Decline of the US empire? No, US is still the sole superpower. More importantly, the real power isn’t ‘American’ but Jewish Supremacist. US is the main aircraft carrier and money bag of the Empire of Judea(EOJ), and the tentacles of EOJ stretch across many nations in North America, Europe, South America, Middle East, Asia, and Africa, esp South Africa.
If anything, the ‘Americanization’ of the world — which means falling under control of Jewish influence — still gathers pace around the world.
Even when nations supposedly oppose globalism in the name of 'populist globalism', all they do is invite more Diversity and suck up to Jews. Look at Brexit. Leaving the EU has led the UK to take in more darkies and suck up to Jews even more under Boris the Spider Johnson. Clever Jews hedge their bets and have puppets on both sides. So, no matter which side wins, Jews get what they want. Even Donald Trump, though loathed by most Jews, does little but suck up to EOJ. He even works with his Jewish masters to shut down free speech critical of Israel and Jewish supremacism. It's 'muh holocaust' or 'muh gay' all the time. And given that Jews are pushing Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), the US as sole superpower is turning into a Soul Superpower at least when it comes to its 'cultural capital' that is mostly about rap music and black-dominated sports.
Kevin Barrett's Reply: The US can no longer get what it wants. It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it. It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest. It wanted Iran, the “7th country in 5 years” destroyed (or “regime changed”) by 2006. It wanted Assad out. It wanted North Korea to give up its nukes. It wanted Turkey to stop working with Russia and give up the S-400. It wanted Pakistan to stop tilting toward China. It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier. It wanted Chinese economic growth, and the technological and military power it buys, to flatline. And so on.
Meanwhile the other poles of the multipolar world led by Russia, China, and Iran have let the US spend itself into a corner. The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants. The US ability to dictate terms to the world is over.
As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available. America’s blood is almost gone. So they will diversify their bloodsucking, and are in fact already doing so.
But the US never got everything it wanted. During the Cold War, it lost Cuba. And even its successes in Latin America smeared US reputation as it had to support 'right-wing death squads'. US pulled out of Vietnam. US power was at its zenith with the fall of Soviet Empire, but by the end of the 20th century, Vladimir Putin and nationalists were regaining power in Russia. And the Middle East was mostly intact except for Iraq that had been crushed in the Gulf War. (Still, Hussein was in power until 2003.) So, it’s misleading to say the World Order went from US getting everything to US not getting everything. The US never got everything.
It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it
But Venezuela is on shaky legs and is far weaker than in the Bush II years when Hugo Chavez was snubbing his nose. Chavez deserves praise as a nationalist, but his version of socialism was deeply flawed as it relied on high oil prices and patronage machine politics. Once oil prices plummeted, so did the economy. The regime in power is weaker than ever and just holding on. Also, US empire pushed back against the Latin National Left with considerable success. Ecuador is now in hands of US stooges. Just ask Julian Assange. Brazil is ruled by pro-Zionist Bolsanaro. Bolivia is now ruled by pro-US junta-backed ‘democracy’. Cuba, though independent, signed onto globo-homo nonsense.
It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest.
Maybe, maybe not. In a way, the Taliban threat is a useful excuse to continue the US occupation. If the Taliban had really been eradicated, US would no longer have a valid reason to stay. US wants to occupy Afghanistan, not let it go. So, as long as the US has the Taliban Excuse, it stays and gets what it wants, thus encircling both Russia and Iran.
As for Iraq, it was a disaster, but that was good for the Empire of Judea(that rules the US) in a way. After all, a stable democracy in Iraq might still have turned out to be nationalist and pro-Arabist. It’s possible that once the Jewish-run US realized that the Shia-led regime in Iraq would lean toward Iran, it secretly armed and aided Sunni insurgents to attack and subvert the government. Make Arabs fight Arabs. Play both sides. To the extent that new Iraq had been a never-ending story of Arabs killing Arabs, the Empire of Judea loves it. After all, it created the exact same conditions in Libya and Syria. So, in that sense, the ‘disaster’ of Iraq turned out to be a useful formula, a handy template, in dealing with other 'rogue' Arab nations. Don’t invade and turn them into democracies. Just arm and fund certain ‘moderate rebel’ factions and set them loose to turn the Middle East upside down. While Israel is peaceful and prosperous, look at the horrible conditions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Total hell on earth. It looks like ‘failure’ but is actually a success to the extent that mayhem among Arabs means more power for Zionists. And Jewish-run US pulled it off with help from treacherous Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
As for Iran, it is reeling more than ever from economic sanctions. Given that Iran is a huge nation, it’s unlikely that the US wants a full-blown war. Rather, it uses financial terrorism and other means to undermine Iran, and they've been very successful. US didn’t topple Assad but got the next best thing. An utterly ruined Syria where US continues to occupy and steal oil. As for Pakistan leaning closer to China, that is the consequence of US growing closer to India, the much bigger prize. Though India is too big for the US to push around, it’s been working with US as bulwark against China-Pakistan. To be sure, the Hindus are clever and play both sides.
It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier.
The Ukronazis did win. They are still in power in alliance with Judeo-Nazis. Also, the energy war is just beginning. With the shale revolution, the US aims to export tons of liquid gas to the EU. As for China, who knows what will happen. It’s debt is 3x its GDP. Very troubling.
The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.
But even now, nothing comes close to the power of the dollar. And Chinese economy depends so much on export to the US. In that sense, the US has China by the balls. China relies far more on the US market than the other way around. Also, US military didn’t engage in Yemen. In Afghanistan, it is there to occupy and continues to do so.
So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants.
But the US is still the #1 destination for smart people around the world. Concentration of brain power will determine much of the future. They are coming to NY, LA, and San Fran to serve the US in its high-tech domination. Immigration is mass treason(except for Jews who control what it means to be 'Pro-American', which today is invariably Pro-Jewish-Supremacist-and-Zionist). Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, and etc. come to the US to make money and to serve the Empire of Judea, often against their own kind. Palestinians in the US pay taxes that go to support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.
As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available.
The problem is Jews are para-hosts. Yes, Jewish power is parasitic and sucks blood, as in the 2008 bank bailouts. But Jewish Smarts do create lots of new enterprise and money, and goyim(esp politicians) suck on Jewish money as craven dependents. Jews are not like the Sicilian-Americans in GOODFELLAS who are purely parasitic or like Gypsies who only steal. Jews do a lot of bad shit but are also at the front-line of creating the new world of technology and markets. Thus, too many goyim have grown dependent on Jewish money-making. They suck the blood of Jews who suck on the blood of goyim. Jews suck but are also sucked upon. Thus, they are more than parasites. They also serve as hosts, or parahosts.
There is a scene in THE PLANET OF THE APES(1968) where Taylor(Charlton Heston) and Nova(Linda Harrison) are on the run from the apes. When Nova sees food, her immediate response is to go for it. She acts by impulse and is blind to the potential dangers lurking about. In contrast, Taylor acts with caution, fully aware that it could be a trap or a vulnerability. He has a sense of perspective about the matter, something missing from animals, children, and dumb people. (Granted, even though animals lack depth of reason and perspective, they do possess instinctive fear, jumpy anxiety & trepidation. While rats cannot understand the human hand behind the mouse-trap or rat poison, they evolved to feel certain hesitation when face-to-face with something-too-good-to-be-true. Rats evolved to sample food before consuming the whole thing. If, after the initial sampling, they feel sick, they eat no further. But if they feel no negative effects, they eat the whole thing. This is why warfarin was developed as rat poison. As a blood-thinner, its effect shows up only gradually. And so, the rat goes about consuming warfarin-laced food unaware of its long-term lethal effect.) Why do fish get caught all the time? Because they see worm-on-a-hook as merely food. They don’t see the hook, let alone understand the human mind behind hook, line, sinker, and rod. So, humans have been fooling and catching fish for as long as we can remember and will go on doing so indefinitely. The fish just don’t get it. The fish just see the easy food and not the angle of the angler.
Even intelligent mammals fall for traps all the time. So many mammals, big and small, have been snared or crushed in traps. They saw the easy food but didn’t understand the mechanics of the trap or the mind behind it. Even nature has devised in certain organisms the trap mechanism. Consider the Venus Fly Trap, or the Alligator-Snapping-Turtle that has a tongue that mimics a tiny worm, thus attracting unsuspecting fish. Of course, all such attainments were the ‘accidents’ of evolution than consciously thought-out tools created by the organisms themselves. Most likely, only humans have a truly conscious understanding of how to conceive of and use stealth, camouflage, misdirection, deception(& decoys), and snares to gain advantage over their rivals, animal or human. And this applies not only to instruments of warfare and/or violence but to information, ideas, and idols(images/sounds of culture) used to gain a lead or advantage. More often than not, the clever and resourceful feign sincerity and good will while deploying their messages, expressions, and promises as tools of deception to gain an advantage. Even Jesus spoke of being fishermen of men.
This is why TRUST is a dirty word to any sensible person. Always be wary of trusting others, especially outsiders, though, in certain times, outsiders are more trustworthy than insiders. After all, blacks in America and Africa are better off trusting non-blacks than fellow blacks whose idea of life is jiving and acting crazy. If Trust should be a dirty word, why are Trust Societies better than Distrust Societies? Trust is good if and only if those within the trustful community share in the virtues of honesty and codes of honor. Thus, trust can be made sensible, and this is a great advantage to human communities. (And even among animals, those capable of mutual trust and cooperation within the pack or herd, such as wolves, hyenas, lions, elephants, and orcas, gain a formidable advantage.) But it’s a question of what kind of trust and how it was arrived at. Within a genuine trust community, people are raised from cradle to exhibit mutual respect & cooperation and inculcated with shame or sense of dishonor were they to fall short. Thus, trust is cultivated, developed, and maintained.
Furthermore, there’s an understanding of a penalty(more emotional than monetary) for those who violate the trust. Such trust comes with a price but is upheld and sustained by most people because they sense the alternative, a culture of distrust, would be worse. (The problem with nations like Sweden is the people have forgotten the historical cost and ethno-cultural basis for their culture of trust. In other words, Nordic culture of trust is not some universal truth but a particular reality that came about due to a confluence of factors, biological, cultural, geographic, and spiritual. The extreme cold had the effect of narrowing and hardening Nordic temperaments. The racial homogeneity led to stronger sense of unity. Relative geographic isolation led to fewer invasions, especially by non-whites. And Protestantism had a sobering impact on the Nordic soul. Today’s libertine Nordics may choose to believe that their societies became so stable and tolerant because they are oh-so-nice, kindly, and warm, but in fact, the historical roots of Nordic values owe much to ethno-homogeneity, culture of strict discipline & sobriety, even severity, spiritual devotion, and fear of shame. But silly secularized Nordics, especially the Swedes, have forgotten or forsaken their history and roots as ‘patriarchal’ & ‘oppressive’ and conveniently congratulated themselves that their modern success owes purely to liberal attitudes and tolerance. The real issue is less about liberalism and tolerance, both of which have pros as well as cons, than about what-kind-of-national-character-makes-best-use-of-freedom? After all, freedom is only as good as the person using it. If two people are released from prison, the person with resolve to be virtuous can make good use of his freedom and fare better than in prison while the person with ill-intent will likely use his freedom to commit crime, making things worse for himself and others. This is why libertarianism is only half-right. While it’s true that people want to be free, it's no less true that what people will make of their freedom relies mainly on their genetic makeup, moral upbringing, and cultural conditioning. Why is it that some of the most functional modern societies were those with long histories of authoritarianism, cultural as well as political? Even the Anglos, though pioneers of modern liberty, were part of a highly disciplined and hierarchical society steeped in manners and politesse. Surely, a properly reared child and a spoiled brat will grow up to use their freedoms differently. Libertarians assume that market-forces and rule of law are sufficient to maintain social balance, but a society where most people grow up with Las Vegas and Hollywood values will be too vain, narcissistic, infantile, shameless, and irresponsible to use their freedoms sensibly. And due to their lack of introspection and reflection, they will never blame themselves but point their fingers at everyone else. It'll be even worse if they happen to be genetically predisposed to be less inhibited and egocentric. Take blacks for instance, the race that evolved to be loud and loutish? Is it any wonder that blacks in America always blame OTHERS for their problems? Black idea of justice is, "If we steal and if you notice that we steal, you be racist and shit." How can libertarianism work with such people? Libertarianism might work if society were filled with people like Ron Paul, a man of personal self-restraint and family values, but can anyone imagine a functional libertarian society with the likes of Al Sharpton? How long will rule-of-law be honored by such apelike men?)
Trust is good and sound only within a closed system of shared identities, loyalties, and values. Trust among people is valuable precisely because the default position of mankind must be distrust. Indeed, how many people would you trust with your money, property, or secrets? Even family members cannot be trusted sometimes. For safety and security, we all live in a world of distrust. Even in Trust Societies, people lock their doors when they go to sleep. Even among People-of-Trust, it is a matter of degrees. For example, even Nordics and Japanese don’t share their banking information with others. If people through the ages and across the continents needed to be distrustful in order to survive, how precious it's been for certain communities to produce a culture of trust, which is really a culture of honor. After all, why do people go out of their way to appear trustworthy in some societies? It’s because they’ve been raised from childhood that it’s a matter of honor to be trustworthy. Without that sense of gratification tied to honor(or shame from lack thereof), people would be far less invested in being trustworthy.
Trust grew out of a world of distrust, the natural way of things, and that’s why people valued trust as a valuable commodity. They knew that if they lost the trust, things would revert to the ‘natural state' where everyone tries to cheat the other for petty gains(and without shame). (But over time, Trust Societies got so accustomed to the culture/habit of trust all around them that they took it for granted as something that would always be there; they even got to thinking Trust was the natural way of things. Well, Swedes are in for a rude awakening as tons of foreigners arrive without a Trust Culture. It’s like people who grew up rich may take wealth for granted, failing to realize that poverty is the natural state of being.)
The balancing act necessary for a Trust Society isn’t easy to maintain. It calls for the Goldilocks middle among tribal loyalty, national unity, and higher ideals. While some societies are high on distrust all around, some fail to turn into Trust Societies precisely because they are so heavily invested in one kind of trust over another. A society where people are extremely loyal and trustworthy to fellow kinsmen is likely to be less trustworthy overall because everyone, being so loyal and trusting of close-knit folks, fail to see the bigger picture and the higher good. In a way, Michael Corleone's deep loyalty to his family makes him less trustworthy as an American citizen in THE GODFATHER. On the other hand, a people who are overly loyal to higher ideals or universal ethics will destroy trust in another way. By trying to be One with all of humanity, they neglect the particular needs of their own communities and nations. Just look what the cuck-Scandinavian-Americans have wrought in Minnesota by embracing Blacks and Somalis as representatives of All Humanity than by preserving what had been so successful as Nordic-America.
It should be obvious to everyone that we cannot live by focusing on the Moment. We need a sense of perspective and angles. Even unintelligent people know this on the basic level. Even children understand life is a game of deceit and trickery. After all, no one wins a game of chess by moving pieces in accordance to the Moment. If you thoughtlessly take an 'easy' piece, your opponent could be exposing his piece just to draw you into a trap. So, you must broaden the frame of reference before you make a move. You may take a pawn, knight, bishop, or even a rook, but your opponent could be planning devastating counter-moves. He could be baiting you like a fisherman baits a fish with worm-and-hook. Chess thankfully is a cerebral game, and those who play it know they mustn’t make moves on impulse or sensation. One must be cautious.
And yet, look all around at society-at-large, and so many people who seem to understand the concept of perspectives and angles(at least as theory/principle) are sorely lacking in mindfulness and its application to real life. Of late, how did things get so bad? Partly, it’s due to the infantilization of culture that has allowed so many people to act shamelessly. Also, our pop culture has sensationalized the thrill of the Extreme This or Extreme That. In other words, if something jolts you in the Moment with super excitement, pleasure, or blast, just shut up and GO FOR IT! Just consider the obesity epidemic. Fatkins know that they should eat a balanced diet, but they often binge on excess food in the Moment. They are so fixated on MY PLEASURE NOW that they become oblivious to the fact that they will grow fat by over-eating, especially junky stuff. A more dire case involves dangerous drugs such as meth or various kinds of opioids. People who abuse them know of the long-term dangers, but they are so into the Moment that they don’t care about the consequences or the future. Especially as so many Americans since the 1960s grew up with so much comfort, leisure, and plenty — to the point where even many poor Americans are fatter than middle class folks in many parts of the world — , they never developed the essentials of self-discipline and sense-of-shame. Their mode of life is WANTONNESS. Obesity, drug epidemic, porn-addiction(and pornification of even kiddie pop culture via Disney), vulgarity & violence(especially in mindless video-games), online narcissism(especially on Instragram), insane ‘gay pride’ parades, and etc. didn't come by accident. They are all part of a pattern of a culture that has surrendered(rather happily) to Wantonness, Extreme Thrills, and Pleasures of the Moment. One might argue it really took off with Rock n Roll music of the 1950s, and black jungle boogie and Jewish merchant wits had something to do with it.
But one thing for sure, the Rise of Wantonness has robbed so many people of their sense of perspective and angles, especially if it offers them shameless jolts of pleasure. Even the so-called SJW or Woke phenomenon is really part of the Wantonness. After all, it seems so many Wokers are into politics for the euphoric highs of extreme self-righteousness by vaping on hatred toward Pure Evil. While it may feel good to believe one’s on the right side of history, it feels super-greater to believe one’s side is totally noble while the other side is PURE EVIL. Jewish Power has gone from vilifying Nazis as pure-evil to defaming white patriots as the New Nazis. Thus, hating white people is like a super-moral-drug for the proggies and people-of-color. (And as homos have been elevated to angel-status, celebrating them has taken on orgasmic proportions.) But, Conservatives shouldn’t be so easy to pat themselves on the back for being more sober-minded. After all, they couldn’t vape enough of that Neocon narrative of a New World War where the Gung Ho American Good Guys are at war with the New Nazis made up of ‘Islamo-fascist’ terrorists.
Anyway, a culture that prioritizes the Moment will weaken and eventually paralyze the sense of perspective & angles even among those who do get it, at least cerebrally. Just like the sensation of rapture in a church can make people abandon their conscious will(or the hysteria of mass politics can make even generally sober-minded people become swept away by someone like Hitler or MLK), the emphasis on the Moment will increasingly make people overlook the deeper meaning, the obligations, and the consequences. One reason why globo-homo-mania spread so fast even among the intelligent and educated is due to the ecstatic pageantry with all those ‘rainbow’ colors. Just like Oprah fans got swept away with her cult-of-personality, even smart people get swept away with Momentary Sensations of ‘Gay’ Celebrations. They are like Hansel and Gretel who lose sight of things because they got busy with cookies and candies. Or they are like Pinocchio and young boys who are lured to Pleasure Island to be turned into donkey-slaves(like the girls on Jeffery Epstein's island). Then, it is no surprise that even so many adults today are more like Nova than Taylor in PLANET OF THE APES. Whenever some new morsel of pleasure, delight, thrill, or high is dangled before their eyes, they must have it and be on Pleasure Island. This is as true of politics as anything else. Ever notice that for many progs(and also cuckservatives), what matters most is the rapturous FEELING of being holier-than-thou and high-and-mighty about being on the ‘right side of history’ without ever contemplating the long-term effects of mass-immigration-invasion, spread of globo-homo decadence, and mindless idolatrous worship of Nasty Negroes and Jealous Jews. We went from Bill of Rights to Feels of Righteousness.
It is precisely because so many whites now define truth and meaning in terms of Momentary Feels that they’ve become blind to the real dangers of White Nakba(whereby whites in Europe and North America will be replaced by Diversity much like Palestinians were replaced by Jewish immigrant-invaders). Consider all those silly Europeans holding up signs welcoming ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’ without thinking about (1) Jew-run America’s role in smashing the Middle East and North Africa, thereby displacing millions of Arabs/Muslims and (2) the long-term cost of all those non-white newcomers and consequences for the demographic integrity of Europe. How could they be bothered by such details when they got so HIGH on virtue-vaping of the Moment? Of course, the Moment is always more exciting than History, just like someone who visits a brothel is focused on sex/orgasm than the moral/social reverberations.
Paradoxically, Current Jews are at the center of both the Culture of Memory and Culture of Moment. One might ask, how did a people so steeped in memory, morality, and meaning become so involved in the vices of the moment, especially in urging them unto goyim? Given Jewish history, one might say Jews have been more ants than grasshoppers. A people with a serious and sober sense of who they are and what they must do to maintain their community and morality. A people who pondered God and His meaning for Jews and mankind. One would think such a people would be filled with piousness and solemnity. After all, it’s difficult to be both serious/responsible and wild/crazy. It’s hard to be both ant and grasshopper.
And yet, Jews became like 'ant-hoppers', and not least because what started as a Day of Rest turned into days of revelry. Being more intelligent, Jews need expend less of their energies toward work and could indulge in more fun. If a none-too-bright person has to focus a lot(like an ant) to get his work done, a bright person could likely do the work in half the time or even less. That means he has more time for revelry, and this is what we see in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. Even though Jordan Belfort was a crook, he was also very hard-at-work in his crookery. He was a hardworking crook. And yet, he was a crazy party animal too. How could a man do so much yet still have so much time left over for self-indulgence? He was very smart. But then, how did Jews get to be so smart? It was because of their mindful piety that pondered God and rewarded the most brilliant religious scholars with better opportunity for marriage and family formation, often with daughters of successful Jewish merchants who also proved their superior intelligence. So, oddly enough, Jewish debauchery has roots in Jewish piety and Jewish work ethic. A community that stressed higher intelligence & brilliance in God-think and making money led to evolutionary factors favoring Jews with higher IQ. Being smarter, Jews realized in the modern world that they could make more money with less time than it takes for goyim, and that meant more leisure time for acting like Jordan Belfort or Jeffrey Epstein.
White Goyim must regain their sense of perspective. They must realize that they are locked in a deadly game of chess with the Jew. First, white goyim must realize that the Jew is the opponent, the enemy. Not because it’s right to be knee-jerk anti-Jewish but because Jews most certainly see white goyim as their rival to destroy and own. When Jews play chess by regarding white goyim as the opponent/enemy, it is utterly foolish and retarded for whites to see Jews as their partner and even advisor. Such lack of perspective! There’s the Jew playing the game to checkmate your king, and you act like he’s on your side and trying to help you out. And because you see the Jew as friend, you try to help him win and lose sight of your own purpose of checkmating his king & his purpose of trying to checkmate your king. It’s like what Deke Thorton says in THE WILD BUNCH: "You think Pike and old Sykes haven't been watchin' us. They know what this is all about - and what do I have? Nothin' but you egg-suckin', chicken stealing gutter trash with not even sixty rounds between you. We're after men - and I wish to God I was with them." (Granted, there is an element of irony because Pike is confused in his own ways.) Consider THE GODFATHER PART 2. Both Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth try to put the other at ease as a partner, friend, and ally, but deep down inside, they know they’re rivals, even mortal enemies, and each knows that the other knows what he knows. At the mildest, Jews see white goyim like Michael Corleone sees Senator Geary: Someone to own and control.
If whites can’t win against the Jew with a checkmate, they must at least play to a stalemate. But idiot whites are under the illusion that Jews are their best friends and coaches in life. Because whites are so retarded at the moment, they don’t even understand the Jewish gambit. When Jews offer whites an easy piece from the table, whites take it with both eagerness(as it seems SO EASY) and guilt-ridden gratitude as the Jew seems so self-sacrificing in offering one of his pieces to the goy. The white goy doesn’t realize that the Jew is setting him up to take the BETTER PIECES. Consider how Jews advised Conservatism Inc to support Mass Immigration because immigrants are ‘natural conservatives’ and especially because most of those coming from South of the Border are Christian Catholics. So, one might have thought Jewish ‘liberals’ and Neocons were doing a favor for American Conservatism and Christianity. Immigration = More Conservatives and More Christians. And so much of Conservatism Inc fell for this gambit without realizing that Jews knew that more immigration would favor their own power. How and Why? (1) The #1 animus of those from Latin America is inferiority complex and resentment toward gringo, and as long as GOP is seen as the Gringo Party, the beaner-folks will vote Democratic. (2) While browns and non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, the policy & agenda are determined at the top by Jews. Non-whites take up the oars while Jews control the steering. Jews play political chess with a sense of perspective, angles, and context. Whites play political chess for the Moment. They go for easy pickings, especially in total trust and gratitude vis-a-vis the Jewish opponent-in-friend's-clothing, and lose sight of the big picture of what the game is really about. But then, even those who do know dare not say anything as the Truth will get them censured or censored, purged or pulverized in the current system where the rules have been totally rigged by Jewish gangster-lawyers and shyster-judges.
Of course, in the Current Year, it is perfectly okay for Jews to play the game as though whites are the enemy, the baddies, the villains, and even the New Nazis. Jewish attitude toward whites can be as hostile, vicious, vitriolic, and demented as they like. So, Jews can play political chess with whites as the opponent who must be destroyed. But whites better not play political chess in kind. The whitey must look upon the Jewish opponent across the table as his dearest buddy, helpful adviser, noble guru, and the most wonderful person on earth. This is a road to serfdom, and Jews keep winning and winning because they play to beat the opponent who sees the Jews as 'muh best pal'. And the reason why Jews want to keep whites in the mode of the Moment, either in orgasm or outrage, is because they sense that white goyim shaken free of the programming may start to think soberly about the perspective and angles of what the Jews are REALLY up to; then, whites will start playing a very different kind of political chess. Jews see whites as children, and we know adults feel free to lie to kids who are deemed unworthy and unprepared of the truth. Jews see themselves as the superior adult-race and see rest of mankind as children-race, and that’s why goyim mustn't expect honest talk from Jews. When Jews talk to you, just remember that they see themselves as adult and you as child. To their credit, they are not without reason for being so arrogant. The fact that so many goyim have been duped by Jews, just like kids fooled by adults, says volumes about how stupid or dumb goy-kind can be. Time to wake up and grow up. Put away childish things.
A certain Asian-American Advocacy group called MANAA is up in arms about Jay Leno’s repeated jokes about Koreans eating and mistreating dogs. It is applying pressure on NBC to cut ties with Leno for perceived slights against the Asian-American community. The logic of MANAA goes as follows:
Leno has "been an unrepentant repeat offender and still has a bizarre fixation with Asians eating dogs." "Many Americans are unable to distinguish between persons of Korean heritage living in North Korea, South Korea or the U.S., or between Asians and Asian Americans generally," Aoki had written in 2012. "Therefore, when Mr. Leno jokes about North Koreans and the consumption of dogs and cats, he perpetuates a persistent belief held by many Americans that Asian Americans and Korean Americans are perpetual foreigners who bring their objectionable dining habits to the U.S. We are not accepted as real Americans; rather, we are subjected to ridicule, disdain and abuse, which has resulted in a rise in racial profiling and hate crimes against Asians, Asian Americans and immigrants."
At face value, this complaint sounds like yet another case of PC stupidity, and in the most basic sense, it is. Comedy is, by nature, irreverent and mocking, and humor is impossible in a society of thin skins. (Given that the intellectual class and elites are growing ever more censorious, one might say they have think-skins, just a brainier version of thin skins.) Humor also serves as satire, and one effective way to subvert, mock, oppose, and even destroy something is by poking fun at it. And one could argue that mocking Asians for mistreating and eating animals such as dogs and cats is a good way to voice moral concerns on an international scale. It’s certainly saner than waging wars and invading other nations to stop the barbaric practice. And in this light, we should laud Jay Leno for having the courage(and perhaps conscience) shed light on the cruelty that is all too common across Asia in the mistreatment of dogs and cats. One might hope that such mockery may shame and pressure Asians to clean up their act if they’re to fully join in the civilized world. After all, progress isn’t merely about high-rises and faster/better machines but development of conscience and advancement of morality.
Animal cruelty used to be quite commonplace in Europe, especially in ancient times when Romans slaughtered thousands of animals in gladiatorial bloodbaths. And in the Middle Ages, there was widespread torture and killing of cats deemed companions of witches. Kings and queens throughout Europe enjoyed blood sports such as bear-baiting and bull-baiting. And even today, there are vocal opposition to bullfighting and fox-hunting(which should be called fox-lynching). Progress comes by both sincere crusade and witty mockery. True, satire is often highly insensitive, but why should those who are insensitive to humanity be treated with much respect? So, on that note, mocking and ridiculing Asians for mistreatment and consumption of cats, dogs, and other animals(such as bears that are horribly harvested for bile fluids) are fair game and morally justified.
And yet, context provides additional meaning to any issue, and neither Jay Leno or Guy Aoki(spokesman for MANAA) comes off well within wider contexts. But then, all of American society comes off pretty badly given the madness of Political Correctness and Moral Hypocrisy. First, MANAA is trying to have it both ways, but then, such is to be expected under the current regimen of Diversity. According to Multi-Culturalism, there is no single ‘American Culture’, ‘American Way’, or set of ‘American Values’. One school of Multi-Cultism says that non-whites of various colors and backgrounds should cling to their identities, cultures, and traditions and NOT assimilate to the ‘bland and generic white bread’ America. In other ways, non-white groups should go out of their way to assert their differences and show pride in them. Following this logic, the argument that Aoki should put forward is that America(and the West in general) should allow Asians-in-America to practice dog-eating and cat-eating. After all, if it’s wrong for the US to discriminate against any culture and impose its Eurocentric values on others, then Asians-in-America have good cause to argue for dog-eating and cat-eating. They could also point to the HOGOCAUST and decry the hypocrisy of Americans, white or otherwise, who profess such compassion for dogs and cats but feel NOTHING for hogs that are just as intelligent and emotionally complex as dogs and cats... if not more so. (Of course, from an ‘objective’ viewpoint, the killing/eating of pigs is no more justifiable than the killing/eating of dogs and cats. If the rule is, "highly intelligent animals must be spared", then pigs more than qualify. Yet, from a ‘subjective’ viewpoint, the killing/eating of dogs and cats is worse because it is undeniable that dogs and cats are cuter, cuddlier, and more accessible to humans than pigs could ever be. A person who doesn’t respond emotionally to a pig could be said to be ignorant of its intelligence and complexity, but a person who doesn’t respond to a dog or cat has to be downright heartless. Something about dogs and cats is so aesthetically, emotionally, and ‘socially’ appealing that a culture that goes out of its way to deny this truth and coldly slaughters them for meat is lacking in basic humanness.)
Anyway, if Aoki is really into Asian pride as an Asian-American, he should feel no shame in the fact that Asians eat dogs. He should defend it as an essential part of Asian culinary tradition. If anything, he should be pushing for the US to legalize the killing/eating of dogs and cats as the prohibition of such practice would mean unfair and unjust imposition of ‘Eurocentric’ norms. After all, American Indians also ate dogs. Native Hawaiians still eat dogs. So do Australian Aborigines, and dogs are eaten in certain parts of Africa. If the US is really into multi-cultural mode and rejects Eurocentrism, then there is no reason why dog-eating and cat-eating should be banned. If Americans oppose the legalization on the basis of ‘animal rights’ or humane-treatment, it can be exposed as hypocrisy as Americans have no problem with the slaughter of millions of pigs(and cows and sheep) every year. One could even argue that America’s favoring of dogs and cats is ‘racist’ in that those species are favored over other species of animals, even pigs that are as intelligent or even more so than dogs(and certainly cats). Indeed, even all the brouhaha over killing of whales is hypocritical as one could argue that pigs are more-or-less small land-whales and whales are massive sea-pigs. Why should whales be spared while pigs are slaughtered? Because whales are bigger? But again, aesthetics matter(at least subjectively) because there is something majestic about whales to the human eye. And whale songs are among the most haunting sounds of nature whereas pigs go oink-oink and grunt-grunt.
If MANAA is for Asian identity and pride, it should defend Asian culture and practices. Though not all Asian nations eat dogs and/or cats — Japan notably doesn’t even though it’s been blasted by the West for mistreatment of dolphins and whales, though not so much in recent years — , it’s a common practice in Vietnam, China, and Korea. Also, it’s not mainly out of hunger. Starving North Koreans might eat dogs and cats out of desperation, but there are hardly any dogs and cats as most people aren't allowed to keep pets. Granted, even in nations where dog-eating and/or cat-eating are common, there is a divide, often impassioned, about whether the practice should be allowed to continue. And in some nations, it is officially illegal but more-or-less tolerated. However, as each new generation is less willing to indulge in dog-or-cat-eating, it’s likely to fade away in most Asian nations in years to come. (Granted, one wonders if Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, what with their shockingly low birthrates, will survive as ethno-civilizations.)
At any rate, what is MANAA’s priority? To shore up Asian identity, culture, and pride? Or is it about anxiety about how Asian-Americans might be perceived in the US? But if Asians-in-America are so sensitive about how OTHERS feel about them, aren’t they lacking in sufficient pride of identity? And this seems to apply more East Asians than Asian-Indians. After all, there have been plenty of jokes about how the dotkins not only don't eat beef but go out of their way to ‘worship’ cows. And yet, dotters generally don’t go around pleading with Americans to stop joking about cows and curry... though, to be sure, there is a segment of the Hindu population in the West that is hyper-sensitive about everything.
Icky Aoki
Even as Aoki condemn’s Jay Leno’s "bizarre fixation" with Asians eating dogs, he says nothing about the practice itself. But firstly, why is it ‘bizarre’ for a comedian to make jokes about what would seem outrageous and outlandish to most Americans? Comedies are often about man-bites-dog than dog-bites-man, and for many Americans, Asia seems like one giant man-bites-dog story. Shockingly to Americans(and Westerners in general), Asians seem heartless and raise dogs like chicken and eat them without any consideration of their nature and worth. Understandably, many Americans are appalled by such widespread practices in Asia. Many don’t crack jokes but feel contempt and even hatred. As Jay Leno is a comedian, he condemns the practice through the use of humor. And from a moral standpoint, it’s about time Asians realized that the killing of dogs/cats for food is untenable. No, not because the Non-West should slavishly and mindlessly follow and imitate the West(as there are plenty of sick things in the Occident as well), but it should be pretty obvious to any normal person with eyes, ears, and heart that dogs(and cats) are truly special, intelligent, warm, and affectionate animals(at least in relation to mankind because rabbits and rodents will disagree). Though the notion of universal values is problematic because the cause of ‘human rights’ has been more often about imposing one culture’s values on the rest of humanity, there are facts and feelings that can be attained universally with, respectively, objective tools of science and honest assessment of one’s senses and emotions. Anyone in any part of the world, upon dealing with dogs and cats for a day, should be able to realize that these two species evolved to be companions and ‘friends’ of mankind. Therefore, this is far less a cultural than a moral issue. Also, cultures do change and evolve. After all, if Asians should stick to their ‘Asian culture’ no matter what, then Chinese should have stuck with foot-binding, and Japanese should have stuck with their various means of ritual suicide(and with women shaving off their eyebrows and painting their teeth black); and Hindus should bring back the ritual of suttee or sati, whereby the widow throws herself into the funeral pyre of her husband. While all cultures are rich and interesting in their own ways, they can go against what is natural and healthy when a community comes under a cult-domination of a certain sect or faction. We now see this in the West with the Jewish and Homo takeover of media and academia. So many normal people have been brain-warped into worshiping globo-homo and gushing about trannies. And so many American fathers think it is only right to raise their girls to emulate the likes of Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham.
Aoki says jokes about Asians-eating-dogs can lead to violence against Asians-in-America who are perceived as the eternal outsider. But his logic would suggest that we condemn sincere condemnations of Asian-dog-eating as well. If anything, aren’t jokes less likely to stir up contempt for Asians than a campaign of sincere moral outrage? While humor is effective as satire or mockery, it also makes people laugh. People who listen to Leno aren’t likely to go out and kill. There’s a reason why PETA has been involved in violence, and one reason is it's an entirely humorless organization. At any rate, anyone in the West should have every right to denounce what he/she deems to be an act of barbarism or savagery in any part of the world. Condemning Asian-dog-eating should be as much a part of free speech as BDS, or justice for Palestinians. If not free speech, we have slave-speech, and who wants that as the New American Values? Apparently, MANAA that is pressuring NBC to cut ties with Leno is for slave speech than free speech. (Well, at least MANAA has one thing in common with AIPAC that is silencing the free speech of BDS and enforcing the slave speech of cucking to Zionism and Jewish Supremacy.) America wouldn't be what it is without free speech. After all, Americans have plenty of criticism for Europeans, and vice versa. And besides, it's not as if only white guys like Leno unload on other peoples and cultures. People in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East use their freedom to denounce what they deem to be crazy or evil in the West. It goes both ways.
Also, given that California is now minority-white and rife with anti-white rhetoric from all sides(as the only way to maintain the Democratic Diversity Coalition is to scapegoat whites for just about everything), couldn’t one argue Aoki’s hyper-sensitivity might stir up hostility against white Americans? Stirring up paranoid fantasies about how Americans(presumably white ones mostly) will go on 'hate crime' sprees against Asians on account of Leno's jokes is actually closer to hate-mongering. Actually, the overwhelming fact of Americans of all stripes is that they don't care one way or another about most of what's happening around the world, which would be okay IF American Power was NOT an empire that meddles in all parts of the world, but it most certainly is.
Aoki complains that the perception of Asians as the exotic-barbaric-other, the kind that dines on cats/dogs, may breed the impression that Asians are the Eternal Outsider. But then, isn’t that the eventual fate in America for every group given the rise of PC and Diversity Cult? We’ve been told that White Americans who ‘discovered’, conquered, settled, and built this nation are no more American than recent non-whites who just got off the boat. 75% of Asian-Americans voted for Democratic Party that now says Illegals should be called ‘dreamers’ and furthermore represent the essence of America. So, there is no traditional America, no core America. This means White Americans must be cut off from their roots, history, and culture. They must become 'white bread' and generic in their 'inclusion' of all. Or, they are to be excoriated as an Eternally ‘evil’, ‘racist’, and blah-blah people whose deserving fate is to be replaced by endless hordes from the Third World. Well, if that is the designated future for the white race as far as people like Aoki are concerned, then welcome to the club. If Core Americans are no more American than non-white newcomers fresh off the boat, then why should Asians feel any more American or any more welcome? White America used to be the majority-glue that defined and held the nation together, but now that America is defined mainly as 'diverse' and 'inclusive', what are core American values?
Besides, who’s kidding whom? Most of anti-Asian violence comes from blacks, Jews, and from within. Much of anti-Asian violence and crime in urban areas is by blacks. Has Aoki spoken out about this problem? Has he spoken the fact that blacks target Asians due to racial differences of size and strength, i.e. bigger, stronger, and more aggressive blacks see dorks like Aoki as easy victims, like a cougar sees a rabbit? Of course not. He’s just another yellow dog toady of PC who dares not speak any ‘controversial’ truth.
When it comes to media violence against Asians, Jews are most responsible. All those China-Fears stories in magazines and on TV are by Jews. Even as Jewish globalists have worked with China to gut the American working class and reap tons in profits, they’ve also pushed Yellow Peril(along with anti-Muslim and anti-Russian)fears to distract goy Americans from the fact that it’s the Jews who control the commanding towers of power. If Aoki and his ilk are truly courageous, they would name the Jew in their criticism of the media that usually feature Asians, Russians, and Muslims as The Enemy. Just as Nazi Germany made the notorious film JEW SUSS(by Veit Harlan), Jewish Hollywood made tons of movies featuring Odious Orientals, Terrible Teutons, Murderous Muslims, and Ruffian Russkies. At least Jay Leno made people laugh. Shouldn’t Aoki be more worried about neo-fumanchu types one comes across in TV shows... though, of late, Russkies, along with patriotic White Americans, are featured as Enemy #1 by the Tribe? Indeed, the new WATCHMEN TV series, along with movies like GET OUT, seem downright genocidal against whites.
The third kind of violence is found within the Asian-American community. There seems to be precious little unity among Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Hindus, and etc. in America. In many parts of Asia, the Asian-on-Asian violence is pretty intense. We know Hindus and Muslims can get pretty tense in India. And the traitor-cuck Chinese in Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be pretty anti-China. It’s been reported that in Australia and Europe, the various Arab and Muslim migrant-groups carry on with their internecine conflicts. And there doesn’t seem to be much unity between Asian men and Asian women as so many of the latter(and even considerable segment of the former) mate outside the race. Could such massive-rejection of members of one’s own race be seen as a form of violence? But that is the result of free choice among Asians.
But Aoki and the clowns at MANAA are unwilling to address any of these issues. Instead, they just pile on some late night comedian and try to have him fired because his jokes are culturally insensitive. If Aoki and other Asians are truly serious about morality, they should join with voices condemning the barbaric practices of dog/cat eating in Asia. That is the best way for Asians-in-America to demonstrate that they are fully on-board with American values when it comes to humane treatment of dogs and cats. (Of course, it’s all relative. Even in dog-loving USA, so many dogs end up in anti-cruelty centers and are killed. Worse off are homeless dogs that roam the streets. Black trash, white trash, and brown trash go for dog-fighting, and such people are no better than savages. And even though there are so many dogs that wait to be adopted in Anti-Cruelty Societies, vain people buy expensive dogs bred by people who treat dogs as mere commodity.) But then, again, the notion of ‘American values’ becomes vaguer and weaker by the day. When so many Americans embrace illegal invaders from some Third World ‘shithole’ as the new-and-ready dreamers who should be celebrated, what is an ‘American’ and what are ‘American values’? Also, if America is all about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, why shouldn’t someone argue that dog-eating should be celebrated as part of diversity and ‘included’ in the American Cookbook?
Now, on the subject of Jay Leno. I hardly watched his programs and might have seen less than ten of his shows. Late Night TV shows were never my thing, not even in the heyday of Johnny Carson and David Letterman. At face value, there’s nothing wrong with an American comedian cracking jokes, cute or cutting, about just about anything. And if Leno joked about dog-eating-Koreans for easy laughter and to score moral points, where is the problem in that?
But context matters, and given the context, Leno doesn’t come across well either. He seems less a courageous-conscientious comedian than a craven coward who goes for jokes that target a less vocal, assertive, or powerful group. After all, if Leno prides himself as a satirist who uses humor to score moral or political points, would he have the courage to mock Jews for their barbaric practice of kosher-butchering? Would he dare point out the hypocrisy of Americans who wail about whale-hunting and bark about dog-eating but have no problem butchering and consuming millions of pigs? Would Leno crack jokes about cannibalism in Africa, the murder of Albinos, or the practice of eating apes such as chimps and gorillas? (Man-eating-ape is close to cannibalism.) Has Leno ever made a joke about how the Wars for Israel have led to the deaths of 100,000, even millions, of Arabs and Muslims? And if indeed North Koreans are reduced to hunting for dogs and cats to eat, does he know about US sanctions regimen that have targeted nations like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia that won’t get on with the agenda of the Jew World Order? If South Koreans eat dogs out of vanity, North Koreans are eating them(if they can find any) to survive. Surely, it makes little sense to mock a people for eating dogs out of hunger. Even white people were reduced to cannibalism in extreme crises such as the Great Famine in Ukraine(or the Donner Party that sort of became a Dinner Party). Has Leno ever used jokes to remind Americans of ongoing Occupation of Palestine by Zionists? Has he cracked a joke in the past 30 yrs about how out-of-control fecal penetration among homos led to the horrible AIDS crisis in the ‘gay’ community, killing off so many fruiters? Of course not. Now, if he’d done all that and then made jokes about Asians-eating-dogs, he would deserve praise as a truly edgy and courageous comedian. But he’s been a corporate clown for most of his career, and he’s never uttered a word that defied the powers-that-be that control Hollywood, TV, and mass media, the Jews of course. So, coming from Leno, the jokes about Asians-eating-dogs do seem craven and cowardly than courageous and conscientious. Unable and unwilling to throw stones at those who hurl back bigger stones, he goes for easy targets as the Asian community in the US is, as yet, too mute and meek to raise much of a fuss... though things may be changing, especially in California where every group now competes for victim-sweepstakes.
Personally, I want to hear jokes about ALL groups. One of the great things about Free Speech is the means to use humor in a sardonic and mocking way to subvert the power or expose the lunacy. Granted, comedians can get high on their own supply and become crazy themselves, i.e. wallowing in the culture of ridicule for its own sake. So many comedians have burned out, destroyed themselves, and even died indulging in mockery for mockery’s sake, a comedy turned into mindless sado-masochism. Consider John Belushi and Sam Kinison. Both were funny but ended up like pigs eating their own shit. David Chappelle faces the same danger. He is more courageous than most, especially in calling out on the BS of Jussie Smollett, but so much of his antics are grotesqueries, the only purpose of which is outrage.
Sadly, far more free speech in the West has been wasted on obscenity, outrage, infantilism, and ‘extreme’ expression than on sharp and pointed critique of the Real Power. The sheer volume of outrageous-ness has created the impression of lively culture of free speech, but the opposite is true. If someone is oppressing you, and you dare not call him out and instead say outrageous things about private parts or sexual perversion, sure, it might seem as though you’re a free spirit and acting exactly as you wish. But would such hyperbolic behavior really be a sign of freedom-as-health or freedom-as-fraud? Could it be you’re indulging in aimless libertine-ism precisely because you’re afraid to use your freedom to speak truth to the power over you? In a way, it’d be no better than a man who is meek before his boss at the office but then goes home to act wild, get drunk, kick the dog, and beat up the kids. He acts so desperately free at home because he dares not use his freedom to confront his problematic boss. So much freedom in the West is of the same degree. Jews tolerate and even encourage Outrageous Behavior to create the impression of unfettered freedom. Jews don’t mind idiot goyim imitating the antics of Adam Sandler or indulging in porny behavior. Such apparent permissiveness makes the populace feel that they’re free to do just about anything. Same goes for current Japan. Though it’s had a sham-one-party-democracy since its inception following the defeat in World War II, there is the impression of 'liberal' freedom because Japan is the land of lunatic pop culture and pornography. But if the Japanese had used their freedom in a truly intelligent and pointed manner, they could be living under a system that is something more than a whore-geisha of the US empire. But as long as Japanese carry on with their combo of anime and pornography, so many will go on being fooled, inside and outside Japan, that the Japanese must be one of the freest people on earth since they got animated tentacle-porn.
For Jewish Power, humor is a useful instrument to make people forget the world and lose themselves in stupid laughter. And indeed, Late Night Comedy shows have served that very purpose for the American Masses who were lulled into la-la-land of stupid jokes and laughter before sleep. That was pretty much what Johnny Carson served up to the American people, and much the same goes for most TV shows around the world. David Letterman, being more cynical and edgy, leaned more towards satire and on occasion even touched base with certain underground elements of American life, but his show too was mostly about glibness and attitude. Obviously, most Americans wanted escapism, and the corporate entities weren’t going to hire someone to be truly bold and daring. If of late, certain Late Night comedians have been more engaged politically, it has less to do with individual conscience than corporate interest as the likes of Jimmy Kimmel and the Jewish executives of media companies are on the same page when it comes to their class or tribal prerogatives. After all, if a Late Night comedy host decided to condemn Neocons, Wars for Israel, Zionist Occupation of West Bank, black crime, and etc., how much longer would his career last? Kimmel and the rest of them are allowed to spew their bile against Donald Trump and the Americans who voted for him precisely because they are carrying water for the Globo-Homo-Shlomo elites. As such, they are court-clowns than satirists or moral critics. When Obama was destroying Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, why were these court-comics so silent? A true satirist and truth-teller will always be criticizing wherever he sees wrong; it won’t be a matter of "our side always good, other side always bad." A true satirist like George Orwell saw the fault in the Left as well as in the Right because, more often than not, he sought truth than merely an agenda.
Jimmy Kimmel who used Guillermo as a Mexican Steppin' Fetchit as the Moral Conscience of America. ROTFL.
Though Jews use comedy to shroud us in the fog of escapism, they also know it can turn against them because, after all, ANYTHING and ANYONE can be lampooned, mocked, subverted, and exposed through comedy. What Charlie Chaplin did to Adolf Hitler can be done to anyone. This is why Sam Hyde had to be canned by the Jew-run media. He was irreverent toward things that matter to Jewish supremacism. Some will say he was ridiculing the Holocaust, but his target was clearly the Schmolocaust, the shameless exploitation of the historical tragedy by Jews to use as moral cover for all the dirty things they do.
And the case of Sacha Baron Cohen should tell us all we need to know about the true nature of the Jew. Cohen has been a scummy Jew who used mockery and biting humor to expose all the nasty things about goyim, but when he realized that there are plenty of voices willing to mock powerful Jews and Jewish myths, he ran to the ADL and made common cause to shut down voices that dare to be irreverent toward Zionists and Jewish Supremacists. Such Jews want to monopolize satire like they do with nationalism. According to Jews, only their own Tribe is deserving of identity, territoriality, and national consciousness whereas all other peoples, lands, and cultures must be opened up for Diversity-mongering. And only Jews should be allowed to use humor to mock, ridicule, and deride other groups but other groups better just shut up and never retaliate with counter-humor against the Jews. If goyim are to laugh, it must only be with the approval of Jewish Hollywood and Jewish media. Censchwarzship in other words. So, ye goyim, rent out all those Sacha Baron Cohen movies and laugh like a retard at approved targets, but DO NOT dare to go the Sam Hyde way and mock that which is sacrosanct to the perpetuation of Jewish supremacist power.
Ideally, we need more comedians and satirists directing their wit, intelligence, and focus on things that really need to be exposed, mocked, and ridiculed. Given the sheer arrogance, paranoia, megalomania, hysteria, and near-psychosis of Jewish Power, I can’t think of a more worthy target of ridicule than JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. And indeed, the Alt Right was most effective in comic mode, that is before humorless Richard Spencer and others took over and turned it into a grubby neo-Nazi fest. Mike Enoch is an interesting figure in this regard. As the host of THE DAILY SHOAH, he seemed to be going from strength to strength, but then dropped his comic edge and very unironically went into Sieg Heil mode, making a fool of himself and the whole movement. A more disciplined and savvy Alt Right could have mounted a satirical campaign to ridicule and deconstruct Jewish Power, but that wasn’t in the cards once Spencer, the humorless Faustian-Pact-Man, settled for a revolution with a bunch of Daily-Stormers. Granted, DAILY STORMER is big on laughter but then even bigger on retardation as it undercuts its attack on Jewish Evil by defending the evil of Nazism.
At any rate, we can’t rely on court comedians on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE or Late Night TV shows to use humor to expose the evil, madness, and hypocrisies of Jewish Supremacist Power. As all of mass media are controlled by Jews and hire only Jews, cucks, and opportunists, they will continue to dish out the kind of comedy valued by the Deep State and Jewish Power. No stinging satire against Jewish power, globo-homo, and black-on-white violence. And as long as the Jew-run West must meddle in the Middle East, it mustn’t give the impression that the West is anti-Islam or anti-Arab. So, there aren’t many jokes about Muslims anymore either, if only to give the impression OVER THERE that the West isn’t officially anti-Islam or anti-Arab even though its policies continue to spread more havoc in the region, all for the imperium of Zion. The unspoken rule is "Don’t punch down on Arabs/Muslims with comedy so that we can punch down on them literally."
On the matter of punching up or down, it’s generally a good rule to punch up than down with comedy. However, satire isn’t only about targeting the powerful but also exposing horror or injustice, and that can be found in any part of society. Is it less worthy of moral criticism if bears are tortured by poor Vietnamese or if dogs are forced to maul each in dog-fights other by poor ‘black trash’ or ‘white trash’? Should we not talk about people abusing their wives or children simply because they happen to be poor? No, while the Power should be the main focus of criticism/satire, evil can be found in all corners of the world and at all levels of society, and there is nothing wrong with calling out on evil.
One thing for sure, while people like Guy Aoki want to narrow the range of discourse(serious or comic), people like myself want to broaden it. Instead of creating 'more protected groups', we want more scrutiny for all groups, especially for those who are currently protected: Jews, blacks, and homos. That said, I can see where MANAA is coming from. If current PC is all about gaining special protection and special privileges based on victim-hood, and if Jews, blacks, and homos have gained so much power, authority, and/or influence on those very grounds, then why shouldn't other groups join in as well? Of course, if Asians and Muslims also gain protected-group-status, it will become more difficult for Jews to use Yellow Peril as distraction and Muslim-as-Terrorist-trope to keep the majority of Americans siding with Jews and Israel against the 'muzzies' and 'raggers'. It's all turning into a Fine Mess.
In this piece, by 'socialism', 'communism', and 'capitalism', what is meant is a state-of-mind, a general worldview on the human condition, than a strict definition of economic philosophies. That said, in a broader sense, the underlying dynamics of economics shape and define all areas and aspects of life. After all, even if all considerations of money and material goods are removed from the equation, people find themselves in conflict and/or cooperation over matters like leadership, likability, respect, and affection. Even if ten people are stuck in the same room for days on end with no possibility of accumulating money or wealth, they find themselves negotiating and competing over who has more listeners, followers, allies, supporters, and/or friends: Social Capital. So much of social relations is like emotional economics, or 'emonomics'. If economics is the politics of goods & services and if politics is the economics of authority & governance, personal/social relations are the political economics of emotions. It's a matter of amassing as much or more likability, affection, popularity, trust, respect, reverence, loyalty, and/or honor as the next person. Naturally, everyone has to make an effort at 'emotional wealth' and 'emotional authority', and this can be observed in any school playground among kids, many of whom vie to be liked more. High School students surely understand the 'emonomics' that distinguish 'popular kids' from 'unpopular kids'.
Even if being 'popular' in school doesn't guarantee monetary reward or class presidency, it FEELS better to be 'popular' than 'unpopular', and emotional wealth counts for something. In THE CHRISTMAS CAROL, Ebenezer Scrooge was wealthy in capital but poor in affection, and he finally pays a price.
Though effort is important in 'emonomics' as in economics, it's also true that some people are far more adept in earning emotional wealth than others. This has to do with a combination of self-image and dealing/connecting with others. People good at social interaction but with poor self-image and People not good at social interaction but with inflated self-image will both end up a bit neurotic. Happiest are those with positive self-image and enviable skills in forming personal and social relationships.
'Emonomics', like economics, breeds both egotism(that easily runs out-of-control) and resentment(that often simmer into hatred). For some people, enough is never enough in their pursuit of money. They must have more, and then more and more. If they could live forever, they'd seek monopoly over all the world. Just look at people like Jeff Bezos and George Soros. Their piggishness knows no bounds. At the other end of the spectrum, there are the radical socialist types often driven mad with envy & resentment and invoking justice in their call for an egalitarian society where the rich are denounced as class enemies and marked for destruction. They are so consumed by a combination of material envy and moral outrage that they reject any attempt at compromise as akin to making a pact with the devil. Both extremes of egotism and egalitarianism are like cancers that can grow out-of-control. Cancer is natural(or 'abnatural') but deadly, and so are extremes of political economics. Humanity learned the lessons of the 19th century Gilded Age of Capitalism, the horrors of 20th century communism, and now, in the 21st century, the world is learning the lessons of globo-homo-shlomo-capitalism and its craziness.
There needs to be some kind of balance, and the tragedy of fascism is it could have provided the equilibrium but crashed and burned with the egotistical hubris of Adolf Hitler and ethnocentric arrogance of 'Aryanism'. That said, Zionism, a form of Judeo-Fascism, serves as the ethno-balance that allows for a compromise between rich Jews and non-rich Jews. Without that ethnic component, rich Jews would become full-blown globalists and favor goy uber-rich around the world than fellow Jewish countrymen who aren't as fortunate. Once the elites no longer see eye-to-eye with their own national folks, they no longer care if the masses surrender to vices and become morally corrupted. If anything, the elites may manipulate vice and hedonism as a means to control the degraded masses who, if need be, could be killed off with opioid addiction & low-birthrates and replaced with masses of New Immigrant-Invaders. Through most of US history, it was noble race-ism that restrained the white elites from mere self-interest and self-absorption as they, as race-ists, felt a sense of patriotic kinship with fellow white Christian countrymen. But once race-ism was excoriated as the worst of all secular 'sins', white elites dropped their racial consciousness like a hot potato and focused ONLY on their own wealth & privilege and identified mainly with other uber-rich types around the world. Of course, given that the West is under Jewish Rule, white elites do speak for the security and welfare of Jews of all stripes and classes. Jews know that racial consciousness is an advantage but also a burden. As Jewish elites still care for the Jewish masses, they are united as one people. However, it also means that successful Jews in US and Israel must lend support to non-successful Jews, and that could be a burden... but not if white goyim are made to pay taxes to support Israel and other Jewish interests. Race-ism, like anything, has a noble side and a dark side. Like fire, it can fuel civilization or burn it down. Same could be said of any religion, ideology, or science itself, e.g. nuclear energy can power an entire city or blow it up. Since the end of WWII, Jews have been all for Jewish race-ism but have denied racial consciousness and unity among white goyim. It's the #1 reason why Jews keep winning and white goyim keep losing.
If Jewish elites were into deracinated or anti-race-ist mode, the non-rich Jews will grow in resentment and go into class-warfare mode against the rich Jews who no longer seem to care about their ethnic brethren. The reason why rich Jews are mindful of the needs of all Jews and why non-rich Jews tolerate and cooperate with rich Jews is because ethno-consciousness serves as the balancing act between egotism and egalitarianism, both of which are destructive if allowed to run wild. National Socialism provided a similar kind of balance for Germany, which is why Adolf Hitler at his peak was much appreciated by both the rich German class and the German masses. He knew that ethno-consciousness was the glue that could unify the German upper-classes with the German masses. National Socialism failed, morally and ultimately militarily, when it went from nationalist mode to imperialist mode. Likewise, what had once been noble about Zionism is fading as Jews have gone nuts and now think in terms of hegemony and imperialism.
Love & Sexuality is about 'emonomics' and 'sensonomics'. At its base, it's about competition for love & affection and sensual pleasure. According to Greek Mythology, Helen of Troy launched 1000 ships, and the Bible is full of stories about men who lose their minds(and morals) over women. And beautiful women use their wiles to get their way with men of all stripes. It is then hardly surprising that love/lust and sexuality/sensuality have done their share to both save and destroy humanity. It's been said fools have been redeemed and wise-men have been undone by love/lust. There have been so many stories, poems, and songs about the mystery of love/lust that is equally inspiring and infuriating. It's like what John Cusack's character says about the theme of love in Pop Songs in HIGH FIDELITY:
Given the dynamics of love/lust, there will always be extremes of behavior among a segment of the population, no less than with economics and politics. Just like there will always be someone who's obsessed with being the next mogul, fuhrer, or radical, there will always be people swept up by romantic love or wallowing in mad lust. Of course, love and lust are intertwined, but some people are more into the dream whereas others are more into the cream, as with Billy Boy Clinton who apparently didn't care about the WHOM as long as he had lots of readily available women to stick his dong into.
But just because extremes will always exist doesn't mean that most people should subscribe to those standards. In the past few decades, the media have been pushing 'EXTREMACY' or 'Extremacism' as an ideal, and what is especially worrying is that even seemingly normal/regular people are infected with extremitis. Even non-rich people think in terms of moon-or-bust. As most of them can't be rich like Silicon Valley millionaires, let alone billionaires, they settle for the next best thing, which is to put on the airs of the 'creative class' and adopt attitudes most associated with the globalist jet-set, which is globo-homo. Even the current 'socialism' is corrupted. It's no longer about justice for the working/middle class but about FREE STUFF so that one can feel on the same level as kids born into rich families who never have to worry about balancing the checkbook. After all, it's one thing to demand fair wages and another thing to demand FREE college tuition for four years of majoring in nonsense, which of late include most departments in the humanities and sociology. And then, consider so many people who want to be like pop idols and go out of their way to dress up like skanks in pornified music videos and trashy TV shows that are mostly about loose sex and jungle fever.
The same goes for politics. It used to be that extreme personalities sought to be the next Napoleon, Castro, or Mao, whereas most people sought moderation and balance. But PC has spread the virus of Justice Junkie outrage, and now, so many young people from middle class families see themselves as so 'woke', 'committed', 'radical', and/or 'revolutionary'. As most of them are ill-read, shallow, and immersed in pop culture, their idea of 'progress' is, of course, something about 'muh hair', 'muh tattoo', or 'muh favorite form of idolatry'(usually trashy celebrities, vain movie stars, or the Holy Three of Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Jews-as-new-jesus). Consider all those middle class girls from good homes who joined the Pussy Hat March. It's one thing to oppose or loathe Donald Trump, but what was all that festive hysteria about? It was like the cult of universal radicalism + Slut Culture + Hello Kitty. And what was the point of talking & acting porny in the name of opposing Trump's 'misogyny'? "I wear a pussy hat, don't grab my pussy!!"??? Imagine a guy wearing a pud-hat while holding a sign, "Don't suck my dick".
Anyway, since most people can't be uber-rich or uber-powerful(or extreme in some awesome way), it's as though they crave an ersatz means by which they can at least FEEL rich or FEEL radical. Since the uber-rich and/or famous are globo-homo, the hope is some of the glitz/glamour will rub off on you if you too are for globo-homo. Since elite professors & elite opinion-makers in media always seem to be in faddish outrage mode, maybe you too can feel 'empowered' by sharing their sense of rage on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. This is so different from the past when Middle Class Values were deemed to be ideal for most people, including for the elites. The middle-centrism pushed the lower-elements to improve themselves and rise to middle class respectability; and middle-centrism restrained the rich from indulging in excess egotism and/or decadence. If American and British democracies fared better than Italian Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism, it was because they were essentially middle-class ideologies, i.e. the elites of traditional liberal democracies believed that, despite their power and privilege, they must be standard-bearers of the respectable educated middle class. In contrast, egocentric radicals like Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler felt that values were merely ever-malleable instruments of their will-to-power that would decide Destiny. In our times, humanism and middle class values have been undercut by the cult of idolatry(of Pop Culture), minority-elite-supremacism(mainly pushed by Jews and homos), savagery of Afromania(as blacks are genetically anti-civilizational), and neo-imperialism that has corrupted the notion of 'liberal democracy' into a mere nihilism to justify endless wars and hunger for greater hegemony. Even as the West increasingly becomes more illiberal and intolerant(under PC regimen controlled by Jews and cuck-collaborators), it invokes 'liberal democracy' ever louder to justify its military occupations/invasions and financial terrorism around the world. US and Israel, allied with loathsome Saudi Arabia, plot to destroy Iran by military and financial means. Now, why would 'liberal democracies' be most closely allied with Medievalist Saudi Arabia, and why would they target Iran and Syria, which are far more open to modernity than the Saudis are?
What applies to political economics also applies to 'emonomics' and 'sensonomics'. There are some individuals who want to have it all: All the partners and all the pleasure. They have no sense of limits. They might be called 'Sexual Capitalists'. Now, not everyone who subscribes to sexual capitalism is successful at it, just like most so-called libertarian ideologues aren't good at business and spend most of their hours as toadies swooning about and sucking up to the rich and privileged as the best-of-the-best. In order to be a successful sexual capitalist, one must be (1) rich and clever (2) physically handsome/pretty (3) licentious and/or (4) big-donged if male and big-boobed if female. A rich person without looks can get lots of partners. A non-rich but attractive person can find many mates. A non-rich or non-attractive man with a big dong or non-rich or non-attractive woman with big boobs will be moderately more successful than those without such attributes. Granted, there is a way in which even a non-rich and non-attractive person can be successful in mating: By having very low standards, i.e. a man who's willing to stick his penis into anything will find plenty of women, and a woman who is a total trashy skankass whore who will put out to ANY guy won't have trouble finding mates. At any rate, what distinguishes sexual capitalists is their lack of sense of limits. Consider Billy Boy Clinton. Obviously, Hillary wasn't enough for him. Or he wasn't content to find some mistress on the side. He used his position and privilege to pork as many women as possible. And the fact that there are plenty of women who will put out to such men, the alpha males, goes to show that sexual capitalism is very much alive among women as well.
Just like economic capitalists have no sense of limits in their accumulation of wealth, sexual capitalists want all the trophies. Indeed, they often brag about it. It's been said Brigit Bardot had sex with over 1,000 men. The TV show SEX AND THE CITY spread sexual capitalism as the favored norm among urban upper-middle-class women(and all their underclass imitators). And even though many geek-o-centric teenage comedies pit the geeks and gorks against the jocks and alphas, their message is sexual capitalism because, after all, the ultimate objective of the geeks and gorks is to somehow outwit the studs and get the girls for themselves. It's the geek fantasy of having the success of jocks, not unlike dimwit libertarians who dream of being like Bill Gates or some other billionaire by reading Fortune and Reason magazine.
If some sexually unsuccessful people idolize the sexual capitalists — a case of ideological sexual capitalists who get no action themselves cheering on the dominant players in sexual capitalism, not unlike white beta-males in the stands cheering on successful alpha-male black athletes — , others wage an all-out sexualist war on the 'injustice' of the sexual marketplace. This might be called 'Sexual Communism', and it can be found among all groups, all races, all ethnic groups, both sexes(and the so-called '50 genders'). Steve Sailer has remarked that much of female journalism consists of resentful angst about not being sufficiently noticed by men. The 'law of female journalism' has so many writers of the (not-so-)fairer sex pontificating about the injustice of not enough people going gaga over their hair or body. As for the Body Positivity Movement, it says fat/obese blubberpusses are beautiful too and their bodies should adorn fashion magazines.
Even trannies have gotten into the act, and they've found allies in the media who say it is both 'transphobic' and 'anti-women' for straight men and lesbians to reject them as 'sexual' partners. Apparently, such logic would have us believe that men and lesbians should be equally attracted to tranny 'women' as to real women. And much of Slut Pride culture has consisted of ugly and gross-looking women dressing up like hookers and demanding attention that they normally can't command. If we push the dynamics of sexual communism to its logical conclusion, the ONLY solution would be something like Rev. Moon(of the Unification Church)'s nutty idea of mass-weddings where men and women are randomly matched to be mates. If indeed all men and women are said to be attractive — whereby a fatso hippo-mama is just as gorgeous as a genuine babe — , then no one should seek out the superior mate since no such would exist in a world where all men and women are created equally beautiful. But who wants to live in such a world?
If sexual capitalism breeds piggish behavior and if sexual communism fosters piggish resentment, the solution would seem to be what might be called 'Sexual Socialism', the middle-ground that is the best for most people. Now, it won't appeal to all people as there will always be sexual capitalists who want it all and sexual communists who won't be satisfied unless the world finds them as attractive as the top jocks and babes. Plenty of Jewish men are sexual capitalists, out-of-control Portnoys who use their money and power to get as much 'pussy' as possible. And plenty of Jewish women are sexual communists who push miscegenation of white women mating with black men mainly because they envy and resent white beauty. They want white women to squeeze out babies with frizzy hair, flat noses, and fat lips. That way, white beauty will be mongrelized and look no better or even worse than Jewish features. Jewish female neurosis can be heard in the song "Seventeen" by Janis Ian.
Where sexual socialism differs from sexual capitalism and sexual communism is it combines the understanding(and even appreciation) for differences but with a sense of socio-moral limits. And the mores of sexual socialism is workable, constructive, and productive for most people. Most people shouldn't surrender to the EXTREMES of either sexual capitalism or sexual communism, just like most people shouldn't become a purist libertarian or radical communist. Most people should admit that sexuality can never be equal and that some will be more successful than others; but they also need to reiterate the life-lesson that sexuality must be part of love, commitment, & obligations, and that means one can't have everything(even if attainable in financial or sexual terms). Without such structures in life, people become like shapeless slugs in their emotional and even social life. Pursuit of sensuality without an overarching vision-of-life and purpose-in-life is like being without a vertebrae. What distinguishes animals with backbones from animals without? The former has stable shape and structure, whereas the latter are formless as they squish and squirm around. Sensuality without the structure of love, commitment, loyalty, and responsibility leads to loutish behavior that fills the world with slime. What would society be like if men and women sought sex without considerations of marriage, fidelity, unity, and family? Well, just look at much of black America or working class British society. It's a world of shamelessness, grossness, and misery, especially for the kids, many of whom are born to trashy single-mothers and grow up to pop culture junk on TV. It also leads to the pornification of mass culture where sensuality isn't part of something bigger and deeper — love and marriage — but something that exists for its own sake, as if the thrill of the moment should be the defining focus of one's entire life.
No sane person can endorse sexual communism even though there are powerful people in the media who would have us believe that a fat whore, a tranny, or ugly woman is equal in beauty. According to such people, Victoria's Secret should feature Lena Dunham or worse. Because sexual communism is so against primal human nature, it generally gets little traction among the masses despite it being pushed by certain sectors in media/academia.
Sexual capitalism has far more traction among the masses because, instead of going against primal human nature, it exaggerates and intensifies it. It allows the masses to indulge in the fantasy that they can be like super-famous celebrities who hog fame/fortune and get to have sex with untold numbers of men or women. Then, it's not surprising that so many men(and now even women) high-five those who are most successful in humping-and-dumping a series of partners.
And yet, the logic of sexual capitalism is pretty grim for most people. The result is something like prima noctis or droit du seigneur in BRAVEHEART. In the Mel Gibson movie, the lord gets to sexually deflower and enjoy the women before they are married off to locals/subordinates. It deeply wounds the pride of local men. (Historians say BRAVEHEART is filled with historical inaccuracies, btw.) Sexual capitalism works the same way. Imagine a community of 100 men and 100 women. Suppose all the women have sex with the top 5 men before they eventually marry the other 95 men. How is it good for most men to know that their wives put out to the top 5 men? What men with any pride would high-five the top 5 guys for having screwed their women before they got married? Most men should know that whenever they cheer on some stud, they're collaborating in a scheme whereby some guy gets to screw their future wives. If there are 10 men and 10 women in a room and if each man should end up with one of the women, what sense would it make for most of the guys to cheer on the ONE guy who screws all the women? It's like plates of food. In a cafeteria, one should choose a dish for himself. He shouldn't put his fingers on various dishes to sample them as it would mess up the dining experience for other customers.
Sexual socialism allows for inequality and hierarchy as such are part and parcel of what we are. It allows the more successful and/or more attractive to find the superior or more coveted mates. Unlike sexual communism, it doesn't pretend all men and women are equally attractive and should be happy to settle down with just about ANYONE. However, it also rejects the logic of sexual capitalism that says, just because one happens to be blessed with money or attractiveness, he or she should hog all the sex and act like the blob. Sexual socialism allows the superior to attract the superior but also enforces the structure necessary so that one's pursuit of sex will be part of love, marriage, family, and responsibility. And that means each person should pursue and attain one partner. It should be enough for the superior person to find the superior mate. He or she should keep his/her hands off others. And guess what? That used to be the norm until the 1960s when various 'revolutions', of which 'sexual revolution' was one, made sexual capitalism the dominant mode of human behavior and fantasies.
The great irony is that, in a way, sexual capitalism and sexual communism feed off each other. After all, the so-called Sexual Revolution was sold as liberation and equality, i.e. all men and women, without the old restraints, would have equal fun in the sack. The promise of equality actually led to more inequality, a world of studs, sluts, and incels. Sexual communism, as practiced today, isn't about accepting people for what they are: The fact that most people aren't anything special in terms of intelligence, looks, or ability but nevertheless have value as fellow humans and fellow nationals. Sexual communism of the Current Year has no interest in the humanist principles of the post-WII period. Rather, it is about the fantasy of everyone being equally beautiful, glamorous, and 'popular'. Instead of universalizing human worth based on humility, moderation, and neighborliness — like in the movies MEET JOHN DOE(dir. Frank Capra), MARTY starring Ernest Borgnine, and BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES — , it is about the universalization of Diva Mentality, as if it's a 'human right' or 'diva entitlement' for every person to be regarded as Hot Stuff. Such diva-mentality, which had been relegated to camp, has been made champ in certain quarters of media/academia.
What had still been comic fantasy with Divine the transvestite has become the oft-repeated theme of New York Times editorials where writers, usually female or tranny, gripe about the INJUSTICE of the world in not finding them as wonderful and attractive as they would like. In that sense, the current sexual communism is worse than the lunacy of Rev. Moon as mega-matchmaker for men and women around the world. As nutty as Moon was, his message wasn't that everyone is equally attractive but that everyone is at least soulfully equal under the eyes of god. In contrast, the current sexual communism would have us believe that everyone is hot stuff. As such, it has a direct link to sexual capitalism that is all about No Limits for the Superior. Current sexual communism, instead of opposing the hierarchic notion of the superior, would have us believe that everyone is equally superior, an oxymoron. Imagine a communism that insists that everyone has a 'human right' to be fabulously rich oligarch. Absurd, isn't it? Current sexual communism would have us believe that everyone is entitled to being considered as so beautiful and wonderful in the spirit of universal narcissism. Is it any surprise that even a nutball like Pedro Gomez got into the diva habit of referring to himself as 'they'?
Pablo Gomez the Tranny Murderer who insists he is 'they'.
What most of humanity needs is a compromise and moderation between the 'extremacism' of sexual capitalism and sexual communism. People need to understand that there is and always will be a hierarchy in the sexual marketplace(unless future beings are bio-engineered by the state to be equally beautiful), and that some people will naturally find more attractive mates than others do. That said, it is good for all of society if those with superior traits/abilities find and settle for ONE mate who is to their liking. That way, they get the better mate but focus on developing a life and forming a family with him/her than loutishly hogging the sexual marketplace to satiate one's boundless lust that, lacking the structural backbone of morality-commitment-obligation, overflows like sewage. Rappers, for instance, would do better to sing "Stand by Your Ho."
