One of the most bogus terms and tools of social and political control is the term 'homophobia'. It means just about anything or anyone hated or feared by homos. It's rather like how 'antisemitism' has some to mean 'anyone or anything hated by Jews' than the other way around. But 'homophobia' is worse than 'antisemitism', which carried genuine meaning in certain times in history when anti-Jewish hatreds were especially strong and even virulent. In contrast, 'homophobia' is utterly misconceived as I doubt if anyone has really been diagnosed with phobia of homos or trannies. Now, what does 'phobia'? It doesn't merely mean fear, anxiety, dislike, hostility, or hatred. Those emotions could be involved but aren't essential to what makes a phobia. Phobia is a medical or clinical term of Extreme Panicked Fear, Fright, or Dread of Something Harmless or Innocuous. In other words, the fear must be extreme & panic-inducing(or close to it), and it must be in irrational reaction to something that causes no direct harm. So, if a tiger leaps out of the bush and scares the living daylights out of you, that's not a phobia. It's rational to fear an ambushing tiger. But if you run around screaming and climb a tree to get away from a mouse, that is a phobia. If you freeze in fear upon seeing a cobra, that's not a phobia. But if you see a garter snake and know it's utterly harmless but still react with utter disgust, dread, and panic, that's a phobia. If you fear being stung by a hornet, that's not a phobia as the sting is extremely painful and can even lead to death in rare cases. But if you freak out upon seeing a cricket or a non-venomous spider, you have a phobia about such a thing. For this reason, phobia is above all 'irrational'. It's a gut feeling you have about certain things that fill you extreme fear, dread, and disgust, usually accompanied with panic or fright. Arachnophobes, for instance, aren't only afraid of poisonous spiders like the black widow but of all spiders, even ones that they know are totally harmless to humans. Something about the spider's features sends chills down their spines or makes them sick in the stomach. They feel frozen in fear or want to take flight. If someone is placed in a coffin and buried, his fright would be most understandable. But a claustrophobe is someone who feels severe anxiety coming over him inside an elevator.
Now, we can trace the roots of the word and find it to simply mean 'fear', but in the modern lexicon it has come to be used as a medical/clinical term. Thus, it would be irresponsible to politicize it unless one is using it merely as a metaphor. For instance, 'cancer' is often used as a metaphor to describe certain dire social or political phenomenon that has grown out of control. Or 'earthquake' is used outside geology to describe massive social events that realign the way we see the world or how people live. But 'phobia' is not used that way by the media and academia. It has been politicized and weaponized to rob the other side of any claim to sanity, rationality, and/or mental health. It's all the more disturbing because the ones accusing the other side of being 'sick' are the truly sick ones. When you or your side is called 'phobic', it means there is no point to any argument, conversation, or discussion because you or your side are beyond the pale, lacking mental balance, utterly irrational, and hopeless sick of mind. It is the secular version of calling someone 'demon-possessed'. Among the religious, it makes no sense to have a moral or spiritual discussion with those whose souls have been take over by the Devil. The only way is to exorcize the evil spirit from the soul. Among secular PC types, those with a phobia are simply incapable of rational understanding and discussion because their minds are so infected or twisted with emotions and passions that make no sense to sane people with healthy minds. The ideological use of the term 'phobia' is a sign of scientism, an unscientific or even anti-scientific turn of the mind that is, however, cloaked in scientific language. It was scientism that allowed the quackery of Freudianism to exert such tremendous influence on society in the 20th century. Scientism was also behind Marxism, supposed a wholly scientific dialectical materialist understanding of history, humanity, and society. So much of modern belief isn't so scientific — as few people are trained in science and, furthermore, scientists have their own ideological biases — as it is quasi-spiritualist draped in scientific lab coat. Notice that so many people who are into global warming believe in it so passionately without knowing the science behind it. How can they be so passionate about something they understand so little about(apart from what they've been told by mass media in the hands of Jewish oligarchs)? Now, there may be much that is true about Global Warming, and maybe something should be done about it, but the level of cult-like lunacy one sees among the True Believers is closer to the dynamics of Faith than of facts. It's something that so many secular folks have latched onto in their subconscious need for new gods(and devils). Same thing goes for all the brouhaha about race. While it's true that the Nazis abused racial, genetic, and biological sciences to cook up their ridiculous theories about 'Aryans' and the like, the so-called 'anti-racist' school is just as irrational and bogus. Instead of regarding blacks as they really are, they've concocted the cult of the Magic Negro. Instead of countering cartoonish Nazi views of the Jews, they've promoted the sacred image of Jews as a race of neo-christs who died for the Sins of Western Man. And of course, the obnoxious elevation of homos as something akin to latter-day angels goes to show that rationality isn't always a strong suit among the secularists. What does a rational understanding of homos have to do with hysterical celebrations of homosexuality and tranny-business decked out in 'rainbow' colors? And if the homo cause is secular, why has the near-reverence of homos become bigger than Easter and Christmas in the West? And why are there bigger taboos and heresies about what we can say about homos(and Jews and blacks) than about God and Jesus(and Muhammad)? If you criticize Muhammad, you might still have a job in elite or upper circles... like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. But try putting down the likes of Harvey Milk, and you're in big trouble. For a secular cause, it's rather odd that the 'gay' lobby and its enablers(with Jews at the top) are so adamant about Christian Churches bending over to the holy homo cult. It seems these alleged secularists aren't so anti-spiritual as hellbent on bending all forms of spirituality to the will of the new faith, that of holy homo worship(which is really a proxy-pseudo-spiritual tool of the Jews).
At any rate, it's important for us to know why they use the term 'homophobia' and why they use it so casually, indeed promiscuously, to invalidate whom they disagree with. Indeed, it is rather odd how such a powerfully damning term has been used so widely and loosely to denounce so many people. People say Joe McCarthy got into the habit of arbitrarily accusing 'everyone' of being a communist, but he was an amateur compared to the Jew-run media/academia/state complex. Under Jewish control, not only has just about everyone been accused of 'racism' but 'antisemitism'. If you dare say anything to displease blacks, you're a 'racist'. You might be a 'racist', a subconscious one, even if you're a dye-in-the-wool Liberal. And today, 'anti-Semite' can even be someone who notices that Jews got a lot of power or that Zionism has been abusive toward Palestinians. Indeed, therein lies the power of weaponized terminology: On the one hand, the term defines something extreme, thereby implying something rare, unholy, or monstrous, and yet, on the other hand, it can easily apply to you as well. It's rather like the use of 'devil-worshiper' in the Christian lexicon. At once, it denotes something very dark — who but the most demented would worship the Devil? — and connotes it can apply to just about anyone. YOU could be the next one who is demon-possessed, and therefore you must join forces with all the GOOD people in impassioned & forceful denunciation of the Devil and his demon-possessed minions. The pop culture variant of this is the flesh-eating zombie movie. On the one hand, what can be more extreme and incredible than a dead person who walks again to feed on human flesh? And yet, the greater fear is that YOU could become a zombie too and all too easily with one bite. We see something similar now with the Covid-19 Virus scare. It's been depicted as a terrible disease of singular monstrosity, but guess what? You, your family, your relatives, your friends, your community, your city, your nation, and everyone on the planet could be next and indeed will be next unless there is a massive lock-down where we hand over all our keys to the government. In most horror movies, the monstrous is barely human and certainly not ordinary. Michael in HALLOWEEN is a rare breed indeed. He may stalk you and try to kill you, but he's not spreading Michaelism throughout the community. But in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the unspeakable isn't only happening but can spread and take over the world. As such, they are even more horrifying than something like HALLOWEEN where, as long as Michael isn't in your town, you're safe.
And so, it is in the interest of the Power to (1) concoct something that sounds horrible and (2) make it seem rabid, infectious, and/or already widespread. It is thus pan-damning. Naturally, upon being told that there is something awful and that this awful thing is potentially everywhere, you want to take precautions against it to prove that YOU are clean of the disease or contamination. You either want the afflicted to be quarantined from the rest of society or even to quarantine all of society in fear that the sickness will spread to them as well. If the disease is mental, as in the case with the 'phobia' or some other scientifically(or more accurately scientistically) formulated sickness such as 'racism' or 'antisemitism', then it's deemed necessary for the media and academia to constantly fumigate the airwaves with ideological disinfectants and mass-vaccinate us with proper world-views and approved idols & icons.
While only homosexuals can be homosexual — as the current science says virtually all homos were born that way — , anyone can be afflicted with 'homophobia', and therefore all precautions and measures must be taken to limit the spread of this sickness. And just as anyone can be a sickly 'homophobe', anyone can be a healthy or cured 'homophile' who has gladly learned to love the Big Gay Brother. In a world where everyone fears being demon-possessed, there is a widespread desire to prove that one's with God against the Devil. Likewise, in a world where everyone has been informed that he or she could also be one of those dreaded 'homophobes', there is tendency, even mania, to prove that one is groovy with the homos(and trannies) against all those seemingly incorrigible and incurable cases of 'homophobes', the mental lepers of our age.
Now, it is necessary for people to take a time out and think for awhile. Of course, this is more difficult with the so-called millennials as PC-ideologizing-and-idolatizing from virtually the cradle began with that generation in full force. If they get you when you sleep in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the Power figures that the trick is to get them when they're young as children are without critical faculty and most vulnerable to emotional manipulations of faith and guilt. Then, it is no wonder that the Power(mostly Jewish) is so eager to push globo-homo PC at the youngest age possible in schools(and even kindergartens). It is a way for Jews to push elite-minority-supremacism as the New Normal to children of all races. As the Power now practices mind-snatching at the youngest possible age, it is getting ever more difficult to sustain a culture of thought. After all, emotions and sensations oftentimes override thought, however factual and honest it may be. Reason tends to weaken in relation to beauty & bliss and ugliness & blight. It's been said the IQ goes down around 20 points in the presence of a pretty/handsome person. It's no wonder that so many people make poor decisions when they're in love and eventually end up in divorce court. People are also less likely to think clearly in presence of the sacrosanct. Their reverent, even rapturous, state of mind favors faith while fearing anything that might undermine one's blissful unity with the holy. Such spiritual inclinations are the most potent when instilled at a young age when the mind is most malleable and without critical/skeptical barriers, and this explains why some highly intelligent adults who are rational about most things go into Manchurian-Candidate gear when it comes to spiritually-charged topics, such as evolution. Thought is also weakened in relation to strongly negative responses. No matter how decent a person may be, he will elicit negative feelings if he's ugly and gross. No matter how nutritious(and tasty) insects-as-food may be — as well as more moral as it's better to kill insects than fellow mammals — , many people feel disgust at the mere sight of them. A man may go with a bad woman with good looks than good woman with bad looks, and both responses fail in reason and basic judgement. The good looks blind the man to one woman's badness while the bad looks blind the man to the other woman's goodness. One reason why many people cannot rationally fathom something like pedophilia has to do with extreme disgust and animus they feel about the subject. They see it as so beyond the pale that they want to regard it as pure evil than the possibility that some people are born with the sickness, i.e they chose to be evil than were born with a sickness. Likewise, many people cannot think objectively about National Socialism because of all the radioactive toxicity surrounding the subject. Of course, being rational or objective on the subject doesn't mean endorsement or lack of judgement. Rather, it means a cool-headed understanding as to why it came to power and what positive things it may have achieved. For many people, even that much thought on the matter is near-impossible as they've been led to see Nazism as pure evil, a form of diabolism.
So, the power of reason wilts under extreme-gloss and extreme-gross. Certain irresistible flavors make people ignore the nutritional downside of certain foods. No wonder so many people are obese, have diabetes, and/or suffer from tooth decay. But then, many nutritious foods are avoided by people who'd do better to eat them because the flavors are bland or off-putting. It takes strong mental constitution to resist the temptations of gloss and overcome the repulsions toward grossness. And most people don't have strong mental constitutions, and therefore, their power of reason operates within the space between 'gloss' and 'gross'. And the Power knows this, which is why it's so involved in moving the goal-posts of what is glossy and what is gross.
Now, some things are naturally full of gloss while others are naturally gross, at least to most humans. Most people have a natural like for lakes, sunshine, and beautiful forests, and most people dislike darkness, dung & rot, and fetid swamps. Most men like pretty women and dislike ugly women, and most women like handsome men and dislike ugly men. Most people like the taste of honey, and most people would surely prefer not to eat monkey brains or goat testicles. Among the spiritual, most love God or gods and hate Satan, the devil, and demons. Still, the natural likes and dislikes can be overridden with artificial manipulation, especially when imprinted on young ones. Consider how traditional Chinese culture had men thinking that mangled feet(via foot-binding) were a thing of beauty. Consider how Ancient Egyptians developed a method of flattening the heads of elites, a kind of mind-binding. And so many primitive cultures have developed rites of passage involving horrific scarring. While those outside the culture can readily see the sickness of the ways, those within the culture have been rendered blind to the ugliness because they grew up with it as a defining, even sacrosanct, element of what they're all about. This is why some cultures not only practice something as vile as human sacrifice but regard it as what makes them whole and holy. As they've grown up in a culture with a cosmology requires blood sacrifice to maintain the balance and harmony of all things, they cannot conceive of an order without the rites. Thus, even the ugly can be made to feel beautiful, even the diabolical can be made to seem holy. For sure, homosexuality that had once been reviled is now revered as the greatest thing since baked buns. And gambling has gone from a vice to even something like 'family values' virtue — Las Vegas is for the entire family, and besides, legal gambling in Indian Reservations have associated the once-vice with 'historical justice'.
But it can also go the other way. The beautiful can be made to seem unholy, or ugly in some deeper way. Jews have done this with 'Aryan beauty', not least because they are envious of it, have been driven mad by it, and were mass-killed by an ideology, Nazism, premised on defending and revering it. So, even as Jews have been unable to convince people that 'Aryan Beauty' is ugly per se, they've made it seem evil, diabolical, and vile as a thing unto itself. So, if beautiful 'Aryans' want a community of their own to preserve and admire their own beauty, that is so 'racist' and 'Nazi-like'. According to Jews, 'Aryan Beauty' is acceptable and redeemable ONLY IF it puts out to other races and mixes with others. In other words, its beauty must serve other races than serve itself. It must serve the lusts of Jewish and black men. Also, by race-mixing, the advantages of 'Aryan Beauty' must be appropriated by Jews, blacks, and other races. The 'Aryans' aren't supposed to have an identity or agency of their own. Any hint of autonomy for 'Aryan Beauty' is anathema. Thus, even if Jews can't convince you that beauty is ugly, they can convince you that beauty is evil UNLESS it is reduced to interchangeable commodity for Jews and others. Of course, Jews do the same thing to entire territories. So, if Hungarians say Hungary is their own beautiful nation, Jews may not convince you that Hungary is ugly but can convince you that Hungarian land, however beautiful it may be, is EVIL unless it loses its national autonomy and becomes global commodity for Jewish hegemonists. In other words, even if Jews can't convince you that the gold you possess is worthless, they can convince you that is EVIL for you to have possession of it. The Jewish message to goyim is that goy property has MORAL value, as opposed to merely material ones, ONLY IF it is made available for Jews to take and place in their pawnshop. Jews want all the goyim to pawn their entire nations and treasures to the Jews, the arch-financiers of the world.
Now, one might argue that it makes little sense for vilifying 'Aryan Beauty' for wanting autonomy. After all, the crimes of Nazism had to do with Germans invading other nations, not maintaining Germany for Germans. But that is from a goy perspective. As far as Poles, Greeks, and Russians were concerned, German nationalism would have been just fine AS LONG AS Germans didn't invade their territory. Their beef was with German Imperialism, not German Nationalism. Likewise, the Vietnamese and Algerians had no beef with French Nationalism AS LONG AS French Imperialists didn't rule over them. Then, why is German nationalism itself a problem? It is because, even without Nazi imperialist aggression, Jews in Germany suffered under German nationalism that led to the unity of German elites and German masses against semi-alien Jews. So, no matter where Jews live, even in non-imperialist or anti-imperialist nations, they fear goy nationalism as the binding force that allows the goy majority to work together against Jewish interests. What if goy nationalism is moderate and not particularly anti-Jewish or is even protective of Jews without totally putting out to them? Even such moderation is unacceptable to the Jewish Ego in the long run because the ultimate aim of Jews is not tolerance or co-existence with goyim but supremacist rule over them. Jewish vision of the world is one of Jewish Masters and Goy Cattle.
The term 'phobia' as currently used by PC doesn't just mean fear, dread, dislike, or even hatred. It really means you have NO VALID OR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your antipathy. After all, if 'phobia' were to be used merely as a generic term for dislike or hostility, then we could call Jews 'Nazi-phobes', we could call capitalists 'communist-phobes', we could call Christians 'Satan-phobes', and so on. But we don't do that because the prevailing orthodoxy is Jews have good reason to hate Nazis, capitalists have good reason to oppose communism, and Christians have the duty to denounce the Devil. And 'phobia' doesn't mean just any fear, no matter how powerful it is. No one calls a man who fears tigers in the jungle a 'tiger-phobe'. No one calls a swimmer who fears being eaten by a shark a 'sharkaphobe'. A man wandering in a jungle filled with tigers better fear tigers, and a swimmer in a shark-infested sea better be wary of big jaws.
If 'phobia' in current discourse simply meant hatred, fear, or opposition, then we might as well call Democrats 'Republicanophobes' and call Republicans 'Democratophobes'. And if straight people who have issues with homos are 'homophobes', then homos with issues with straight society should be called 'normophobes' or 'straightophobes'. At the very least, such use of the term would be fair-minded. But of course, 'phobia' isn't used that way. The Power that controls the academia and media — and dictates what is to be allowed as approved definitions on Wikipedia and as acceptable discourse on social platforms — uses the term 'phobia' in the most selective manner to push its own agenda. The Power meant 'phobia' in ideological discourse to be a loaded term. It doesn't mean just any kind of fear, antipathy, or hatred but the kind that is disapproved or denounced by the Power. So, homos shitting on straight society is not a problem, just like it's okay for Jews to shit on goyim, especially whites. Such is never designated as 'phobic' but, if anything, as provocative and interesting. Despite the 'scientific'-sounding term borrowed from clinical psychology, it is used ONLY against those targeted by the Power. It's like Jews used the term 'paranoia' during the Cold War mainly against the anti-communist Political Right. Apparently, those who feared communist infiltration or propaganda were overcome with mass paranoia, whereas Jews who see 'anti-Semites' everywhere and another 'Holocaust' just around the corner are to be treated with the utmost courtesy, sympathy, and respect. Of course, in reality, the far-left came closer to taking over the US government in the 20th century than elements of the far-right did. But as Jews, many of whom were on the left and even far-left, had more sway in media and academia, especially in alliance with Anglo-American reformers who weren't sufficiently 'paranoid' of Jewish intentions, they got to portray the communist-sympathizers and even outright communists as sane & rational All-American patriots standing by the U.S. Constitution while those who sensed radicalism afoot in key institutions and industries were not only smeared as fear-mongers but mass-clinically-diagnosed as 'authoritarian personalities' overcome with mass delusions. Just think. Many Jewish-Americans spied for the USSR and plotted with Soviet agents to undermine American Security. Some of them went as far as sending atomic secrets to mass-killer Stalin who'd just swallowed up all of Eastern Europe. And yet, the Narrative on the Cold War has been mostly about HUAC and Joe McCarthy plotting against innocent patriots whose Constitutional Rights were trampled upon. And even though it was the Jews who plotted against America, Jewish authors and media moguls push narratives of how the plot against America was hatched by the American Right. But then, Jews pulled the same trick with the Palestinians. Even though Jewish imperialist-immigrants invaded and took over Palestine, dehumanized the native population, and denied them the right of nation-hood, the dominant 'American' narrative on the Zionist-Palestinian issue has been, "When will Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist?" Never mind that Israel was founded on denying the right of Palestine to exist. Jews plotted against Palestine, but Jews have so many people duped that Palestinians plotted against Israel. Palestinians did no such thing. They merely tried to defend and preserve Palestine from Jewish invaders. It was the Jews who plotted to take over Palestinians, first by posing as New Palestinians who just wanted to get along with Arabs as Fellow Palestinians. But it was all just a ruse as the ultimate Zionist Plot was to wipe Palestine off the map and replace it with Israel. Likewise, Jewish immigrant-infiltrators in the US initially acted like they just wanted to be a part of the great country founded and built by Anglo-Americans, but their ultimate aim to replace the Original America with the New America of Jewish Supremacism, Diversity-Imperialism, Eternal White Guilt, and Globo-Homo-Worship(as Jewish-controlled Queertianity). Jews are not to be trusted as they regard goyim not as fellow adults but as children who cannot be trusted with the truth and must be lied to.
Not only is the term 'phobia' used selectively by the Power to designate certain groups, positions, and attitudes as irrational, pathological, sic, or diseased but it is then used casually and loosely to besmirch anyone within that group or with that position. It's like, not only can whites be accused of being 'Anti-Semites' while Jews cannot be accused of being 'Anti-Whites' or 'Anti-Whitites' BUT just about ANY white person can be called an 'Anti-Semite' for whatever reason. While Jews, being mostly on the 'Liberal' spectrum of the political divide, usually use the term against those on the American Right, they also encourage American Conservatives to denounce American Liberals as 'Anti-Semites' for being insufficiently servile to Israel or expressing sympathy, however slight, for the Palestinians. Though 'antisemitism' gained moral currency as a term describing oppressive attitude toward Jews, it now means not being with the Jewish program of oppressing non-Jews, especially Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians(and white middle and working class Americans). 'Anti-Semite' went from a man who wants to oppress or kill Jews to a man who opposes Jews' exploiting, oppressing, and/or killing such peoples as Palestinians(who suffered Nakba and live under Zionist apartheid), Russians(who underwent the Jewish Rape of Russia), Iranians & other Muslims(who've suffered semi-genocidal sanctions), and white folks of the West(who now face White Nakba, aka the Great Replacement). Even though Jews have become the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis, the term 'Anti-Semite' is affixed to Jewish victimhood of bygone history.
Jews are cunning and play it both ways, which is why so much of accusation of 'antisemitism' comes as much from goyim as from Jews. When Jews are not accusing goyim, mostly white conservatives and Iranians, of 'antisemitism', it's the goyim who denounce one another as 'antisemitic' as so many of them are such craven toadies to Jewish Power or brainwashed dolts who look upon Jews as the holy race who are beyond reproach. Many Jews say Donald Trump is 'literally Hitler', so how does Trump respond? He accuses the goyim in the Democratic Party of being the Real 'Anti-Semites' by supporting Israel only 200% than 300%... or 6,000,000%. Jews have long accused the GOP as the party of bigotry, so how did the likes of Mitt Romney respond to the charge? They've accused the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of being 'antisemitic' by not giving Israel 1,000% of what it requested(or demanded). That's about half of all US political discourse. Jews say, "GOP, you're the party of Hitler", and GOP cucks say to the Democratic Party, "Democrats, you are a bunch of 'Anti-Semites' for not supporting the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians 300% instead of just 200%." Behind closed doors, Jews must be laughing at the idiot goyim caught up in this clown show.
In the current discourse, the term 'phobia' is used almost entirely against those who refuse to bend over to the globo-homo agenda. There is no need for 'Judeophobia' or 'Afrophobia' because Jews and blacks already have potent terms as shields and battering rams: 'Antisemitism' and 'racism'(that only carries weight in relation to blacks and maybe Jews, as its permissible to badmouth Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, Palestinians, and even Mexicans). Homos, the favored of Jews, also got a special word as their terminological weapon, and it is 'homophobia' that has been adopted and used uncritically and aggressively by the entire media-academia-government apparatus. There have been attempts to widen the use of 'phobia' — 'Islamophobia', 'Russophobia', 'Sinophobia', and etc. — , but no term gains traction and currency UNLESS it is adopted and disseminated by the big media-academia-state complex. In the end, it is not so much the idea or term that matters but the manner and range of its promotion and marketing. Other than 'homophobia', the only potent politicized term with -phobia as suffix is 'xenophobia', but then it has a longer pedigree than 'homophobia', a bogus concept cooked up by Jews. (It is bogus because no one has demonstrated that anyone has an intense panicked fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Plenty of people are put-off by homosexuals, the way they look and talk, but such disdain hardly fits the profile of phobia. And people who find sodomy or homo-fecal penetration to be gross are only feeling a natural reaction to a filthy and foul act that serves no biological function but is a prime way to spread disease. It's like being disgusted by the idea of licking toilet seats or eating-shit is not a phobia. It is healthy and normal to feel grossed out by gross behavior. Some might say homos who were brought up to despise homosexuality are filled with self-loathing, and that constitutes a kind of phobia, but that is false. A homo who wants to do homo things but feels ashamed for feeling that way is suffering from a complex, or homo-complex, not a phobia. A phobia is where a person truly and intensely feels dread and antipathy for something that is harmless. In contrast, a self-loathing homo truly and intensely would love to do homo things but feels shame for feeling that way. He feels loathing for what he truly desires. Phobia, unlike a complex, is not the product of repression. Phobia is someone truly being scared of a little white mouse that can do him no harm. A complex is someone truly loving white mice but having been made to feel shame for such affection. What about people who feel hatred or animus toward homosexuals as freaks, degenerates, or sinners? Their hostility may be pretty strong, but it's not a phobia without panicked fear/fright of something harmless. After all, many people have strong hatred for rapists, pedophiles, bigots, and the like — and plenty of homos virulently hate those who condemn the very idea of 'gay marriage' or refuse to bake 'gay wedding cakes', but their hatred, even if unhinged, doesn't necessarily amount to a phobia. A person with a phobia of rats freak out at the mere sight of a rat, even if it is outside and poses no harm to him or his property. In contrast, someone may hate rats because of they've done his house considerable damage. Such hatred is a reaction to what rats have done, not a mindless fear of rats per se. Likewise, this thing called 'xenophobia' is mostly bogus because, at least in current usage, it is rarely about mindless, irrational, and extreme fear of foreigners but totally warranted concern over what mass demographic migration and replacement may do to one's own nation. Isn't it odd that Jews, who love to demean others as 'xenophobes' for saying NO to mass immigration-invasion, are the first ones to say Israel must remain Jewish by an ONLY JEWISH IMMIGRATION policy. One thing for sure, Jews seem to be truthophobes who have no use for consistency.
Because 'homophobia' is a weaponized term to demean, dehumanize, and destroy modern heretics who refuse to kneel at the altar of globo-homomania, it is used rather liberally against ALL who are deemed threatening to the agenda. The term is targeted not only at those who resolutely stand against the homo agenda but those who dare to mock anything homo or tranny. In other words, the 'gay' agenda not only demands total acceptance but total reverence. It's not enough to target and destroy sincere opponents of the agenda but even those who joke about homosexuality must also be destroyed. It's akin to the domain of religion where not only the heretics must be burned at the sake but those who seem uncaring, irreverent, and mocking of the sacred dogma. Not only those accused of being devil-worshipers and idolaters must be destroyed but those who've failed to show due diligence in holy observance and due reverence to proper authorities. The same logic operated in the secular theocracy or ideocracy of communism. Not only were capitalists and anti-communists purged but even communists who dared to crack jokes about the Party and its leadership also had to be punished.
In a similar vein, it's not enough for the 'gay' lobby to call for the heads of sincere and dogged opponents of the Agenda. They are not the only 'homophobes' who must be burnt at the stake or forced to take it up the bung. According to the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, even those people who don't necessarily oppose the Agenda but love to make jokes about homosexuals, trannies, and their ways are also branded with the Mark of Cain of 'homophobia'. So, even though all they did was observe the silly, funny, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous, and outlandish ways of many homos and trannies, they are deemed to be 'phobic'. You see, if you're insufficiently reverent toward homos and trannies, you are sick in the head or afflicted with some pathological malaise... because after all, there is nothing more naturally wondrous than homo fecal-penetration and tranny peniscutting. This is all the nuttier when we consider how homos love to mock each other and actually revel in being 'different' and 'faggy'. After all, the camp sensibility arose largely from the 'gay' community with their fruity ways. But when homos rib and mock each other, that's oh-so-wonderful and charming. But if straight people notice the same things about homos and trannies, why that is 'phobic'. It's also like how blacks love to act the wild-ass jigglins, throw apelike antics, and act plenty crazy(and even take pride in it) but scream 'racism' when white people notice this very facet of Negro-hood. And notice how Jews love to incessantly talk, write, and discuss about Jewish money, Jewish power, Jewish influence, and Jewish everything, BUT they are the first ones to condemn goyim of being 'obsessive Anti-Semites' who go on and on about Jews who are just ho-hum minding their business.
Anyway, no straight person has a panicked fright of homos or homosexuality. They don't break out in sweat or wet their pants in abject terror at the first sight of homo or tranny. Many straight people feel uneasy about homosexuality or being around homosexuals, but mere discomfort doesn't make a phobia. After all, many people are put off by the sight of grossly fat people, but that doesn't amount to 'fatophobia', 'lardophobia', 'blubbophobia', or 'buffalobuttophobia'. They are people who feel strong animus, hatred, or contempt for homosexuals for whatever reasons. For the religious, homosexuals could be deemed as wallowing in sin and going against the way of God. For certain macho types, the mere sight of homo girly-boys fills them with contempt. They have certain ideals of manhood and are put off by men dressing, acting, and/or talking like pansies. But then, some people who prize intelligence and/or wisdom feel great contempt and derision — indeed very strong emotions — for the dumb, stupid, or imbecile. It's obvious that Richard Dawkins virulently looks down on people he considers to be idiotic. He believes humans have intelligence and the power of reason, and therefore those humans who've failed to live up to his ideal of the thinking person is deserving of his arrogance and tongue-lashing. Now, this self-righteous and self-aggrandizing side of Dawkins' character may be off-putting, but it wouldn't be a phobia. Whatever Dawkins is, he is not a dumbophobe who cowers in frightful fear in the presence of someone who strikes him as hopeless dumb, stupid, or ignorant. If anything, Dawkins, who is as witty as he is arrogant, loves to poke fun at people he deems to be too dumb to be human. Indeed, such derisive use of wit is very much a part of British culture. And Jews have their own way of mocking and deriding whatever and whomever they disagree with, look down upon, and hold in contempt. Jews surely love to mock Christianity, indeed a national pastime in Israel and even among American Jews who no longer fear the much-cucked Christian community, much of which is now more taboo-riddled with sanctities surrounding globo-homomania than about God, Jesus, and the long line of martyrs and saints. And yet, when Jews like Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Larry David, and others mock and joke about Christians and Christianity, are they denounced as 'Christophobes'? Indeed, is the term 'Christophobe' regularly used whenever some non-Christian mocks or makes fun of Christians, the Church, Jesus, and etc? No.
But even a farcical attitude about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies is deemed 'homophobic'(though 'transphobic' is also now being disseminated far and wide by the Jew-run media). If 'phobia' means an extreme, irrational, and panicked fear or fright attack over something harmless, how is it 'phobic' to joke about homosexuals? Granted, some might argue that people seek to relieve tension by joking about something that truly terrifies them. After all, some Jews have made jokes about Adolf Hitler and the Shoah to come to terms with them. And Woody Allen certainly told many jokes about things that make him feel uneasy, even queasy. But jokes about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies are not therapeutic efforts to ease one's extreme fear of 'gay' stuff. Rather, they are akin to fat jokes or jokes about especially ugly or dumb people. Generally, people find odd, weird, or extreme stuff to be funny. Even extreme qualities deemed to be positive come under mockery because they seem so different from the normality of most people. So, people with extremely high IQ are often mocked as 'geeks'. And women who are 'too beautiful' are caricatured as bimbos, stuck-up princesses, or vain-shallow dolts. Men who are overly powerful are lampooned as 'moose' or 'dumb jock'. The popular assumption is that if someone is over-abundant in one area, he or she must be lacking in most other areas. So, the stereotype of the absent-minded professor who is good with book-knowledge but lacking in common sense skills and general sociableness. True or not, none of these qualify as 'phobic'. Why have homosexuals and trannies often served as targets for comedy? In most cases, it's not even about hatred or contempt. The material made for easy laughs because most people are not homo or 'gay' in style, and therefore, homos, trannies, and their ways seem weird, goofy, nutty, ridiculous, and/or outrageous to most people. Thus, it's really a matter of Homo-Farcia and has NOTHING to do with any kind of phobia. But once homos got powerful, their vanity got the better of them and, with the backing of super-powerful Jews, they decided to use the media, academia, law firms, the courts, and the state to spread the message far and wide that any insufficiently reverent and celebratory attitude or expression regarding homosexuality and tranny-stuff is to be designated and derided as 'homophobic', in other words, pathological, demented, mentally sick, irrational, immoral, and even unholy as 'gay' vanity has deigned to be the new spiritual essence of the Modern World. So, what should properly be called Homofarcia is called 'homophobia'. Imagine if fat people — people with a natural impulse to eat compulsively to the point of becoming excessively overweight — had the power of homos and pushed the idea that fat jokes are 'fatophobic', i.e. the product of pathologically unhinged minds than natural expression of merriment among people who find gross obesity to be abnormal and extreme to the point of ridiculousness. Such a world would be plenty retarded. Well, we are living in such a world, except that it's not the fatsos but the fruitkins who have waged war on 'gay joke' comedy as a heresy that cannot be tolerated.
Take a contest like boxing. There are rules such as No Biting, No Eye-Gouging, No Punching-Below-the-Belt, No-Kicking, and so forth. So, do such rules mean that it's a gentleman's game of kindness and civility? No, even with those restrictions, it's a brutal bout between two men whose objective is to knock the other guy out. Each is motivated not by his knowledge of the boxing rule-book but his desire to beat the other guy, win, and become rich & famous. So, even though they can't kick or punch each other in the balls, they do everything possible to psyche and pummel the other guy. They use all sorts of deceptive tricks to land surprise punches. When hurt, they clinch and hold onto the guy as long as possible before the referee pulls them apart. Also, even if one throws an illegal punch but isn't called out by the referee, one keeps boxing because the #1 objective is to win, not to adhere to absolutism of rules.
Rules are important but secondary. Competition is essentially ruthless, brutal, and even 'animal'. Rules exist to govern and control such aggressive impulses, not to negate and prohibit them. Thus, even in a world of Rule of Law, one must know he needs to be driven primarily by his will to beat the competition and come out on top. And the trick is not to stick to the rule-book as closest as possible but to expand one's options just short of brazenly violating the rules. Consider Muhammad Ali's third bout with Joe Frazier, aka Thrilla in Manila. Ali, clocked badly many times by the lunging Frazier with fearsome hooks, kept holding Frazier's neck to slow the pace of aggression. Ali did whatever he needed to do to win just short of being disqualified. Had he chosen to fight the cleanest fight in service to the golden letter of boxing rules, he might very well have lost. He was primarily motivated by the will to win, not to be a 'beautiful loser' with impeccable commitment not only to the rules but the very spirit of the rules. But who'd want to get punched in the face so many times by a monster like Joe Frazier just to demonstrate to the world that ONE LOVES RULES. The only reason to enter into such a brutal contest is to win and come out on top. If one loves rules above all, play Bridge or Old Maid. Win or lose, it's no big deal. But if the contest is for keeps, involves huge stakes, or decides the power & destiny of the world, one better have the mindset of Charles Bronson in HARD TIMES. It's not for weak stomachs.
Also, the contest for power can be directed on an individual, collective, or tribal basis. The individual will/drive to power is all about egomania. It's about 'me over the world'. The only concern is one's own wealth, pride, prestige, and honors. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are this kind of individualists. Sure, both fuss about philanthropy and aiding humanity, but it's all just an extension of their egomania. They know money can buy lots but not necessarily respect. So, like many other tycoons before them, they've created foundations and play do-gooder superman.
Power can be collective, but this isn't the same as tribalism. After all, labor unions work for collective interests but could represent workers of various races and ethnic backgrounds. They could represent men and women of all ages. Collective interest could be based on class, profession(medical, law, trucking, or whatever), religion, and etc. Despite intra-competition among companies and corporations, everyone in a certain industry or field has common interests with others like him. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are competitors, but they sometimes work together to push legislation that is good for all of beverage industry.
In contrast, tribal interest isn't merely collective but united on the basis of blood(and soil), identity, nationality, history, and/or heritage. Tribalism can be hierarchical. Despite huge divergences between the richest members and the least successful ones, they are all bound by the consciousness of race and share a sense of deep roots. Thus, a Jewish multi-billionaire in France or Russia may feel a sense of tribal bond with some humble Jewish worker in Israel. Though of different nationalities — France or Russia as opposed to Israel — , they feel as one people, brothers under the clothes. Whether a certain tribalism tends to learn more socialist or capitalist, what really matters is that everyone from those on top to those on the bottom feel that their core identity is unique/particular and that they must maintain unity so that the most powerful never lose sight of the less fortunate of the tribe while the less fortunate do what they can to support the tribal project. Thus, Israel was made by Zionists who ranged from super-rich to dirt poor. Whatever their economic circumstances, their consciousness was molded by the notion of the Jewish Covenant. It didn't matter that most pioneering Zionists were secular and didn't literally believe in God. What mattered was they were all committed to Jewish Identity as defined by the Covenant with deep ethno-spiritual roots.
So, even though the will and drive are crucial in any contest of power, there is a difference between individual will, collective will, and tribal will. A successful man of individual will may do very well, but he cannot conceive of any purpose in life beyond his individuality and self-glory. He is very much like the Ideal pushed by Ayn Rand onto goyim, especially Wasps(though she was perfectly fine with Jewish and Zionist identity and unity). Individual Will, as formidable and successful as it may be, is always a short-lived dead-end. After all, no one lives forever, and once individual titans grow old and die, they leave behind nothing but money without a clear purpose. His heirs may also be rich and set for the future, but they can only feel as lucky leeches of legacy. It's no wonder so many silver spoons kids end up none too well. Furthermore, even though their rich forebear may have created a philanthropic foundation in which the descendants have a place, as its purpose is to serve generic humanity its overall impact is dissipating and enervating on the will of inheritors. With each passing generation, the purpose of the great man's legacy, his philanthropic foundation, is not to concentrate power for a specific goal but to spread the generosity around to various genteel leeches whose whole lives revolve around pretending to help humanity while mostly attending cocktail parties. Consider the sheer uselessness of the Ford Foundation or Carnegie Endowments. They are run by genteel hacks who dole out money to fashionable causes in accordance to trends defined by the Real Power. So, no matter how much someone may achieve in his lifetime, his individual will is a mere shooting star in the firmament of history. A mere flash in the night. An individual who only cares about himself fails to realize that he is part of a deeper history and heritage. A link between the past and future. When, as a rich older man, he compensates for a life of egotism and 'greed' by playing the role of philanthropist, he may end up doing some good for people, but generic good-works don't serve as the basis of power or true gratitude/loyalty. Do all the people who benefited from the Ford fortune, Carnegie grants, or Rockefeller charities really feel as part of the Ford, Carnegie, or Rockefeller tribe? Ta-Nehisi Coates got a big fat paycheck from the MacArthur Foundation, but does anyone think he gives a crap about MacArthur or his family? No, he was just happy to take the check and spend it on himself. His personal will is driven by what he feels about his own people, the blacks. Black tribalism defines what he is ultimately about. The Anglo rich, by creating such foundations, ended up doling out cash and favors to people who don't give a shit about the Anglo people or the Anglo individuals who'd done so much to create vast fortunes. It goes to show that the big fat ego cannot buy love or respect. No matter how much money an individualist makes, his message to the world is "I got mine, and you don't." He may try to buy the love of the world by spreading the money around, but the world just takes the money and sees through the big fat ego. Who really thinks of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Jeff Bezos as true humanitarians? And even if they were born-again saints, power dissipates when spread thin and wide across humanity, most of which feels nothing in common with the giver.
What about the collective will? The fates of communism and US labor movement illustrate the problems of collective will. Masses of workers or the Proletariat are too amorphous to form an effective long-term bloc. While members of the working class have a general interest, it is mainly materialist. Workers want decent wages and living conditions... and some recreation. That's what being a worker is about. It's about the basic needs of life and some fun on the side. That's all very good as economic interests go but, once realized, hardly serves as a potent and effective locus of identity, meaning, and purpose. Working class interests are more about conditions than consciousness. Workers want decent means to support themselves. There is no other meaning to being a worker. Off work, one hardly thinks about work. Work is something you do for money, not something you do for meaning. Communism failed because it put the workers at the center. Workers are essential to an economy but so are creators, visionaries, entrepreneurs, wheeler-dealers, bankers, and the like. So, while it's good for workers to operate with a certain amount of collective will, the interests of other classes must also be respected. After all, for there to be jobs for workers, there has to be businesses that hire workers. Without businessmen, workers must build their own industries, but most workers don't have the brain power or ingenuity to create industry. As mediocrities, they are only good for being hired and being told what to do. As communism forbade business, who ran the industries that employed workers? It was all up to the state, but the central government managing all the economy was bound to fail. Just imagine the City Hall trying to run all the hotels, restaurants, factories, trucking, medical centers, food marts, clothing shops, and the like, and you know why communism failed. Under communism, the collective will of the workers overrode the collective wills of other classes and professions. As such, there was no one left to create or run businesses. The only way was for the state to play the role of avant-garde of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but the idea of a centralized system effectively running just about everything was a pipe dream.
The US labor movement and unions were far less extreme than communism; the collective will of US workers existed in tandem with the collective interests of other classes and groups. Still, the weakness of collective will based on class or economic interests was well-demonstrated by American History as well. American workers paid their Union dues and went on strikes on occasion, but their only interest in work was to get paid so they could have some fun on the side. An Irishman is always Irish. At work or away from work, he is Irish. In contrast, work is meaningful only at work. An engineer who's on a boating trip is not functioning as an engineer. Work has meaning only as activity, not as identity. If an Irishman goes from being a truck driver to a welder, he still remains Irish. But with the new job, he is no longer a trucker. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that his kids will do what he does, especially in the modern world with more individual freedoms. There were societies where the son inherited the economic niche from his father. If the father was a blacksmith, the son was a blacksmith. But in modern society, the son of a working class man can become a middle class man. Or an upper-middle class man or even a very rich man as the result of intelligence, drive, ability, and/or luck. If your grandfather was a peddler, your father was an accountant, and you're an elite lawyer, would it make sense to base your sense of identity on your profession, which is so different from those of your pa and grandpa? On the other hand, if your identity is Irish, it doesn't matter what your ancestors did or what you do. All of you are part of the Irish people and heritage. Ethnic identity and sense of culture have meaning at and away from work. And at any kind of work. Ethnicity isn't determined by how much money you have or don't have. An Irishman doesn't lose his identity for being poor or for being rich. He could have a job or be jobless at the moment. He is Irish because he was born as such and raised in the culture of Ireland and its people.
Just as the collective will of workers cannot be the core identity, the same goes for the collective will of the ruling class. While rich people have common interests of their own, they are too few in number to indefinitely demand that society revolve around their interests. To e sure, most of history has been defined and dominated by ruling classes. But back then, prior to the rise of modernity, the elites were defined not only by wealth but lineage. Society wasn't so much ruled by oligarchs as by kings and aristocrats. We may look upon such system as oppressive and unfair by OUR standards, but the combination of wealth, privilege, and lineage lent some degree of stability to the social order. The masses were led to believe that their social betters and political superiors owed their advantage not merely to wealth and (threat of) violence but better breeding. The caste system went even further in India. The elites could dominate in such a world for many eons.
But this was no longer tenable in the modern world where the rise of capitalism dictated wealth shall be created by enterprise, investment, and innovation than by old privileges and honors. Capitalism soon replaced the old aristocracy with new bourgeoisie who became many times richer than the kings and dukes of old. And yet, unlike kings and noblemen who had titles of blood and honor that meant something even when they ran into misfortune — a fallen nobleman was still a nobleman with a valuable title — , the capitalist was nothing without success in the here-and-now. One could go from rags to riches, but if one returned to rags, he had NOTHING left. Also, unlike the old aristocratic order in which society hardly changed at all or changed very gradually, the modern capitalist world transformed right before one's eyes in so many fields. Consider the revolution of airplanes from World War I to World War II. Then consider the changes that soon led to white folks sending men to the Moon.
Next, consider the Tribal Will. Compared to individual will and collective will, it is far more resilient. 'Tribality' existed before you were born, it exists through you as you live, and it continues after you die, that is IF the people of the tribe see fit to keep the torch of history, heritage, and territoriality burning. It is both a matter of inheritance and work in progress as the living members of the Tribe continue to add to the power and prestige of the Tribe(or subtract if they're a bunch of dammies, pronounced 'dommies' and meaning people who aren't really dumb but act dumb). An individual, however great and powerful in his life, is nothing after he dies. Even if he is remembered as a great man by future generations, it'd be pointless to form a community and shared identity on the cult of individuality. Stalin was once the most powerful man on Earth, but is there an identity based on his cult of personality? While great individuals can play a founding role in a community, it must ultimately be about something far bigger than the individual. Abraham, legendary or mythical, received the Covenant for his people and future generations. It was more about God than his humble self. Indeed, God chose him precisely because he was humble and understood the larger picture: God is boss. Moses played a great role in Jewish History but, again, it was in service to God and agendas bigger than himself. He led his Tribe out of Egypt, and in the end, it didn't matter that he himself wasn't allowed into the Promised Land. His ultimate purpose was to serve God and his people. Thus, under the dynamics of Tribal Will, there can be great individuals doing great or awesome things, but the achievements are ultimately in service to the Tribe, to something bigger, longer, and deeper than any single individual. A Jewish tycoon who doesn't care one iota about Jewishness and has accumulated lots of money only for self-aggrandizement has acted on individual will. And even if he later turns philanthropist and spreads the dough around, it's still about individual will, a publicity stunt to boost his ego as not only a man of money but man of heart. His various donations will eventually turn into dead-ends. Unlike tribalism that concentrates the amassed force into a spear-tip that can push forth and penetrate just about anything, philanthropism leads to the dissolution of one's wealth and power toward disjointed and contradictory goals. While philanthropy can do lots of social good — that was certainly the case with Andrew Carnegie — , it shouldn't be the highest purpose for a man of success. Tribalism is about investing in the future of your people with a deep past and dangerous future(as nothing is certain in life). Individualism, even when it is most generous and 'selfless', ends up investing in strangers who ultimately don't care for you and your kind. If a rich Anglo man gives all his wealth to Mexicans, Iranians, Hindus, Chinese, blacks, Arabs, and globalist shills, the takers will smile and say "thank you", but they will soon run off with the money and not give a crap about the donor or his race. If anything, some will only demand MORE while others will find the rich white man to have gone soft in the head. While giving to the poor of any race can lead to good results, such charity should not be the ultimate meaning of one's life. It should be about one's sense of race, culture, history, and territoriality and about one's investment of thought, energy, and money toward preserving that which is most precious and valuable. Everyone needs to think primarily in terms of his covenant with his people and his people's covenant with race, culture, and history.
Contrast the behavior of Anglo elites and Jewish elites, especially since the end of World War II. While both elites donated to humanitarian causes that benefited members outside their tribe, Anglo ethos(that was increasingly guided by Christian guilt-redemption-universalism, Enlightenment principles, and/or capitalist-individualism) moved away and then against the mind-set of Anglo identity, white unity, and racial consciousness. So, it didn't matter how rich and highly positioned these men were. Even though they were powerful white men, they invested in a future where whiteness would merely exist to meld with rest of humanity on the basis of individuality(among libertarians) or in service to cults such as 'Diversity'(among so-called 'progressives').
Jews were different. Even as Jews promoted 'anti-racism' & Diversity-mania among white goyim and claimed to embrace those ideals, their main emphasis was that Jews should focus on preserving & expanding Jewish Power and, furthermore, making goyim serve, defend, and expand Jewish Power. When we survey the Power Trajectory in the US since the end of World War II, which group has fallen and which group has risen? Just ask yourself, how did Anglo-Americans, once the titans of America, turn into a bunch of sappy-head cucky-wucks while the Jews, though only 2% of the population, came to dominate just about every sphere of American Power? And what happened to the white working class that relied mostly on collective will of class interests? They ended up worst of all. While individual will(especially those of the gifted and intelligent) and collective will(especially those of the working masses of mediocrities) tend to butt heads, Tribal Will can serve as the glue that binds the opposites. This was the key to the success of National Socialism, possibly the best ideology of the 20th century IF NOT for the fact of Hitler's pathological cult of personality and the ideology's cancerous growth into Neo-Germanic Imperialism. Tribal Will can accommodate individual will and collective will. If communism suppressed individual will, National Socialism encouraged it AS LONG AS the talented individuals were for the race, culture, and nation. National Socialism also understood that most people without special ability in intelligence or ability. They are masses of workers, but as part of the volk, they must be treated as national brethren. Besides, the mind is nothing without the body. If communism is war by the body against the mind and if libertarianism is war by the mind against the body, fascism developed as a search and struggle for unity of the mind and body. The main reason why Jews came to hate fascism was it made goyim acutely aware of the secret formula that made Jews so resilient and powerful. After all, the Jewish Covenant had an element of ethno-spiritual 'fascism' in binding ALL Jews, big and small, as a special people with unique history and destiny. Even though Jews pushed communism(which amounted to white workers against white owners) and libertarianism(which amounted to white owners & elites against white masses) on goyim, their own chosen mode for the Tribe was neither. Zionism or the Zionic Worlview focused the Jewish mind and will, consciously and subconsciously, on consolidating the existence of Jews and preparing the expansion of Jewish Power.
Jews understand that most of power is latent or unthinking. No matter how powerful it may be as a mass-of-force, it has no will or agency of its own. Take generals, soldiers, and all the tanks/ships/planes/bombs. That's a lot of mass of power, but soldiers and tanks don't decide what wars to fight and when and why. They remain at peace until ordered to fight. It's like a horse. It is many times bigger and stronger than a man, but it has no Directional Power, which is with the rider. The direction in which the horse moves is decided by the rider, the smaller-and-weaker human but with greater intelligence and will. In any power dynamics, one must ask, "Who is the rider, who is the horse?" Who or what embodies the mass-of-power but without will or agency, and who or what controls the direction-of-that-power or the Directional Power. In the most basic sense, the bosses are the 'rider' and the employees are the 'horse', but it's not that simple when we see the big picture. While higher officers give orders to lower officers who give orders to soldiers, the fact is ALL of the military is one big horse to the so-called 'civilian government' that is really a tool of the oligarchs and elites who now happen to be Jewish. In other words, the entirety of the US military is a great mass-of-power but without any will or agency of its own that is controlled by the so-called 'civilian government', the politicians and bureaucrats of which are controlled financially and/or ideologically by the Jewish globalist elites.
Among Jews, the biggest power is not with the biggest money-men. While the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg are richer than just about all other Jews and have a lot of pull, they know they are part of something much bigger, which is Jewishness and Jewish Power that are represented by Zion and modern Jewish thinkers, ideologues, and strategists who serve as modern-day Moses, Daniels, and Davids. As such, even the richest Jews defer to the Jews of Meaning and Strategy. Profits serve the prophets. Because Jewish individuality, no matter how successful or egotistical, is subordinate to the Jewish Covenant and Power, the primary Will among Jews is Tribal. Of course, Jews are mono-tribalists, a problematic matter for Jews and non-Jews. If Jews were poly-tribalists or poly-nationalists, they could respect other tribes and nations, all the while demanding that their own tribe and nationality be respected in turn. They could co-exist with other groups on the basis of mutuality. But just like the Jewish God couldn't tolerate other gods — He insisted He is the one and only God — , the Jewish Tribal Will has operated on the conviction that Jews and only Jews belong to the one true Tribe. All other tribes, those of goyim, are false tribes just like all pagan gods are false idols. So, non-Jews mustn't think in terms of their own tribal identity and interests. They exist only to serve the Jewish Tribe, the only true Tribe. This is why Jewish Power is so perplexing and/or frustrating to non-Jews who insist on honesty and consistency. Why is it that Jews who make such stink about the evils of tribalism are so utterly demanding upon all goyim to honor, obey, and serve the Jewish Tribe? On the surface, it is so hypocritical for Jews to argue thus, and yet, at another level, it all makes sense and is consistent with the Jewish priority of "Is it good for Jews?" It fails the consistency test as ethical principle but passes with flying colors the strategic test. After all, the thing in war is to do ANYTHING, especially by deception, to win and come out on top over the enemies.
Anglo-Americans once possessed something like tribal will. It was about Anglo-American identity. But due to immigration from non-Anglo parts of Europe, the emphasis went from ANGLO-American to Anglo-AMERICAN, i.e. Non-Anglo-Americans who adopted the Anglo-American way were accepted as fellow countrymen. In a way, the merging of Anglo-Americanism with Ethno-Americanism made America stronger. If various nations were often contentious and often at war in Old Europe, white folks of all stripes merged into one as 'Americans'. Because Anglo-Americans got a head-start in America politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and demographically, they could absorb and 'conquer' all white immigrants, even non-Anglo ones. Non-Anglo whites arrived en masse to be mentally conquered by the Anglos-as-founders-and-builders-of-America. The Ancient Romans, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Poles, and etc. all had failed to create a united Europe. While certain nationals were more powerful in Europe in certain periods and conquered & ruled over others, the conquered folks never felt as one with the conquerors and, if anything, hoped for emancipation from foreign rule. Also, when one power got too big, the weaker powers united to bring it down. Napoleonic France was brought down by alliance of Britain and Russia. Germany was surrounded by alliance of France, Britain, and Russia. Of course, the British played an anti-gravitational role in continental politics by aiding the weaker powers against the most dominant at any given moment. At any rate, the failure of the various European empires is testament to the fact that no single power was prestigious enough to win the loyalties of the conquered who weren't willing to surrender their own identities to merge with the imperial one. Even the mighty Romans failed at this in the long run. For one thing, the conquered people felt that foreigners were occupying their turf, the homeland of their forebears. So, even as they collaborated with the empire, their true dream was to be liberated and regain sovereignty. Especially as there was precious little mobility for most people who lived and died pretty much near where they were born, an alien presence of a foreign power wasn't well regarded.
But America was different. For one thing, all the non-Anglo-white immigrants had no claim to the land, which had been taken from the American Indians. (The Mormons did try to fashion a Narrative that aligned New World history with the Old World one, but that was mostly for kooks. Besides, Mormons were mostly Anglo.) If Anglos had occupied the European homelands of non-Anglos, the latter would have resisted. But the dynamics of loyalty in Anglo-America was different because non-Anglos freely chose to emigrate to it, one they hoped and presumed to be superior to their own nations. As such, they were in no position to complain about Anglo-American dominance. After all, there was a reason why they chose to leave their homelands for Anglo-America. There was more land, more opportunity, more freedom, more dignity for the common man, and more rule of law. They felt that the American Way was preferable to their own, at least when it came to political rule, liberty, personal dignity, and of course property rights. Also, as Babelic ethnic immigrants came from various nations, what they all had in common was that they rejected their own homeland to seek new freedom and fortunes in America. Besides, Anglo-Americans themselves had set the template of divorce from the Old World. Even as Anglo-America was, in so many ways, a continuation of Anglo Civilization, it also represented a break founded on the mythology of brave liberty-loving colonialists who had had just about enough of British tyranny and struggled for independence, a clear break from the Old Ways. Thus, every act of immigration was like a personal revolution, a choice made by the immigrant to break free of his homeland, reject his heritage, and start anew as a free 'American' with a host of new opportunities. (As most European nations were non-democratic and dominated by elite minority of aristocrats and oligarchs who'd already gobbled up most of the land and wealth, many European common-folk came to associate their own nations with tyranny and poverty. Their main concerns that molded their core consciousness were political and economic than tribal and patriotic. Patriotism in many cases was a hard sell because the elites themselves were more interested in their own wealth and privilege than the national good. Aristocratic legacy had the elites looking upon the masses as subjects than as national brethren, and in some ways, capitalism made things worse as the bourgeoisie were even more wealth-obsessed than the old aristocracy. Furthermore, as capitalism often favored Jews or foreign investors over national elites, it further fostered division between capital and workers. It's no wonder that so many working masses in Europe turned to socialism or emigration as the way out of dire conditions. It was either socialism at home by forcing the elites to share more with the people or capitalism in America where even a common man could own land or start a business as a citizen with rights. Either way, their main concern was materialist and personal than tribal/national. They were even willing to give up their own nation and culture for better material life and more personal freedom abroad. Also, in some ways, national consciousness paradoxically grew weaker just when national self-rule was coming to define Modern Europe. A people under foreign rule are likely to care more about their national identity. They hunger for national liberation like a hungry man dreams of bread and wine. When Greeks were under Turkish rule, they dreamed of national independence. Greeks in Greece and abroad did what they could to hasten the emergence of free Greece from Ottoman Tyranny. And many other Europeans shared similar hopes and dreams. But once they gained national independence throughout the 19th century and 20th century, they became less and less nationally conscious. Compare Irish national consciousness under British Imperialism compared and how it fared since independence. The fulfillment of the national dream made the Irish ever less concerned with national matters — for awhile, only the issue of Northern Ireland kept the Irish concerned about national identity. They came to take the existence of Ireland for granted because they no longer had to struggle for it. Yet, such a lax and lowered guard meant that Ireland became ever more infested with foreign influences of all kinds... and now the much deracinated Irish are just like deracinated cucky-wuck Britons in worshiping globo-homo, Diversity, degeneracy, and abortion as right of hedonism. Just like a satiated man no longer thinks of food, a nationally liberated people tend to think less of nationalism, and that means their nations can be slyly taken from them by globalists who lull them with hedonism and the neo-religion of PC that instills goy nationals with the notion that anything related to blood-and-soil is evil. Some people say Jews lack a sense of honor because they hadn't an aristocratic heritage, but one advantage of Jewishness was the emphasis on the Covenant and the unity of all Jews as equally precious in the eyes of God. In contrast, the aristocratic mindset of the goyim led to elites feeling as superiors and the masses feeling as inferiors. As elite/noble bloodlines were regarded as distinct from those of the masses, it led to a kind of intra-'racism' among the people of the same nation. It was bound to lead to distrust and resentment, which is perhaps why goy elites are more likely to cuck and collaborate with foreign/alien powers while goy masses are more likely to switch allegiances to the New Boss, like when German-Americans and Japanese-Americans sided with Anglo-America against their own nations of origin. Can anyone imagine Jewish-Americans siding with an America that turns anti-Israel or anti-Jewish? It was precisely because Jews understood America to be en Empire of Treason — people from all over the world becoming 'Americans' and supporting the US empire against nations of their own origin — that they made sure that Americanism = Zionism, thereby making it less likely that the American Empire will call upon 'good decent patriotic' Americans to support the War against Zion or Jewish Power. Indeed, in some ways, the rise of Marxism-Communism among Jews had to do with the fact that many intellectual and less fortunate Jews felt betrayed by rich bourgeois Jews, who soon got the message, which is why Jewish capitalists soon forged alliances with Jewish leftists. Jewish profiteers know they better take care of the Jewish would-be-prophets lest the latter turn on them with hellfire and brimstone. In the Coens movie HAIL, CAESAR!, the Jewish writers, the would-be-prophets, are bitter that they are insufficiently respected by Jewish Hollywood moguls and act as communist subversives, akin to heretical Jews who became the Early Christians. But over time, Jewish Money took good care of the Jewish Mind, and since then, the so-called Jewish Left expends most of its time and energy on supporting Jewish Power. Another reason why Jews are stronger in nationalism is they were later than Europeans to have a nation of their own, and their nation, Israel, is tiny and surrounded by hostile powers. One could argue that many Europeans weren't truly nationally independent until the fall of USSR, but even under Soviet rule, the borders of republics such as Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, and etc. were acknowledged as autonomous. If the point of Americanism was to turn everyone into an 'American', Sovietism was not about turning non-Russians into 'Russians' but allowing them to be autonomous in culture and territory to a large degree. Sovietism was about shared ideology, not shared identity, whereas Americanism was about erasure of Old World identities to take on the new identity as 'Americans'. Nations under the Iron Curtain, such as Poland and Hungary, were still recognized as separate entities with their own folks, governments, and national priorities. In contrast, there was no Jewish nation until the creation of Israel, and just about the entire Jewish Narrative of Zionism has been "Poor little Israel surrounded by hostile forces and struggling to survive". And the Holocaust Cult informs Jews that, "It may happen all over again, new hitlers are just around the corner, and so, Jews must think in terms of Jews, Jews, Jews and Never Again." Such sense of tribal vulnerability will do wonders for National Consciousness.)
As Anglo-Americans had set the template for this liberation/independence or treachery/treason — depending on how one looked at it — , ethnic white immigrants were far more likely to cut ties with their national origins and allegiances. Besides, humans are largely materialist and hedonistic creatures, and there was no doubt that the bountifulness of land and resources — and the managerial skills of Anglo-Americans and Germanic-Americans — meant far better living standards than in the Old World. One might say it was a form of bribery, but More Money has always been effective as enticement. The overall effect was like shared amnesia, and America became like 'Amnesirica'. Memory tends to divide. Amnesia tends to unite. This was especially true in Europe where various ethnic groups had bitter memories of the Other. Indeed, national passions were often founded on how WE were attacked by THEM or how WE beat THEM. To this day, Greeks and Turks have bitter feelings about one another due to historical memory. And Russians and Poles still regard each other in relation to the past, with both sides feeling wronged or wrongfully accused. If two guys often fought, their memory will keep them divided. But if we could wipe their memories clean, they have a far better chance of getting along. Americanism had that effect on the various white groups. Sure, some animosities did linger, and new ones developed in America, what with the Irish, Italians, Anglos, Poles, and other ethnic groups not always seeing eye to eye and contesting for the bigger slice of the pie. Still, as all of them adopted American-style English or 'Ameringlish' as their primary language, were brought up with Anglo-American Narrative as the national mythos, attended the same schools & played on the same playgrounds & baseball diamonds, and developed a self-image based on Popular Culture(all the more so with the advent of radio, cinema and television), they eventually became more-or-less One People. Also, there was the impact of the sexual melting pot, as so many whites married across ethnic lines. As Irish might marry Poles who might marry Italians and etc, it was Catholicism than ethnicity that came to matter most in their sense of who they were. But in the long run, Christianity as identity was bound to fail as it's a credo-religion than a ethnic one, like Hinduism or Judaism. The collective amnesia that defined America led to great things, something impossible in Europe with deep memories that were rich and meaningful but full of bitterness and distrust.
But if culture and civilization are about memory and heritage, then the American Experiment had a dark and tragic side. All that amnesia led to greater unity but also a certain generic blandness to Americanism that eventually came to be about consumerism, hedonism, libertine-ism, trend-ism, and fashion-ism. For too many people, Americanism came to mean stuffing yourself with turkey on Thanksgiving, setting off firecrackers on Fourth of July, and Black Friday madness to start off the holiday season. Anglo-Americans, in order to accommodate non-Anglo whites, came to reject too much of their own cultural and historical essence. Over time, Anglo-Americanism survived only as country club class snobbery among the elites, preening 'progressive' do-goodery among the educated, and moonshine-swilling hillbilly antics among the unwashed. Or, it was the Texan specialty of the deep-fried ice cream. As for non-Anglos, their effort at assimilation meant the loss of their pungent cultures of origin. In their admiration for Anglo-America, they chose to become ersatz Anglo/Americans and became valuable citizens of the nation. As the result, their identities with deep roots were almost instantly forgotten and cast away. Still, it could have been a happy story, more or less. Great gain at great loss but a gain nevertheless. But three factors destroyed the Dream of Amnesirica: Blacks, Jews, and Neo-Imperialism.
Two major groups in the US had legitimate gripes against Anglo-America. American Indians obviously because their lands were taken by Anglo-Americans. Still, as American Indians were too few in number and remained mostly on Reservations(and had a rather stolid countenance like Chief Broom in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST), they came to play an insignificant role in the American Conversation. In contrast, blacks constituted the largest racial minority. Unlike ethnic whites who arrived as free men and were provided with opportunities by Anglo-America, blacks were brought over as slaves. Sure, one could argue that blacks also gained a lot by coming to America. After all, they'd been jungle-jive savages in the Dark Continent. In certain respects, one could argue that blacks benefited the most by far from being brought to America even if they started out as slaves because they underwent an instant transition from primitive savagery to participation in the most advanced civilization. Even if ethnic immigrants hadn't come to America, they still would have had civilization in Old Europe, and indeed, living standards rapidly improved in Europe as well as in America at roughly the same time. In contrast, if blacks had been left in Africa, they would have been nothing but jungle-jivers chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums.
That said, blacks were brought over as slaves and made to pick too much cotton. And if they got 'uppity', they got whipped until they said their name is Toby than Kunta. Also, whites got into the habit of calling them 'niggers', which wasn't very nice. Besides, as blacks had been brought to the US before the Revolutionary War of Independence, they developed roots in America, something that couldn't be said for ethnic immigrants who arrived en masse in the late 19th century and early 20th century. And those roots filled blacks with bitterness, not unlike the kind of bitterness found among peoples of Europe in relation to other more powerful nations/peoples. More problematically, Anglo-American idiots brought over a race that happened to be stronger, wilder, and more aggressive. As a result, whites had to be extra-brutal at times to maintain order among blacks. It's like you have to assert greater authority if you're raising big wild animals than if you're raising dogs. Dogs will obey and listen. But wild animals tend to be defiant and erratic, and so the human master must go the extra step to teach them who is boss. As wilder blacks instinctively sensed that they could beat up the white boy and hump the white woman, they were more bound to act jiggity. White men sensed this as well, which is why they felt they had to lynch a black thug in an especially gruesome way on occasion to send a clear message to blacks not to mess around. If a cat scratches you, you can ignore it. But if a puma growls and acts threatening, you have to remind it who is boss because it can do real harm if it grows bolder. The combination of wild black nature, bitter black memory, and explosive black demographics(quite large and with higher birthrate than whites) threatened to undermine the American Project. Also, a nation isn't just about individuals but idols, the mytho-champions people look up to as the embodiment of the nation's glory. As sports came to dominate American Culture, the black takeover of sports threatened to undermine White American Identity and Pride. How could the US be an extension and even the greatest culmination of Western Civilization while having jigger-jiving blacks as its main champions, heroes, and idols? Blacks were winning the contest of idol-imperialism or idol-hegemony. In that sense, ethnic white immigration was a blessing as growing white numbers ensured that whites would remain the dominant majority in the foreseeable future.
Still, despite the Black Problem, blacks were good only at certain things. Apart from sports and music & dance, they weren't good for much else. And being generally less intelligent than whites, they had little chance of taking over the uppermost levers of power. In contrast, Jews had intelligence higher than most whites. Also, there was the matter of personality. Though Episcopalian Anglos were noted to have IQs equal to that of Jews, their personality was weaker than Jewish personality that was brazen, shameless, and obsessive in its passive/aggressive drive for more and more. If Anglos were adventurous, Jews were insatiable. When it came to power, Anglos liked to hunt the animal, Latins liked to cook the meat, and Jews liked to eat the food.
More importantly, Jews were one people who could not and did not take part in 'Amnesirica'. After all, Jews were nothing without memory, especially in exile as, without the cult of memory, they would forget who they were/are, possibly become Christian or Muslim, and just assimilate & fade into the rest of humanity. Jews kept their identity through compulsive resilience of memory. This meant a deep and rich appreciation of their history & heritage, which was admirable, but it also meant Jews had a long memory of grievances and hatreds, especially as the Jewish Narrative made the Goyim the Perennial Villain in all Jewish-Goy conflicts. So, Jews didn't come to America with a mere chip on their shoulder but the entire tree and all its roots. And yet, Jews understood the value of Amnesirica. While the goyim would lose their original core identities and grow weaker, Jews would keep their own and remain strong. Jews would urge increased amnesia on the goyim while clinging to their own memory. If goyim were to remember anything, it would be determined by Jews who would take over media and history departments. Just as Jews wrote ancient history to fit their narrative in the Torah, they would Torah-ize Western History by selecting, deleting, emphasizing, and/or marginalizing the past in accordance to "Is it good for Jews?" It's like Jewish psychoanalysts sought to gain control over their clients by interpretation of memory. In some cases, Jewish mind-doctors sought to plant certain memories while wiping clean others. It's like the technology of memory-wiping in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. Or consider how the corrupt cop manipulates the 'hero' in MEMENTO by messing with his faulty memory.
All of academia, media, and so much of technology are used by Jews to mess with our memory. Jews at BBC and other European Media are now working to convince whites that European History was filled with blacks and non-blacks. Mythic or historical Figures like Julius Caesar, Lancelot, and Achilles have been made black. In a way, Jews fear the idea of whiteness as a race because it is the element of race that binds Northern Europeans(who were later to come to civilization) with the glories of Southern Europe that built high civilization in ancient times in conflict and concert mostly with the Near East and North Africa. In ancient times, Greeks admired Persians and Egyptians far more than Northern Europeans who were deemed barbaric and backward. Romans felt much the same way. Even as Romans defeated Egyptians and the tribes of the Near East, they respected them as fellow-civilized folks. In contrast, they regarded the Germanic and Celtic folks as barbaric and backward. So, purely from a cultural and civilizational perspective, one could argue that the Ancient Greeks and Romans belong in the shared cultural sphere with Jews, Persians, Arabs, North Africans and the like. After all, Christianity developed as a fusion of Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Syrian cultural, philosophical, political, and spiritual forces/elements. Then, how did Northern Europe come to be associated with the glories of Greece and Rome? Why did Greco-Roman classical civilization come to be grouped with Northern Europeans, who played hardly any role in its birth and development. Greeks, for instance, borrowed ideas from Egyptians, Persians, and Phoenicians but hardly any from Europeans-to-the-North who were mainly captured and used as slaves.
The reasons are twofold. First, for whatever reason or circumstance, the achievements of the Greeks and Romans came to flow more upward than southward or eastward. Possibly, the Egyptians and Persians were less enamored of Greco-Roman arts and culture because they had illustrious and proud cultural capital of their own. After all, Egyptians and Persians built awesome monuments and produced great art works long before Greeks built their first cities. In contrast, Northern Europeans lacked a notable civilization or any kind of civilization at all, and they were understandably impressed by the achievements of Classical Antiquity of the Greco-Roman World. The relative cultural vacuum of Northern Europeans led to the rapid spread of Greco-Roman arts and designs in their world. Also, especially with the spread of Islam that came to dominate North Africa and the Near East, Christianity became, for a long stretch in history, essentially a European religion. But there was also the factor of Race. While one could argue that the Greeks and even certain Romans were as close to many peoples of the Near East as to the Northern Europeans — there are plenty of people in Turkey, Syria, and Iran who resemble Greeks and Southern Italians — , the art works of the Greeks and Romans clearly show that they were essentially European in feature. Even though there are many peoples in North Africa and the Near East who look European(and are indeed genetically close to Europeans), those parts of the world became more racially mixed with non-Europeans over the centuries. On those grounds, one could make a racial case that, even though Ancient Greeks and Romans had more cultural interaction with Semites and Hamitic peoples of Near East and North Africa, they were nevertheless racially closer to Northern and Eastern Europeans. It's like Japan led the way in opening to the West and, for awhile, leaned more to the West in culture and ideas in the 20th century, but they are racially closer to Chinese and Mongols than to Germans and English. To the extent that Greek and Roman genius wasn't merely a matter of borrowing from non-white folks but igniting a unique spark within the European soul(that transformed foreign influences into uniquely European expressions), one could argue that the achievements of the Greeks and Romans did represent, at least for a time, the particularity of the European soul. And perhaps one reason why the Greco-Roman legacy was so appealing to other Europeans was it struck a chord with their deeper nature. Besides, any European was more likely to identify with figures in Greek and Roman sculptures than non-Europeans who might admire the craft and creativity but not feel as one with the figures. Likewise, when Europeans wondered at the great sculptures and temples of India and Cambodia, they were filled with admiration but knew that the stone figures were representatives of other races. Europeans could admire the particularity of genius but couldn't claim it. In contrast, any white person who looks at an ancient Greek or Roman statue feels a sense of identification.
Oddly enough, because Europeans became Christians and drew inspiration from the Bible, they applied classical European features to the Semitic figures of Jewish history and tradition. Along with paintings of Jesus, the Neo-Classical sculptures of figures like Moses and David created the impression of Jews as part of the white race. In a way, Jews were flattered(not least because they prefer 'Aryan' looks over Semitic ones), but in another way, they were offended because European aesthetics, especially beginning with the Renaissance, began the process of 'whitening' non-white figures. In a way, it was like what Jews are doing to European History nowadays by having blacks and other non-whites play white roles in TV shows and movies commemorating the past. For Jews, it's sweet revenge. Europeans 'aryanized' Jesus and other Jewish figures, and now Jews return the favor by Africanizing not only the future of Europe but its past as well. Henceforth, BBC and other European TV channels are committed to making historical programs that feature blacks and non-whites as crucial players in past European History.
Another reason for the failure of Amnesirican Experiment was the spirit of imperialism that never went away. Despite the American mythology of resisting British Imperialism to create a Republic committed to justice and freedom, America exists only because of the British Empire. Also, white Americans couldn't resist gobbling up more and more land to the West all the way up to the Pacific Ocean and taking a huge chunk of Mexico. US also tried to take Canada, but the War of 1812 ended in stalemate. Still, over time, Canada essentially became the front yard of America, just as Latin America became its back yard. Now, given the vastness of America and its riches, one might think Anglo-Americans and other white Americans would have been satisfied. One might think they would have been grateful for having more than enough to live in a safe, secure, and bountiful nation, especially with the addition of Alaska bought at a pittance from the stupid Russians. But the very spirit that made America possible in the first place never faded away. This restless drive made the US dominate Latin America. Then, it made the US seek new imperial possession across the Pacific in Asia. This led to war with Japan, which the US won, making it the premier naval power in all of the Pacific. The departure of European imperialists also created a vacuum for America to fill, especially as communism engulfed China. Smaller Asian nations, fearing the communist behemoth, welcomed US imperialists as protectors. Also, American Imperialism was more palatable to the locals as Americans were more open, doled out more money, and were more generous with an economic policy that allowed both sides to profit, with the caveat that Asian nations in the empire take their political orders from the US. So, Japan and Singapore could become rich, but they pretty much surrendered political sovereignty to the US and became military dependents of the empire.
This state of affairs might have been stable for the foreseeable future except the fact that the US ended up with a new boss. The US-Asian relations were established when the US was essentially an Anglo-American-dominated White Christian nation. But the mutual understanding and contract between the US and Asia are being undone and redefined in a radical way because Jews are the new elites of the US. Jews seek to alter the premise of the old understanding/contract between the US and Asia. The old contract was between majority power and majority power. For instance, Anglo-American rulers and elites regarded themselves as representatives of White Christian majority America, and they had no problem with, say, Japan being a Japanese-majority nation ruled by Japanese elites. White rulers representing the white majority came to terms with yellow rulers representing yellow majorities. But Jews hate the idea of goy majority power in the US. They constitute the minority-elite, and their design for America is More Diversity via Mass Immigration-invasion so that there shall no longer be a majority in the US to challenge the minority-supremacism of Jews. In time, every racial and ethnic group will be a minority, and Jews plan on ruling over all of them via divide-and-rule. As Jews have designs on EU as well, they've pushed Americanization or, more precisely, Amnesiricanization on that part of the world. Jews want the borders among European nations to be eroded, followed by fading of borders between Europe and the Middle East & Africa. It is then no wonder that Jews are pushing feminism, minority-elitist globo-homo craze, and mass immigration on the East as well. If the old white majority elites had no problems with Japan as a Japanese-majority nation, Jewish globalist minority elites are pushing Diversity on Japan. And of course, Jews push globo-homo stuff because vain homos in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea represent sexual minorities who are more than willing to collaborate with a foreign power for their own self-aggrandizement. Same goes for US and Europe. When US was ruled by white majority elites, they had no problem with Germany being a majority German nation governed by German elites, or with UK being British and ruled by white majority elites for white majority masses. But as Jews became the masters of the US, the center of the West, the new decree to all European nations has been that they must favor and prioritize the minority — Jews, homos, and non-white immigrants — over the native white majority.
Indeed, the new core morality of whites is to praise, protect, and promote Jews, homos, and Diversity over whites who are increasingly associated with 'racism' and 'Nazism'. With the world being turned upside down as the result of dictates and decrees of an ever-imperialist US, the quasi-utopian dream of Amnesirica is no more. Instead, there is Empirica. If not for the Jewish factor and the restless ur-imperialist element, it's possible that Amnesirica could have been content with itself as a safe and secure republic that has more than enough to sustain itself in peaceful relations with the rest of the world. A land of lotus-eaters lacking in a deep sense of roots and origins but peaceful and prosperous. Imagine a Jew-free America where both Anglo-Americans and Ethno-Americans agreed to be nice, generic, and bland White People. But Jews did arrive, and they were not going to become fellow lotus-eaters. They were going to remain tribal carnivores or leeches and exploit the dissipation of identity and memory among goy whites. While whites were opting for either individual will or collective will, Jews were resolved to keep with Tribal Will.
In a way, it's understandable why Jews weren't willing to forget. Even as they found better and safer lives in the US for themselves, they felt anxious about Jews in other parts of the world. An Italian in America didn't worry about Italians in Italy. After all, Italians were masters in their own nation at least. Likewise, there was no need for Swedish Americans to worry about Swedes in Sweden. But Jews were minorities in all of Europe, and in some nations, especially those in the East, there were explosions of violence against Jews. Even in peacetime, the fact that Jews were minorities held in suspicion and even hostility by European populations made American Jews more eager to press upon the US to DO SOMETHING about world affairs to make it safer for Jews. Back then, many Jews were mainly worried about the well-being of fellow Jews, and this concern was understandable as there were hardly any taboos against 'antisemitism' back then. Today, as masters of the US and EU, Jews make the US play a more aggressive role as the mega-instrument of Jewish supremacist power. Hundred years ago, Jews were pleading with the US to "protect more Jews". Today, Jews are pressing upon the US to "kill more 'enemies of Zion'" wherever they exist in the world. And who are these 'enemies'? Any nation or any people that dare to defy the Jew World Order.
Whatever one thinks of Jews, they are animated by Tribal Will. It is this Will that makes Jews win. Of course, Jews play dirty, fast and loose with the rules. But even if Jews played it absolutely fairly, they would still win against a people without the tribal will. As David Duke said in the video "How Zionists Divide and Conquer", athletes who play as a team will beat athletes who play as individuals. Even if those with team spirit and those without it play totally in accordance to the rules and don't commit a single foul, the former will defeat the latter. If everyone on a basketball team prioritizes his own scoring at the expense of teamwork, his side will lose to the side with team spirit. For most of American history, Anglo-Americans had a kind of tribal will. As Christians with universalist ethos, individualists & freedom-lovers, and social reformers, they didn't have a sense of identity, history, and unity as powerful as those of the Jews, but they nevertheless operated on the basis of sensible race-ism that bound the people together. Consider how, after the Civil War, most whites in the North understood that they were closer to White Southerners than to blacks. Even Abraham Lincoln who emancipated the black slaves felt far more camaraderie with southern whites than with the blacks.
At the crossroads of American History, Anglo-Americans(who set the template for the rest of the white race) had to choose tribal race-ism over rules-based-order or rules-based-order over race-ism. It wasn't a matter of either/or but one-over-the-other. Anglo-Americans could have both race-ism and rules-based-order, and it was really a matter of which one took precedence over the other. It's like one can be for both peace and war. The choice is not between pacifism(that rejects all wars) and warmongering(that itches for just about any war). Rather, the question is which should have precedence. Faced with conflict, should one opt for peaceful means before they are exhausted and war becomes inevitable OR should one go for immediate aggression on the belief that quick victory(if possible) is the best way for peace? At the crossroads of American History, Anglo-Americans had to choose between making the rules ultimately serve a proud White America or making White America serve the universality of rules, even if it may well endanger the future of White America.
Anglo-Americans opted for a rule-based-order, and again, this might have worked if the US had no Jews(and better yet also no blacks) and was made up only of Anglo-Americans and Ethno-goy-Americans. Anglo-Americans, with their power and success, could have served as the model for Ethno-Americans who would have adopted Anglo-American values and principles. And they all could have gotten along in a rule-based system. But there were Jews and blacks. Without race-ism to limit the cold logic of rules, blacks were bound to beat up whites in sports and gain dominance. Thus, black success in sports came to represent a new kind of racial supremacism. The message was 'blacks kick white ass, so whites should kiss black ass'. The rejection of white racial domination only led to black racial domination as national idols.
And of course, Jews weren't willing to surrender and submit to the rule-based-order but to exploit it for all it was worth to push their own tribal agenda. They could do this because they forged for themselves the Holocaust Moral Pass that gave them license of racial 'exceptionality' and unity that was denied to other white groups. So, if whites chose the rule-based-order and decided to operate as individuals in accordance to meritocracy and rule of law — 'may the best man win' — , Jews were hellbent on playing as a team, like the mafia.
Anglo-American elites became most interested in the role of referee. They were most committed to calling foul on those who didn't play by the rules. They became less interested in the game of winning than in making sure that all sides, including their own, played by the rules. And perhaps, such a strict rule-based-order might not have been so bad for whites who are generally among the most talented people in the world. But referees don't have the ultimate power. They can be fired. They can be pressured to favor one team over the other. They can be corrupted with bribes. They can be blackmailed. Also, there was no guarantee that Constitution-loving Anglo-Americans will always preside and dominate as referees. Certain Anglo-Americans, with the virtue-vanity of 'white guilt', felt it was only right to call foul on whites while letting blacks easy via programs like Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact. Later, more and more Jews took over as referees in media, courts, & law firms, and these verminous Jews were brazen in their bias and prejudice in favor of Jewish Power(and of course Israel). If Jews really care about the Constitution and Rule of Law, why are they so committed to using their firepower to shut down BDS and justice for Palestinians? Why don't they speak up against US foreign policy that rewards Israel with countless billions in aid even though Israel has hundreds of illegal nukes while punishing Iran with ruthless sanctions even though Iran has no nukes? Anglo-Americans came to think in terms of 'follow the rules' whereas Jews thought in terms of 'WE must rule'. Anglo-Americans came to prioritize conscience whereas Jews were all about conviction. But in the end, even conscience bends under the weight of conviction. Conscience reacts to abuse of power whereas conviction reaches for more power. In the end, those with more power decide who are to be chosen as politicians, appointed as judges, hired as lawyers, or promoted as academics & journalists who get to serve as our eyes and ears. It's like most true artists lose out to the often trashy and vulgar entertainment industry that makes most money and gets to decide what most people see and hear. True conscience loses out to Official Conscience that isn't real conscience but merely the pseudo-moralistic voice or megaphone of the Power. Take the New York Times that yammers endlessly about right-and-wrong but mostly offers moral cover to Jewish supremacist rulers of the US(and by extension the World). Would the NYT or institutions like Harvard hire truly independent minds that might speak truth to power? Whatever one thinks of Chris Hedges — I don't much like him — , he is more motivated by conscience than most journalists are, and guess what? When his reporting became too inconvenient to Jews who control MSM, he was fired in favor of malleable hacks who spout what the Power wants them to say. Thus, genuine conscience loses out to faux-conscience. In the end, when push comes to shove, those who obsess about the rules of the game lose to those who are win the game to rule.
