Where Jared Diamond Is Wrong on Race and Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Elitist Conceits of Liberalism and Libertarianism. Why Conservatism Is Crucial to the Success of Both.

Though both liberals and libertarians talk about the The People, both have elitist blinders on when it comes to social reality. Elitism in and of itself is not a bad thing. There is hierarchy everywhere and in everything. In the military the special forces are better trained and more skilled than regular troops. In sports, you have professionals as opposed to mere amateurs. There are colleges with better qualified professors and more intelligent students. Elitism as elitism is no problem at all, as long as it recognizes itself as such.

The problem begins when elitists think they speak for the people and that their highfaluting ideas are actually good for the masses and will work as planned at the top. This is too often untrue. Indeed, sophisticated and highly rationalized ideas at the top often have a terrible impact on the people below. The most extreme example of such was communism, an ideology conceived of by serious and highly learned intellectuals. It was an ideology of justice for mankind and was supposed to create a better world. It turned entire nations into prisons and killed tens of millions.

Though liberalism and libertarianism aren’t nearly as dangerous or radical as communism, they too are misguided or misconceived elitist ideas. Liberalism is intellectual democratic statism, and libertarianism is intellectual democratic individualism.
What’s wrong with government? What’s wrong with individual liberty? All societies need governments, and it’s only natural for government to do certain things that the private sector cannot do or provide, right? And, every individual should have freedom of choice to do as he pleases as long as he doesn’t interfere with or violate the freedoms of other people, right?
So, what’s the problem? The problem is not the idea of the modern state or the idea of modern liberty. The problem is the notion that the high sounding and sophisticated ideas of liberalism or libertarianism could be understood, appreciated, and practiced by masses of people. A good number of people may understand, appreciate, or apply them, but many people will simply misunderstand or half-understand them–and abuse them. If liberalism has one major advantage over libertarianism, it is because liberalism feeds on personal irresponsibility whereas libertarianism requires personal responsibility. Human nature prefers freebies and pushing blame onto others than working hard for one’s keep and self-criticism. So, at least in the game of winning votes of the masses, liberalism understands human nature better. Of course, human nature being what it is, libertarians and conservatives are right to argue that it should not be encouraged toward irresponsible behavior. Cynical liberals understand human nature–tendency for wanting freebies and scapegoating–and exploit it to gain power. But, not all liberals are cynical. Idealistic liberals think that human nature can be transformed and improved by social engineering.

Anyway, the liberal elite(at least ones who aren’t cynical)believe that a bigger statist role and increased social engineering will make for a better and more just society. They project their own high intelligence, goodwill, learnedness, decency, compassion, and work ethic onto others. They see everyone as a potentially ‘intelligent, caring, and hardworking progressive person’ and believe that the reason why so many people are down on their luck, stupid, or hopeless is because of historical injustice, economic inequality, self-interested individualism(greed), irrational superstition(religion), and so on. They believe that these problems cannot be overcome by the Church, the individual, or by ethos of capitalism. They see the Church as promoting blind faith over reason and as sweeping real social problems under the carpet of false hope. They see the individual as caring only for himself, often at the expense of the community. They see capitalism as promoting dog-eat-dog materialism which tends to separate and exploit the people according to race, nationality, and class. These "well-intentioned" elitist liberals believe that their big government is necessary for society. Though liberals–at least white liberals–have a self-loathing and guilt-stricken streak, they also happen to be ideological, intellectual, cultural, and moral narcissists. They think they are more socially and morally advanced than other people because they went to top schools, read John Rawls(and some Marx), watch foreign films, know more about Jazz and World Music more than your average American, and care so much about Negroes and poor folks around the world. They’ve read Jeffrey Sachs and Cornel West, you see. So, even their self-loathing fills them with narcissistic pride; they think, "we are better than all those mean white conservatives because we CARE for the ‘people of color.’"

Educated and affluent liberals tend to have very high opinions of themselves. They don’t see big government-ism as incompatible with personal responsibility, diligence, work ethic. After all, they believe in big government yet studied hard, attended good universities(and were taught by successful and intelligent professors who also believe in big government), have good jobs, and tend to raise pretty stable families. If big government philosophy is so damaging to people, how come so many liberals who espouse statism are successful people? How come most of the top professors in all fields are liberal? How come most of the super businessmen are liberal? And, how come so many conservatives and small-government gun-clinging folks are actually down in the dumps(and actually live on welfare despite all their tough talk of freedom)?
As far as the liberals are concerned, big government-ism goes well with social order, success, and advancement. Big government-ism means that intelligent and serious people who care for society get to run and expand government to make sure that everyone has an equal chance and also to counter-balance the power of unstable free markets. Liberals believe that the best and brightest(and the most caring and moral)should run society. Since capitalism is about the rule of those who know to make the most money, it is not necessarily best for society(say the liberals). Capitalists will sell whatever to maximize their profits, even if what they’re selling may be damaging to the people. Also, people with A LOT of money don’t just re-invest it in business but come to control the media and influence government to serve the interests of the Rich Class. So, the idea is that liberals must run a big strong government in order to check the power of the Rich Capitalist Class. (Ironically, those who run much of our private enterprise economy are liberals. Hollywood, TV, and fashion industry are totally liberal, and what they’re selling to the people are corrupting and damaging. What we have is liberals in business corrupting and messing up our society, and then liberals taking over government in order to repair the damage caused by the private sector–run by liberals. The business of pop culture is what fuels our dreams, fantasies, obsessions, and desires. It is totally dominated by liberals, and liberals will market and sell ANYTHING to make their millions, no matter how negative the impact may be. Though one could argue that it’s the private sector–bastion of conservatism–doing social damage, it’s actually the private sector dominated by libertine liberals who are doing the damage.)

The problem with the liberal view of the world is obvious. What applies at the top doesn’t apply to the bottom. This is all the more so when we closely study how most white liberals succeeded in the world. Did they succeed by taking handouts from the government? No. The most successful group in the United States are the Jews. How did Jews rise up in America? On welfare? No, through self-reliance, communal & family values, individualism and personal responsibility, work ethic, education, and so forth. Many affluent WASPS are also liberal, and they rose up in society the same way. So, why do these people think that other folks can’t rise up in the same way? If Jews and WASP–and Asians-Americans–can rise up through practicing ‘conservative’ values(at least on the personal level), why not blacks and Hispanics? (Isn’t it odd that Japanese-Americans, another very successful group in America, is overwhelmingly liberal?) Why is it that so many successful and highly educated people in America are liberal? One reason is colleges are run by liberal and leftist professors, and the best/brightest/elite people come under liberal influence. But, there are probably other reasons as well. One reason could be a kind for loathing of the toil that their parents went through. If you look back enough, the rise of all peoples from the dirt poor poverty was a painful process. (The American Dream was always earned through hard work, not fantasy.) Jews had to work as peddlers in the US or run dirty shops. Chinese had to work in steaming laundries. And, Japanese had to work from dawn to dusk on the farms. Indeed, the parents of Jews, Japanese-Americans, and white liberals told them to rise up in the world and find something more dignified in life–often meaning professional work than wheeling-dealing kind of business. In other words, parents sacrificed themselves and toiled and sweated so that their kids would have not only more money but have more respectable jobs in life–like Don Corleone, who made his money by dirtying his hands but wanted his son to go into politics and become a lawyer. (Many liberals look upon capitalism as a form of gangsterism that is, at best, necessary for making money and rising up in the world; once you have the money and power, you want to buy respectability and join the mandarin class that deals with Ideas and works for a better world according to those Ideas than merely grub for more money like shylock. Notice that even Bernie Madoff surrounded himself with ‘progressive’ and ‘moral’ figures and causes.) And, kids of parents who toiled and sweated did have better lives; but, feeling that their parents suffered and sacrificed for them unduly, they wanted to create a society in which success would come much more easily for all people rather than have people go through what their parents went through to rise up in society; we often hear of liberal guilt, but much of it could be ancestral than social.
Anyway, on the one hand, the kids got imbued with the ‘conservative’ values of their parents and appreciated the latter’s seriousness and dedication. On the other hand, the kids didn’t want to go through what their parents went through. Because their parents suffered so much, they didn’t want other poor people to go through the same struggles to rise up in the world. They wanted to make things more ‘humane’ and easier for all people, especially the poor, so that everyone would have an easier time rising up in the world without having to sweat and toil so much. Indeed, Jews will always say it’s because they remember how much that their ancestors suffered that they want big government to help people rise up in the world without so much toil and sweat. (There’s also the element of contempt for their parents. Poor or immigrant parents who work, work, and work often aren’t the most educated, most debonair, most cool, most hip, or most sophisticated people in the world. Many of these people are God believers, speak broken English, or have simple devotions in life. As much as their children may appreciate the parental devotion, they regard their parents as ignoramuses. To an extent, parents wanted it this way. Parents wanted their kids to know more, advance more, succeed more, and become more respectable and rise up to higher standings in society. Many of these parents don’t want their kids to do what they themselves have done to climb out of the hole. They want their kids to climb to the Ivory Tower and gain greater knowledge and power. So, naturally, the kids become elitist snobs, but due to the ‘progressive’ ideology of the Ivory Tower institutions, their elitism is devoted to egalitarianism. Indeed, they justify their elitist power in the name of promoting equality.)

But, there’s another reason for why the successful are so liberal. Those who rose up in the world and attained higher standing want it to be assured permanently. The rule of capitalism says that losers may win and winners may lose; there is no permanence in capitalism; it works according to the principles of creative destruction. The never ending innovations and competition make for a dog-eat-dog society. So, winners today may be losers tomorrow. This is why government is so welcome to successful liberals, especially those who grew up in affluence instead of having earned it themselves. They want constancy in their privilege and good life, and big government offers it. A liberal who has a plush bureaucratic job is set for life. Or, if the rich person is living off a trust fund, he or she can grab onto some liberal cause to justify his or her wealth or privilege; just look at the Kennedy family.
Also, a liberal businessman can rely on subsidies to maintain his business even if it’s not profitable. Big government cushions the affluent from the hard knocks of cold competition. Just look at the banking and auto industry going to government for bail outs and aid.
Also, privileged liberals grew up with high-minded notions taught in school and absorbed through books and culture. They want to work for the GOOD of society, which is why even liberals who enter business try to make their business socially conscious. Big corporations run by liberals(or even image-conscious conservatives) seek the advice of men like Jeffrey Sachs and Al Gore; they often contribute to Good Causes. Even the arch conservative Annenberg donated money for Bill Ayers’s educational agenda. And, many corporations and individuals set up foundations which generally give money to liberal or leftist intellectuals, activists, and artists. There is a sense among liberals that artists, activists, and intellectuals live for truth and justice whereas businessmen live for profit. So, for businessmen to be good people, they must take a big chunk of their cash and support artists, activists, and intellectuals(who these days must be part of the ‘radical’ crowd to be considered relevant). Obama is appealing to many rich liberals because there’s something of the artist(actor/performer), activist(community organizer), and intellectual(Ivy League trained lawyer) in him. Of course, most successful liberals are not stinking rich but only moderately affluent, but they all think in the NPR/New Yorker Magazine mode. It’s the Way To Be and Way To Think–just as even unsuccessful conservatives read Ayn Rand and pretend to see the world through the eyes of capitalist titans.

Anyway, the problem of the liberal elite is they think what applies to itself applies to the masses. It doesn’t. Successful liberals may be liberal in thought, but they are ‘conservative’ in many of their habits and personal choices. They may dismiss traditional marriage, but your average successful liberal is more likely to lead a traditional married life than your white trash conservative with half a dozen tattoos on his ass and obnoxious idiots for children. Jews may politically be the most liberal people in America, but if you judge them by what they actually do, they are ‘conservative’ in many respects. Successful liberals are for new ideas and more tolerance, but in actual practice they have an instinctive and deeply ingrained sense or hierarchy of what’s crucial and what is not. Also, they have strong sense of personal responsibility and personal shame. Many Ivy League liberal students worked very hard to be admitted to top schools. They are the kind of kids who got depressed if they got a B on an exam. For all their egalitarian mumbo jumbo, they want to excel, attain most privilege, most power, most money, or most whatever. They are very competitive and talented, much more so than your average not-to-bright conservative. Indeed, one of the reasons why successful liberals push for big government is because they feel so personally responsible–not just for themselves but for their fellow man, for the poor, the downtrodden, for minorities, for disenfranchises, for the hungry around the world. They want power, but power is always having power OVER OTHERS; doing ‘good work’ is justification for the power they amass in order to control us.
Anyway, successful liberals may want to share more, but they have a strong sense of responsibility and shame. They would personally feel ashamed if they failed in life. People without shame and responsibility do not make it to top schools(unless on affirmative action), find and keep good jobs, or build successful businesses. So, it’s true that many liberals have many sound virtues and values that may be deemed conservative in actual practice. So, what is the problem?

The problem is that elite liberalism applied to the masses often turns into shit. For successful liberals, big government-ism means SHARING. For the masses, it just means TAKING. For successful liberals, big government-ism means caring or being concerned about your fellow man. For the masses, it just means demanding more attention and getting more handouts. For successful liberals, big government-ism means that good people should be responsible and take care of all of society. For the masses, it means one should be lazy and irresponsible and force other people to take care of their jive-ass needs. You’ll notice that many successful liberals are too proud and responsible to take handouts themselves, yet they believe that the masses should be provided with more handouts. Successful liberals want to give; the masses just want to grab. The positive intentions, values, and virtues of successful liberals translate into negative intentions, vices, and vitriol among the masses. Successful liberals say, WE SHOULD CARE, CARE, CARE. The likes of Jeremiah Wright and his followers shout GIMME, GIMME, GIMME.

The reason why liberalism has worked better in nations like Holland or Sweden(at least among the white population) is that their citizens tend to have a degree of work ethic, good amount of education, appreciation, and a sense of contributing as well as taking from the system, and so on. Liberalism may eventually erode the values of hard work and responsibility in these nations as well, but for centuries these nations imbued their people with a serious disposition, discipline, diligence, and culture of appreciation and cooperation; those values still remain intact in the national character of the Germanic peoples. If big government-ism means that everyone works hard and contributes to as well as takes from the system, it can work reasonably well. But, if big government-ism means that one group of well-intentioned and idealistic people contribute to the system while others just take and take(and feel no gratitude but always demand more and more), it cannot work. Because of the large black, illegal alien, and white trash elements in America, big government-ism will not work here as it has in Sweden or Holland. Indeed, even those Scandinavian are now facing major problems due to increasing numbers of immigrants, a good number of them black-African(most problematic) and Muslim. Also, big government-ism everywhere has a way of slowly eroding away the culture of diligence, discipline, shame, and appreciation forged through centuries of cultural development. As society grows morally laxer, shameless, faceless, and bureaucratic, more and more people learn from an early age that they can have a pretty good life by working as little as possible while living off the government dole. In the long run, liberal big government-ism makes ‘niggers’ out of everyone.

This is why if we’re going to have big government-ism, it has to be the fascist kind than the welfare kind. The fascist kind favors providing work than welfare. This is why National Socialist and New Deal policies worked. They focused on creating jobs by opening up factories for the armament production on a vast scale. Also, fascist big government policies offer things to the people ONLY in exchange for the goodwill, appreciation, and responsibility on the part of the people. Lee Yuan Kew of Singapore established a fascist big government system whereby the government provides certain programs and services but makes sure that the people act in good faith. It’s not just a system whereby one group of people get handouts indefinitely for giving nothing back in return. They must give something in return as well–decent behavior, appreciation, and taking work when work is available. It is conditional socialism(fascist) as opposed to unconditional socialism(welfare liberalism).

It seems that even American liberals have understood this lesson to some degree. Though Obama is a welfare socialist in many ways, he also wants to expand public works programs and set up a mandatory youth corp. The new liberal view is that too many American kids have become self-centered, cynical, individualistic, and lazy. So, kids need to believe and work for something higher than themselves, and the new programs will make them work for the people; kids will be inspired to do so under the Banner of Obama because Barack is ‘like a rock star’. So, liberals are taking certain ideas from National Socialism and Lee Yuan Kew-ism. Liberals are too proud and arrogant to admit that Great Society and Welfare Liberalism/Socialism have done much damage. Also, even though liberals are too proud to admit that their control of popular culture has led to cynicism, ugliness, putridity, savagery, animal behavior, and hideousness of all kinds, their support of Obama as the ‘new kind of black guy’ suggests that many white liberals are worried about what liberal culture has done to this country. Liberal dominated TV, Hollywood, and Music Industry have inundated us with ugly rap music, cynical TV shows, pornography, crass materialism, culture of violence(Matrix movies, video games, gangsta rap, etc), egocentric individualism, and retardation of all kinds. Liberals cannot admit, ‘we were wrong, we need to mend our ways’. Liberals actually cannot let go of their old ways because too much of their power, prestige, and influence are invested in Hollywood(and what it sells) and in Government(and what it offers). So, liberals conveniently blame people like Rush Limbaugh for all the cynicism. To liberals, cynicism means ‘not having total faith in the Church of Obama and Oprah’.
And, liberals blame the materialism and crassness of our culture on the ‘free market’ and capitalist ethos of greed, vanity, and such(despite the fact that popular culture is run by liberal Jews, blacks, and gays.) Liberals privately sense that our society has grown ugly, decadent, and putrid largely due to the excesses of liberal Jewish and black-dominated popular culture, but they can never admit it since doing so would be ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’(and give ammo to the right-wing enemy).

In times of economic downturn, people can sober up, grow angry, and lash out at the cultural rot infecting the nation. Liberal Jews, ever so clever, decided to pre-empt the rise of neo-fascism on the Right by appropriating elements of fascism for their own power. Many angry White Rightist want their form of unified political power, their great powerful leaders, and their own grand vision. Such movement may gain real power and momentum in American thanks to the dangers of illegal invasion, pop cultural rot where black thugs and whores act like animals, Jewish control of banks and Wall Street which contributed to the financial collapse, and so on. This is like the social decay and deterioration we saw in Germany during the Weimar period. In the turmoil and chaos, the National Socialism produced the most dynamic leader with the charisma and vision to capture the hearts and minds of the German people. The liberal Jews figured that if things continue as usual–pop cultural corrosiveness, economic collapse, social divisions and alienation, etc–, the White Right may eventually unify into a National Socialist mode and come up with a Great White Leader for White People. So, in order to prevent the rise of such fascism, liberal Jews decided to take certain spellbinding and catchy aspects of fascism and let Obama run with it. With Obama as the fuhrer, Jews have killed two birds with one stone. On the one hand, fascism has been, appropriated, tamed, and used for the empowerment of liberals. On the other, the White Right, in attacking Obama as a fascist or Hitlerian figure, undermines their own future investment in fascism. If the White Right trashes everything about Obama’s style and image as being ‘fascist’, then they cannot use or employ that kind of campaign or movement for themselves in the future.

And, though liberal Jews don’t like Ron Paul, they would be only too happy if more white rightists supported Paul because Paul stands for small government(which means conservatives will never gain much political power) and individualism(which means the White Right will remain atomized and disunified as mere individuals whose only ideology is ‘leave me alone’). There is a virtue in individualism, but the fight that the White Right must face is not one they can win through individualism. They must unify as a people and as a race. Individualism of the kind that Ron Paul advises is only good after the victory of white power and assurance of white survival.
So, I would advise white people that they are making a mistake if they attack Obama for being a fascist. Rather, they should attack Obama for deviously stealing elements of fascism from the White Right. We should say he’s a fake fascist, a poseur fascist, merely a tool used by the liberal and left-wing Jews to rile up populist passions for the liberal agenda. Obama is not the return of fascism but the appropriation of fascism. Just as liberal companies have appropriated Marxism and radical leftism for their marketing agenda, they’ve also appropriated elements of fascist imagery and style to serve liberal politics. To many liberals, fascism or fascist style or aesthetics are okay as long as it glorifies, celebrates, or deifies the non-white or the ‘anti-Aryan’. So, fascist imagery that promotes black power or black passions are cool with liberals. Zionism is a form of fascist-nationalism, but it’s okay because it’s about Jewish power as opposed to ‘Aryan’ power. The thing for the White Right is not to scream ‘fascism’ whenever they see Obama, but to develop their own fascism.

The White Right should also realize that for every disadvantage, there is an advantage(just like for every advantage, there is a disadvantage). It’s disadvantageous to the White Right that the liberals masterfully stole and employed the fascist thunder. (Of course, liberals acted in bad faith. All these years, they’ve been denouncing fascism as a style, ideology, and value system, yet there is more than a little fascism in Obama-ism. According to liberals, fascism isn’t fascist IF it glorifies non-whites or if used against the White Right. It’s like saying a gun is not a gun if it’s used to kill a conservative. In truth, Obama-ism has quasi-fascist elements. If indeed Obama-ism is a political and ideological miracle, it is proof that fascism had been right all along. It means that fascism never died and that even liberals have come to drink from its well after the discrediting of communism, welfare socialism, global capitalism, and finance capitalism.) But, if that is the case, the White Right should not reject Obama-ism completely but come up with their own Obama-ism or their own fascism. Our own Obama-ism would be pro-white, pro-Western, national socialist, for bigger government in OUR HANDS, and have its own great leaders. And, if liberals accuse us of acting like fascists, we need only to point our fingers at Obama-ism and say that liberals revived this kind of politics and used it very effectively. If liberal fascism is an option, then so is conservative fascism. We are all socialists now? No, we are all fascists now.

Socialism was purely a materialistic ideology that claimed to scientifically understand the world and how to fix it. But, there is something mythic, inspiring, holistic, messianic, sacrosanct and spiritual about Obama-ism. It has the Vision Thing. It is more fascist in style than socialist. It appeals to the emotions of the masses, to the mythic bonds of unity. Socialism has been dry, technocratic, impersonal, and intellectual. Since it’s supposed to be a system run by rational minds, it distrusted primal emotions and the passions of the community. Of course, communism had a mythic and spiritual element, but that developed later and rather cynically in order to keep power by winning and controlling the hearts and minds of the masses; since communism didn’t work well as it promised on the material level, it had to rely more on myth-making. Also, the radical passions at the core of communism lent it more easily to stuff like mass pageantry and the deification of the Great Thinkers and Leaders.

Anyway, the elitist assumptions of the liberals have failed. Both liberal control of government and popular culture have not led the masses toward independence and liberation but toward enslavement(or addiction) to basest desires, appetites, and passions. What held true for the educated and successful liberal elite didn’t hold true for the masses. Liberal thinkers and activists with their neat theoretical models became ever more divorced from reality. The masses were not too bright, responsible with their freedom, accountable, nor grateful for the new order. Liberals came to realize that the people are essentially emotional beings. And so, the liberals came up with Martin Luther King-ism, Camelot-ism, and Obama-ism. Obama-ism unites intellectual liberalism with the impassioned holism of the masses. It is indeed the apotheosis of what might be called ‘liberal fascism’.

Since liberals who control the media and public discourse have made fascism fashionable again–though they would never call it that–, it gives us a chance to bring back fascism for OUR power, interests, and agenda. Again, if liberals accuse us of reviving or using fascist methods, we need only to point to what they did with Obama. We should do exactly what they did with Obama in terms of marketing the image, the celebration of the Great Man, the loud slogans, the holistic symbolism, and so on. Also, Obama-ism has meant ‘no enemy to the left’. So, liberal policy is never to criticize or attack black extremists, illegal aliens, gay lunatics, feminist bitches, radical Marxists, and so on. They are altogether now. This is not necessarily because liberals endorse the elements of the far left or the nationalisms of minority groups. It just that liberals, cynical and hungry for power, have a Popular Front strategy whereby everyone opposed to the White Right must stick together no matter how sick or demented they might be. The White Right must do the same thing. The White Right is not exclusively white. It should welcome non-whites who believe that the West should remain a white majority civilization(just as white people respect the right of China to be mostly Chinese, of sub-Saharan Africa to be mostly black, of India to be mostly Indiana, and of Mexico to remain mostly Mexican. At any rate, once the White Right understands who their allies are, the policy should be to never attack enemies on the white right. If the liberals say the White Right is allied with ‘extremists’, we have a silver bullet to shoot back because Obama-ism has meant and practiced ‘no enemy to the left’. Despite the revelations about Obama’s allies and associates, the national media–that is to say the Liberal Jew Media–said it was perfectly fine for Obama to have been friends or close associates of radicals and extremists since they are ‘progressives’ or ‘victim groups’. Then, we must follow the same policy. We must never condemn the elements of the far-right(not harshly anyway) but rather argue that even though we disagree with some of their views, they are merely a people fighting for their survival.

Anyway, let’s return to the original topic of why the elite assumptions of liberalism are wrong. Imagine pure snow at the top of the mountain. It is clean, crisp, perfect, and pure. It is icy snow, pure H2O in icy frozen state. Elite liberal ideas are like this. Purely on a theoretical level, they sound pretty good and infallible. But, what happens when the snow on the mountain melts and flows down the slopes and streams and rivers. Near the top, the water is clean and pure. As it moves down more, it picks up more impurities. As it hits the rivers, it picks up mud and dirt. When it finally moves into the lagoons, it isn’t all that clean but festering with all kinds of germs. Elite ideas are like that. What sounds good in its pristine theoretical form at the top becomes muddied, dirtied, and loaded with impurities as it spreads among the masses. This is the case with high and mighty ideas. Nietzsche’s profound philosophy turned into the ugly aspects of Nazism. Aldous Huxley’s cautious and profound ideas on hallucinogenics turned into 60s hippie lunacy and drug orgies. Marx’s theory of economics in actual practice became murderous communism that destroyed entire societies. Elitist Huxley thought that the experience of hallucinogens was so profound that people would not/could not possibly abuse them for stupid. How wrong he was. I highly doubt if Nietzsche would have thought his ideas would lead to something like Nazism and WWII. Of course, not all ideas hatched by ‘great men’ are pure as snow. In many ways, Nietzsche’s ideas were dangerous to begin with. And, come to think of it, Marx’s ideas and visions were pretty crazy to begin with too. Orwell was wrong in Animal Farm to suggest that the noble ideas of Marx were corrupted by those who came later; the ideas were ruthless and murderous to begin with despite all that stuff about justice for mankind.
But, some ideas do sound so pristine, nice, logical, and fool-proof at the top. Liberalism and libertarianism both share this quality. Both are incredibly naive but fool and win over a lot of smart people because of their impressive intellectual mumbo jumbo. Many people, especially the educated, come to think it must be correct since some of the best and the brightest minds came up with or espouse them. But, it doesn’t matter how smart someone is. Knowledge and understanding are always limited to a person’s narrow experience. Also, people are capable of denial even when reality is right in front of their faces either due to cowardice, social pressure, dogmatic indoctrination, or sense of shame(if they were to think ‘taboo’ thoughts).

Elite liberal assumptions may indeed work in a world where everyone shares the qualities of elite liberals. They would not only believe in big government but would be imbued with values related to personal responsibility, diligence, shame, accountability, and contributing to society(as opposed to mere taking). Elite liberals believe in giving-and-taking, but they practice more giving than taking. Also, elite liberals have a moral and theoretical understanding of the tenets of liberalism. They are not liberals only for the sake of self-interest. Indeed, as many liberals are rich, they would be financially better off under conservatism–lower taxes. But, many rich people support liberalism because they see it as a set of moral principles and imperatives, a kind of secular religion and mission; as Jesus said, man doesn’t live on bread alone. (Just like soldiers need not only guns and ammo but a cause to fight and die for, rich liberals need not only success and wealth but causes to live for and champion.)

Rich liberals tend to be knowledgeable and well-read. But, as we go down the social ladder, liberalism becomes less a set of moral and social principles than an easy way for the masses to get freebies. All those welfare mommas in Detroit and South Side of Chicago don’t give a shit about the values or theories of liberalism. They aint never heard of John Rawls or some do-gooder Jew-ass mothafucka. For them, it simply means, ‘them honkeys gonna gimme me mo free lunch. Dang!!!’ All those illegal aliens who cross the border into this country don’t give a shit about the values of ‘sharing’, ‘cooperation’, and all that. They only care for Mexican power and nationalism and getting freebies from gringos. All those white trash who live off the government dole don’t give a crap about the responsibilities of citizenship. In all these cases, it’s about the government giving them more free stuff so they can fatten their asses and have more fun while contributing nothing to society.

So, what started out as a positive, constructive, cooperative, and useful socio-economic theory at the top turned into the worst and lazy kind of self-interest and self-indulgence among the slobs. (To be sure, there are elite liberals who espouse liberalism mainly as an effective means to gain power and privilege.) Just compare the Ivy League educated Jewish liberal with the welfare momma in the black inner city with her 10 idiot children. Just compare the Japanese-American professional liberal with some black thug dope dealer with guns and bling blings. What applies at the top doesn’t apply at the bottom, not even in the middle. (It’s like the physical laws governing the stars don’t apply to the laws governing subatomic particles.) And, the arrival and support of Obama-ism is partly an admittance on the part of liberals that what I say is true. For instance, many affluent white liberals thought the black style of acting, talking, behaving, and feeling was so cool and liberating. A lot of privileged and affluent white kids(especially Jews)put on black airs and disseminated it throughout the culture. Affluent white liberals found it very refreshing, fun, and ‘liberating’. But, what was only a matter of style(like clothes to put on and off) for white liberals was the very substance(the very flesh and bones) for the masses–especially among blacks and trash elements of other races. It’s one thing to be a Jewish liberal who goes to school, does his homework, and gets good grades to enjoy Richard Pryor or some Rap music. It’s quite another to be a stupid Negro who has no father, fails in school, despises his teachers, and is problematic to embrace stuff like Richard Pryor and Rap music. For the Jewish liberal, the black jive-ass act is merely fun stuff to spice up his mostly sound and stable life. For the Negro kid, the jive-ass act becomes the very heart and soul of his being. (Alcohol means different things to a responsible drinker and to an alcoholic.) So, the impact of permissive cultural liberality is very different for the elite liberals and for the trash elements.

Much the same can be said of libertarianism, another intellectual and elaborate but essentially naive ideology. Let us return to the metaphor of the snow at the top of the mountain peak and what happens as it melts and flows down the slopes all the way down to the lagoon. Libertarianism, like liberalism, sounds pretty good when expounded at the top. It is about personal freedom and liberty after all. Who can be opposed to that?

The problem is what libertarians theorize and propose up in their ivory towers don’t translate into their preferred reality on the ground. Libertarianism would work just fine and dandy IF most people thought and acted like elite libertarian theorists, that is to say they not only embraced the philosophy of unfettered individual freedom but also were capable of restraint & rational behavior, accepted full responsibility for their actions, and didn’t blame society for their problems.

What happens is that only the crudest and most easily accessible aspects of any philosophy or theory come to be understood and practiced by the masses. Consider the fact that Freudianism came to mean, for most people, the idea that having free sex is good(thought that’s NOT what Freud meant). For most people, libertarianism is that cool ideology that says you can do whatever you want that gives you maximum pleasure. On that level, most liberals and blacks are libertarian. They want to be left alone to pursue their fun. Liberals want to be left alone to use drugs. Blacks want to be left alone to buy and carry guns and sell drugs. Many people want the freedom to go gambling, buy pornography, and all that stuff. So, the part of libertarianism that means ‘freedom to do as you want’ is understood and even embraced by a lot of liberals. The problem is the responsibility part. Ideological or intellectual libertarians see that as crucial to the philosophy–that a person must have freedom and make his own choices BUT also act rationally and take responsibility for the choices he makes. The latter part of the philosophy just doesn’t trickle down to the masses. Masses are crude, stupid, and childish. A child wants to play with toys but doesn’t want to clean up after playing with them. Similarly, people want to play with freedom but don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of all of their freedoms. They want full freedom to do as they please, but if they mess up, they prefer to blame or scapegoat others and make others pay for and clean up the mess they’ve created. Again, the icy pure reason of libertarianism at the mountain peak turns into muddy water filled with impurities and bacteria once it flows down to the masses. All these theories can work ONLY IF the masses accept not only the freedom(libertarianism) or services(liberalism) but also the responsibility and appreciation. One must appreciate freedom to use it intelligently, and one must have strong values to have the will and courage to admit mistakes, learn from mistakes, and take responsibility for one’s own actions. Too many people don’t fit that mold. Similarly, one must appreciate big government services if one is to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, without such appreciation, one never knows the limits of what one may take from the system; he just keeps demanding more and more(always complaining that it’s all unfair because some people have more); and unscrupulous demagogues like Obama or Chavez will come along and play on such emotions to gain power for themselves.

It is for this reason that both liberalism and libertarianism cannot work without a firm foundation in conservatism. ‘Conservatism’ can mean different things, but for modern societies it means a set of moral principles that have stood the test of time. Fads and fashions come and go, but basic truths about humanity remain the same. Of course, both liberalism and libertarianism are not without moral values, but they tend to be vague and negative than positive. Freedom, for instance, can mean freedom to do anything; and even if some freedoms don’t violate others directly, they are personally corrosive. Also, helping mankind(liberal value) is only a vague moral value because collective morality is faceless. If you help out a friend or family member out of personal obligation, there is a strong moral element in your deed. But, if you pay taxes for the good of society, whom is your money going to? It could go to deserving people or it could go to mere parasites. You would never know. And, who handles the government in charge of such things? Paper-shuffling faceless bureaucrats whose main interest is to expand government as much as possible for their own power and benefit.
There is a vague moral component in the idea of everyone helping one another, but the actual practice of such is diffuse and can be immorally exploited by too many people–lazy parasites.
Liberalism also teaches people to be tolerant, and tolerance is a value of sorts, but it too is vague and a negative value. It tells people NOT to do certain things, like calling someone a ‘kike’, ‘nigger’, ‘faggot’, or ‘chink.’ Not acting nasty and rude is indeed a good thing, but liberalism doesn’t fill the individual with the values and virtues necessary for him or her to succeed in life, make wise decisions, or be a good individual(as opposed to merely a good citizen). One cannot succeed or be a functional member of society simply by not doing some bad things. Even if you’re not hateful or hostile toward people of other races, nationalities, religions, or sexual natures, you could still be a stupid, dishonest, lazy, idiotic, childish, egocentric, obnoxious, moronic, and insufferable fool. And, there are many such people in our society. Having been raised under politically correct indoctrination, they know well enough NOT to say certain ‘hateful’ things. They tend to support generic ‘progressive’ policies such as ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’. But, those misguided or vague moral values teach them nothing about what it means to be a good person, a responsible person, a decent person, an honest person, a hardworking person, a good family man, and so on.

In some ways, those vague values undermine stronger moral values. For example, if you’re told that you must take care of society, you would be a fool to work hard since you’d be forking over much of your wealth to the government so that bureaucrats and bums can leech off your labor. (Besides, ‘you should take care of society’ can also mean ‘you should take care of society,’ in which case you might as well try to take it easy so that others will take care of you.) Also, tolerance has limits; beyond a certain point, its moral value becomes as worthless as inflated paper currency. Complete tolerance is at best amoral and at worst, completely immoral. We are seeing the product of this craziness already in Canada and Europe.
The ultra-liberal governments in those places insist and enforce laws that require the majority populations to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of diversity. So, if some white European or Canadian badmouths Muslims, blacks, or gays, he can be put behind bars. This is done in the name of tolerance for minorities and different cultures. But, what if the culture or population that is being protected is itself intolerant, illiberal, or crazy? This is a problem that the liberal West has not been able to resolve. In the name of protecting a (rapidly growing)minority from bigotry, liberalism is actually giving protection to a growing social reality that may indeed come to destroy the West along with its liberal values.

Every idea or policy has its useful limit beyond which it becomes destructive or suicidal–just like medicine; too much will kill you. Imagine having a baby tiger cub in your midst. It is small and cuddly. Suppose there are several storeys in a building. Those at the topmost storey have the most power. As the baby tiger grows, it starts to claw at and bite people at the lower storeys. They complain about the growing power of the tiger and its increasing erratic and aggressive behavior. But, the people at the top are not sympathetic to the complaints of humans below. They don’t want to look at the people below but only cling to the belief that the tiger cub is essentially good, innocent, and nice even if it acts increasingly troublesome. Also, let us suppose the people on top feel a certain guilt because they had long mistreated the tiger cub’s mother. As time goes by, the tiger cub grows bigger and bigger, more confident and aggressive.. The people begin to complain that this tiger is posing a big threat to them and has already killed and devoured some of the people below. But, suppose the people at the top, committed to the religion of tolerance for the tiger, refuses to heed to the cries and demands. Besides, as they are safe and well-protected at the higher storeys, they don’t have to worry about the tiger attacking them or their kids. Of course, eventually the tiger will grow big and strong enough to attack even those at the top, but it will too late by the time the people on top realize the true nature of the tiger.

For this reason, it is misguided for patriotic white folks in America and Europe to see the minorities as their main threat. The main threat is the people at the top who control, shape, and command the national information, ideology, and policy. So, it’s stupid for the white masses to keep pleading with those at the top for attention and help. The people at the top will not listen to white people’s cries. In America, the elite compromises mainly liberal and left-wing Jews, which means they have a special interest to weaken gentile white power as much as possible. In Europe, the Jews are less powerful but the people who control the media, government, and institutions are mostly also of the left. This is partly the legacy of WWII, which morally and mortally discredited the Right thanks to the insane policies of Adolf Hitler. Though most of the Right had nothing to do with Hitler, they got associated with the radical right anyway. Guilt-by-association employed by the resurgent left against the white right did a lot of damage. But, there’s another reason for the cultural weakness of the Right. Because the Right has been so religious and traditionalist, it rejected or dismissed intellectualism, critique, and such things. As we all know, modern societies empower the best educated and the intellectually-oriented(whether their ideas are sound or not) in the fields of media, arts, culture, academia, government, and so on. Because of the Right’s disdain for intellectualism and creativity, the Left naturally took over the institutions that command our social, political, and moral ideas. The stupid thick-skulled religious leanings of the Right has even turned off many conservatives, which explains why so many flocked to the libertarian brand. What intelligent or educated person would want to be associated with the sermons of Pat Robertson or other such banalities?

At any rate, both individual freedom and collective cooperation are useless unless a society is mostly made up of sober, responsible, decent, and steadfast individuals, and the values that imbue individuals with strong moral sense are conservative. Liberal tolerance can be a good thing within reason. Collective sharing can be beneficial if modest in design. Individual freedom that libertarians love so much is crucial to a democracy’s health and progress. But, all must be rooted in and restrained by strong moral values of conservative character. And, people must understand that morality cannot be completely tolerant. Any set of values must discriminate and dismiss other values(or anti-values). Diligence is the opposite of laziness. Honestly is at odds with dishonesty. Decency is the enemy of rudeness and barbarism. But, just look at the kind of culture our society embraces. Liberals defend rap music on the basis that it’s essentially black and that we must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of black culture. But, what are the ‘values’ of rap music/culture? Decency? No, it’s about savagery, rudeness, and thuggery. Self-criticism? No, it’s about self-centeredness, self-promotion, and self-aggrandizement. Honesty? No, it’s about fooling, jiving, hustling, conning, and ‘dissing’ the ‘mothafackas’? Friendliness? No, it’s about saying bad things about other guys, women, and their friends and relatives. Law and order? No, it’s about the thrill and fun of criminality, robbery, and rape. Curiosity and intelligence? No, its attitude is that the only cool things in the world be your ego, your guns, your dick, your ho’s, your drugs, and etc. Obligation to family, friends, society, ancestors, relatives, etc? No, it’s about you, you, and you and ‘fuck’ the rest. Rap is liberalism and libertarianism at their worst. It exists under the liberal rubric because stupid white liberals believe that it’s wonderfully ‘tolerant’ to appreciate non-white cultures(no matter how pathological and disgusting they happen to be). It also falls under the libertarian umbrella because Rap is all about me, me, me, my freedom, my passions, my desires, etc. But, notice that the rap community has no appreciation for the liberal concept of mutual tolerance, mutual appreciation, and mutual obligation, and it has no appreciation for the libertarian values of personal restraint and self-responsibility. People of the rap community have little or no interest in the cultures of other people, nationalities, communities. Indeed, they dismiss most of that stuff as ‘pussyass’ or ‘faggotyass’. Also, the egocentrism at the core of rap doesn’t inspire or encourage appreciation of things that aren’t loud, sexy, badass, or toughass.
If Nazism’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures was based on a sense of Aryan cultural and racial superiority, Rap culture’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures are based on the notion that nothing has any value unless it can kick ass and get as many pussies as possible. Nazism was the radical ultra-arrogance and intolerance of High Culture whereas Rap-ism is the pathological ultra-arrogance of low culture. Rap-ism, were it to take over society would leave behind an even worse impact than Nazism because it would simply end civilization itself. Nazism, had it prevailed, would have established an evil civilization, but a civilization with some noble things just the same. But, rap-ism, which grew out of the jungle-pathologies of black genetic nature, is something that can bring on a PERMANENT Dark Age since blacks cannot create and maintain civilizations. Uganda under Idi Amin was like a society taken over by rap thugs. And, much of Africa has come under that kind of mind set. That kind of mentality cannot set up complex businesses, produce doctors/scientists/engineers, run a responsible government, produce an intelligent and sober electorate, or make way for any social progress. People with rap mentality know how to demand, how to complain, how to bitch and whine, how to shake their fists, how to destroy, how to act wild and crazy. They don’t know how to build, how to learn, how to appreciate, how to make peace, how to cooperate, how to self-criticize, how to make amends.

Our society is producing more and more people with rap mentalities because of the rise in black populations and because so many whites and Hispanics are aping the blacks–a natural process in a society which is obsessed with sports/sex/pop music. As long as blacks dominate sports and popular music, more and more kids of all background will try to adopt or imitate blackness in order to be hip, cool, badass, and etc. Fascism understands human nature correctly for people gravitate toward power.
As Jews gained intellectual and cultural superiority in the West, many gentiles became slaves of Jewish ideology and values. Radical feminism, for example, was created by ugly Jewish hags, but as it was intellectually more sophisticated and elaborate(even if wrong)than what gentile women came up with, gentile women all tried to write, think, and act like the Big Jewish Sister. In the arena of sports and pop music, blacks are the toughest, roughest, meanest, and baddest. So, naturally boys and girls want to be black or black-ish. They respect Power and become the emotional and cultural slaves of blackness. If whites were stronger than blacks and if gentiles were smarter than Jews, this would not have happened. So, despite all the leftist Jewish crap about fighting oppressive power, the real oppressive power is being concentrated in the hands of Jews(intellectual, cultural, economic, political) and blacks(athletic, streets, crime, sexual, etc).

And of course, our pop culture industry promotes, markets, and disseminates much of this. Now, why would well-educated white(largely Jewish)people spread this garbage far and wide? There are three main reasons. One is the simple profit motive. For pop culture industries to compete and win, they need to market what most people want, and most people happen to be dummies. Another reason is many highly intelligent and well-educated people think stuff like Rap has real cultural value. Though rich liberals are part of the elite, they are eager to prove that they are egalitarian. To prove their street cred, they parrot and promote the garbage that issues from the street. Even so, it must be said that many worthy arts and culture did come from below. Though a person who cannot appreciate high culture nor distinguish between a work of art and mere junk is no better than an ape, a snob who cannot appreciate genius and brilliance simply because it didn’t issue from the top is an idiot. Even so, most of what passes for pop culture range from banal/ harmless to demented/destructive.
The third reason why rich liberals shamelessly promote dangerous and corrosive stuff like rap music is many of them have been taught by their radical professors and learned from books that truly progressive people must take a hateful and antagonistic stance against the ‘conservative’ majoritarian forces of society. This explains why someone like Margaret Cho has become a major star in pop culture. She’s ugly, disgusting, and repulsive–an Asian version of Rosie O’Donnell or Sarah Silverman–but, she and her fans fool themselves that her stupid and retarded anti-social attitude amounts to some kind of meaningful statement for the sake of liberation and freedom. It may well be that she had problems growing up and has issues she needs to resolve, but notice that she blames society than coming to terms with herself and accepting that society can never be perfect. But, the idea of people like her is that society is essentially evil–as long as straight white people are in the majority–and the only way to fight for freedom and noble causes is to be ‘badder’ than society. Lots of Jews like Lenny Bruce were the pioneers of this kind of attitude, and we can now see where it has taken our society.

Problem with the Jews Is Not the Culture of Critique but Culture of Subversion

The social psychologist Kevin MacDonald argues that Jews pose a problem to gentile majorities through the Culture of Critique. There is indeed a COC at the core of modern Jewish culture, but that isn’ the main problem. Problem is not Critique but Subversion, for Critique can be positive and even necessary for the health, survival, and regeneration of a community.
It is critique that allows people to understand themselves and their societies. To ponder what works and what doesn’t. Critique isn’t the same as criticism or condemnation. It is a penetrating analysis of ideas, values, or conditions to understand them better. Better understanding can lead to reform and progress or better and more intelligent reasons for holding onto one’s ideas and values. Crucial to Western Civilization have been change and progress, and neither would have been possible without the practice of critique. All high cultures have some degree of culture of critique, but the West took it the furthest, which explains why the West advanced the most. The West was never fully content or -centric in their Western-ness. Westerners always wanted to know more, understand better, fix the bugs in the system, come up with new paradigms, come up with better justifications, etc. Hindus had their rigid caste-bound religious system. Muslims were content with their Islamo-centric view of the world, which is why their world never experienced the Renaissance. The Chinese became arrogant and enclosed in concept of the Middle Kingdom. From the very beginning, the West was different, and this difference must be credited largely to the Greeks(who originated the Culture of Critique) and white genetics. If Asian genes favor submission/obedience and if black genes favor wildness/chaos, the whites genes lie somewhere in between–a balance of order and chaos. If there’s too much order, progress is slowed by rigid dogmatism and subservience. If there is too much chaos, progress is made impossible by violence and mayhem. The West had its historical and social share of oppression and violence, but the core consciousness and heart of Western Man have been somewhere between order and chaos. This explains why, even after the greatest war that ever was(WWII of course), Europe recovered rapidly.
Under ideal conditions, nothing can beat the West. It also explains why the West has long generated change and progress from within. Asia has achieved much progress in the 20th century, but how many of the ideas that changed Asia actually came from Asia itself? Almost all of the ideas–scientific, political, economic, etc–came from the West to the East. If the East ceased to exist, change would still occur in the West. But, if the West ceased to exist, change in Asia would slow down, and Asia would slowly revert back to its ‘feudal’ mentality.

Critique, for this reason, is generally good. Critique can be negative or positive, corrosive or constructive, made in bad faith or good faith. Critique in and of itself is not the problem. Indeed, it must be said that much of Jewish COC has been good. Not all Jewish intellectuals have been crazy radicals or hateful subversives. Indeed, Kevin MacDonald is also a practitioner of the COC–and admits as much–because he approaches Jewish culture, history, and ideas in the way many Jewish intellectuals have approached gentile societies. There is nothing wrong with a people critiquing other societies, cultures, ideas, or values. And, there’s nothing inherently wrong with critiquing one’s own society, values, history, and so on. Indeed, the Right wouldn’t be in such a sorry intellectual and cultural state if it had practiced more of the Culture of Critique on itself. Without constant critiquing, ideas and values grow stale(or phenomenon such as Rush Limbaugh or idle questions like ‘Gee, what would
Reagan do?’). Critiquing doesn’t necessarily mean an assault or rejection of traditional ideas. It simply means looking at them from new angles and perspectives, reconsidering them, understanding them better, and finding new arguments for or against them. Only through constant critique can we keep our ideas and values fresh. Regularly inspecting a restaurant or one’s car is a good thing. Constantly checking and cleaning the parts of a gun is essential too. We don’t just want to have blind faith in our culture, ideas, values, etc. We want to take it apart, study them, see why they are dear to us, why they’ve worked for us, why they’ve failed us sometimes, why some of it must be preserved and improved, why some of it must be discarded, and so on. No set of social ideas or values are fool-proof, perfect, or infallible. All have bugs and defects or disadvantages. Only through the Culture of Critique can we properly understand them, fix them, or revitalize them–and keep doing so in a never ending tune up of the system. Muslims don’t practice a COC, and look what’s happened to them in contrast to the West or Israel. Muslims and Arabs generally have trust in Islam or in their Tough Guy Leader; they don’t ask too many questions. It’s no wonder that Israel is mightier than all of the Islamic Middle East combined. Jews examine, analyze, and reform their own societies. Muslims don’t.

So, why are Jews problematic to us? It’s not the COC but COS(culture of subversion). Much of Jewish critique has been subversive than constructive, deviously toxic than helpful in a good-willed manner. They’ve been analyzing, criticizing, studying, examining, and experimenting with us to weaken us and bring us down than to save or empower us. Of course, this cannot be said of all Jews or even most Jews. But, it’s true enough that a sizable number of Jews have been involved in the most radical and hateful ideologies and movements in modern times, and these hostile Jews have often been the most influential elements of the Jewish community. Why is Jewish critique different from that of others? Why has it been so subversive to the majority culture?

Possibly, the answer can be found in the fact that Jews have been a nomadic people–a minority in foreign lands; they were ‘rootless’. Also, Jews are smart and have had a tendency to look down on gentiles in the way that humans look down on apes or sheep. Also, the nature of Jewish economic life–money lending, tax collecting, middlemen professions, etc–made Jews very distrustful of goyim who were, in turn, distrustful of the Jews. Also, Jews were not a physically strong or warrior-like people; since they couldn’t fight and win with brawn, they had to rely on brains–especially since they were outnumbered by the goyim. Also, there was something in Jewish religion and culture which instilled Jews with a sense of superiority toward others. The Jewish Book told the Jews that there is only one God and that Jews are the chosen people of God. So, Jews always felt a certain degree of frustration. On the one hand, their Holy Book said their God is the ONLY true god and that Jews are God’s favorite people. But, Jews were often in foreign lands dealing with hostile people who had power of life and death over them. Of course, to the goyim, Jews often seemed the hostile minority. So, Jewish COC developed in opposition to the goy majority culture.

Many Jews, especially modern Jews, had great respect of goy culture and wanted to become a part of it. Many Jews assimilated into Christian or gentile society in the late 19th and early 20th century. But, many did not. And, even the many Jews who did assimilated or tried to assimilate kept and practiced the Jewish impulse to undermine and bring down the goy order. (It was a psycho-structural trait so deeply ingrained throughout Jewish history that even modern and secular Jews could not dispense with it; some modern Jews were aware of it and even proud of it; they relished their role as ‘special’ radicals fooling the stupid goy masses. Other Jews thought themselves completely assimilated and weren’t conscious of the buried Jewish structural mentality impelling them to act in radical and subversive ways; they sincerely understood their radicalism as mere progressivism to improve the lot of mankind, but in truth, it was a case of old Jewish habits trying to undermine the goy order and gain power for the Jewish kind, though modern Jewish power was disguised as ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, ‘anarchism’, ‘bohemianism’, or ‘finance capitalism’. Jews who knew about the animating spirit beneath the veneer of the secular, modern, or ‘assimilated’ Jew were acting venal; the Jews who were unaware of the Jewish spirit that really commanded their radicalism were naive and idealistic. But, their aims as far as white goy society was concerned were one and the same.) So, even Jewish converts to Christianity or secularism turned to ideologies like Marxism, decadent bohemianism, anarchism, and other such ideas, fashions, and movements in greater numbers(proportionally anyway)than gentiles did.

It could be argued that the COC actually began as a full-blown philosophical or scientific approach with the Ancient Greeks. Consider people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and countless others who sought to question, analyze, discuss, argue about, and understand everything. Socrates challenged all assumptions, raised all manner of questions, and didn’t think any topic or issue was so sacred or holy as to be left untouched or accepted on faith. So, COC originated with non-Jewish Hellenic folks than with the Jews.
To be sure, there was an element of COC in Judaism too. How could this be when Judaism is all about believing in God and obeying Him? After all, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sought Knowledge and got punished badly. The fall of the Garden of the Eden is the greatest tragedy in the Bible. Bible emphasizes the need to obey God, to submit to this commands, and so on. So, how could Judaism have inspired Critique? Actually, it was more a semi-culture-of-critique but it was critique enough. Jewish tradition and culture spawned critique because God was said to be perfect and all-powerful. In other words, there were Utopian or perfectionist elements in the Bible. Of course, many cultures had stories about the Age of Gold and all that, but only the Jewish religion said God is All-Knowing, All-Perfect, and All-True. The Jewish Book said there is only one God and no other. And, the Only God is the Perfect Being. And, Jews are his favorite people. So, what’s the problem? Jews couldn’t have but realized 24/7 that the world was far from perfect, and they themselves were far from being the happiest or the most powerful people in the world. If there is only one God and if he’s Good and Perfect, why is the world so rotten? And, if Jews are His favorite people, how come Jews suffer along with the rest of mankind–or suffer worse at some times, especially at the hands of filthy goyim? It was this concept of Perfection which led Jews to question the world, man, morality, history, and etc. Of course, the Jews could NOT question or critique God himself(at least not directly), but they could question, criticize, scrutinize, and examine mankind and the world to find the bugs in the system(which was a rather indirect or devious to critique God in a roundabout way; it may be another reason why Jews became so devious; unable to question or attack God directly, they had to find ways that were reverent towards God yet were actually complaints. Notice that the God becomes more distant from and less powerful over the lives of people as the Bible progresses. Even as each Biblical text pays ever greater respect to God as a Being of Supreme Perfection, God’s power over mankind grows weaker... to the point where the Hebrews seem to be on their own and in control of their own destiny. Ironically, the more Jews turned God into a more perfect, abstract, and infallible being, the less God became relevant over the lives of the Hebrews and other humans. Since God was said to be perfect, it became ever more necessary to divorce him from the world which was imperfect. Similarly, the more that radical and liberal Jews idealize the United States or Western Society in utopian terms, the more the original creators/inhabitants/settlers [white folks] lose their power. Since the Modern West is supposed to be perfect in justice and equality, and since white people are tainted with ‘historical sins’, it’s necessary to divorce the Modern West from White Power; the Highest Hope of the West cannot be achieved or attained by white people who’ve lost their moral authority. In other words, The West [and all the great things it stands for] is too good for original Western Man. Just as Perfect God had to be divorced from the Imperfect World, the Perfect Future of the West must be divorced from the Imperfect Record of Tainted White Folks. The future of the West is to be determined not by whites but mainly by Jews and blacks, who are said to be the rightful moral heirs to Western power and wealth since they suffered at the hands of White Folks and carry no historical guilt whatsoever themselves. If the West is a Christian Civilization, and if Christianity is about nobility of victims, then it’s only right that the West should fall into the hands of Jews and blacks, the main victims of White Folks.)

Socrates and the Greeks went further in the Culture of Critique than the Jews did because the Greeks went all out and critiqued even the sacred religious principles of their society. The nature of Jewish culture being what it was, Jews could not dare criticize God. Indeed, to even say God’s name was punishable by stoning. But, because their God was supposed to be perfect, Jews had to wonder why the world failed to live up to God’s ideal and vision? It couldn’t be God’s fault. In the Bible, prophets appear and ‘critique’–judge, extol, threaten, analyze, pontificate, etc–the world around them. Prophets sometimes blame the goyim for standing in the way of the Jews, God’s chosen people. But, the prophets sometimes attack the Jews for having drifted away from the laws and values given to them by God. So, there has long been an element of self-criticism is Jewish culture as well. Jesus was the greatest COC-ist in Western religious tradition. We don’t know what the REAL Jesus was like, but the Jesus of mythology didn’t merely try to bring forth paradise for the Jews but for ALL MANKIND. As such, he became Jew who transmitted Jewish moral and religious tradition to the goy kind. Anyway, Jewish critique always had a utopian, radical, or totalitarian underpinning; and, it tended to be morally judgmental because of its religious roots. Jewish critique wasn’t merely a means to understand reality and society better but to CHANGE THE WORLD–as Karl Marx said of philosophy. Since Jews had to serve God and realize God’s promises and commands on Earth, their philosophy could not be about ‘idle’ or merely academic/theoretical matters. They had to serve a grand purpose. This may explain why Marxism became what it did. Though Marxism rejected God and was supposedly a science, there was the quasi-Biblical aura that Marx had figured it all out, he was all-knowing, and his ideas/dogmas only needed to be obeyed and followed–or forced if necessary. Though there have been Marxist critics who’ve been critical of Marx or used his theories selectively for understanding certain social phenomena, the central thrust of the Marxist movements all over the world was that MARX HAD IT RIGHT AND IT’S THE DUTY OF MAN TO MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD COMMUNIST ACCORDING TO MARX’S DICTATES. This was Culture of Critique as Culture of Confrontation. Not even the French Revolution–led by goyim–was this extreme or radical.

To be sure, there have been two kinds of Jewish subversives: the idealists and the individualists. The Jewish idealist subversives seek to undermine the status quo(especially that of the goy majority) for the sake of creating a just utopia for all mankind(but especially beneficial and empowering to Jews who will gain most power in the new order favoring intellectuals and radicals). Karl Marx, Trotsky, and Chomsky belong in the idealist Jewish subversive camp. This type of people seek to tear down society to build a new one, one they believe to be better for all of mankind(though especially for the Jews).

The individualist Jewish kind, in contrast, are generally anti-utopian and anti-totalitarian, but they can be dangerous too. Though conservative goyim often embrace the anti-totalitarian Jewish individualists, the latter can be corrosive and damaging to the moral fabric and fiber of the community. Think of Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Alan Dershowitz, Sandra Bernhardt, Woody Allen, Ron Jeremy and other Porn Meisters, and so on. NOTHING is sacred to these people–though talented they may be in terms of wit and entertainment value. Libertarians may love such people for what they stand against(political correctness), but what are these individualist-subversive Jews FOR? Certainly not for values that we embrace and hold dear. Their values tend to be actually ‘liberal’–miscegenation, open borders, gay marriage, and etc. And, think of that monster Ayn Rand. Many goyim worship her as some kind of goddess(and she was a uniquely gifted novelist; we must give credit where it’s due), but she was a monster whose cartoon idea of America–money grubbing titans of capitalism–really insults us. True, she was opposed to the totalitarianism of the state, but she was for the totalitarianism of the individual(or, at least that of the SUPERIOR individual). Most people are not giants, geniuses, or titans. The idea of conservative Americans reading her books and thinking they are in the same league as the Big Rich Guys and Geniuses is laughable. Also, just look at the Big Titans of our society: George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, the Walton family, etc. Congrats to their mega-wealth, but are they better or superior to us in anything other than moneymaking, techno smarts, financial trickery, or having the luck of growing up rich?
So, we must keep in mind that Jewish individualist subversion can also be damaging to our society. Of course, this is difficult for many people to grasp because the media are owned by Jews and tell us that Jews only do good for society(and that all people MUST love some Jews; so, if you don’t like commie Jews, you MUST prove that you’re not antisemitic by showing that you just LOVE Jews such as Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, or Alan Dershowitz).
Also, subversive individualist Jews happen to be very witty, funny, and entertaining. We have a hard time believing that someone that makes us laugh can be bad for us. But, when these subversive individualist Jews mock and make us laugh at the very values and ideas that have been most dear and precious to us, we need to come to our senses and see the danger. No, I’m not for censorship or turning off the TV. It’s okay to find entertainment or a good laugh anywhere, but we must always remind ourselves that no amount of snarky wit or nasty humor invalidates the values and beliefs that have been crucial to our survival as a people, race, and nation. Go ahead and laugh, but don’t confuse laughter with truth or wisdom; after all one can even crack jokes about the Holocaust or someone’s funeral, but the joke doesn’t alter the true nature of such matters.

At any rate, both the idealist Jews and individual Jews tended to see the vast goy society as an obstacle to their agenda or absolute freedom. Radical subversive idealist Jews wanted to undermine and destroy goy institutions/icons to set up a new order based on higher justice and truth(as mostly developed by Jewish thinkers). Crazy subversive individualist Jews wanted to undermine and destroy goy institutions and icons to expand anarchic freedom whereby the clever individual(generally the Jew) would have advantage over the goyim. In a totally individualist society unmoored by social or traditional norms, the smartest and the wittiest come out on top; the hustler or the wheeler-dealer becomes numero uno. Radical intellectual Jews sought power through violent revolution, and crazy individual Jews sought power through anarchic freedom. Though ideologically at odds, both sides have complemented each other at times. Notice how the leftist intellectual Jews–those for big government, political correctness, socialism, etc–got together with the individualist Jews–Hollywood, music industry, TV, defense lawyers, computer industry, etc–to put Obama in power. The Jews mastered the Art of the Schvartze. Obama is the compromise between the radical Jews and the individualist Jews. Obama as the first black president undermines white American power and values, opening up to new anarchic possibilities. Obama as the socialist promises big government for left-wing intellectuals. Obama as a globalist will allow the economic elite to keep making their fortunes around the world. Obama the Progressive is the face of Socialist Idealism. Obama the Hipster is appealing to the crazy individualist Jews. Obama is a man of many faces, and he has a few faces that appeals to many goyim as well. His image as The One has won the hearts and minds of many white Christians who are suckers for religious iconography.

Anyway, the Greek Culture of Critique was different from the Jewish Culture of Critique. Though the ideas of Socrates and other Greek thinkers were considered subversive by some quarters of Greek society, all Greek philosophers were also proud Greeks and thus committed to the power, wealth, and success of Greek society. So, whether their ideas were ultimately good or bad, they sought to serve the Greek state, Greek people, Greek power, or Greek something. A Greek philosopher may have been eccentric and stood apart from others, but he too was part of the Greek order. He may have come up with some bad or radical ideas, but he was not a hostile outsider. He was to the Greeks what the Jewish prophets were to the Jews. He could be critical and harsh, but his critique was to serve or save the Greek order than to destroy it. He could be very wrong, and his ideas could be damaging, but he acted in good faith. Similarly, Jewish prophets acted in good faith in relation to their own kind.

But, Jewish critique and advice to the goy kind were not made in good faith. Those were merely devious means by which Jews could gain advantage for themselves. Pretending to serve others while really serving oneself is no great sin. All peoples have done this, and the foreign policy of most countries still function on this level. All nations disguise their policy of national self-interest in the language of international morality and humanitarian principles. Where Jews were unique was that they didn’t have a country of their own, and the scattered populations of Jews developed social relationships that were fundamentally devious. Since Jews were minorities in all places, they had to act as though they were always serving the interests of the goyim though they were actually looking out for themselves. (To be sure, Greeks and Armenians acted the same way under the Turks, but Greeks and Armenians were content to keep to themselves other than in economic matters. There was something in the Jewish genes–higher intelligence, a more restless disposition, a strange way of seeing the world, a powerful will, a cunning temperament, etc–that propelled them to seek something more than favors and wealth from their relations with other peoples. Jews wanted to gain total mastery over the goy majority either violently through communist revolution or gradually through capitalist accumulation–and media dissemination. Perhaps, this was because Greeks and Armenians could one day look toward their own national territory and independence. Since this option was not possible for Jews–at least not in the heart of Europe–, Jews were condemned to exist only as minorities in foreign lands. Since they could not be total masters of their own land, they sought to be masters of Ideas, Wealth, and Cultural Power. Those three forces would also come to command politics since political power in a capitalist democratic country derives mainly from money and media. Democracy is about the people, but the people think and feel as they are told by schools and the media. So, those who control the media in effect control the politics since politicians have to play to the emotions of the masses shaped by the media and schools. We saw this with Obama. The reason why so many whites voted for Obama is because they’ve been softened up to accept a black socialist after many yrs of liberal Jewish media control. Of course, Jews did eventually get a land of their own, but it was too small, too hazardous, and too distant from the West where the Jews gained most of their freedom, power, and wealth. So, Israel is more a symbolic prize for most Jews than their real homeland. It is a trophy nation.)

The fact that Jewish religion stressed the need for Jewish separation from and contempt for goyim made Jewish deviousness all the more nasty. Most people who owned their own national real estate(homeland) understood full well the difference between ‘our interest’ and ‘their interest’. Everyone who owns a home has his own home-centered interest. But, someone who must live in the homes of other people must act as though his interest is that of the owner of the home. Because Jews didn’t have a home(country)of their own, they had to live as servants or guests in someone else’s home. No people could be happy as permanent guests or servants, but Jews were especially unhappy because their Holy Book said they are the chosen people, the favorite of God. So, even as Jews served the goy masters and pretended to be like happy ‘house niggers’, they concealed a poisonous wounded pride. Also, as Jews were very smart, the Jewish servants grew richer than the master of the house. In many European empires, the kings and noblemen had to borrow money from the Jews to wage wars, build monuments, throw parties, and etc. Also, the Jewish Holy Book said there is only one God, and all the lands of the world belongs to Him. So, even if Jews were nomads, going from one place to another and living as a minority among the goy majority, Jews thought the world(and its goyim) existed for the sake of the Jews(because all the world was the House of God, and Jews were the Chosen of God. So, Jews thought they had a divine right to economically and culturally take over other nations. Not all Jews understood the nature of their own psyche and how it operated, but this accounts for the Jewish insatiability when it comes to power, wealth, and control.)
The Bible says Jews shall wander the world and grow fabulously rich from doing business with the goyim. In other words, the Bible tells the Jews to see goyim as the cows see grass. Grass exist for cows to wander about and eat. Goyim exist so that Jews may wander around and grow rich off them.

Kevin MacDonald believes that we too need a culture of critique to be used against Jewish power or the Jewish COC, but I would go further. We need a COC on our own culture and values as well. Again, COC isn’t necessarily subversive. Trying to understand reality more deeply or better is not necessarily subversive though such exercise can always shake the foundations of our beliefs and convictions. But, that is the price we must pay for being humans with rational minds. And, it must be said that if we don’t examine ourselves ourselves, others will and in bad faith. Intelligent people are attracted to analysis, thought, intellectualism, etc. They become the most important journalists, academics, artists, etc. Because the COC has been dominated by Jews, Jewish thought has influenced elite culture for everyone. Because so many on the Right stuck to old time religion, received habits and values, or generic ideas about liberty and freedom, the Right has lost intellectual respect. Kevin MacDonald talks about how even the best gentile students gravitated toward radical Jewish professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was because the radical Jewish professors were interesting and exciting EVEN IF they were wrong about history, society, economics, and etc. They were willing to engage with and challenge the status quo and open people’s eyes to new ways of seeing things. If this task had been taken up by the Right, the Left would have been less influential and dominant in the intellectual and cultural life of this country. Critique of our values, culture, and heritage doesn’t necessarily mean rejection, hatred, or dismissal of what we hold dear. It means discovering its strengths and weaknesses, its relevance and irrelevance in the changing world. It shows us what must be changed, what must be reconsidered, what must be maintained. It also helps us come up with better rationale for holding onto what we believe in.
This is why the fascism is preferable than conservatism to the modern Right. Fascism isn’t about dogmatically clinging to the past or resisting the future or modernity. Fascism accepts the future, change, and modernity. But, fascism, unlike radical leftism, doesn’t try to trash or reject everything about the past, the traditional ways, or what’s sacred to a people. Fascism went very wrong with Mussolini and Hitler because they institutionalized it as state dogma. Instead of cultivating a fascist COC, they demanded that everyone just blindly follow the great leader. Communist governments did the same to the COC of the Left. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao didn’t want independent leftist thinkers in their domains. Under communist rule, there was only the Culture of Command, not Culture of Critique.

As a result, the most important Right and Left thinkers arose not in Fascist or Communist nations but in democratic capitalist nations–because freedom to think was allowed. Though some of these thinkers sympathized with or supported the far-right or far-left regimes, they would not have been able to think and express themselves freely had they been living under those regimes. Even so, the Left far outshone the Right when it came to intellectualism and COC, especially after WW II. To some extent, this is understandable because the Left, more than the Right, stands for challenging and opposing the status quo. But, it’s also because Left had more Jews, the most intelligent people on Earth. Also, as Jews were nomadic rootless outsiders, they were bound to see the goy world from more odd and interesting angles. Kafka was indeed one of the greatest artist-thinkers of all time. Even as we reject Jewish ideas, we must admire and respect their insightful, tantalizing, and provocative dimensions(and learn from them). A central concept of the Right, in contrast, is sacredness, and sacredness, though fascinating and productive in a visionary way, doesn’t promote rational thinking so crucial to the COC. Also, there is a tendency in sacredness to turn sublime visions into rigid dogma. This has been the danger of Judeo-Christian-Islamic order. Because of the totalitarian nature of Judeo-Christian-Islamism–its belief in ONE God and His PERFECTION–, it tends to mummify spirituality or visionary power than keep it organic and fertile. It stresses the sacredness of rigid dogma than the sacredness of spontaneous vision, imagination, artistic creativity, and so forth. Judeo-Christian-Islamism favors an End of History view of the world. Judaism promised the Messiah who would fix all the problems. Christianity promises the return of Jesus and end of history. Islam has a similar End of Days scenario. And, communism, which developed out of the Judeo-Christian tradition also imagines an End of History. It offers a linear view of history that finally culminates in utopia which ends history and time itself. The pagan view of history is more cyclical, organic, ever-growing, ever-shifting, alive, and fertile. It is rooted in the way of nature itself. The danger of paganism is its amoralism as nature is amoral. But, paganism, if properly revived and utilized, can energize the life force of a civilization that has grown decadent or rigid. If we don’t revive healthy European paganism, other forms of paganism will rule supreme that will destroy European soul of the West. Afro-paganism is at odds with Euro-paganism. Euro-paganism is reverent, noble, and deep whereas Afro-paganism tends to be wild, crazy, and destabilizing. Actually, there is much to admire in African tribal paganism, but the strain of Afro-paganism that is most widespread around the world is the American ghetto variety which is utterly trashy, ugly, demented, filthy, and obscene. African paganism at least has something to do with the rhythm, the beauty, and wonders of nature. Afro-American paganism is just about guns, drugs, pimps, whores, and ‘niggaz’.

A major problem of both Fascism and National Socialism was that both were deeply influenced by a totalistic view of the world even as they rejected Christian dogma and communism; communism, everyone should know, was essentially a secular totalitarian ideology based on Judeo-Christian moralism. Though Marxism was conceptualized and promoted as a ‘science’, its sense of worldly mission was religious and zealous in the old Christian mode of redeeming mankind through the one true faith that would bring justice and equality to all of mankind. Even as Fascism and National Socialism were neo-pagan and anti-communist, both adopted certain ideas, methods, and outlooks of Judeo-Christian spiritual totalitarianism and communist social totalitarianism. As such, both Fascism and National Socialism did more to stifle than stimulate creativity, renewal, and rebirth.

Another big blow to Rightist culture and intellectualism was WWII and the defeat of Germany and Italy(and Japan). Because of the loss of prestige upon defeat and the revelation of all their terrible crimes(especially by Germany and Japan), nearly all of the Right(even mild conservatives)came under suspicion and dishonor. It just wasn’t fashionable to be on the Right in most European countries and in the United States through much of the postwar era.
To be sure, the Right had a golden opportunity in the 1950s with the expansion of communist infiltration in the West, but people like McCarthy gave this noble cause a bad name through lazy demagoguery. McCarthy and his supporters were the best gift to the communists and Left. By overplaying their hand in an irresponsible manner, the liberals and leftists were able to portray anti-communists as a bunch of paranoid lunatics.
Notice that the most of the interesting thinkers and artists–even if you disagree with them–came from the Left since WWII. The so-called towering intellects of the Right such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk are not really all that interesting in comparison. They may have been right about history and society, but they weren’t stimulating or truly inspirational thinkers.
Provocative stuff attracts the best and the brightest in society who come to control the top institutions which influence how 100s of millions think. The Right hasn’t been intellectually or culturally interesting. There were interesting thinkers on the Right like Ernest Junger and Carl Jung before WWII, but people like Hitler and Mussolini had stifled them. After WWII, because Nazism and Fascism had been associated with neo-paganism, the Right rejected paganism and clung to old-timel Christianity. Christianity is a great religion and a crucial component of Western moral system, but it had turned into dogma long ago; it had become an intellectual dead end in and of itself, especially in the modern world with so many new possibilities, freedoms, and ideas. The Right could not be intellectually interesting by regurgitating Christian theology over and over, especially if it was done without the spirit or culture of critique. For there to be fresh visions, ideas, and imagination, the Western Right must back to pagan mode. (Joseph Campbell, the neo-fascist intellectual, demonstrated this. Campbell respected Christianity but approached it from the angle of critique. He analyzed and appreciated it as myth, poetry, narrative, history, etc. Because he had an active mind, he made Christianity live again. For him, it was something to think about, respect, value, criticize, explore. For Campbell, Christianity was not just a museum piece to bow down to in blind reverence and faith.)
Paganism doesn’t have to be totalitarian. Indeed, the problem of both Fascism and National Socialism is they violated the fundamental principle of paganism; in true fascism, the individual and his visionary power must be respected. Among the pagan tribes to whom nature is sacred and mysterious, it is incumbent for every individual to undergo his own vision quest, find his own special and sacred place in the world-as-corner-of-the-universe. Fascism may produce great leaders, but they must not be someone who tells the people to bury or suppress their own individuality and blindly follow the headman. Neo-pagan fascism must be modern and respect the freedom of the individual. Fascism is the rational understanding and acceptance of the sacred soul and imagination of mankind. It must be poetic and visionary but not literal minded and superstitious. Fascism is essentially mythic than religious. Religion literally accepts the supernatural whereas mythic consciousness poetically reveres the ‘mystery’ and beauty of the world.

To be sure, not all people are equally capable of imagination or the vision thing, but all people must be given the freedom to seek their own truth and vision if they so desire and possess the will power to do so. The horrors and extremes of Nazism would not have been possible if every German had the right and freedom to find his own meaning in the new German Spring. Instead, all Germans were to abandon their own vision quest, sacrifice their individuality, and mindlessly merge with Hitler’s totalist vision of Germany.
People think individualism and communalism are incompatible, but that isn’t necessarily true. Though the two ideas are opposites, opposites also attract. A community is, after all, made up of individuals, and it is the contributions of individuals that make up a community. And, an individual is always a part of a community, socially and temporally. None of us created ourselves but are the products of past generations; and through us, future generations are created. And, even the most extreme individual cannot do everything on his own. There is a FREE way in which each person can be both an individual and a communal. Ultra-individualism of the Ayn Rand variety is a fantasy, and ultra-communalism of Nazism or communism is a prison of the soul.

There’s another reason for the loss of prestige of the Right. In the West, the Right has been synonymous with white power, white values, white interests, white pride(namely of gentile whites). But, as the 20th century progressed, it became obvious that white gentiles were intellectual inferiors to the Jews and physical inferiors to the Negroes. So, the prestige went more to the Jews in the area of ideas & culture and more to blacks in the area sports and pop music. We all know that ideas are very important in a country like the US which is known for its famous universities. Also, the giant US media–owned by Jews who are also better businessmen than gentile whites–have the awesome power to disseminate ideas and values like no other force or people on the planet. Liberal Jews have defacto tyrannical power over us through the media, and leftist Jews have defacto tyrannical power over us in the universities.

Sports are very important in America. Though America is famous for its universities and publishing, the masses tend to be non-intellectual or even anti-intellectual. Therefore, their idea of what’s right or wrong, what’s cool and uncool comes from TV, movies, music, and sports. There has been an alliance of Jews and blacks in the media and sports. The two most influential musical forces in the 20th century have been Jewish and Negro. Many of the hit songs, Broadway musicals, and so forth have been penned by Jews. Jews also came to own all the music industry. Blacks paved the way for rock n roll, rock music, soul music, and many others that whites came to admire, emulate, imitate, or find inspiration from. Even Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama owes something to black beat and rhythm. (Of course, black music was also greatly influenced by white music, something we don’t hear much about. Anyway, before interracial sex happened on a large scale in the US, there was interracial music, and rock is the product of black musical father and white musical mother. And, Jazz before that. Blacks were the ‘father’ in the Jazz equation because black Jazzmen tended to be more forceful and led the way. In Rock, however, white artists came to dominate and lead the way, and indeed most blacks never really cared for mainstream rock and stuck to soul and funk... before they eventually moved onto hip-hop and rap.)
We may be tempted to blame the Jews and blacks for some evil conspiracy to take over the musical culture, but that won’t do. The fact is some of these Jewish and black artists were genuine giants and great innovators. We must not be petty or churlish; we must give credit where it’s due.
Of course, the West has a truly profound heritage of classical music, but even most conservatives don’t listen to that stuff. Indeed, a leftist or a liberal is much more likely to listen to classical music, write about it, or pursue careers in the field. For all the talk of Western Heritage, there is woefully little appreciation or understanding of Western culture and history on the Right. Though liberal and leftist Jews may be committed to destroying what we call Western Civilization, they generally know a lot more about Western culture than we do(just like many white educated liberals know more about blues and African history than most American blacks do). They read more, listen to more serious/sacred music, study it more, and appreciate it more even as they try to undermine the power/prestige of the West. The White Left has a love/hate relation with Western Culture. In some crazy way, they think that they are the genuine heirs of Western culture and civilization since the West is supposed to be all about change, progress, equality, justice, and so on. The French Revolution was a major chapter in Western Civilization and has been worshiped by the Left ever since. Indeed, many on the Left believe that their current commitment to progress is a struggle to fully implement the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity(with all of mankind). First, it is to turn all of Europe into one political and economic entity. Next, it is the entire world.

Anyway, sports also played a role in the loss of prestige for the White Right. We don’t look upon athletes as mere individuals but as our heroes, as figures representing our collective power, might, strength, dreams, etc. This is why every nation lionizes their gold medal winners at the Olympics. They become National Heroes. They are seen as bringing glory not only to themselves but to the nation as a whole. This is why Japanese were worried when bigger and fatter Hawaiians dominated sumo in the 90s and when stronger Mongols took it over in the 2000s. Sumo used to be a sacred National Sport, but it’s been taken over by foreigners. Similarly, whites used to look up to white heroes in sports. White victory in sport came to be synonymous with white power, prestige, and pride in general. But, the white man got beaten by the blacks in sports. At first, whites identified with the losers like Jim Jeffries. Though whites got beaten by Jack Johnson, whites refused to worship black power that destroyed the white man in the ring. Whites still rooted for the fallen white athletes. But, as time passed and as Jews came to control the media, increasing numbers of whites began to see the white losers as a bunch of ‘faggoty ass white boys’ and started to look upon black athletes as the true mythic heroes of America. Europe held out with white athletes and pride longer than we did, but with increased black immigration to Europe, Europe also came to look up to black athletes as figures of National Honor and Pride. So, US, Canada, France, Holland, and UK all send black sprinters to the Olympics. The whites in those nations delude themselves that the blacks they’re rooting for are competing for National Honor when, in fact, it’s all about the glory of black power. What’s next? Will Asian nations also import and send black athletes to the Olympics for the sake of Asian National Honor. (If some black guy won the gold medal for Japan in the 100 m race and if Japanese acted like it meant glory for Japan, wouldn’t we laugh at the stupid deluded Japanese? Well, how do you think United States, Canada, and European countries look like when they send and root for black athletes in the name of national glory? And, isn’t it odd that though liberals and Jews generally attack nationalist sentiments, they fan and fuel such passions as much as possible if the national honor is borne by black victors or by someone like Obama? Isn’t it odd that white liberals are all of sudden very patriotic ONLY BECAUSE a black socialist globalist committed to destruction of white America is at the helm?)

The fact is, though black athletes may win medals for America, the real winners are blacks and the losers are whites. The Dream Team may be seen as an American team but it’s really a Black Team that says, ‘non-blacks need not apply’. It’s come to a point where whites kids worship and lionize blacks as the true National or Hometown Heroes. Even conservatives are glued to sports where blacks males dominate and white cheerleaders shake their asses for black males.
The White Right talks about black rape of white women, but the far greater shame is the much larger number of white women who lust after black men and have babies with them. Many white women listen to black music because black singers/dancers seem tougher and sexier than dorky white guys in country music or tired rock music. And, white girls watch a lot of sports too. (It’s hilarious that so many conservative white guys watch sports with their white girlfriends. Don’t they realize that the only message their girlfriends are getting is, ‘why am with a faggoty ass flabby white boy when the real men are like those tough black guys on the court?’ Any proud white guy who watches the NBA or NFL is an idiot. All the glory–athletic and sexual–go to blacks, and the money of the white goyim go to the Jews who own nearly all the franchises. These rich Jews, like Mark Cuban-owitz, gave millions to Obama!! I say boycott the sports and all the products advertised during the broadcast.)

It’s the Law of Nature. In nature, males fight for the right to sexually possess the most attractive females. Despite all our civilized pretensions, human males also compete with each other for the right to have sex with the most attractive females. Women are attracted to brain power/ money OR brawn power/money. Jews beat white gentile males in brain/money power, and blacks beat white gentile males in brawn/money power.
So, the main interracial or interracist problem is not black men raping white women but white women jumping into the arms of black men. White women watch Oprah and voted for Barack Obama over John McCain. Their white traitor bitch cunts are hungry for black cocks and they wanna give birth to little Obamas. The liberal media(especially the Jewish feminist gang) have promoted and sanctified Obama’s mudshark of a mother as the ideal white women.
The White Right can bitch all it wants; the fact is the liberal Jews own the media and control how white kids think from a very young age when most impressionable. And, it’s only natural that the smartest amongst us would gravitate toward Jewish-dominated culture since Jews seem to be intellectually most interesting and gravitate toward black-dominated sports and music since human nature worships power-that-attracts-sexual-passions(and blacks are the toughest).

The White Right must understand that the rise of Jewish-Negro power isn’t just the product of some conspiracy but the natural result of freedom and competition. In a free society such as the United States where meritocracy is still the name of the game–despite affirmative action–, the best and most talented tend to the rise to the top. It was only natural that the smarter and more creative Jews would make more money and snatch control of media and academia away from white goyim who had once controlled them. And, it was only natural that the stronger and tougher blacks would take over sports, the streets, and popular music whose main themes are toughness, power, and sex.
Though there was a degree of artificial social manipulation–mainly by the Jews who run the media–, the Jewish-Negro domination is, in many respects, the natural product of individualism and freedom. In the past, whites gentiles discriminated against Jews in universities and against blacks in sports. That’s how white people had kept their dominance. If blacks had been granted total equality long ago, they would have dominated sports and become the National Icons of Top Manhood since the 19th century right after slavery. But, white males feared the Negroes and artificially curtailed and suppressed black freedom and rights. Also, white gentiles in the elite institutions favored the less intelligent white goyim to the smarter Jews well into the 1970s. Alan Dershowitz isn’t wrong about his experience. Why was it that less intelligent white goy graduates of law schools were able to find better positions than Jews who graduated at the top of the class? It was because the WASP-controlled elite law firms favored their own kind over the smarter Jews.
This system changed that favored whites over Jews and blacks changed for two reasons. One was lawsuits and social agitation. The other was the natural law of competition. Those firms that recruited the smarter Jews did better, and so other firms also had to recruit smart Jews to compete and survive. Eventually, Jews came to dominate many firms at the expense of the less intelligent white goyim.
Same happened in sports. Though most teams were initially reluctant to recruit black athletes, the fact was that teams with black athletes had a better chance of winning than those teams without blacks. So, even teams that didn’t want to hire blacks were forced to hire blacks to stay on par with the competition.

In due time, Jews took over many of the elite institutions because they were the smartest. Most of the computer innovation also came from Jews. Just about all the top internet sites were created by Jews. This is why most of the superduper rich today are liberals; they are Jews in high-tech, pharmaceuticals, bio-engineering, etc. Old Industry run by white goyim are on the way out. A great many of the super giants of new capitalism(that relies on super brain power based on cutting edge science, math, and computer wizardry) happen to be Jews. Of course, there are many non-Jewish geniuses and tycoons too, but since they get their education and culture from the Jews who control the top universities and popular culture(Hollywood, TV, books, etc), they too become ideological clones of the Jews.
Even the internet technology which the White Right use to get their ideas across were created by the Jews.

And, eventually, blacks took over all of pop music and sports. Even if a sports team were allowed to discriminate against blacks today, it would be suicidal to do so since a team without simply won’t have a winning season. Just look at what the ‘Dream Team’ does to white European teams.
And, as our popular music became more sexual, pornographic, and macho, blacks were bound to take over that realm too. Women are attracted to masculinity, and black men are simply faster, tougher, more muscular, more commanding, and more powerful than ‘white boys’.

The White Right wonders why all of this is happening, but it’s not hard to understand why. It’s the Law of Nature. It’s is disingenuous for the White Right to insist on a genetic-based, biological, and realistic analysis/understanding of human beings and then be shocked by the fact that so many whites have become sheepish slaves of Jews and blacks. It’s the obvius outcome of natural processes. In a free society, the best win. Jews are best in brain power, and blacks are best in brawn power. Blacks take white women for the same reason that white men take Asian girls. Many Asian girls prefer the taller and stronger white men to the dorky and geeky Asian males with nasal voices and small penises. For the same reason, white girls prefer black men who are more muscular and have bigger penises. This is why there is so much porn with black males and white females. Though we can pretend that such filth exists ONLY because Jews who control the porn industry want it that way, that’s not the only or main reason. After all, suppose Jews tried to peddle porn with Asian males and black females and marketed it vigorously. Would there be much demand for that even with extensive marketing(except as something to laugh at)? No.
The black male/white female porn is popular–even among white males–because there is the belief that it’s the ultimate natural-sexual ideal/order whereby the toughest male takes the most desirable female. And, this is why Obama is the such a popular guy among the castrated white males and jungle-fevered white females. He is seen as the natural/historical product of a masterful Black Man and an attractive White Female. In the new secular Garden of Eden, the New Adam is the Black Man and the New Eve is the White Female. Why do white liberal men get off this? Don’t they feel humiliated? No, because they’ve been brainwashed since childhood to worship blacks as the nobler race; therefore, deferring to blacks comes naturally to them. Also, many white liberals are affluent and privileged, therefore still in a position to patronize blacks as a poor, powerless, and disenfranchised people. Since white liberal males grew up in social setting which is mostly white and privileged, they feel less threatened by black men taking white girls. Indeed, they think they are being generous and compassionate in welcoming such social development; they flatter themselves for their ‘tolerance’, open-mindedness’, and respect for ‘diversity’ when in fact, it’s a simple case of black guys taking their girls and leaving them to look like a bunch of faggoty ass white boys. To be sure, some white liberal males know full well the nature of what’s happening, but they don’t want to sound ‘racist’ since they’ve been told that whites must be ever so sensitive. Since they are losing their girls to blacks anyway, white liberal men wanna act like it’s all happening because they’ve encouraged and allowed it. It’s a less of a blow to their ego if they act like they voluntarily gave away their girls to blacks out of generosity and progressive sentiments. This explains why a piece of shit like Lawrence O’Donnell had the daughter of US president make out with a black guy in The West Wing. The faggoty ass white liberal boy O’Donnell is trying to make it seem like the growing interracism between black males and white females is happening thanks to the wonderful and noble blessing of decent white liberal men. Pathetic.

The White Right must not live in denial and simply try to blame Jews or blacks for the growing interracism. And, the White Right will not regain its power simply by promoting meritocracy, individualism, and anti-affirmative action. If we totally got rid of affirmative action, the main beneficiaries in the academia will be Jews and Asians, not whites. And, it’s the total lack of affirmative action which has made sports and popular music to the domain of black power and pride.

Fascism is crucial because only it understands the true nature of power, human passions, biology, history, psychology, etc. The Christian Right is a hokey, flakey, dweeby pile of crap. Jesus was a pacifist Jew, and the Christian message to the White Right is feel guilt, feel sorry, turn the other cheek, pray meekly, share with the poor around the world, let go of tribalism and racism, etc. I will give credit to the noble and beautiful aspects of Christianity, which is why we should not abandon or reject it totally; there are indeed deep and profound ideas about mercy, defeat, love, forgiveness, and so on in the Christian religion. But, Christianity must not be the central tenet of the White Right.

The other big force in the White Right has been libertarianism, but as a core philosophy and policy, it is useless to the White Right because it atomizes us. We cannot win or regain our power by dreaming of ‘smaller government’ and everyone ‘minding his own business’. Whenever there’s a political vacuum, someone or some force will fill it. A nation like ours has no choice but to have a big government(just like it has no choice but to have a big military), and it’s better that we accept the importance of political power in this country and try to take over government ourselves and EXPAND IT FOR OUR BENEFIT. Also, the idea of everyone leaving others alone is a fantasy. If someone is trying to get in your way; the best way to fend off such people is to preemptively get in their way. Put them on defense instead of waiting for them to put you on defense. Leave-me-alone-ism always puts one in a defensive position. It’s better to go into activist mode and force the other side into a defensive position. Launch a 1000 lawsuits on a daily basis. Bleed them dry. We need something like the ACLU, indeed many like it. Sue everything we hate on sight whether the lawsuit is merited or not. Drive them batty like they drive us batty. And, we need to find countless ways to attract attention and bully those who govern institutions. We need a thousand Acorns of the White Right to harass the Left and Liberal order endlessly. And, call for boycotts on everything black, Jewish, or leftist.

Look back at the 20th century, and it’s rather pitiful that the even the best COC against the Left came from the Left. Is the Right so pitifully lacking in wit, brilliance, insight, and analysis? Who wrote the most famous and effective critique of communism? A Rightist? No, a leftist socialist named Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The most famous anti-communist Frenchman was the liberal Raymond Aron. The best books detailing the horrors and crimes of communism in both Europe and America came from the Left.
The problem on the Right is the lack of curiosity and empathy for other cultures. It is because leftists tend to be more curious and concerned with the world and all of humanity that some of them had the courage and integrity to research and write about the evils of communism. Even as the Right opposed communism, it has done so in a shrill, dogmatic, and repetitive manner. It took the liberal and leftist journalists and historians to actually do the heavy lifting, the extensive research, and much else to dig up the dirt about the evils of communism. The Right was content to just attack communism from afar.

And, though liberals and leftists actually cared about the victims of communism, the Right was ONLY concerned about using the issue of communism for their own narrow interests. I’m all for racial and national self-interest and survival, but we cannot be truly human or civilized unless we are curious about the whole world, other cultures, other ideas, and other peoples. Even if we can’t save the world, we need to know more about the world and learn from it. From such comes greater knowledge. And, having greater knowledge wins the respect of the best and the brightest of our society. The smartest people in our society–even those from conservative families–are naturally attracted to liberal and leftist professors because the Left seems to be more interested and engaged with the world, with finding the truth.

Of course, things have changed in recent times. Political Correctness has totally corrupted much of the Left. Dogma reigns supreme in many academic departments, and the national media have become a propaganda arm for the megalomaniac political pimp Barack Obama. If ever there’s been a golden opportunity for the Right to regain prestige for its brand of Culture of Critique, it is now. But, much of this has been squandered by a Right that still embraces silly stuff like Intelligent Design, Creationism, Ban on Stem Cell Research, Pro-Life mantra(who cares about abortion if most babies aborted are children of liberals and blacks?), celebrity worship(Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc), or idiot Libertarianism, especially of Ayn Rand variety. Ultra-individualism is all fine for the rare people with supreme intellect, talent, or creativity. For most of us, individualism is best in moderate doses. Most of us are followers and users of pre-established ideas/systems, not Zarathustra-like prophets who’ve discovered fire to light the world anew.

We need fascism. And, there’s something to be learned from Asians, though we must be careful not to ape them. Asians are not particularly good looking, strong, intelligent, nor creative. Any black guy or an average white guy can beat up an Asian guy. Asians tend to be studious but their IQ is on par with whites and lower than that of Jews; they are not a genius race. As a further disadvantage, Asians tend to be sheepish or slavish; as such, their societies are not very innovative. There is much competitiveness in Asian society, but it’s about getting ahead in a pre-arranged game, not a contest to come up with new grand ideas. Maverick innovators are less common in the East than in the West
Even among the most successful Easterners, conformism is a big element in how they operate.

Nevertheless, Asian unity, power, pride, and progress are undeniable. It is proof that a people don’t have to the most beautiful, most noble, most intelligent, most powerful physically, or the most creative in order to rise in the world and gain great wealth and power. A people need to stick together, watch out for another, have a strong sense of racial and cultural identity and pride. Asians have that. It’s not Asian individualism in brain power or brawn that has led to the rise of Asia. On an individual basis, a black guy can destroy an Asian guy or a even a whole bunch of Asian guys. On an individual basis, a Jewish guy can run circles around an Asian guy. But, why do Asians have much power in the world? They stick together and watch out for one another. There is a strong sense of group unity. That is what’s lacking among whites. On an individual basis, whites may be the most attractive, which is why Jewish men and black men lust after white girls, and why many non-white women around the world seek to be inseminated with expensive sperm of Nordic men. So, whites are popular and desired in that sense.

But, it is this precisely this desirability that may lead to the demise of the white race. Black men want to have more semi-black babies with white women. Blacks prefer other blacks with white features. And, though black men may be uglier than white men, women have this natural attraction to power, ugly or pretty. So, many white women prefer to go with ugly strong black men than with pretty weaker white men.
And, white people are targeted by Jews because Jews have long been jealous of white beauty. Ugly Jewish hags would love to see white beauty defiled by total miscegenation. Ugly Jewish girls have often felt insulted by the prettier blonde shikses. That’s essentially been the real psychological underpinning of radical feminism cooked up by mostly ugly Jewesses. Though feminism is ostensibly about the liberation of all women, its main impact has been the destruction of the sacred unity between white males and white females. It fills ugly Jewish women with glee to see blonde women go with black men to give birth to mongrels. Since the Jews cannot possess beauty themselves, they want to defile the beauty of those who have it.

Liberal Jews will claim that what I say is a sick, pornographic fantasy, but just look at the culture as promoted by Jews–Howard Stern, interracism in porn, rap music, black athletes and their fashions and styles, feminist dogma, Woody Allen, TV sitcoms, Sarah Silverman, Sandra Bernhardt, etc. What can be more demented, ugly, and pornographic than this? Jews try to undermine our power and our culture with such filth, and then accuse us of seeing the world through some kind of pornographic fantasy! We are not fantasizing because it’s all so obvious for people to see if they have the honesty to see. But, many of us don’t have the honesty because we’ve been brainwashed since childhood to think that Jews are all noble, saintly, and good NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. So, even if a Jew spat on your mother’s face and molested your daughter, you’d have to say he’s the nicest person in the world; if you thought otherwise and accused the Jew of filthy behavior, then YOU who would be accused of having a filthy mind that hallucinates sick things. A Jew is like someone who blows a nasty fart, but if you notice and complain about the fart, YOU are said to be foul one for ‘fantasizing’ such.

To be sure, we have to be careful. We must not go down the path that Hitler took and come up with false racial theories or blame all Jews or claim that we are perfect or without problems. As humans, we have the same problems of rest of humanity. White folks committed their share of evil and stupidity. We can be just as evil as the rest of humanity, and other peoples are capable of doing great things. There is nothing inherently noble about being white or nothing necessarily awful about being non-white. Evolution created different races because different environments required or favored different traits, and in that sense, all of humanity has a rightful place in the world.

But, it must also be acknowledged that certain civilizations were envisioned and created with qualities unique to a certain race. In that sense, Western civilization wasn’t simply a random outcome but the product of something unique to white people. Given the diversity of European cultures, we must avoid the deterministic falsehood. However, it is most certainly true that all races have certain intrinsic traits which shape the development of their civilization in a certain way. Even when white people adopt ideas from other places, the ideas take on a uniquely white personality or characteristic. We can certainly see this in the development of Christianity. Though Christian values and ideas may be the same all around the world, it drastically changes according to races/cultures. Even when blacks adopt a white form of Christianity, it sooner or later takes on a black style. And, even when whites adopt the black form of Christianity or music, it takes on aspects of whiteness. White blues, for this reason, was never the same as black blues. And notice that Japanese rock isn’t the same as white rock. Heavy Metal, for instance, took many ideas from blues music, but came to embody the unique emotional and rhythmic(or lack of such)qualities of white people.

Anyway, the White Right needs to revive the Culture of Critique which is old as the Greeks themselves. If the left-wing and liberal Jews employ COC to undermine and subvert our culture, we can use COC to do the same to their agenda, power, and interests. But, more importantly, we need to apply COC to our own culture, history, heritage, assumptions, values, ideas, and etc. If we don’t critique–analyze, explore, examine, contemplate, challenge, and ponder–our own civilization, history, and culture, then OTHER people–especially the Jews–will do it for us, and the hostile Jewish analysis or critique of our society and civilization will become the standard image of the West for most people. We can practice COC to save Western Civilization and White People than to sink them–what the liberal and left-wing Jews are trying to do. Critique is good, and we always need more of it. It’s good for the mind to get some exercise. Also, it’s good to study and re-think our values and civilizations from as many angles as possible. Indeed, we should even pay attention to critiques of our civilization from non-Westerners and non-whites–just as Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, and Arabs have learned much about themselves by reading and learning what the Western/white people have written about them. We need to guard our borders and protect our race, BUT we must not culturally or mentally shut ourselves from the world. We must not create the Cuba or the North Korea of the Mind. The problem of Nazism was it promoted a cultural ghetto where ONLY ‘Aryan’ stuff was appreciated. That is really stupid. We know that all races and all cultures produced its share of geniuses in the arts, music, literature, and etc. We need to study and appreciate them. We should not dismiss other cultures in wholesale fashion though, of course, we must reject the egalitarian or multi-cultural notion that ‘all cultures are equal’.

Publications like "American Conservative" are most welcome because it offers contrarian views from the Right. In a way, it’s a good thing that the Right is in exile again, because only such condition can inspire the people to come to their senses, think and re-think their assumptions, revise their methods and tactics, and understand the true nature of where they are in the political, social, and cultural playing field.
We need not a staid right but an organic Right that is not afraid of new ideas or renewed debate. I’m going to throw up if I hear the likes of Sean Hannity yammer about, ‘gee, what would Reagan do?’ again. How stale and lame. Consider the fact that neo-conservatism too had its glory days and relevance because it brought new ideas into the Right. We may now reject many neo-con ideas as not truly conservative or too Zionist, but at a time when the Right had grown moribund intellectually in the 60s and 70s, it was necessary that people like neo-cons entered the picture to infuse new blood into the movement. Anyway, the point isn’t that neo-cons are always right, or paleo-cons are always right. The point is that we must constantly keep our minds open, think new ideas, reconsider and revise our values and ideas, etc. Though some of our ideas and values may indeed be eternal and timeless, we must constantly rethink and remind ourselves as to why they are timeless and eternal. Only the Culture of Critique can allow that to happen because only when we keep challenging the ideas and values we hold dear can we examine or test them time and time again and prove their worthiness through the thread of history.