generally mean hostile speech from the White Right. In simple terms, only leftist dissent should be allowed.

Now, anyone with any integrity should plainly see that one cannot be for Total freedom of speech yet also be against ‘hate speech’. Yet, this is the game the liberals(mostly Jewish) play in utter bad faith. Remember that these are the same people who say ‘gay marriage’ is really marriage or that illegal aliens are true Americans. Liberals twist logic into a pretzel to impress people that they are for both total free speech and for ‘social justice’–by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. This isn’t a true duality but merely a form of duplicity.
More and more people are being won over to the anti-‘hate speech’ crusade since they are hooked to stuff like Oprah and have been educated by public schools and get the news from the liberal media. In their stupid minds, Hate is simply a bad evil thing, so what’s the loss if people are not allowed to express ‘hatred’? As far as they’re concerned, it’s no worse than banning smoking in a public restaurant or banning farting in public. Since there’s NOTHING of value in ‘hate speech’, why not ban it outright? It’s only removing toxins from our collective consciousness, right?
And, even those who oppose ‘hate speech’ laws are loathe to stand up openly because they don’t want to come across as condoning ‘hate’. Even if they argue that they are only for the FREEDOM of ‘hate speech’ than for the hatred per se, they still feel like secret supporters of the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

This is why Political Correctness has been so crucial and important to the Left. The Left needed to shape the hearts and minds BEFORE pushing for laws curtailing free speech. The Left had to show that the White Right is truly evil and distasteful. The Left had to make Americans feel this animus against the White Right EMOTIONALLY. So, as ‘hate speech’ laws incrementally arrive, the majority of Americans are embracing it–not intellectually but emotionally. If you can’t win over people through the head, go through the heart.
After generations of kids raised on stuff like ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Fried Green Tomatoes’, ‘Boys Don’t Cry’, and PBS documentaries on Emmit Till, it’s no wonder that so many young people FEEL that ‘hate speech’ laws are necessary. Butter the heart and the mind soon turns to mush.

Indeed, liberals(again, mostly Jews)have done the same thing with the gay agenda. Notice how all these liberal Jewish dominated publications are saying it’s time for ‘gay marriage’ since all these young people–the future majority of this country–demand it. In other words, w we need ‘gay marriage’ because of POPULAR DEMAND from fresh young people. But, who shaped and influenced all those young minds addicted to pop culture, dependent on school textbooks, and attuned to the latest fashions and trends? We know full well that liberals and leftists(good many of them Jews) control the top levers of pop culture, academia, and trend industry. So, the rising popular demand for ‘gay marriage’ is merely the product of the masses being brainwashed by the softly coercive and nudge-nudge-nudging manipulation of the liberal and leftwing Jews. Indeed, Cass Sunstein, now working in the Obama administration, even wrote a book on how to nudge, nudge, and nudge the masses toward goals favored by liberals and leftists. These super-smart leftist and liberal Jews see us as Pavlovian dogs or guinea pigs to manipulate. Dimwit goyim, at the end of day, come to believe that they are for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘hate speech’ laws from their own volition when, in fact, they’ve been gently and not-so-gently nudged, nudged, and nudged in that direction by powerful liberal and leftwing Jews who control so much of our society.

This is why need to act in bad faith and call for the curtailment of leftist speech while calling for total free speech. Not because we really believe in controlling free speech but just to drive the Left crazy like it drives us crazy. In boxing, you cannot win by defense alone. Go solely into defense mode and your opponent will just attack and attack. Sometimes, offense is the best defense. If you attack the opponent, he will be too busy covering up to punch you back(unless he happens to be a great counter-puncher); constant jabbing is the best form of defense.
In the free speech debate, the Right has long been purely on defense while the Left has been on Offense. The Left no longer need to be go on the defensive since its power is deeply entrenched in media, academia, culture, etc. Since leftists need not fear any control of their own speech, they are busy attacking the free speech of the Right. In order to divert leftist energy from their non-stop offense against our freedom, we must attack the freedom of leftist speech. We don’t want to control leftist speech; we simply want to put the left on the ropes. We simply want to beat them at their own game.

What is the leftist game? The leftist game is that ‘hate speech is not free speech’ because it may lead to violence, oppression, and hurt feelings. Leftists say that speech itself is dangerous because a hateful statement by a prominent far right figure might inspire a street-level skinhead to go out and commit acts of violence. The leftist argument is that those who inspire such hatred and violence are just as culpable. Well, we can make the same argument. After all, if Karl Marx hadn’t written the Communist Manifesto, not so many people would have been ‘inspired’ to join the radical leftist movement and commit massive crimes against humanity. Where did Che Guevera get his sick ideas? From leftist intellectuals he read in books and magazines. So, if some far right intellectual or leader must be held account for actions committed by others who may have been inspired by his words or teachings, then leftist intellectuals and leaders must be held accountable for all the violence committed by leftist revolutionaries, saboteurs, guerillas, and murderers inspired by the writings of people like Jean-Paul Sartre, Franz Fanon, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Ayers. All theories may lead to practice. If dangerous right-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous right-wing practice, then dangerous left-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous left-wing practice.

Well, we can play this same game that the Left is using against us. We can say radical leftist speech IS hate speech. Marxism is hatred for certain classes slandered as ‘exploitive’ and ‘evil’. Marxism is also hatred for religions as ‘the opiate of the masses’. It is also hatred for national cultures as ‘irrational tribalism’. Tally up the body count from the history of leftist hatred and it approaches 100 million in the 20th century. It was Marxist-Leftist hatred for the so-called bourgeoisie which led to dispossession, expulsion, and/or mass execution of people of property. It was leftist internationalism that led to mass deaths of various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Or, just consider what Chinese Marxist imperialism did to the culture of Tibet. Just look at what leftist Jewish radicalism has done to our national borders? Legal citizens in this country are routinely being robbed, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens thanks to the leftist Marxist ideological hatred of national borders and identity(especially those of white nations and peoples). The left is filled with hatred, no less than the right. If we on the Right hate certain things, ideas, and peoples, the those on the Left have their specialized hatreds. Sure, leftists claim to be for equality and universality and loving all mankind, but their formula for justice and love requires ALL OF US to conform to their demands... OR ELSE! Otherwise, you get persecuted, attacked, and even killed. Islam is universalist too. It too embraces all of humanity as its brother and sister, but Islam says everyone has to do as the Koran says; otherwise, you’re a no-good infidel. So, both Marxist and Islamic forms of universalism are conditional, coercive, hostile, and aggressive. They embrace you like a python and spare you ONLY IF you kiss their ass. It’s a kind of love that makes all the demands and tolerates no deviance. Indeed, it HATES all those who refuse to comply.
There has been an element of this in Christianity as well. Christianity also tried to spread universality all over the world and create a unified brotherhood of man. So, what’s the problem, you may ask. What’s wrong with spreading love and justice? The problem is religions or ideologies like Christianity, Islam, and Marxism assumes that it holds all the TRUTH and all other beliefs and values are lies or worse. In the name of their supposedly higher and righteous love, the followers of these faiths have felt justified in hating those who don’t comply. To be sure, Christianity, as an ideal at least(and ideals do color and shape practice), is better than Islam and Marxism because it advises persuasion than coercion to convert non-believers. Also, Christianity is anti-utopian and accepts that there can never be Heaven-on-Earth.

Anyway, we can make a powerful argument that Marxist intellectuals, academics, activists, and others are haters and that their speech should be curtailed(or they should be fined or dragged to prison)since they are espousing and spreading an ideology of hatred(of classes, nationalities, and religions).
We can also charge them of Bolshocaust Denial or Apology. If David Irving should be locked up for denying the Holocaust or apologizing for Hitler, why shouldn’t leftist intellectuals in Europe, Canada, and the US not be locked up too for having denied communist mass murders or having praised the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che? Who says only racial hatred is hatred? The Left is filled with all sorts of hatreds. Hatred for the US, hatred for national borders and identities(especially white), hatred for religions, and hatred for the supposedly ‘wrong’ classes–not just the bourgeoisie but also the peasantry. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky despised the Russian/Ukrainian peasantry, targeted farmers, took their grain, and let them starve? Why? Because communism favors the urban working class. The peasants were seen as backward and stupid animals whose only purpose was to be worked like cattle so that their blood and sweat could be stolen by the government so as to build up the proletarian class in the cities.

Leftists also say that ‘hate speech’ should be banned because it hurts people’s feelings. But, doesn’t leftist speech hurt people’s feelings? Aren’t Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Americans not emotionally hurt when they go to Western universities taught by left-wing Jewish professors who extol communism, the ideology and system that starved and killed millions of Ukrainians? How would Jewish students feel if a Nazi-sympathizing professor demeaned the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust? If Holocaust denial or apology is ‘hate speech’, then Bolshocaust denial or apology is also ‘hate speech’.
How would refugees from communism–Polish, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc—feel if they had to attend high school or college classes where some leftist professor(Jewish or brainwashed by leftist Jews) gave a lecture or passed out reading material saying that communism was a good thing or that Lenin, Stalin, or Mao weren’t so bad or even good in many ways? Wouldn’t the feelings of those students be hurt?

Of course, we are for free speech, and we don’t believe that speech should be curtailed or controlled to spare bruised feelings, BUT we’ve come to a point where many forms of speech have already been banned because they are said to be hateful and hurtful to various groups. Since political correctness is already the law, we can only fight fire with fire. We must use the same tactics. Relying purely on pure principles will not work at this time. We must fight fire with fire. We must say that leftist speech is deeply hurtful to people who, or whose relatives, suffered under communism. Just consider how Cuban-Americans must feel when leftist Jews in this country praise Castro to high heaven or when leftist Jewish PBS mis-characterizes Cubans who fled Castro as a bunch of mafia-connected hoodlums when in fact most Cuban refugees were decent people who left because of communist tyranny.

And, consider the number of white people victimized by black crime. Think of the people who’ve been robbed, looted, raped, and murdered. Think of their relatives.
Given this horrible reality, many white people are understandably hurt and offended by black speech in gangster rap and from demagogues like Al Sharpton and Henry Louis Gates. It’s bad enough to be robbed, raped, or murdered, but it’s even worse when black artists, leaders, and thinkers continue to verbally attack whites and even threaten more collective rage and violence against the white community unless we toady up to black demands. If protecting the feelings of people is so important, we should ban Rap music since it hurts the feelings of people brutalized by black behavior and crime.

Just for the satirical fun of it, we should even call for banning speech making fun of ugly people. Indeed, whose feelings would be more hurt? A Polish American who’s called a ‘Polack’ or an ugly girl who’s called ‘a disgusting ugly dog’? The dumb Polack may laugh it off but the fat ugly girl may go home and cry all night. If protecting hurt feelings is so important, then we need to ban all speech that hurts feelings. Recently, Letterman deeply hurt the feelings of the Palin family, so maybe we should call for the banning of nasty, snarky comic speech too. After all, we have to protect people’s feelings. And, how would a hard working small businessman feel if he worked all his life yet is called a ‘parasitic capitalist pig’ by leftist intellectuals? He would feel hurt and angry. So, we must ban all leftist speech that might hurt the feelings of hard working business folks.

This whole thing would be a game, but we need to play the game. The left operates in total bad faith. We know that. We know that leftist Jews are clever, brilliant, and Marx-Brothersy in running circles around us. We cannot act in good faith with those who only operate in bad faith. We must fight fire with fire. If they call for banning hateful rightist speech, we must call for banning hateful leftist speech. If they say rightist speech hurts feelings, we must say our feelings have been hurt by leftist speech.

We need to do the same with ‘affirmative action.’ If liberal and leftist Jews say white gentiles must give up their jobs to blacks and browns, we must call for affirmative action for whites whereby Jews have to give up their jobs to us. Indeed, this is how White Russians took their country back from Jewish control–through Soviet Affirmative Action which limited the Jews in top echelons of society. We need to do the same. Though we are opposed to Affirmative Action in principle, the superduper powerful Jews are saying we white folks must give up our jobs to blacks and browns. Well, well, then it’s only fair for superduper rich powerful Jews to fork over their wealth and privileged positions to us... OR ELSE!!!

The Consummunism Paradox. How Consumerism Leads to ‘Communism’

Conservatives are busy warning us of the looming danger of "communism" to our free market economy. According to this narrative, businesses of America are what makes this country great. Well, who can disagree with the dynamism of capitalism? But, what we have seen develop over the past decades is entitlement capitalism. More and more people expect capitalism to ensure most people with the so-called "necessities" of life. Even many leftists have abandoned or de-emphasized socialism in favor of capitalism, at least on condition that capitalism will provide EVERYONE–or nearly everyone–with all the amenities of modern living. Indeed, this has been the great compromise.

Especially during the Clinton-Blair 90s, the Left decided to embrace and use capitalism as the engine of social progress and egalitarianism. Globalism would drive down prices of goods and services. Things would become so cheap that everyone could afford their goodies from Walmart or whatevermart. Mass global production and innovation would make the latest gadgets available to everyone. Even in poor communities, fat lazy slobs would be able to afford cell phones, microwave ovens, flat screen TVs, and computers hooked onto the internet. Capitalism went from supply-and-demand to supply-and-entitlement.

The dominant liberals in government allowed capitalists to do their thing as long as capitalists expanded production, drove down costs, and made things available to nearly EVERYONE, even those without jobs or those who had to borrow to spend. Capitalists were assured of great profits by shipping jobs to China and outsourcing to India. Capitalists were assured of easy and bountiful loans to their enterprises, and easier and even more bountiful loans to their customers who would buy their services and products. Businesses could borrow and expand in expectation of future profits. This idea and practice reached its apotheosis with the Internet Bubble. And, customers, with their stock portfolio bubble growing bigger and bigger, could borrow and spend and borrow more and spend more. In the 90s, many people borrowed money to invest in the Internet Bubble. In the 2000s, construction firms borrowed to build more houses, and people borrowed to buy those houses. Banks borrowed from other banks to lend more to businesses and consumers. And, so on and on.

One may call this SOCIAL FINANCE. In many ways, capitalists in this crazy system were greedy sons of bitches. But, they were allowed to be greedy sons of bitches–indeed encouraged to be greedy sons of bitches and even praised as great humanitarians–on condition that they made goods, services, autos, houses, etc cheaply and widely available to most people, even those who couldn’t afford them. This is why New Finance and Government Intervention went hand in hand. Social Finance.
Democrats bought into this New Compromise as the End Result seemed to be what they desired–spreading the ‘American Dream’ to more Americans, especially lower-income Americans who generally vote Democratic. Even those with low-paying jobs or living on welfare could buy lots of stuff at Walmart and even buy a house in the 2000s. Republicans also embraced this Great Compromise as it seemed to indicate that capitalism can indeed create consumerist Heaven on Earth where even a poor nobody with no savings can buy a car, widescreen tv, computer, cellphones, and a house(or several for flipping). One might call it Welfare Capitalism.
And businesses embraced this system because people seemed to just spend and spend like there was no tomorrow. And, as there was plenty of loans made available by banks, businesses–profitable or not–could just borrow more and expand more. And, people could keep borrowing and spending. Indeed, businesses of America used their lobbyists to pressure the US government to expand the system of Entitlement Capitalism and Social Finance.

But, what happened at the end of the day? People spent and spent. They borrowed and spent. Government pressured businesses and banks to offer more loans and easier credit so that people could spend and spend. And, businesses pressured government to enact and enforce policies that would goad people to suppress their anxieties, be happy, and spend and spend.
If businesses hate one thing, it’s people saving than spending. Businesses see money saved as money not spent. Businesses want people to spend all their money and then borrow some more to spend more and more... until the customer can’t borrow anymore. It’s like how Las Vegas operates. They want you to gamble your wealth down to your last penny. Then, they loan you money and make you gamble more until you lose your house and your shirt. Finally, when you have nothing left to spend or borrow with as collateral, you’re thrown out into the streets. When that happens, what do you do? You turn to government for help!!

Anyway, this is the paradox. On the one hand, we are led to believe–often through business lobby groups–that free enterprise is a great thing and is at odds with Big Government. But, it’s gotten to a point where the success of many businesses depends on Big Government largesse and intervention. Businesses have done away with moral hazard and are willing to borrow, spend, invest, expand, and etc–along with their customers–only because Big Government provides safety nets to everyone, from Wall Street to the low-income person who bought his car and house on easy credit. Businesses want us to spend, spend, and spend. Instead of having the government get out of the way, businesses want government to provide us with safety nets so that we don’t have to worry about anything and just spend, spend, and spend like the grasshopper–as opposed to the ant.
And, this kind of mindset and activity has become necessary to the ‘well-being’ of our consumerist economy. Indeed, if we all acted like ants, the economy would implode. Our economy is based largely on consumption.
Now, it’s one thing to work hard, earn, save, and then spend what’s left. But, Americans save nothing. They just spend and spend. The positive effect of this is that the money gets pumped back into the economy so there is lots of economic activity. But, what if it turns out that a lot of people actually spent money they didn’t have? They spent what wasn’t really theirs but had been borrowed? What if lenders all say, ‘it’s time to pay back the loans’? Then the shit hits the fan.
The people look to government for help. Businesses look to government for help. In other words, consumerism paves the way for ‘communism’–not Soviet communism but Super Big Government Liberalism. Our consumerist culture tells people, "don’t save, just spend, spend, spend. And, if you have no earnings, don’t worry; just borrow and spend." But, where does all this lead to? When times are good, people think government is just a hassle. But, when the times are bad, people have no savings left. They have nothing for a rainy day. They turn to government. But, even when times are good, capitalism can lead to Big Government. Rich capitalists want something more than wealth. They want power, respect, and love. They know that political causes and agendas are the way to win the respect and love. Look at the fabulously rich Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Or consider Ted Turner in the 90s before he lost much of his wealth. Their riches didn’t turn these men conservative but liberal. With all that dough, they wanted to exert political and social power? How? Through bigger government. When people have too much money, they take wealth for granted and want to be GOOD CITIZENS. Government becomes their tool. Same has been true of the Kennedy family and the Bush family. ‘Compassionate conservatism’ indeed. No wonder George W. Bush expanded government to mega-heights, at least before the coming of the Obamessiah backed up by, you guessed it, super rich liberal Jews, people who are so rich that they take their wealth for granted and want to do GOOD WORK through bigger government, thus gaining control over our lives.

So, it’s not a simple case of capitalism vs socialism, or business vs government. Our system is such that businesses require people borrowing and spending, and people borrow and spend because moral hazard has been removed and insured by Big Government. Businesses complain of Big Government and higher taxes, but it’s Big Government which makes people feel taken care of and protected. That’s why people have felt free to borrow and spend like there’s no tomorrow, exactly what businesses want from their consumers.
If the government taxed the rich less and provided fewer safety nets and if middle income and lower income Americans need be more responsible and save more of their money, most Americans would spend less. Under such scenario, businesses may pay less taxes to government but they would also make less money since more people would save and spend less. Businesses want us to spend our last dime. They exert pressure on government to come up with social and financial policies that makes us feel protected and thus makes us feel free to spend and spend. This kind of Babylon capitalism cannot work in the long run. It’s not only financially irresponsible but morally damaging. Spending is good–and borrowing is necessary for certain high-priced investment items–, but the rule should have been DON’T SPEND WHAT YOU CAN’T AFFORD AND DON’T BORROW WHAT YOU CAN’T PAY BACK. But, the corrupt collusion of the egalitarian agenda–the idea that every American should be entitled to a car, computer, and house–and the business agenda–the idea that people should borrow and spend like there is no tomorrow–has eroded away the core moral economic principles of this country. We still believes in risks but not the responsibility.

Another Way of Looking at the Henry Louis Gates and White Policeman Incident.

The recent incident involving the arrest of Harvard African-American Studies professor by Sgt. Crowley(who happens to be white) ignited a discussion across the nation about race, history, crime, and etc. This is both unfortunate and welcome. Unfortunate because it obfuscates what really happened that night–a pompous snot-nosed downity(prone to looking down on social inferiors) black professor gave a good cop unnecessary trouble, eventually pushing the liberal, politically correct, Obama-supporting white officer to arrest Gates. But, it is welcome to the extent that we do need more honest discussions on race, and if this incident has us talking, all the better. Of course, what passes for ‘honest’ discussion on race often happens to be more of the same politically correct cliches about white police brutality/harassment and the history of black(and Latino)grievances. (Never mind the far greater animosity that exists between the black and Hispanic communities. Hispanics generally haven’t had the kind of sour problem that exists between blacks and white cops. The biggest tensions between Hispanics and policemen flared up in Washington D.C. where majority of the cops happened to be black).

I offer another way to look at the tensions between blacks(generally males) and policemen(generally white, though black and Hispanic police officers also have had more trouble with blacks than with any other group). Let’s get some of the obvious things out of the way. There has been a history of white domination of the police department, and the attitude among many white officers toward the black community has sometimes been hostile. Sometimes, it’s been downright contemptuous. In both the South and the North, a good number of innocent blacks have been falsely arrested and even coerced to make confessions. Though people tend to see this as a conflict between mainly poor blacks and blue-collar white policemen, it’s really not that simple.
Though affluent whites could feign or posture with a civil and liberal conscientiousness, they’ve always depended on BRUTE police force to maintain the ‘thin blue line’ between their genteel refined world and that of the criminal classes(white, black, or otherwise). We only need to look at the Cambridge or Berkeley. Both are liberal academic communities in which an elite class of mostly white progressives put on airs and admonish society for ‘racism’, white prejudice, and police brutality BUT these white professors and students rely on the mostly white police to keep them safe from the criminal class. Indeed, if you were remove the cops altogether from college campuses and communities, white liberal elitists would be helpless before the criminal elements, especially from the black community–which seems to grow up near college towns perhaps due to menial jobs in college housing, food services, and etc. So, even as white liberals tend to look down on cops, they rely on the generally white police officers to keep them safe from the criminal elements so that they can peacefully settle into their offices and write essays, lectures, and books on the injustice of our society.

There has been the added element of blue collar white resentment toward successful or middle class blacks. In the past–and perhaps even today in some cases–a blue collar white policeman might give a tough time to an apparently well-off, decent, and law-abiding black man as if to suggest that no matter how high a black man might rise in society, he’s still under the control of the white man. Gates has studied and lectured on matters like this for SO LONG that he too has his own prejudices–though ostensibly in the name of anti-prejudice. (If an Armenian sees EVERY Turk as prejudiced denier of the Armenian genocide, he himself becomes prejudiced). Just as Christians, wrapped tightly in their own victimization–persecution and execution of Jesus, Roman persecution of Christians, Muslim/Ottoman threat, communist mass murders of Christians, etc–, were blind to those victimized by Christians, blacks who are obsessed with their own victimization cannot see how this obsession has turned into a prejudice against non-blacks. When a white officer appeared at his house that night, Gates could ONLY see the incident in one way: EVIL WHITEY CAME TO HARASS A SUCCESSFUL BLACK GUY BECAUSE BLUE COLLAR ‘RACIST’ HONKEY DON’T LIKE BLACKS, ESPECIALLY SUCCESSFUL BLACKS.

From where do prejudices arise? There is no single reason, origin, and source, but extreme self-righteous and moral certitude is one of them. Some forms of prejudice are crude and elemental: a simple case of distrusting or hating other peoples out of primal urge. But, another kind of prejudice can be ‘high-minded’, sophisticated, complex, elaborate, and even seemingly rational(or rationalized to the nth degree). The Jewish prejudice against ‘filthy goyim’ was highly complex and elaborate. Some forms of antisemitism were also complex and intellectual, based on grand theories, extensive reading of history, and a considerable(sometimes convoluted)process of rationalization. Sometimes, the prejudice can be both primal AND elaborate; the Nazi hatred of Jews was both animalistic/elemental/visceral/vicious AND intellectual/philosophical/scientific(or scientistic)/moralistic. Recall Dr. Zaius, the orangutan scholar in the movie "Planet of the Apes"? His hatred, distrust, or prejudice against humans were elaborately historical, ‘scientific’, spiritual, and moralistic. Henry Louis Gates not only resembles the orangutan scholar but thinks like him. According to the orangutan scholar, humans had once ruled the world and mistreated apes and other animals. Eventually, humans brought upon their own demise because of their obsession with domination, materialism, and exploitation. So, the apes must be careful never to trust the humans. So, even as the orangutan Dr. Zaius feels a great deal of prejudice and hostility toward the human Taylor, he sees it as justified, moral, and necessary. Zaius is blind to his own prejudice because he feels so absolutely right on historical and moral grounds. His hatred of humans is such that he will even cover up scientific evidence indicating anything good about humans. Similarly, Gates grew up with the idea of the world dominated by evil white folks. As he sees it, black Africans and blacks in America are still mired in poverty all because of white slavery, white imperialism, white capitalism, etc. He’s so convinced of this that he will bury or oppose any scientific data–no matter how valid–pointing to the fact that real problems of blacks are genetic–lower IQ and more aggressive temperament–than historical, social, or economic. Anyway, extreme moralism in the combat of prejudice produces yet another kind of prejudice, as shared by Dr. Zaius and Dr. Gates.

Whatever the social complications of the racial relations in this country, we generally and understandably focus on stories and incidents where blacks and whites(or other racial or ethnic groups)CLASH OPENLY. There are two areas where whites and blacks clash most in the most violent or hostile ways: black criminal acts against whites and white police action against blacks: black savagery vs ‘police brutality.’ Though black-on-white crime is far more prevalent than instances of white police abuse against blacks, the former gets relatively minor media coverage whereas the latter fits into the liberal grand narrative. The liberal grand narrative favors ‘speaking to power’ against institutions, and policemen are easy targets since they do wield power over us. Cops are given the license to search people, arrest people, even to hit or kill people in some cases. So, whenever there’s a clash between cops and blacks, the liberal narrative is likely to see it as one of oppressive imperialist white pigs harassing or oppressing innocent blacks; or, even if black ‘victims’ of police brutality are indeed criminal, they are seen partly as ‘victims’ of social inequality and/or historical legacy.

Liberals are also hard on cops because they feel a degree of social ‘guilt.’ They tend to be affluent and live in nice quiet neighborhoods or in gated communities. Their taxes hire police to protect their lives and property. Cops are essentially their pitbulls to keep the riffraff away. So, liberals are acutely aware of their privileged place in society and somewhat queasy about using pitbull cops to keep poor folks away–or down. So, when cops get ‘out of hand’, liberals are often the first to step in and condemn them. Liberals want their properties protected by all means but don’t want to be closely associated with the pitbulls who are doing the dirty work
Remember the movie "Paths of Glory" where a top general manipulates lower ranking officers to do all the dirty work but steps away from the ensuing fisaco and indeed blames his underlings–whom he manipulated/ordered to take on the risks–for the catastrophe? Well, liberals are much the same way. On the one hand, they rely on extensive police protection to maintain their world of privilege and power. On the other, they act like they are perfect angels while it’s the stupid brutish cops who are causing all the trouble. The fact is cops exist only because the powerful and rich in our society hire and rely on them to maintain order so that their can hold onto their lives and property. Especially since liberals are generally opposed to gun ownership, they rely on the state for protection.

Of course, there are bad cops, but good cop or bad cop, cops exist because of the macro-structural socio-economic needs of our society. So, we mustn’t just blame cops; the very people who hire and depend on them must also bear some of the blame–if indeed we are to play the blame game. After all, the cop who went to Gates’s house didn’t do so for the hell of it. He went there because a liberal white woman called 911 to report a possible burglary in a good part of the town in the wee hours of the night. And, there was no racial profiling. Racial profiling applies to cases where you stop and check someone simply because he happens to be of a particular race. But, the woman called 911 not because she simply saw some black people but because she thought she saw two men trying to jimmy open a door. She reported on a particular suspicious ACT late at night, and the cops answered this call. What racial profiling?
If anything, Henry Louis Gates has been racially profiled–that is selected, chosen, and favored–for success. Indeed, for every black guy who may be wrongfully picked off the street by negative racial profiling, there are people like Gates and the Obamas who have been positively racially profiled for affection, support, preference, and promotion. Clearly, Michelle Obama wouldn’t have amounted to much had she been white instead of black. She was able to attend Princeton and Harvard–and graduate with honors–only because she was racially profiled for success by the powerful institutions controlled by white(largely Jewish)liberals. So, these people are indeed beneficiaries of racial profiling.

Even so, people like Gates and Obama are aware of the basic racial tensions that exist in society. Yes, white America has opened its doors and arms to them. Yes, they’ve become rich, successful, influential, popular, and honored by white America. But in some ways, they feel manipulated by whites as symbols of ‘clean-cut’ Negroes employed to show that ‘much progress has been made’ and to send a possibly perniciously conservative message that America has put its racial problems behind.

Even if blacks have still have legitimate grievances with (white) America, the overwhelming fact remains that many blacks are neither ‘decent’ nor ‘responsible.’ Gates and Obama think it’s condescending and unrealistic for white people to expect ALL or MOST blacks to be clean-cut Negroes since too many blacks are still too deeply traumatized and scarred by history and social inequity to think sanely or responsibly. One could argue that though a good number of blacks broke free from the traumatic mode or mold, many blacks simply cannot break out of the mental/cultural/social trap UNLESS white America profoundly and deeply(and collectively) confesses its guilt and make reparative means to help blacks who’ve been kept down and left behind. In other words, if you break a man’s legs, you can’t expect him to walk like other people. If you blind a man, you can’t expect him to see. You must offer eye surgery and rehabilitative therapy; if he’s blinded for life, you must help him for life. To some extent, it is true that the legacy of white oppression of blacks may account for some of black backwardness. But, the rapid decline of black communities, societies, and nations upon independence from white rule–even if oppressive–indicates that the larger problem is genetic. Just look at post-white-rule Zimbabwe and where South Africa is headed. Also, was there any kind of black paradise BEFORE the arrival of the white man in Africa? Only in the wild fantasies of Afro-centrists and willfully naive/gullible white liberals. Also, entire peoples cannot be compared with individuals. An individual lives with his own limbs and memories for his entire life whereas a new generation has every chance and opportunity to think new thoughts, feel new things, and try new things–and forget the past. Cultural and historical memory is artificially passed down, not biologically inherited. So, one of the problems of black society is its ‘leaders’ emphasize and pass down only those memories and feelings of hatred/resentment which are most useless to blacks. These cultural and historical problems are not passed down genetically. For instance, the Irish suffered a lot under the Anglos, but in America that didn’t hold the Irish back from accomplishing great things, in many cases rising even above Wasps who’d settled and gained power in America before them.
If anything is passed down genetically, it is racial characteristics which are indeed the real problem of blackness. It is the biology than the culture or sociology of blackness that is most troubling to this nation. There are too many examples of people who had been oppressed for 100s, indeed 1000s, of years who’ve made great strides against great odds. Indeed, if the black spirit had been so terribly broken, why are they so good at sports? Why are they so successful in funky popular music? Shouldn’t all blacks be filled with too much despair to be dribbling basketballs or playing the sax? Blacks excel in sports and funky music for genetic reasons. They often fail in social and economic matters also largely because of genetic factors–lower intelligence and less emotional self-restraint due to biochemistry.

Anyway, we now arrive at the main point. Why is there a SPECIAL problem that lingers between white cops and black males? There are many social reasons worthy of consideration, but I will connect them to the genetic. I would argue that the relation between black males and white cops is problematic because it violates, overturns, or reverses the Natural racial relationship between white males and black males.
Following the Civil Rights Movement, white males lost the Special Privilege or Advantage they had enjoyed over black males. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, white males in America–North and South, East and West–were favored over blacks(even better qualified blacks) and enjoyed social, political, and legal advantages over blacks. Cops–mostly white–were more prone to side with whites than with blacks, even when whites were in the wrong; this was especially true in the segregated South. There was an understanding among many blacks that one shouldn’t be too ‘uppity’ in American society. Blacks were supposed to know their place and be a ‘credit to their race’. Blacks knew that if they acted up, got too rowdy, or caused trouble–or even stood their ground for all the right reasons–, the bulk of the white community–rich and poor–would unite against them. Even during WWII, blacks served in segregated units in the military.

But, a great deal changed in the 50s and especially in the 60s. Whites lost their special privileges in politics, laws, and rights. Political and legal equality between whites and blacks were not only achieved but strenuously enforced by the system. Though there were rogue politicians and policemen who resisted this change and didn’t heed the commands of the federal or local government, the changes were immense and vast and unstoppable.
The whole thing would have led to a happy ending if indeed whites and blacks gained equality in social and political matters. But, that didn’t happen and why?

Liberals argued that the academic and economic distances between whites and blacks weren’t closed due to the lingering legacy of white discrimination and oppression of blacks in the past. Blacks argued that ‘invisible racism’ still existed all around society and that there were subtle means by which white folks tried to keep blacks down. The liberal argument has merit to the extent that we are all shaped by our past. To say that the centuries of second-class status in America could have had NO impact on blacks would be like saying centuries of autocratic rule and culture in Russia had NO impact on the collective psyche of Russians.
It’s also true that some forms of subtle discrimination or antagonism against blacks still do exist to some degree, at least among small businesses and non-black individuals which are less likely to be sued by big time lawyers. Many small businessmen prefer to hire anyone but blacks. Many non-blacks look for opportunities move to neighborhoods that have few blacks. We need only to check messages on Facebook or anywhere on the internet to see that there are still plenty of people who prefer not to hire, fraternize, or cohabit with blacks if they can help it.
This is a form a prejudice, but what liberals and blacks often ignore is it has little or nothing to do with skin color. We all know that blacks are not simply white people with black skin. There are differences among races that go beyond skin color, and there are legitimate reasons why non-blacks–whites, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, and yes, even(or especially)the Jews–prefer not to deal with or live next to large numbers of black people. It’s not blind prejudice but a knowing prejudice–one based on experience and social/biological reality.

In the 50s/60s, when whites(especially white gentiles)lost their special privilege, new inequalities developed. With Asians, whites found little problem and things were more or less equal. Though Asians tend to study harder, they make up a small minority and have no natural advantages–in intellect or strength–compared to whites. Also, Asians tend to conform to the status quo and don’t indulge much in the ‘culture of critique’–as Kevin Macdonald calls the Jewish mode of cultural engagement–or radical politics. Even in cases where Asians do turn ‘radical’, they follow in the footsteps of their Jewish teachers and black role-models than as leading forces of the movement. So, even without special laws or privileges favoring whites over Asian-Americans(or Arab-Americans), white Americans have had no big problem with them. But, things have been different with Jews and blacks. Once white gentiles lost special privileges over Jews and blacks, the end-result was not equality but lingering inequality and/or new inequalities due to considerable biological imbalances.

There had been a time when white gentiles rigged the system to limit the number of Jews at elite universities and top levels of powerful professions. The reason why the city colleges of NY had once been excellent schools was because many smart Jews–kept out of Harvard, Yale, and other prestigious schools in favor of less smart but better connected WASPs–attended them. Indeed, many Jewish students of the city colleges outperformed complacent WASP students at Ivy League schools who felt entitled to their privilege and favoritism. But, even Jews who attended the Ivy League schools faced subtle roadblocks EVEN IF they graduated with top honors. In "Chutzpah", Alan Dershowitz recounts how Jewish law students who graduated with top honors were often passed over by the great law firms and financial institutions in favor of WASP students with middling grades. Because Jews, being smart, found themselves competing with the gentile white elite, Jews were likely to feel more bitter about elite white power than about lower-class black thuggery. Many Jewish small businessmen in the ghetto did indeed face problems with black criminals and customers, but Jews soon left those professions(and besides Jews did business in those communities before they really turned into the horrible hell they became since the 60s). Their children aspired to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc. So, within a generation or two, Jews butted heads with the WASP elite than with black thugs. If Jews had been less intelligent–like ‘dumb polacks’ or ‘greaseball dagos’–and had to worry day and night about black crime poor neighborhoods, Jews might have a different perspective. But, Jews made their money and soon left the black zones and found themselves subtly or not-so-subtly discriminated against by the white wasp elite whose power and privilege the Jews challenged.
Jews also felt angry because they were relatively ‘funny looking’ and thus made to feel unworthy of marrying the daughters of WASPs. Jewish men grew neurotic and turned into a bunch of Woody Allens deep inside, lusting after wasp women and fantasizing about undermining the entire white male system which prevented Jews from getting all the quality ‘shikse pussy’ they wanted. Jewish women, many of whom were less-than-attractive, also became neurotic in a worse way. They were angry at the White Shikse for making them feel ugly and inadequate, AND they were angry at the male order–mostly white gentile but also Jewish male–for keeping the smart Jewish women down. Jewish women felt smart or smarter than most people, so why did the shikse bimbo get all the attention and love? Why did men–gentile or Jewish–have most of the power? Since Jewish women couldn’t win in the battle of looks or romantic attention, they turned to radical intellectualism and brought on the feminist movement.

Anyway, the point is things changed a great deal in the 60s, and the new reality was firmly established by the 1970s. White gentile males no longer enjoyed special privileges or favors over Jews, blacks, women, or other groups. In an ideal world, that should have been that, a happy ending with equality for all. But, it didn’t turn out that way. Since Jews are a more intelligent people, they began to take over the top institutions all across the nation. Whether in law, finance, media, arts, entertainment, medicine, science, academia, etc, etc, Jews gained dominance. Since intellectual and ideological trends generally flow top to bottom, whatever new ideas hatched by Jewish radical academes or whatever news stories covered by the biggest media outlets influenced and shaped everyone from big city to small town.

Since Jews are only 2% of the population, their influence in America should ideally have been only 2%. But, around 75% of the most influential and powerful people in America today are Jewish. This is something to admire and hold in awe to some degree. The greatness of the Jewish people cannot be denied. Only petty and churlish people will rationalize that Jewish power has been the product of conspiracy or cabal-ish behavior. Of course, Jews do help one another through a close-knit network, but the degree of Jewish accomplishment could not have been possible without Jewish genius. And recall that Jews had outperformed their European gentile peers in the 19th century when there were still tremendous barriers to Jewish opportunity–even after liberalization of society–and when gentiles stuck together(and when antisemitism was quite fashionable and nothing to be ashamed of). Kevin MacDonald argues that Jewish businesses drove out non-Jewish businesses through hostile means, but hostile maneuvers are meaningless unless they are effective, well-organized, and efficiently planned and managed. John D. Rockefeller was a ‘hostile’ oilman who drove his competitors out of business, but he was also a master strategist who knew what he was doing. Bill Gates has been a hostile computer giant, but could he have succeeded by hostility alone? Of course not. He knew how to come up with products people wanted, market them efficiently, and set up business relations that made others depend on Microsoft. Whether he’s a good man or bad man, he’s been more than hostile. He’s been smart, efficient, and strategic–like the ‘hostile’ Jews.
Because of their nebbishness, Jews never posed a physical threat to whites. Jewish threat to whites was intellectual, cultural, and legal. If a bunch of ‘dumb polacks’ beat up a Jew, a Jew would get back at them with lawsuits or by media control which screamed ‘bloody murder by evil neo-Nazis’. Jews didn’t have to fight with fists. They fought back and gained mastery through gaining control of legal professions, the courts, the legislature(made up of lawyers), and publicity(media which swayed popular opinion). So, if a skinhead thug sprayed a swastika on a Rabbi’s house, the Jewish media-legal juggernaut could fight back and go after not only the culprit but shame the ENTIRE white community. Since no white community wanted to be tagged as Neo-Nazi or Hateful, all white communities carefully monitored and clamped down on possible antisemites among them. The taint of antisemitism could bring shame to an entire town or even have dire economic consequences. A tourist spot, for example, could be boycotted. Or, many rich Jewish businesses may not invest there or spend money there. For example, Jewish Hollywood threatened Louisiana with economic boycott if David Duke were elected as governor. And, the Hollywood Jews, closely allied with gays, threatened Colorado ski resorts with boycott if the state passed laws that might be construed as hostile to homos.
Also, politicians, so reliant on Jewish money and Jewish-controlled media, have had to stress over and over that the greatest virtue in the world is to hug and obey the Jews.

With their superior smarts, tribal networks, and moral narcissism rooted in their spiritual heritage and the sacralization of the Holocaust, the aggressive liberal Jews gained prominence in this country. They beat white gentile society. But, white society didn’t become subservient to Jews only because of Jewish victory in culture and law. White society became subservient or dependent on Jews since much of what we rely on in various intellectually challenging fields came from and are mostly managed–and further advanced–by Jewish genius.
Though a good number of Jews were behind the recent financial fiasco, the world of finance is so complex that only Jews are able to ‘fix’ it. So, whether Jews do good or bad, we must rely on their skills. Suppose there’s an auto mechanic who messes up your car. Since you know nothing about cars, you will have to rely on him to repair the thing he messed up. There are many things in our society which are like that. Because so much technology and new systems were created through Jewish genius, we rely on Jews to keep them working. Though US isn’t the only advanced nation in the world, most of the macro-innovations have come from Jewish scientists and thinkers in America(and Israel and Europe). Some of these ideas have been truly astounding and revolutionary. Other have been labyrinthine and complex but are really shyster tricks to rig the system so that only the smart and clever can play. This has been the case with finance in recent years. The instruments involved have been staggeringly complex, multi-layered, and densely interconnected. Only very smart people could come up with these systems and manage them, but they turned out to systems of deceit and manipulation, not true systems of useful innovation and efficiency.

If the loss of white privilege didn’t lead to equality between white gentile and the Jew but to the supremacy of the Jew in the intellectual, economic, and cultural spheres of American life, the loss of white privilege didn’t lead to equality between whites and blacks either but to the supremacy of blacks in sports, funky music, and control the streets(and public spaces).
In the grand historical narrative told by liberals, big powerful white males had oppressed, intimidated, and bullied noble and innocent blacks–especially black males–all through American history. To an extent, it’s a narrative accepted even by the White Right to some extent because it presents an image of white male power and black male subservience. (Though the image of white males may be negative, it still presents white men as Tough and black males as scared.) We’ve all been exposed to countless PBS documentaries where redneck whites in the South(and white ethnic toughies in the North)push helpless, frightened, or childlike blacks around. We’ve seen images of clean-cut black kids harassed and pushed around by mean whites in segregated diners. Or, we’ve seen images of tough clashing with blacks in the north when Michael King(aka Dr. Martin Luther King Jr) came to town to lead a march with the Negroes. In all these cases, we’ve been shown blacks as victims and whites as hysterical, delirious haters. (If the balance of power in the South was indeed white-on-black, it was more complex in the officially unsegregated North. Even by the 40s and 50s, most whites in the North chose to move away from black or blackening areas due to fearsome black criminality and aggressiveness. Though the explosion of black crime really took off in the mid 60s to 70s, many decent white people had always known of–learned the hard way quite often–the dangers of black criminality and aggressiveness in places in Chicago, NY, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.).

There is something wrong with the image put forth by the liberal-historical grand narrative. While it was indeed true that white people put blacks down and kept them segregated–officially in the South, defacto in the North–, the reasons for white hostility toward blacks were partly grounded in legitimate fears. Though white society was loathe to admit it, it feared the physically stronger Negroes. White males feared to admit this as they’d become accustomed to racial pride as the dominant race in the world. White men like to see themselves as John Wayne, the white conqueror of savage lands and defender of white civilization. And, white women wanted to believe that their men were the toughest, noblest, and most heroic. To admit racial fear of blacks would have meant white males were less masculine than black males. For white women to admit this racial fact might imply ‘jungle fever’ for the manlier Negro.

For this reason(the difficulty of facing and dealing with biological facts), whites found various means–legal, economic, social, political, etc–to keep blacks down, away, or apart. But, these means weren’t wholly successful because of the rise of men like Joe Louis, Floyd Patterson, and Jackie Robinson in sports. (Also, a nation that prided itself a fair-minded democracy couldn’t embark on a total strategy of racial domination as the Nazis tried to do.) But, these cross-over athletes had to watch themselves and ‘behave’(and not do the Jack Johnson thing which might spook white folks and lead to a backlash). More than in sports, black magnetism made itself felt through music, especially jazz music. Though Jazz wasn’t necessarily or solely black–white and Jewish musicians made great contributions– the majority of the towering innovators in Jazz were indeed black. Also, black Jazz had a flair and power beyond white Jazz which tended to be mellower. So, even though most white women went to Jazz clubs with white male partners, they were being seduced by a very sexual black-styled music. The subconscious cultural implication was that even though the rational, mechanical, and cold intellect of white man had created such instruments as the trumpet and saxophone, it was the funky, wild, and groovy soul of the Negro who squeezed REAL music out of those instruments. White boys understood the mechanics, Black boys understood music... or so it was subliminally felt by many white aficionados of Jazz.

The equality that white liberals had hoped for didn’t come once special privileges were removed for whites. In the 50s and 60s, blacks made such social gains that whites no longer enjoyed legal or political advantages over blacks in most communities. Those communities that didn’t comply with the new way would get bad press and be shamed nationally(and internationally)through the media, would be boycotted by businesses(which were themselves threatened with boycotts or lawsuits if they did business with bigots), and/or would sued by a gang of lawyers.

So, what happened? Why weren’t there justice and equality between whites and blacks after the 60s? Biology made itself felt. Since whites no longer enjoyed protection as a racial group, they had to deal with blacks on a one-on-one basis. It could only lead to the wussification or the pussification of the white males. White males became to blacks what women are to men: the weaker group. In schools, buses, movie theaters, parks, playgrounds, work place, and so on, blacks could push whites around. Blacks could threaten whites, blacks could taunt whites, blacks could bully whites, blacks could insult whites, and so on, but whites had to just take it. Of course, not all blacks were rude and repulsive, but a good many were. In the old order, if a white bully attacked a black guy, other whites would side with him with the full force of police, government, and law behind white power. So, even if the black guy could beat up the whitey on a one-on-one basis, he had to watch out since he was up against a united white system. In the new system, if a white guy attacked a black guy, he was all alone. The black guy would fight back and ‘kick his ass.’ Worse, if a black guy attacked a white guy, the white guy was still all alone and could no longer rely on white unity which was deemed ‘racist’ in the new order. On a purely one-on-one basis, a white guy would be foolish to attack a black guy since the black guy could ‘kick his ass’, but a black guy could attack a white guy with impunity since he could ‘kick the white boy’s ass.’
Even blacks who were not particularly bullying toward whites could act obnoxious or rowdy in many ways; because of white fear of blacks, whites dared not complain of rowdy black behavior. A rowdy black can still be a friendly black; but if you complained of his rowdiness, he might be both a rowdy and an angry black. So, whenever blacks acted wild and crazy, whites pretended or fooled themselves as if it was all very cool, funny, and entertaining(and even tried to join in the fun in a half-hearted way); the only racial options seemed to be rowdy, obnoxious, and happy blacks OR rowdy, obnoxious, and angry blacks. Since it’s a given that blacks are ‘colorful, musical, and fun-loving,’ the thing is to just keep those big strong wild boys smiling instead of growling. What do you do if a big bear comes upon your camp and messes things up? Do you shout at it or attack it? No, you accept the loss and hope that the bear will stay happy rummaging for food than turn angry and attack you.

Also, even if some white guy mustered up the courage to complain about black rowdiness, the black and white liberal perspective on such complaint was that ‘racist’ whites still expected blacks to be docile and subservient instead of ‘uppity’. For blacks and white liberals, everything was a zero sum game. Either a black man was UPPITY AND PROUD or shuffling and uncle-tom-ish. There was NOTHING in between. Since blacks had been made to swallow their pride and shuffle before whitey for so long, the idea was that blacks had every right–and need–to act wild and crazy to show off their proud blackness and dignity. (Never mind there was no dignity to all this black craziness.)
Blacks were rowdy and obnoxious for three reasons. They are genetically predisposed to be wilder and less inhibited. They knew white boys were scared and could do nothing about it. Black culture and white liberalism that developed in the late 60s–lionizing the likes of Muhammad Ali–defined blackness in a way that promoted the wild jive-ass mofo. So, with each passing year, it became a part of black cultural and social psyche that they were the toughest, baddest, hippest, coolest, punkass mofos on the block, in the city, in the state, in the nation, in the whole wide world. In schools, black boys knew they could whup white boys. So, many white folks moved out to non-black neighborhoods because white parents didn’t want their kids to be beaten up nor emasculated up by Negro kids. But, not all white kids could move to safer areas. Some were rather dumb and poor and were stuck in the integrated neighborhoods. The girls among them would eventually come to bed down with Negroes and have mulatto kids since they preferred tough black boyfriends who could defend them than wimpy white boyfriends who cowered before black bullies(and dared not stand up for their women in the presence of tough muscular Negroes). The white boys either turned into white toms(white uncle toms)acting like ‘niggaz’ in the hope of badass black magic rubbing off on their white skins OR they turned bitter and adopted stuff like skinhead-ism or Neo-Nazism.

But, the problems didn’t just occur in the schools. It was in the streets. Blacks ‘own’ much of the public spaces in big cities and integrated towns. They run around as they please, holler and scream as they please, make a nuisance of themselves as they please, rob and steal as they please, and etc. And, almost no one complains because the black thug would say, ‘what you say about me, mothaf__a?’ and taunt, threaten, or even attack the complainer. So, if you complain to black thugs who are causing the trouble, you get beaten up. If you complain to the leaders of the black community, you get labeled a ‘racist’ for stereotyping black men as dangerous thugs. If you complain to the white liberal community, they look at you as a hopeless white bigot without sympathy for those ‘disenfranchised’ blacks. The white conservative community might lend their ears, but even they are too busy proving that they are NOT ‘racist’ and will likely throw you under the bus.
In movie theaters blacks often scream and holler, but you can’t complain because if you did, they’ll turn on you and holler, ‘you talkin to me, white boy???!!!’ And, the Negroes will then kick your ass there and then or after the movie.

Of course, assault and battery–and even threats–are against the law, but it doesn’t much matter because if you call the cops to report some crazy blacks, the cops will arrive long after the Negroes ‘whupped your ass’. And, even if the Negroes are arrested by some luck, they won’t stay in detention for long and will soon be back out in the streets, especially if they are juveniles.

Also, it’s a matter of male pride. Suppose Negroes harass a white guy and his white girlfriend. Suppose the white guy, afraid of Negroes, calls the cops. By doing that, he’s ‘acting like a pussy.’ He’s showing that he’s afraid of the Negro, can’t stand up to the Negroes on his own. The Negroes would laugh at his ass, and his girlfriend will be humiliated that she’s with a ‘pussyass wimp’. I know, all of this sounds pretty ridiculous and miserable, but it has been the SOCIAL REALITY of America for quite some time.
It’s a no-win situation for the white man. If he decides to stand up to the Negro, he’ll likely ‘get his ass whupped.’. If he calls the cops, not only will the cops arrive to late to ‘save his ass’ but he will have lost his ‘manhood’ since he called for help than standing his ground. This is why white men had kept the black man down for so long. In their subconscious mind, white males sensed that legal and political equality with Negroes would not lead to social equality. It would lead to the sexual, physical, and public(street-level)superiority of the Negro.
This relational fact is also true in the military and in many workplaces. Sure, whites and blacks famously get along fine in many work settings, BUT there have also been many cases of black causing trouble on the job, getting all violent, pushing whites around, acting all intimidating and the like. Even when blacks are clearly in the wrong, our legal and social system is such that blacks can cry ‘RACISM’ and sue their white co-workers and the company. Just look at the Gates-Crowley case. Crowley did nothing wrong and simply did his job–accompanied by black police officers–, but that stupid jive-ass Gates screamed bloody ‘racism’ and won the support of our punkass Negro president who showed his true colors: Black. Obama is a reverse Oreo. White-ish on the outside, coal black on the inside.

Because blacks tend to be less inhibited and more shameless, black workers are more likely to steal on the job and violate rules. They also often do as they please because they know that their fellow blacks(even honest ones)won’t rat on them in the name of STICKING TOGETHER and because non-black workers will remain mum because they are scared of being confronted by an angry ‘falsely accused’ black guy. Besides, even when the black guy is accused for a thievery he really did commit, he can cry ‘racism’ and say he’s been stereotyped or ‘racially profiled’ as a black-guy-who-steals. Though blacks commit much of the shoplifting in this country, they throw a fit if they’re caught doing it. If white man can do no right in our PC society, black man can do no wrong. The Gates-Crowley incident highlighted this fact. Though Crowley did nothing wrong, the president himself called him ‘stupid.’ Though Gates did nothing right, he was assumed by blacks and the liberal media to have been wronged by white society. Even white liberals who soon learned that Gates had been in the wrong rationalized that he was right in the larger social and historical sense. Since he belongs to a people who’d been historically wronged, everything he does or happens to him must be seen through the prism of ‘white racism’. William Styron might even start writing a novel called the ‘Confessions of Henry Louis Gates Jr."

Anyway, it’s become the norm for blacks–both men and women but especially the men–to look upon themselves as the TRUE MASTERS OF SOCIETY. Though blacks bitch and whine about how white folks fear blacks, they also take special pride in that very fact.
There used to be a time when the black man feared the white man, and this fear made the white man feel good and proud. Of course, the black man didn’t fear the white man’s physicality but white man’s united political, legal, and social power base. There was a time when if a black guy got out of hand, a whole bunch of whites would come after him–and even the Law(controlled by whites) would do little to stop the white mob looking to ‘get the uppity or crazy nigger’. White men took pride in the fact that they were feared by non-whites. To be feared means that you are tough, powerful, and intimidating. Men love sports, and athletes often trash talk to psych the opponent out. So today, blacks enjoy being feared by non-blacks. The whole rap culture is, to an extent, all about scaring people and gaining ‘respect’ through fear.
But, white fear of blacks also has led to white flight, lack of investment in the black community, and even hostility towards ‘dangerous’ thug-like blacks. In a way, blacks want to have the cake and eat it too. They wanted to be badass and to be feared by all those ‘lame faggoty-ass’ whites out there, but they also want to be loved and admired. Blacks want to act the thug AND receive a hug. Muhammad Ali went furthest with this con-game than anyone else and was the most successful. He acted like a thug punk, but white society eventually lionized him as a ‘great hero for the entire nation.’
Similarly, black guys take pride in their con-man hijinks YET also demand to be trusted. Blacks love to boast of how they are so slick, slippery, jazzy, and done fooled/tricked/conned the ‘faggotyass lame bland square white boy’ real good, but these same con-men are then complain that white society doesn’t trust blacks because of white ‘racism.’ . Blacks want to steal AND be offered a deal. In a way, the whole business of acting the thug but demanding a hug OR going for the steal but expecting a deal is a jive-ass con-man race hustle act. It too is a way of putting one over on the ‘lame’ white boy. You know how Jazz works, with a more or less conventional melodic line upended, twisted, harassed, and lampooned by syncopation, rhythm, and all sorts of musical trickery? Well, blacks work the same way on white psychology. Obama is a political jazz artist though he plays it mellower than most in order to fool whitey. So, on the one hand, blacks seem to be making an earnest and sincere complaint about problems in society. But, watch or listen carefully, and it is merely the pretext for all their jazzy con-man trickery they pull up and down, left and right. So, both Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates act like they are respectable and dignified Ivy League scholars, but it’s really just a race-hustling act of self-promotion, psychological manipulation of gulliberal privileged whites who only know black reality and problems through books, tv shows, and movies made by fellow liberals and leftists.

Anyway, the current social reality is one where black men see themselves as the top dogs of society, as the alpha males, as the badass mofos. Black kids learn this from an early age. In schools, they learn they can easily beat up, push around, or steal the school lunch money of non-blacks. In public places, they realize they can do just about anything and get away with it. Since black males raised by single mothers have no sense of social hierarchy, they don’t respect their elders either. All that matter are physical strength and thug attitude. So, if black kids get on a bus and act wild and crazy, they know that people will not complain. Indeed, most people will not even look at the blacks lest the black punks stare back and yell threateningly, ‘what you looking at, bitch????!!!’ (The main reason why much of the violence in America is between black male and black male is because only a black male may have the balls to stand up to another black male. Just as most violence among lions, bears, and elephants is among top males of the species trying to gain supremacy, much of our social violence involves black males fighting black males because only black males will challenge other black males. There’s likely to be more peace between black male and white male or between black male and Hispanic male since the white or Hispanic male is likely to back down and take on the role of the beta male when confronted by alpha black males. But, where Hispanic males outnumber black males by a sizable margin, the dynamic changes. If three Hispanics gang up on one Negro, there can be like the wolf pack beating a bear.)
Even blacks who don’t have personally negative or hostile relationships with whites or other non-blacks feel a sense of racial superiority because it’s readily obvious from sports and popular music that blacks are faster, stronger, tougher, and so on. So, even in cases where blacks and whites get along just fine, black guys feel as entitled to being the commanding figures while the white guys should play a subservient role.
Increasingly, black men also feel a sense of superiority in the fact that more and more white women are rejecting or leaving their white boyfriends and going with blacks. And, black men also realize that white men, who used to be offended by such sexual behavior in the past, seem more resigned to this new reality. There are two main reasons for this. One is the ‘pussification’ of the white male. Having been emasculated by the tougher, ‘sexier’ and, funkier Negro, the white man has become not only a ‘white boy’ but more even something like a white girl himself. Just look at all those dweeby white boys cheering on black athletes at NBA or NFL games. You can hardly tell them apart from white girls or white cheerleaders. It’s almost as if white boys are swooning and wetting their panties at the sight of tough macho black athletes as much as the real white girls are. (Just consider Christopher Matthews whose leg vibrates whenever he listens to Barack Obama.) Having no male pride, white men are less likely to be offended by black men taking white women. Indeed, they probably wish they were white girls themselves to be ravished by big tough black men. Notice that the whole METROSEXUAL phenomenon is largely a white male phenomenon. How many black metrosexuals are there? Black men are too busy being simply sexual while white men(who’ve been reduced to being white boys) are now hononary homos.
The other reason why white males remain sulking and silent about the loss of white females to black males is the manner in which they’ve either been brainwashed or clobbered by political correctness. White males have been told that it is ‘racist’ to feel sexual resentment. They’ve been told that any kind of racial possessiveness is a form of evil patriarchal oppression where women are seen as property. In a truly free society, each woman should be allowed to choose her sexual partner, and if she chooses a black guy, so be it. That is the essence of LIBERTARIANISM as well as Liberalism, which goes to show how useless libertarianism is to white folks. White males, from a young age, are exposed to the liberal narrative of American history which says EVIL WHITE MALES KEPT THE BLACK MAN DOWN BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KEEP WHITE WOMEN AS ‘PURE’ PERSONAL PROPERTY OF EVIL WHITE MALENESS. This liberal narrative says that white women and black males must now be free and liberated to do as they please... and they are supposedly the Natural Pair since black males are the mostly manly and white women are the prettiest(generally speaking) and in need of sexual liberation by the Noble Negro. Of course, this isn’t stated blatantly, but if you read the symbols, listen to the music, read between the lines, and study the images of interracism or interracial propaganda, that is the unavoidable impression.
A movie like "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner" was very old-fashioned and argued that a white woman should marry a Negro if she was decent enough to look into his heart than judge him by his color. The message was moral than sensual. But, interracism today is very much aware of race. Even as it ostensibly professes the ideology of racial equality and color-blindness, the messages we get from movies, music, and etc is that white girls should go with blacks because black men are more manly, more musical, more charismatic, and ‘bigger’.

It’s gotten to the point that even black geeks–or bleeks–are accustomed to seeing themselves as tough, badass, or deserving of respect. This is rather ironic since many bleeks or bookish blacks are mistreated and bullied by the tough blacks for ‘trying to act white.’ In fact, bleeks are much more likely to find friendly people among whites than among tough blacks. There’s a reason for this. White people, with the burden of ‘racism’ hanging over them–are eager to show that they have black friends or get along with black people. Bleeks are far less threatening to whites than tough blacks are. So, both liberal and conservative whites prefer bleeks to black thugs–blugs. Also, for white men at least, a bleek is less sexual threatening than a blug is. But, there’s a further irony to this. Though many whites may have trepidations about integrating with blugs, they prefer to see blugs in sports, movies, and popular music. Blugs are just more entertaining as wild entertainers or athletes. Whites want bleeks in their neighborhoods but want blugs on their TV.

Since white society opens its arms to bleeks, you’d think bleeks would be grateful–especially as much of black community looks down on black people ‘who try to act white.’ But, this isn’t necessarily so. Even bleeks identify with blugs and want to enjoy some of that badass macho aura. Since black culture–consumed by blacks of all classes–is centered around athleticism and musicality, all blacks–even bleeks–feel entitled to being a badass mofo looked up, feared, and admired by white folks.
So, even bleeks like Spike Lee and Henry Louis Gates want to be looked upon as Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan. Clarence Page, the Chicago Tribune journalist, is a serious bleek but he takes every extreme black position to show that he’s just as much an angry badass mofo just like the rest of his blug brothas. No wonder he sided with OJ Simpson during the trial. In some ways, bleeks are EVEN MORE aggressive in some ways to prove their credentials as bona-fide black men and badass dudes no honkey should mess with. Bleeks look around and see that white men and women look up to, fear, admire, worship, and are intimidated by studly blacks. Bleeks want to share in the aura of the black tower of power. BUT, the fact is white folk see bleeks as ‘clean cut Negroes’ who are easier to get along with. Though bleeks do play on this ‘clean cut’ image to get ahead in society(by manipulating the psychology of white folks), they feel compromised and sold-out. They feel like (often light-skinned) House Negroes allowed into the White Mansion only because they chose to play the white man’s game. To prove to themselves and to the black community(and even to the sympathetic liberal white community) that they are not sell-outs or House Negroes, these bleeks sometimes blow up and make quite a scene.
Gates surely realized through all these years that white men don’t fear him, don’t cower before him like a beta-male should before an alpha male. On the one hand, he wants to belong to the elite ‘white-dominated’ society, but his comfortable position in it fills him with anxiety and doubts as to his blackness. He may enjoy his role as an Ivy League scholar but he also wants to be looked upon as a kind of Muhammad Ali or Wilt Chamberlain. But, all said and done, he’s just a bleek. He’s so geeky that I’ll bet even a short Mexican or Asian guy could kick his ass.

Because black pride has become such as collective mindset, all black men–even bleeks–feel entitled to be looked up to, feared, and admired as badass studs. There was a similar feeling among white males long ago. All white men once felt entitled to feeling of racial superiority; even ‘white trash’ felt insulted by the existence of non-whites(especially blacks) who worked hard and did much better than poor whites. Just as ‘poor white trash’ felt insulted by the existence of affluent and successful blacks, bleeks feel insulted that they aren’t perceived the same way that black studs, athletes, and thugs are. Yes, the irony is pretty alarming. On the one hand, bleeks like Gates bitch and whine that white society looks upon black males as thuggish, dangerous, and criminal. On the other, Gates feel left out in being perceived as a fellow badass Mandingo mothaf__a.
It’s no wonder that he talked Ebonic trash as the white officer walked away. He was trying to establish his credentials as a commanding blug than as a whiny bleek. In a subconscious way, he was begging the policeman to regard him as a badass black dude than as a college professor. On the one hand, he was offended that the white cop might see him as just another black criminal. But, once it was established that he was indeed the owner of the house, he was offended that the cop just him as just an affluent bleek.
Be that as it may, the bigger problem in society at large is indeed the uneasy relationship between black males and white cops. Why? Because it upsets and upends the natural one-on-one relationship between the two groups. On a one-on-one basis, the black male is generally the master over the white male. This is very evident in schools, sports fields, funky music, public spaces, and sexual competition. (White girls go for black males but black girls don’t go for white males–though vice versa is also true. If white girls find black men more manly than white males, black girls find white males less manly than black males. Also, black girls are acutely aware that most white men don’t particularly care for them.) In almost all settings–schools, work place, buses, movie theaters, and etc–, blacks are accustomed to white males deferring to them, backing down when tensions arise, walking away, or averting the eyes. Indeed, one of the most quickest, subtlest, and most effective means of establishing one’s alpha male status over other males is the game of eye contact. Before a fight, two fighters stare into each other’s eyes. In most public setting, when a black guy stares at a white guy, it’s the white guy who averts his gaze first. It is the equivalent of a beta-male wolf lowering his tail between his hind legs before an alpha male wolf. So, black males grow up with this mindset from an early age. In the schoolyard and on TV, they see that black males are numero uno and that white boy is ‘da bitch’ to the ‘nigga’.
In schools, white boys make way for black dudes. In the workplace, if a black guy gets angry, the white peers hunker down and prays the anger of the black dude will blow over.

There are two areas which violate this Natural Condition of male racial dynamics: In the military and between white cops and black suspects. In the military, higher white officers may shout down and order black underlings. But, because of the very nature of the military–order and discipline–, blacks have no choice but to accept the reality of hierarchy. Besides, blacks can rise up the ranks and order white underlings around. Indeed, there are many black sergeants who love to lord over them ‘white boys.’
The real trouble is between white policemen and black suspects. Out of their uniforms, white policemen would simply be beta males in relation to black males. But, their uniform and badge give them the license to pull people over, walk into homes, pull out their guns, use violence, arrest people, and even kill people. So, armed with badge, uniform, and guns, white males unnaturally gain alpha male status over blacks. This is enraging and frustrating to black males because in all other situations, they have control over white males.
The relationship is far less troublesome between policemen and white males, Asian males, Hispanic males, etc White males don’t naturally feel superior to other white males, civilian or in the police. Asian males don’t feel as having alpha male status over white males. Though there is rising sense of collective Hispanic power, on a purely one-on-one basis, a Hispanic male doesn’t feel he’s alpha male over white males. So, if a white male, Hispanic male, or an Asian male were pulled over by a cop, he wouldn’t feel insulted. His pride wouldn’t be hurt by an unnatural situation. But, because black males do generally go around feeling and acting like they are the baddest and toughest mofos in the universe, they get enraged when white cops–who should naturally be beta-males in relation to black males–pull them over and gain power over them. Black males think, "I can whup a white boy in school, at work, in the streets, on the bus, in the movie theater, etc, etc. so why should this white cop be treating me like I’m his bitch?"

It is for this reason that white cops and black males have a troubled relationship. Some say this tension is rooted in historical experience and perception, but that is true only to an extent. After all, white cops have less problem with Hispanics though a lot of Hispanics are also arrested as criminal suspects. And, Chinese- and Japanese-Americans have also been mistreated in the past by white policemen in the past. Besides, if blacks are allergic to the police because police in the past were not fair, why are blacks so enthusiastic about sports and government which had also discriminated against blacks and pulled all sorts to tricks to keep them down? Hispanics and Asians–criminal or otherwise–have less trouble with white cops despite the history of past injustice because Hispanics and Asians don’t feel that their alpha male status is being violated or threatened when they are approached by policemen and told what to do. Black males, on the other hand, resent the fact that some white boy–whose ass they could kick if not for his badge and gun–is telling them what to do and patting them down like ‘a bitch’.

The same kind of tension exists between man and a woman. Man is the stronger and more commanding figure of authority. So, when a male figure of authority–like a police officer–approaches a female, she acknowledges him as a figure of authority–as both a police officer and as a man.
But, if a female police officer approached a male, a male will have to respect her authority as a police officer but might take offense that a bitch is pushing him around because she has a badge and gun. He would feel a degree of resentment. He might respect her official position but not the idea of a woman telling him what to do.
Of course, the resentment also goes the other way around. The woman officer might feel that the male suspect giving her lip doesn’t really respect her and sees her as just a ‘bitch’.
Similarly, white officers sense that many black male suspects don’t respect them as real men; black male suspects often put on an attitude like, "you lucky you have a badge and gun cuz if we were man-to-man in an alley, I would kick your honkey ass in no time." It is indeed true that, 19 times out of 20, "a fight, a fight, a Negro and a white!!!" will end up with black guy on top.
These were the troubled emotions behind the whole Rodney King affair. On the one side, there was big strong black guy Rodney King, taunting the white cops as if to say, "you white boys are a bunch of faggots and I could whup your ass if you took me on without your guns, billy clubs, and tasers." On the other side were the white cops who were fuming that yet another black thug was giving them lip, taunting them, showing them no respect. Indeed, Rodney King had been arrested several times before and treated cordially. So, it got into his thick skull that white boy cops couldn’t and wouldn’t do him any harm because they were scared of his towering black macho manhood. But, that night, the white cops were seething mad. They got tired of a big black guy questioning and taunting their white manhood. They lost control, went overboard, and beat the crap out of Rodney Jiveass Thug King.

The whole white-black relation is built on a strange mix of guilt and fear. Whites are supposed to feel guilt for past discrimination experienced by blacks. But, whites also feel fear because of the aggressiveness of many blacks. Though this fear is really rooted in the black man’s superior strength, white society–both liberals and conservatives–have decided on a gentler explanation: whites are fearful of righteous or justified black anger built up over the centuries. But, whites had terribly mistreated Chinese-Americans and American Indians too, yet white people don’t fear those people. Why not? It’s because a ‘geeky’ Chinese-American doesn’t terrify a white guy like a big strong Negro does. We only need to look at Europe. Even in European nations without a history of oppression of blacks–therefore little or no reason for ‘white guilt’–, there is growing fear of blacks(immigrants from Africa and their children)simply because these blacks are stronger than whites, commit tons of crimes, and act aggressive. The French Empire mistreated Africans and Vietnamese, and there are both African and Vietnamese immigrants in France, BUT the French fear blacks but not Vietnamese. Wouldn’t Vietnamese be just as angry and resentful for the historical wrongs done to them by the French? However Vietnamese in France may feel toward the white race, the French don’t fear them. They are too scrawny and ‘geeky.’ But, French whites are fearful of blacks in France because blacks are bigger and stronger. Heck, even the Vietnamese in France are fearful of blacks though they have no reason to feel any guilt toward the blacks.

And so, we have the problem of race in America. Though white liberals(and even conservatives) prefer to sweep the truth under the carpet of happy multiculturalism and pretend that racial problems are solely the legacy of slavery and discrimination, all truly honest people know otherwise. We know that the problems plaguing our society are rooted in race. Suppose white Americans had brought Asian-Indians or Vietnamese instead of blacks to work as slaves. Suppose 15% of American population today was Asian-Indian or Vietnamese rather than black. Would the problems we have be the same? NO!!! There would indeed be some problem stemming from history or historical consciousness related to racial injustice. Also, 15% of the population is a large number, and there’s always bound to be tensions between the majority and a large minority. But, it’s likely that Vietnamese-Americans or Asian-Indian-Americans–with higher intelligence and more inhibited temperaments–would have made much greater socio-economic gains than blacks have done. (On the other hand, they would not have excelled much in sports nor funky music.) But most importantly of all, Vietnamese-Americans or Asian-Indian-Americans(whose ancestors had once been slaves) would not pose a physical or sexual threat to white America. White women would not be particularly fascinated by Asian-Indian-American nor by Vietnamese-American men. And, white males would rule in sports and hardly feel much nor any fear in relation to Asian-Indian-Americans or Vietnamese-Americans.
Notice that the problem that white America has with Mexican-Americans or Mexican Illegals is numerical. White people don’t fear Mexican-Americans or Mexican Illegals on a one-on-one basis. They do fear blacks on a one-on-one basis. If an average white guy got into a fight with an average Mexican, the white guy would be favored 6-4. But, if a white guy got into a fight with a black guy, the white guy would be disadvantaged 1-19. So, race has much to do with our social reality, and all this crap about ‘race is a myth’ is the true myth. This is why we need to define RACISM the right way and make it the very central concept in the discussion and understanding of humanity and problems we face in America. Any rightist who uses the term RACISM the way the Left has defined it is a fool. RACISM should simply mean race + ism = belief in races. And, in order to stop the use of the term in a kneejerk negative-connoted way, WE must stop using it that way. The word RACISM has become an effective weapon for the Left because the Right–ever so lacking in terminological inventiveness and intellectual seriousness–allowed the Left to define the term and then followed along like a stupid dog pulled along on a leash.

It is because of the black physical power and prowess that cops are told to go easy on black suspects. If you ‘provoke’ black males, they will act up, cops will have to use greater force, the wild black guy will fight back even harder, and then the cops will really have to take him down. And, then there will be lawsuits, marches led by Sharpton, and maybe even a riot. The liberal media would have us believe that cops should treat black suspects in a nice manner because of historical legacy, sensitivity among blacks on issues of social injustice, and blah blah, but that’s just so much crap. The real issue is the strength of blacks. Since blacks are scary, the idea is that we should treat them nice lest they get angry and throw a fit.
This is indeed THE RULE in most of society. In schools, teachers are told to go easy on angry black students who act up. If a black student gets out of hand, the teacher is often blamed for having ‘provoked’ the kid or for not having understood nor respected him/her properly. Besides, a teacher isn’t allowed to use any force.
Same is true in other settings. Politicians and policemen tell us that if we see thugs(often black) acting criminal or rowdy in public, we should not act the ‘hero.’. No, we should do NOTHING and just call the police... who will arrive an ½ hour later.
At the workplace, if a black guy feels wronged, he goes into a screaming, threatening, and taunting fit, and non-blacks get really scared. So, extra effort is made–through sensitivity training and political correctness–to prevent any situation where blacks might go crazy. Even when it’s the blacks who started the trouble, the general policy is hold the black guy’s hand, try to empathize with him, and forgive and forget. Otherwise, the black guy might really go crazy, really mess things up, police might have to be called, and lawsuits might be on the way.

A lot of blacks are natural troublemakers. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright can be found in all walks of life, various professions. Indeed, Gates and Obama are merely slicker versions of them. They are race hustling slicksters, playing on whitey’s guilt and fear, on white hopefulness and white dopeyness.

When blacks burn down a city and attack innocent bystanders, we are not supposed to blame them but try to understand them, ‘start a conversation’, pump more money into the neighborhoods burned down by blacks themselves, and wring our hands. (By the way, how do you have a conversation with gangs of thugs who are out to beat the shit out of you?)
It’s very easy for white liberals to say such things because they happen to be well-off and live in safe neighborhoods and are relatively untouched by black violence. It’s easy for the likes of the Clintons, the Kennedies, or liberal Jews to pontificate in a ‘progressive’, sympathetic, noble-minded, and generous manner. But, I dare them to live in the border areas where blacks are always committing all sorts of crime or attacking innocent people. Let’s see how high-and-mighty they sound then.

We are supposed to UNDERSTAND blacks in order to allay our FEAR of them. We can’t really act on our fears because of our GUILT. If guilt weren’t attached to blacks, we would see blacks for what they are and deal with them accordingly. Suppose German-Americans in this country acted like blacks. Suppose they caused trouble everywhere, beat up people, robbed and raped all over the place, and caused all sorts of trouble day in and day out against all other racial or ethnic groups. We would deal with them harshly. Our fear of their thuggery would justify our draconian measures. Guilt would not paralyze us from taking necessary harsh measures to teach the German-American community how to behave.
But, because white people(despite the fact that most white people never owned slaves in this country and came only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) are supposed to feel GUILT toward blacks(all of them, including recent African immigrants whose ancestors sold black slaves to white slave shippers), we can’t do anything when blacks act crazy and violent and fill our hearts with fear. When militaristic Japanese pulled Pearl Harbor or when radical Muslims pulled 9/11, we went ahead and beat the crap out of them and taught them a lesson they’ll never forget. For the killing of less than 3,000 Americans in Hawaii, we proceeded to kill over 2 million ‘Japs’. For 3,000 dead in 9/11, we proceeded with actions that came to claim 100,000 of ‘ragheads’. But, if blacks were to burn down entire cities and kill a whole lot of white people, the white liberal(and mainstream conservative line) would simply say ‘let’s have a conversation about race.’ (But, how can we have an honest conversation about race when truly honest conversations are denigrated as ‘racist’?
This is why the term ‘racism’ must be salvaged and given legitimacy. Racism is race + ism = belief in the existence of races.) Just look at what’s happening in South Africa. Blacks are rising up and killing and raping whites left and right, but our (liberal Jewish dominated)white media will report very little of it or spin it as if to suggest that (1) white victims deserve what’s coming to them or (2) no matter what hardships faced by whites, our main sympathy and hope should be with black South Africans. (Because Jews pulled this dirty trick on whites, many on the White Right have come to support the Palestinians and Iranians against the Israelis).
Maybe Anglo-Americans and some Irish-Americans do carry some moral burden for the legacy of slavery, but the fact remains that a solid majority of whites in this country are the descendants of whites who arrived after the emancipation of black slaves. There’s no reason why the descendants of Polish, Greek, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Finnish, Swedish, etc immigrants should feel ANY guilt regarding blacks. (Besides in Europe, the ancestors of those people often suffered much more than blacks in America who had it RELATIVELY good even as slaves. Life was much tougher for a Russian or Polish serf than for a black slave in America. And, what blacks suffered in 20th century America is nothing compared to what Europeans suffered. Less than 3000 blacks were lynched from 1860 to 1960, but millions of Poles died in a few years in the 1940s. 3-5 million Ukrainians died in the 1930s thanks to Soviet communism managed by left-wing Jews.)

Blacks and liberals will say that ALL whites were favored over blacks through most of American history, reaped the rewards of black sweat and labor, and that even the later white arrivals discriminated against blacks. Some did, some didn’t. But, if we’re going to use that logic, blacks also settled and gained wealth and advantages from the white man’s taking land from Indians, so blacks are also collaborators in the ‘stealing of Native American land.’ If all whites, whether they chose to or not, were defacto oppressors of blacks, than all non-Indian-Americans–including blacks–were defacto oppressors of Indian-Americans since anyone who made a living off this land did so on land that had been taken from Indians. Also, a lot of black porters made a pretty good working on trains, but who laid down much of the railroad tracks? Chinese-Americans, who were treated terribly and with great brutality. Since blacks benefitted from the product of the sweat and blood of Chinese-Americans, don’t blacks owe Chinese-Americans something? And, why were blacks able to drive around in cars and enjoy other advantages of this society in the 20th century? Because of the sweat and labor of the mostly ‘underpaid’ and ‘exploited’ white working class who toiled away in dark, hot, sweaty factories. How come blacks can see dentists and doctors? Because of modern medicine developed by white man. How come blacks have access to books and learning? Because of printing presses invented by white people and all the underpaid white workers who toiled to produce more pressed, more books, more learning, etc. How come blacks can settle in Nevada, California, Texas, and other states? Because of the blood, sweat, and tears of white men who conquered those territories through much struggle and built up those communities through much work. How come blacks can afford cheap food and products? Because of the toil of cheap illegal farm labor and because of Chinese factory workers who work all day for a dollar a day. Looks like blacks owe a ton of shit to other people than vice versa.

And, white people in the North didn’t have to sacrifice their own lives nor kill fellow whites in the South in the Civil War. Whites in the North could have tolerated slavery in the South forever. But, Northern whites decided to fight to keep the Union together and to end slavery. So, black freedom owes a lot to the sacrifice of Northern whites(many of them recently arrived Irishmen) who didn’t own slaves but freely chose to sacrifice their own lives so that black strangers in the South could be free. Yet, our historical culture and remembrance ONLY stresses one message: only blacks suffered, only blacks are victims, blacks never enjoyed an ounce of happiness prior to the 60s, everyone(except Jews)did wrong to blacks, and everyone(even non-white minorities) owes blacks something. And, by blacks, we also mean blacks from West Indies and recently from Africa. The hell with this shit. And, it won’t do any good. Look, Obama was made president by white America, but that lowlife punk still bitches, whines, and complains albeit in a subtler and refined manner that fools so many gulliberal white fools.