"Jewish Leftist" is a Misnomer — Jewish Power is Ultra-Rightist, Supremacist, and Imperialist — How Jewish Power Re-Coded the West from Pro-White to Anti-White and the Dire Consequences

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/07/my-paper-on-jewish-influence-blows-up/

If Jews call MacDonald a ‘white supremacist’, why doesn’t he react in kind and call them ‘Jewish Supremacist’ like David Duke does? Jews are clearly tribal-supremacist. Just ask the Palestinians.

Also, can we just drop the habit of calling these Jews ‘leftists’ or ‘radicals’? If so-called Jewish ‘leftists’ have been profoundly Jewish and put Jewishness uber alles, they should be regarded as essentially rightist or even ultra-rightist. Calling them ‘leftist’ because they held some leftist views or ideas in the past(or pretend to in the present) would be like arguing National Socialism was LEFTIST because of the ‘socialism’. (Of course, some idiots make that very case, though I think it's acceptable to designate fascism as left-right, which is what works best; for proof, look to Jewish Power that combines leftism and rightism than sets them against one another.)

Now, were there genuine Jewish leftists? Yes, and many of them sincerely abandoned Jewishness and joined with humanity. Many Soviet Jews just race-mixed with goyim and became part of Russian folks. And over history, some Jews became Muslims or Christians.

But plenty of Jews affected leftist outlooks as a means to weaken goy racial identity. Stanley Kauffmann the famous theater/film critic said he gravitated toward communism in the 30s because, during the Great Depression, the future seemed headed to either communism and fascism. For Jews, communism seemed the safer bet even if not ideal, not least because Jews played a prominent role in the Soviet Union whereas fascism became associated with Antisemitism with the rise of National Socialism — Italian Fascism in its original incarnation wasn't anti-Jewish.

Jews rule the West, and their power needs to be exposed. Jews hide the power by pretending to be ‘leftist’, and depressingly, so many rightists and white advocates actually do Jews a favor by using that label, thus creating the impression that people like George Soros, Chuck Schumer, and Hollywood bigshots are ‘leftist’.

No, Jews are ultra-rightist imperialists, and their so-called ‘alliances’ are just a means to fool, manipulate, and exploit goyim. Just like the British Empire and French Empire used one set of subjects against others, Jews do the same. British used Hindus in Africa, French used African troops in Vietnam. Likewise, Jews use White Christian Soldiers to invade Muslim lands but also use BLM thugs to attack and intimidate whites. For sure, Jews push Diversity because it weakens goyim while strengthening themselves. Just like the British Empire exploited divisions in India, not least between Hindus and Muslims, to maintain its dominance, Jews use Diversity the same way. More divisions among goyim means Jews get to toy with them. Diversity is undermining of ideology, and Jews want it that way because their top priority is power, not principles. By playing divide-and-rule, Jews can override any ideological concern.

We come closer to the truth ONLY IF we call most Jews what they really are: ultra-right Jewish supremacists in ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ clothing. Jews are for ‘equity’? ROTFL.
That must be why Merrick Garland, who calls white Trump voters ‘terrorists’, is all about equal justice for Israeli Jews and Palestinians – NOT! No, Jewish attitude toward whites is akin to their attitude toward Palestinians. Both are seen as subject peoples, and if they resist, they are labeled as ‘terrorists’.

Would true leftists do such a thing? Leftism has a lot of faults, but its one saving grace is universal values and equal justice. There is NOTHING in current Jewish Power that is for equal dignity and respect for all of humanity. The likes of Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are ultra-rightist Jews who hide behind ‘progressive’ facades. And Jews use BLM just like British Empire used foreign troops to subjugate people in the colonies.

In the massacre scene in GANDHI, those soldiers firing at the crowd of protesters are not local Hindus. Today, Jewish Power uses white soldiers in similar manner to destroy the Middle East, and Jews bring in tons of immigrant-invaders as replacist hordes against whites.

The real fight isn’t between the White Right and the Jewish Left. WE NEED TO STOP USING THAT TERM, 'Jewish Leftist'. The real battle is between white(or goy) right vs Jewish ultra-right. White Right, most of it anyway, is nationalist and wants white homelands for whites and, furthermore, respects the national rights of other peoples, i.e. let nonwhites defend their own homelands. Most white rightists will side with nonwhite nationalists against Western aggression. Unlike most Jews who support all manifestations of Jewish Power and Jewish hegemonism over all the goy world, the white right has a very limited view of white power, i.e. it should be dominant only in white lands, and let other peoples determine their own destinies. Thus, white right is anti-ultra-rightist.

Ultra-rightism is supremacist, predicated on the notion of "We are so superior that we have some divine right to rule over all of yous", and currently it is Jewish Power that fits this mold. Jews not only impugn white identity and white territoriality but those of others as well. Look what Jewish Power has done to Libya, Syria, Iraq, and etc. Their lands have been smashed and their peoples have been pushed into the West that's been guilt-baited into taking in 'refugees' created by Wars for Israel. Consider how Jewish Power compels all Americans to sanction Iran while also forcing them to send their taxes to Israel, a nation with illegal nukes that continues to occupy Palestinian territories. And notice how BDS is suppressed all over the US. Even the Constitutional right to boycott Israel is denied to Americans. So much for Jewish leftism and liberalism!

White Right wants whites living peacefully in their own lands and Arabs/Muslims living peacefully in their own lands. Jewish Ultra-Right wants whites to be replaced in their own lands and for white cucks to fight Wars for Israel to destroy any nation or people hated by Jews/Israel.

Jewish morality is garbage. So, Jews will say Russia is aggressing in Ukraine when it was Jews who engineered a coup in Ukraine and created the crisis in the first place. Jews will say there is ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang as a human rights issue, but NO ONE better say anything about the Zionist ‘genocide’ of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. One thing for sure, China tries to do more for Uighurs than Israel for Palestinians.

Using ‘Jewish’ and ‘Left’ together is music to Jewish ears. Jewish Power loves to hear that word-melody because it lends the false impression that Jewish Power is ‘progressive’ and at odds with ‘far right white supremacism’.
What Jews fear most is being outed as ULTRA-RIGHTIST IMPERIALIST SUPREMACISTS. Instead of calling Jewish Power ‘leftist’, call it ‘left-masked’ or ‘left-larping’. It’s a con-game, like what goes on in David Mamet’s films.

There were true Jewish leftists in the past, but most of them either melded into goy society through assimilation or intermarriage, returned to tribalism via Zionism, or came to love capitalism out of Jewish Pride(as it was capitalism that made Jews the masters of the world).

Even now, there are genuine Jewish leftists like Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate. Though misguided on many issues, they seem principled and sincere. But such Jews have zero power.

Jewish Power in the Democratic Party and GOP is totally ultra-right imperialist supremacist.
So, how about we stop using the ‘left’ label to describe Jewish Power?

I don’t care if Stephen Gould grew up sitting on the laps of his Marxist father. He was a Jewish supremacist through and through from the looks of it. His ‘anti-racism’ was just obfuscation to misdirect people from the reasons for Jewish Power, ie. there is a genetic factor. And the same goes for Richard Lewontin as well.

But as long as Jewish Power goes on being called ‘leftist’, it will go on humming along with the support of all those idiot 'progressive' white cucks.

Imagine you’re a Satanist who pretends to be a Christian to serve the Dark Lord, but your enemies keep referring to you as a ‘Christian’. Wouldn't you just love it?

It can begin with a new policy at Occidental Observer. No more calling Jewish Power ‘leftist’. Start calling Jewish Power ultra-rightist, imperialist, and supremacist. That will give ADL panic attacks. Nothing will freak out Jewish Supremacists like being labeled as FAR-RIGHT, thereby undermining the pretense of their uniting humanity against 'racism' or 'white supremacism'.

What distinguished Europe, Canada, and Australia from the US was they were far more white, indeed almost entirely so. This was once a point of pride, especially because, for all their own problems, they didn't have the debilitating Race Problem of the US.

But Jews took over the US and made 'white' a dirty word. As the US was the premier power over the Western World, its ideas influenced all others. And because blacks gained stardom as athletes and singers in the US, the rest of the West eyed the US with envy and wanted cool/badass blacks of their own. Finally, as they were under the economic and military domination of American power, they looked to the black issue as the one chance with which to gain moral upper-hand over Americans, i.e. US may be great in many things but is tainted with the sin of SLAVERY and 'racism' against blacks. So, Canada, Europe, and Australia would show the world how decent they are by welcoming blacks and treating them so nice... unlike those gun-toting, lynch-mobbing, and bigoted redneck Americans. But of course, they are ending up with the SAME PROBLEMS because, contrary to the PC narrative, the Black Problem in the US isn't primarily due to past 'racism' and mistreatment of blacks but to BAMMAMA or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive(due to evolution). Europe can welcome tons of black Africans with open arms and smiley faces, but the end-result will be pretty much like Detroit and Baltimore.

But as long as Jews control media, academia, and the deep state in the West(and as long as they find the black whip effective as a means to guilt-bait whites into subservience), the false narrative will carry on. In the long run, it will destroy not only the US but the West. As the European Continent is right above Africa teeming with crazy Negroes, it may go bad BEFORE the US and Canada. This is the most horrible Mass Psychosis Formation to ever hit the West.

Ideas and idolatry do matter in that they have the power to reprogram a civilization. It's like the re-coding of the Roman Empire from Pagan to Christian led to profound changes: It went from mercilessly hunting down Christians to smashing Pagan Temples and forcing everyone to worship Jesus. Change the code, and the ship turns around and goes in the other direction. Consider Russia. Once it was re-coded as Marxist, the very people who used to worship God and Jesus were blowing up churches and turning monasteries into barns. Code-changing is fundamental because the New Idea/Idol is internalized by the masses, most of whom are incapable of thinking for themselves. The destruction of pagan temples in Rome and the destruction of churches in Bolshevik Russia weren't the doings of few enforcers. Indeed, they couldn't have been carried out if the masses still clung to the old gods. Rather, the iconoclasms were mass endeavors in which many took part because their minds had been re-coded to reject old gods and accept new ones. Likewise, there is mass support for the defacing and dismantling of Confederate statues and monuments. In the past, white Southerners would have reacted angrily and taken violent actions but, having been re-coded by Jewish-and-cuck-controlled media and academia, most white Southerners either support the removal or cravenly hunker down lest they be labeled as 'racist' if they were to protest.

The West's turn from pro-whiteness to anti-whiteness has led to profound changes. Once Jews coded anti-whiteness as the New Idea and coded Diversity(especially Blackness) as the New Idolatry, white civilization went from promoting white pride and defending white lands to cursing white identity and welcoming the Great Replacement. The West went from awesome race-ism to pathetic replacism.

America always had serious race problems because of the black issue, but it was still whiter than Latin America, and this used to be a matter of pride, i.e. North America is more united, cohesive, and productive because it is solidly majority white whereas white-minority Latin America is mired in division, distrust, and instability because of its diversity.
When awesome race-ism was coded into the American Way, white Americans took pride in their race-based superiority over Latin American countries, i.e. US was better off because it was whiter than Central and South America.
But once the coding was changed, so many white Americans became so eager to turn the US into just another Latin-America-like country, and California is supposed to be template for the rest of America: Jewish oligarchs and their white/Asian cuck collaborators ruling over brown peons, with the once prominent white middle class squeezed into irrelevance. Of course, Jewish media mavens will blame all problems on 'white supremacism' while white dummies or whummies will continue to sing hosannas about 'Muh Israel'. Things are even worse. Not only has 'Western Values' been re-coded but Western Historiography has been re-colored, where it's now commonplace for TV shows and movies to cast blacks in the roles of white historical figures.

Letting Jews re-code the West was a grave mistake, indeed a crime. There is no hope for the West unless re-coded to free itself from Jewish Supremacism. It's no wonder Jewish Power hates Russia and Hungary that rejects Globo-Homo-BLM regimen and have re-coded themselves along Nationalist and Christian Lines.

MY COVID DICTIONARY - Brother Nathanel

Kathryn Paige Harden, the authoress of "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality", is a Stupid Dirty Lying Whore

Harden's Folly by Steve Sailer - https://www.takimag.com/article/hardens-folly/

This Kathryn Paige Harden is a real Tarden. Is she really this stupid or just prone to mendacity in an academic culture that prides itself on free inquiry all the while banishing the slightest hint of heterodoxy? Harden tries so hard to prove it's all about the science while pandering to official dogma with mantra-like incantations about race not being real.

All this suggests US and West in general are a theocracy. To deviate from officialdom, you must try to fool the authorities(and even yourself) that your heresy is not only in tune with but in service to dogma. Harden is like a biologist arguing before the Church that evolutionary theory, far from disproving Creationism, confirms it. The problem isn't so much fooling the others — as one must lie sometimes to 'survive' — as fooling oneself, and Harden seems high on her own supply. Perhaps her formative years under PC made her believe in the official nonsense even as her studies indicate otherwise. Kind of similar to some Chinese wishing to believe their much capitalized economy is an extension of Maoism when its model is closer to Singapore. Her book ought to be called Genetic Hide-and-Seek as that's the game she plays(and in which she can't even find herself). Or the Genetic Shell Game.

Steve Sailer: "elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism"

But is the Kendi Man really about denialism? His only interest seems to be blackity-black, and the likes of him never complain about black over-representation and over-achievement in certain fields, especially athletics. So, to the Kendi Man, it's not about science or genetics but "We blacks deserve everything". It's not about egalitarianism but privilegism by other means, i.e. blacks are owed rewards even when they aren't deserving. Of course, the Kendi Man is just clever enough(or stupid enough, but how can one tell the difference these days?) to drudge up stuff about slavery and Jim Crow as such dominate the current narrative. Mentioning those precludes the need for any rational debate. It's like people used to quote verses from the Bible for instant holy-than-thou points. Kendi's shtick is, "I'm holy because the Narrative favors black magic, so pay me."

Saying the Kendi Man is for egalitarianism is giving him too much credit as idealist or person of principle, however misguided. In truth, he is an arch-tribalist who, if science proved blacks are smarter, would be most welcoming of the finding... along with all the 'woke' idiots whose real religion is black-worship than racial equality. Their fixation on 'not enough black quarterbacks' but never on 'not enough non-black running backs' gives the game away. Inequality in favor of blacks is never a problem. Jewishness is similarly an object of cult reverence. There can never be enough Jews in any department, but when the Jewish share of Princeton students dipped to 10%(still disproportionate given Jews are 2% of US population), that was a huge scandal. The 'injustice' had to be corrected, and Princeton dutifully complied.

Harden: "When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of 'forbidden knowledge'…"

Harden or Tarden is absolutely the worst because she's doubly dishonest. The race-realists are honest about race and racial differences. The anti-genetic ideologues are, at the very least, honest in their anxiety about the implications of genetic science that can overturn the very foundation of post-WWII consensus. Political Correctness isn't honest about the science but honest in its fear of the science, just like the orangutan patriarch Dr. Zaius in THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't honest about facts but honest in his fears. In contrast, Harden pretends the science is good for Political Correctness. She's either a devious player of 4D chess(which I doubt) or a smart person made stupid by a sickly blend of dishonesty and dogmatism, dime-a-dozen in media and academia.

Steve Sailer: "But, no matter how people differ genetically... we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry."

This is doable on the national but not the global scale. Every nation has its share of smarties, middlies, and dummies. All modern systems have progressive taxation and other means to help out the dummies. This is manageable within the national setting, especially in smaller and homogeneous nations. But on a global scale, it's like the Aesop's tale of the dog losing its bone to snatch the seemingly bigger bone reflected in the water. In trying to save the world, the nation will be neglected and fall to pieces. And in the end, the world won't be saved either as it's too big to be saved by any single nation or civilization. Besides, how is a nation supposed to take care of its dummies when it keeps on taking in more people, many of them dummies from all around the world? Perhaps, some of the immigrants will work hard and pay taxes and produce more wealth to take care of the native dummies. But then, the dummies will be further relegated to loser status as there are more competitors in their midst. Worse, what if many of the immigrants are dummies themselves? Sweden used to have a pretty decent system for taking care of its dummies, but the social safety net has frayed because Sweden chose to save Africa and Afghanistan.

Now, it's true that the US has been somewhat different. In most European nations(in the past at least), most of the poor and the dumb were ethnically same as the middle and rich. But in the US, many of the poor have been blacks; worse, blacks haven't been merely poor but prone to criminality and other pathologies, made worse by the fact that they are more muscular and aggressive than whites, which is why so many whites are scared-half-to-death of blacks. Especially following the Civil Rights Movement, black behavior, fueled by rambunctious black pride, has been so unruly that many communities figured they would do better with immigrants than with blacks, a running theme in David Cole's columns. Los Angeles with so many Mexicans may not be paradise but it sure ain't Detroit or Baltimore either.
All these 'progressives' like Harden must decide if they're more about loyalty to the Democratic Party(that gains from mass immigration) or concern for blacks. The dirty secret is the so-called 'progressives' elites want mass-immigration because newcomers are useful buffers between themselves and blacks.
Of course, the problem with blacks is that, even minus immigrant competitors, too many fall through the cracks either due to lower IQ or lack of character(as much of black esteem is about out-hustling others than playing it straight — even the attitude of the smart guy in COOLEY HIGH is, "I can lie and steal too good not to survive").
Also, while many blacks are hostile to more immigration(as they see the newcomers as usurpers and competitors), they identify so closely with the Democratic Party that they favor anything to its advantage. There's kneejerk sense among blacks that what is good for the Democratic Party is good for black people, just like many white conservatives believe GOP is implicitly about white interests. Of course, while a party can boast of its concern for blacks(and Jews and homos), it's taboo for any party or political figure to show any interest that pertains to whites as a group.
But the pro-mass-immigration stance of both parties seem hellbent on replacing both historical blacks and historical whites of America. As Jews control America, it's mainly in their interests. Even as Jews flatter blacks to use against whites, Jews know blacks are the main destroyers of cities where Jewish Power is concentrated. So, Jews want more docile immigrants to replace blacks in urban areas. And Jews want non-white immigrants to replace the historical white Christian America because more diversity among goyim means Jews can play divide-and-rule over them.
With Trump at the helm, it seemed just barely possible for blacks and whites to unite on anti-immigration position. But once Jews engineered the 2020 BLM riots by encouragin the worst tendencies among blacks, the black-white anti-immigration coalition seems dead.
Even MAGA people, after the black riots, would prefer immigrants over blacks who ruin cities. And as immigrants tipped the South to Democratic control which led to the toppling of Confederate monuments, blacks are okay with mass immigration too. Blacks alone couldn’t take the south, but blacks plus immigrants are turning the entire South to the Democratic Party. Same happened in the Midwest. They were mostly Republican, but the combination of white globalists, blacks, and immigrants tipped them Democratic.

The silly whore cannot even decide on her stupid hair color.

As the South fills up with more immigrants, Democrats are gaining over Republicans, and blacks welcome the transformation. But won't blacks face more competition? Or, are black elites unconcerned with the black masses and care only about their own privileges by way of Democrat dominance? Or, do blacks regard non-blacks, white and non-white, as just more people to leech off and suck dry? As blacks have lagged in generating their own wealth, much of their 'economy' depends on milking what others create. It's the same in Africa. Hindus and Chinese are let in to build stuff. Black elites get their cut in the form of bribes and contracts(where non-blacks actually do most of the work). And the unwashed blacks get theirs on occasion through massive looting when riots break out.

Harden and her ilk confuse 'palliative' with 'egalitarian' or 'equitarian'(if such term exists). At most, a free society, even at its most social-democratic-leaning, can be 'palliatarian'(or 'palliational') but never truly 'egalitarian'. If parents have two children and one is big and strong while the other is weak and wobbly, the latter can be provided with palliative care so that he can, at the very least, walk and function in life. But there is No Way he's going to be a high school track star or football player. If a parent has a kid who is very bright and another who is retarded, palliative attention can help out the dummy kid, but he's never going to be a smart kid, let alone a genius. And of course, everyone knows this, but people love to pontificate about 'equity' or 'egalitarian' to either feel good, virtue-signal, or conceal their obsession with elitism. Kamala Harris will yap about 'equity' but has been a whore to the rich, smart, and powerful all her life. Nice cover. That so many conservatives attack the likes of her as 'leftist' means they fell for the trap. She is a whore to the rich and powerful but accused of being 'leftist'(ROTFL), which means her cover has worked.

Harden pretends she's saying something original when the modern order has long accepted the need for social safety nets and palliative measures for the poor, the sick, the old, and etc. Social Security for the old provides a measure of stability, but it's hardly egalitarian. If Social Security made old people equal in health and ability, they would be re-entering the work force. It's precisely because age wears down one's abilities that palliative means are provided for the retired. Same goes for the less intelligent in society. They will never succeed by mainstream standards(unless they win the lottery, the real kind), but we don't want them starving, so they are provided with aid or trained for less demanding jobs.

It is so tiresome to hear proposals for more programs and more funding when so much money has been wasted, is being wasted, and will be wasted on expensive public education for countless blacks, among others, who hardly respond to scholastic overtures. It's like arguing a fat person should be fed more food.

If honest, Harden will admit the US has pretty much given up on a large sector of the black population. All this talk of 'equity' and the pampering of the black elite(as trophies) are really to pretend otherwise. By always pretending to be doing SOMETHING, nothing really has to be done, except by symbolic measures like erecting George Floyd statues and teaching 'woke' catechisms to school children. Indeed, whole swaths of the black population aren't even deemed fit for manual labor, much of which has gone to brown people from south of the border. PC is about talking one way while walking the other way.

Harden: "The fact that income, educational attainment, subjective well-being, psychiatric disease, neighborhood advantage, cognitive test performance, executive function, grit, motivation, and curiosity are all heritable... blah blah"

What really matters is this. While non-genetic factors matter, they are overwhelmed by genetic factors when (1) genetic differences are significant and (2) there is sufficient freedom for most people. If society allows women to play sports but not the men, women will dominate the games even though men are genetically more athletic. But once men are allowed to compete, they will trounce the women(even if women are afforded some slight advantages by society).

PC operates on a fallacy that, because some groups were disadvantaged as a result of socially sanctioned discrimination in the past, the removal of discrimination will result in equality. But did meritocracy in sports lead to equality between blacks and whites? Did Jewish Emancipation lead to equality between Jews and Christians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Inequality can be the result of social policy but can also result from the free reign of genetic competition, in which case social policy often comes into play to narrow the gap somewhat but never totally because dumb people cannot be geniuses and paralympians cannot complete with four-limbed Olympians. Thus, social policy can go FROM favoring one group over another for supremacism's sake TO favoring one group over another for anti-supremacism's sake. In Russia, removal of anti-Jewish laws accorded equality to Jews, but later, 'affirmative action' penalized Jews to make the playing field more equal for non-Jews.

When a socially discriminatory order shifts to free competition, established hierarchies will eventually make way for new ones. It's like American Football went from all-white to mostly black; it's even truer of basketball, which at time, was dominated by whites and Jews. Now, if everyone had the same IQ, same personality, same health, and same physical abilities, a non-discriminatory order may be reasonably egalitarian, but no such society has ever existed.
The rise of new hierarchies has been the story of capitalism where the old aristocracy was replaced by new elites(who became even richer and more powerful). Jews certainly got lots of money and power owing to their IQ in a liberalized order.

Now, how come we can accept Jewish inferiority in certain areas but not black inferiority in any area? We acknowledge Jews are richer because they are smarter but also accept Jews aren't well-represented in sports because they're less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs. There's no controversy about Jewish lack-of-success in sports. We accept Jewish advantage in one area and disadvantage in another. So, why can't this be of blacks as well? They can run faster and jump higher, but they are relatively lacking in IQ.
Besides, why should any race be the best in everything? In a way, diffusion of talent among the races makes for a kind of fairness or a crude kind of 'equality'. Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between Jews and blacks is based on Jewish business smarts and black rhythm & running. Jews are superior in one area, blacks superior in another. There's no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers and wide receivers, so why is there such outcry about blacks not making it as business moguls or top physicists?

Steve Sailer: "On the other hand, it’s not as if the lowbrow leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates are losing politically and economically."

Coates is not a leftist but a black tribalist who uses leftish-sounding socio-babble to gain more for his race, especially for himself. When has he, or the Kendi Man, ever griped about the inequality faced by Palestinians? Just like Obama, they know they must flatter Jewish power while dumping on whitey to get their hands in the cookie jar. Calling black tribalists 'leftists' only muddles the issue. We can't have clarity unless we know the real name of the game.

Harden: 'One-drop' social rules have guaranteed that Americans who identify as being White are very unlikely to have any genetic ancestry that is not European, so in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

One thing for sure, one-word-rule has rendered the meaning of 'Latino' meaningless. Even brown people with little or no white blood count as 'Latino'(or is 'Latinx') because they speak Spanish. More than anything, this clouds the race issue.

Harden: "…race (unlike ancestry) is an inherently hierarchical concept that serves to structure who has access to spaces and social power."

Just about any concept is hierarchical because everything about mankind is hierarchical. This goes for 'class', 'sex', 'age', 'religion'(With God on our Side), 'nation', 'empire', and etc. 'Education' and 'Academia' are hierarchical too. Colleges are above high school, and elite colleges are above run-of-the-mill colleges. Big Business is bigger than small business.

Also, everything is a double-edged sword. Nationalism can be used as springboard for imperialism, but it can also be the battle cry against imperialism, like in the Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese and Algerian struggles for independence. Race was invoked in the past to keep blacks down, but blacks used race as means of solidarity and unity. Indeed, why are blacks averse to adopting libertarianism and its emphasis on individualism? They know they can gain more pride, prestige, space, and social power by invoking race. 'Race' can be used as expression of supremacism('our race is better than yours' or 'our race has the right to rule over your race'), but it can also be used to gain and secure historical or social space('our race deserves to be free' or 'our race is deserving of dignity', or even 'our race has a right to preserve itself', which is the theme of Zionism in its national manifestation — Charlton Heston as Moses organized on the basis of tribe rooted in the blood covenant when he said "Let My People Go"). Likewise, 'sex' could be used to argue men should rule over women, but feminists have also built an ideology around it for their own 'space'.

It's often said the 'pseudo-scientific' concept of race is the product of 19th century imperialism(with roots in the Enlightenment and rationalism with its mania for classification). So, was mankind a happy lot prior to this Evil Concept? Maybe it wasn't so bad for the peoples conquered, pillaged, and raped by Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings, and Romans because 'race' wasn't a hot ticket item back then? Will America's current racial problems go away if we do away with the concept of race? That's like saying greed and theft will go away if we do away with the concept of 'money' or 'profit'.

If race = imperialism, how does one account for the Spanish Conquest of the New World? It happened long before the 19th century invention of 'race'. The Spanish sent missionaries and converted the savages, and there was much race-mixing, but was that a happy affair? If anything, history suggests the denial of race can be used as a tool of imperialism. It's a denial of group identity, like when Golda Meir said there is no such people or culture as 'Palestinian'; and the Turks deny the existence of Kurds and refer to them as 'mountain Turks'. Using Harden's logic, one may ask, what right did the brown races have to defend themselves against white conquerors when, white or brown, they're all just the same, part of the same human species?
Come to think of it, one way to resolve the racial issue in America is by arguing that the white race didn't really enslave the black race since race doesn't exist. Rather, some people who thought they were white enslaved some other people who thought they were black, but in truth, they were all just people. So, the racial angle of the narrative was pure fantasy. In truth, it was just a case of some people enslaving some people. Therefore, just as it had been wrong for whites to regard themselves as whites lording over blacks, it's about time blacks stop seeing themselves as blacks done wrong by whites. It only furthers the illusion of race.

Now, one people who were long race-or-blood-conscious were the Jews. In contrast, Christians and Muslims were less so as their big theme was converting the souls of all peoples around the world. Now, which people, the Jews or the Christians/Muslims, were more aggressive, invasive, and imperialist? True, Jews joined in the empire-building, but it was on the backs of Christians and Muslims who sought to break through the barriers of race and blood to create a one-world community united before God the Lord. One result is Latin America, a very hierarchical place beset with countless social, political, and economic woes.
Come to think of it, if egalitarian ethos took deeper root in North America, it was precisely because it was more homogenously white, at least in the northern parts and Canada. Egalitarianism, though always out of reach, is easier to approximate with a homogenous population with a narrower range of talents. Easier among beagles than among greyhounds, beagles, pit-bulls, and chihuahuas.

Harden: "A closer look at the science of genetic ancestry makes it clear that 'race does not stand up scientifically, period.'”

The statement is true and untrue depending on how one defines race. And there are varying definitions. Using the stupidest definition of race, her statement would be true. But then, the current age has no problem with stupidity when it comes to sex or 'gender', which has also spawned the pronoun-craze where some dope claims he isn't only a 'she' but a 'they'. Such nonsense is accepted(and enforced) as 'science' in our age. If Harden means that the human species is far more complicated than the simple groupings of caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid, that's true enough. Bushmen are different from Bantu blacks. Tamils are exactly what? And though the American Indians originated from Asia, they seem to have evolved sufficiently into a new category. And Nazi racial science had its crazy side. But, any concept can be invalidated if defined by its falsities or stupidities. Nationalism can be anything from patriotism to jingoism. Love can mean love for the devil or the love of God, in which case 'love is love' is the stupidest idea imaginable.

Still, if she insists the concept of race is wrong because it's burdened with historical baggage, then give us a new term so we can use that instead. But while there's a lot of terminological violence in rejecting the term of 'race', there is terminological silence in coining a new concept. Why the timidity? I don't care if we shouldn't use 'race' anymore. Just give us any term that means the emergence/existence of different groups within the species as the result of tens of thousands of evolution and geographical and climactic separation. Unless such term is provided, no one should reject 'race' because it's the only term we have. Based on new scientific knowledge, what should be the new term for differences created by evolution? How about 'scatterin' as different races arose from organisms within the species scattering all around the world. White scatterin and black scatterin. Or just scats. ('Scat' means animal shit, but that's okay because people like Harden are full of shit. How about 'guano' for race?)

Harden: "…in reality, you could have it exactly backwards, and the genes that matter for education could be more common in the ancestry group with worse educational outcomes."

That'd be more likely in a socially discriminatory or orthodox order. If a group is smart but denied educational opportunities, it will have high IQ but lack in academic prizes. Or, if the group has smart people but is trapped in orthodoxy, like Jews who only studied the Talmud or Chinese who concentrated on Eight-Legged Essays, it will under-achieve in many areas. Evangelicalism and Creationism probably suppressed intellectual achievement among certain Christian groups.

But the problem of inequality in the West is mostly the result of genetic differences. Once discrimination was ended and all groups adopted modern modes, winners and losers were largely chosen by genetics.

Harden: "For example, we now have a polygenic score for predicting the highest level of education attained. In the latest iteration announced this month, using a sample size of 3 million, those in the highest decile were nine times more likely to graduate from college than those in the lowest decile. It works pretty well for whites in the U.K., America, and New Zealand. It works less well for East Asians and worst of all for African-Americans."

East Asians are so education-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in studies regardless of other factors. The ant-attitude defines their outlook. In contrast, blacks are so fun-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in letting the good times roll. The grasshopper attitude prevails among them. In contrast, being neither intensely ant-like or grasshopper-like, whites tend to divide more naturally between those with ant-tendencies and those with grasshopper-tendencies.

Steve Sailer: "Charles Murray... as Frank Sinatra used to say about Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life."

Bad example as Sinatra's character was brainwashed to say that about someone whom he actually loathed.

Sailer: "Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual."

Maybe he's a nice guy, but the nicest guy can have evil ideas while a nasty person can espouse humane ideas. What is better? A kindly devil or a mean angel? So, even as Murray's critics may concede he's a nice person, they can still find his ideas to be abhorrent. But this applies to people on the Left as well. Some Stalinists were nice kindly people as individuals.

At any rate, it doesn't matter how nice you are in a theocracy. If you blaspheme God, you are agent of the Devil even if you're the nicest person in town. In the current ideocracy, blacks are magical, and it's heretical to say they are deficient in any way, or if they are, it's all the fault of evil whites. So, no matter how nice or kindly Murray may be, he can only be a blasphemer in the eyes of the establishment.

The real problem is Murray's weakness. Why is he nice to people who hate him? Niceness is a virtue when shown to those who appreciate the gesture. It is a worthless vice when extended to those who hate you and mean you harm. Be nice to those who are nice to you, be mean to those who are mean to you. But Murray is nice to his enemies. Worse, he's nicer to people who mean him harm than those who are willing to lend him an ear. He'd rather suck up to Neocons than side with people like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor(who has problems of his own in cucking to Jews). Murray is a fuddy-dud with 'dangerous' ideas, which means he lacks the cojones to see his ideas to their conclusion. In that, he has something in common with Harden who admits certain things but draws all the wrong conclusions. Murray keeps hoping and pretending that his ideas are compatible with individualism and libertarianism(and with 'respectable society') when they're not. Murray's ideas are rebellious but he plays it respectable, which makes him a fool.

Sailer: "She and Murray disagree over the meaning of 'virtue.' Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism, in the tradition of political philosopher John Rawls, sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits."

She is right, at least partly, on the matter of virtue. If talent or skill = virtue, O.J. Simpson would be a saint. In a way, the problem with the US, no less among the 'woke' than among the 'based', is the delusion of conflating success, especially associated with celebrity and fame, with virtue. People look to athletes and pop stars for 'wisdom'. Conservatives are giddy that the rapper 50 cents be complaining about taxes and thinking of moving to Texas. And then, there was the thing with the vile Nikki Minaj. She went on a rant about her cousin's balls and became an instant hero to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

There is value in meritocracy per se that rewards people based on talent and hard work, but a person's intelligence or professional success doesn't guarantee virtue, even though one can say work ethic is a virtue compared to sloth. The US deep state has lots of of smart and diligent people, but they don't seem very virtuous when it comes to honesty, honor, truth, and justice. When one of them, Edward Snowden, blew the whistle on government abuses, the elite consensus was to totally destroy him.

Perhaps, meritocracy is more about fairness than virtue. It is externally applied and neutral in its lack of a priori favoritism. It observes and chooses for superior talents regardless of other factors. It's like the referee in sports mustn't favor either athlete and must be neutral in rewarding points and penalties based purely on performance. If a lowlife son-of-a-bitch is more skilled than a truly nice fellow, meritocracy favors the former.
But all social orders have sacraments and taboos that make absolute meritocracy impossible. Even a super bright kid will not be admitted to Ivy League if it turns out he said unkind things about Jews, blacks, or homosexuals. In the past, one's reputation could be destroyed if one badmouthed Jesus or is a homosexual. So, the rules change over time, and these rules will favor official norms and dogma over absolute meritocracy. So, success isn't determined only by merit of talent but correctness of creed.
Today, anyone who supports BDS or sympathizes with Palestinians won't gain much success in the elite realm. He will be shut out by the establishment that mainly caters to Jewish supremacism. Imagine any writer or director proposing a movie about the plight of Palestinians. He or she will be blacklisted on the spot and for as long as Jews control Hollywood and the media. Jewish power and wealth were built largely on meritocracy of intelligence and hard work, but Jews also use non-meritocratic means to keep their perceived enemies and rivals from gaining ground. To succeed in today's world, you must bow down to the Jewish-favored creed.
In the past, many Jews had to convert to Christianity to rise up the social ladder. Today, Jews control the gods, and one has to worship the rainbow-homo(as Jews replaced Christianity with Queertianity) to gain access to the Deep State, Big Business, and the like.

Even sports are not purely meritocratic because there's a thing called sportsmanship, i.e. even a great athlete can be penalized for un-sportsman-like behavior. Or he can be expelled from the league for saying unkind things about Zionists who terrorize Palestinians.

Unlike mere fairness(of meritocracy), virtue goes the extra mile and is essentially an internally generated trait. Instead of merely being fair with mankind, it wants to do more to be a better person and/or to make for a better world, sometimes in a self-sacrificing way.

To be sure, meritocracy can be an internally generated goodness, a virtue, in a world where success mostly depends on connections and corruption. If one personally chooses to be meritocratic in such a system, he is going against the tide, going the extra-mile to be a good person. That would be virtue. But in a system where meritocracy is taken for granted as the rule, all it can do is pick and choose winners and losers based on a narrow set of talents. It's about ability then ethics.

Harden: "A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball."

Harden is one big idiot. That's the dumbest thing I ever read. The human equivalent of powerball lottery would be if someone is super-beautiful, super-healthy, super-personable, super-leadership-qualitied, super-intelligent, super-athletic(and in all sports from weightlifting to swimming to high jump), super-creative(in music, poetry, and act), and etc. Powerball is about one in a million, or ten million, or hundred million.
Human competition is far more mundane and general. Most people are content to excel in one thing or another. For the vast majority, genetics means having just enough decent genes to finish college, have a nice job, and retire with saving. Powerball-thinking is for likes of Elizabeth Holmes, the too-good-to-be-true nutter, who wanted it all.

Genetics is more like a slot-machine, a rigged one at that. Pull on the genetic lever of a smart man and smart woman, and you're more likely to get a smart kid. Pull on the genetic lever of a dumb man and dumb woman, and you're more likely to get a dumb kid. Of course, smart parents can produce dumb kids, and dumb parents can product smart kids, but genetics means that the game is rigged based on parentage.
Genetics would be more like a lottery in the manner of Rev. Mhoon, that is by randomly pairing dummies with smarties in a mass wedding ceremony. But it's generally not the case that smart women marry some fat guy whose ass crack shows when bending over.

Sailer: "Harden propounds a sophomoric view that intelligence is 'socially valued, not inherently valuable,' and follows that up with a conspiracy theory that early-20th-century eugenicists plotted to get us..."

Harden is correct in the strict evolutionary sense. Every trait has value in relation to the environment. A shark's fins are perfectly engineered for the ocean but useless on land. A chimpanzee's high IQ isn't going to do it any good in the middle of an ocean. A low-IQ fish with gills has infinitely better chance of survival.
And even among human societies, the value of intelligence depends on the culture and social setting. While it's good to be reasonably intelligent in any setting, high IQ would have been useless in most societies through history(and especially pre-history). A strong man who could chuck spears and fight rough was more valued. An Einstein or Plato would have been useless to the Vikings or Zulus.
Extreme high IQ has value only in advanced civilizations with freedom that allows for such trait to explore and express itself. And even though all societies, even the simplest, have recognized the difference between smart and dumb, admiration for high IQ began to matter only with the emergence of advanced societies that capitalized on genius.

But Harden is probably not speaking strictly in an evolutionary sense but to virtue signal that she's more about the heart than brains.

Harden: "…to see intelligence (as measured on standardized IQ tests) and educational success, perhaps more than any other human phenotypes, in terms of a hierarchy of inferior and superior persons is not an accident. It is an idea that was deliberately crafted and disseminated..."

The more a society becomes competitive and achievement-oriented, this becomes inevitable. After all, is a great civilization possible without identifying winners from losers? Jews had their Rabbinical studies. Chinese had their Confucian exams. The Greeks were more multi-faceted as they prized not only intelligence but creativity, athletics, and beauty, which is why they were so foundational in the many pursuits that came to define the West and then the World.
But the Greeks also adopted Christianity, and their highest sense of good came to be piety. Christian piety is less enamored of and even hostile to beauty(vanity), intelligence(skepticism & egotism), athletics(brutality), and creativity(sensuality). Its emphasis on humility would seem anti-superiorist but actually provided yet another opportunity for superiority: holier-than-thou-ism.
On the one hand, Harden works in the Galileo-an world of high IQ science, but on the other, she is a member of new church of PC pieties. And just like Christianity, the new theology of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity has its own superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the Good Good People who repeat the fashionable sacraments(and favor Jews, blacks, and homos uber alles) while the Bad Bad people are those who dare to spout heresies and should be burned as witches. Bad Bad people are also those who support BDS and call for justice for Palestinians who are being 'genocided' by Zionist supremacists.

Now, is the US excessively concerned with IQ and success? If anything, many have griped that the problem of America is anti-intellectualism, populist vulgarity, blissful infantilism, and obsession with sports and pop culture than with science, math, and mental stuff. In any high school, the nerds and geeks are ignored while jocks and 'popular kids' get most of the attention. Judging by mass culture, Americans mainly seem interested in trashy personalities and pop stars. Most Americans would rather watch two women beat the crap out of each other in MMA than read a book by Harden or any female scientist. Also, colleges have been dumbed down over the years. It panders to popular tastes, and for all I know, they're teaching rap poetry in colleges. The rap musical HAMILTON became cause celebre among the elites. That Donald Trump became the champion of so many Americans doesn't say much about their intellectual curiosity either. But is he cruder than HAMILTON or the likes of Lena Dunhum promoted by the elites? Go on youtube, and the videos that get the most views are stupid or trashy as hell, or just plain dumb.

The problem with Americans is they love success and money, which is usually the product of high IQ and diligence, but prefer to conflate success and money with something else. The appeal of Rock/Rap culture is the bad boy wins the girls, drives the fancy cars, and wears all the bling. Bruce Springsteen sang about high school dropouts, rebels, and road-busters, the kind of people who lose in life or end up dead. But he became very rich. Most blacks who emulate rap culture end up dead or in jail, but blacks love the idea of the rich gangsta.
In Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN, Willi Loman's delusion is that success comes by way of the hustle, a firm handshake and likability. Of course, such things matter, but it also requires hard work and real ability. Americans want to believe style should be sufficient for success. Substance is too boring and lame. Success is usually the product of intelligence and hard work, but that's too nerdy or geeky for the American Myth of John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and 50 Cents.

Harden says the less intelligent deserve more help, but that isn't the real problem, especially among blacks. The problem is blacks are soul-corrupted and rebuff any sound advice about what they should do. They find hard work and diligence 'lame' or 'white'. They want success to come with style alone or in sports. But how many blacks can make it to the NBA or NFL? (Black culture in the documentary HOOP DREAMS is surely telling, which is to say depressing.) Has anyone asked Harden, "How can you help people who don't appreciate sound advice?" The forgotten white working class is more likely to respond to constructive advice, but their livelihoods have been outsourced globally. Worse, it is evil for whites to care for fellow whites, not least because Jews demand that whites expend all their energies supporting the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians.

Now, there is a segment of Americans who are IQ-and-success-obsessed, and they are the elites(who are 95% Democratic). Elite parents do everything to make their kids go to elite schools or gain favors through connections — how George W. Bush got to be president, how Hunter Biden isn't in jail but selling junk art for $500,000. The rise of PC partly owes to these parents not wanting to jeopardize their kids' chance at success. They tell their kids to toe the line or else lose it all. Harden is surely part of this IQ-and-success-obsessed class. And these people do everything to gain more wealth and privilege.

But they don't want to admit that they are so focused on themselves and their class; therefore, even as they do everything to win and collect more prizes, they create this bogeyman of the 'racist' to fool the world(and themselves) that THEY are warriors for equality. But in fact, the likes of Jared Taylor and even Charles Murray have zero power in media and academia. All of the establishment elites are ideologically on the same page as Harden. So, if she's honest, she will admit that the most IQ-obsessed people are the so-called 'liberals', her colleague and peers. But instead, she paints herself as a humanitarian fighting an uphill battle against dragon-monsters like Murray. She is really punching down, but because the White Male used to be on top, she relies on historiography to pretend she's punching up against the Eternal White Male Patriarch Oppressor.

Even if Charles Murray and his ilk(and all MAGA people) vanished into the thin air this very second, the problems associated with race, IQ, success, inequality, and etc. would exist just the same among blacks, browns, and whites like Harden... like in San Francisco and Madison Wisconsin, totally libby-dib cities. Indeed, without the racist-as-bogeyman, people like Harden would finally have to face the music and offer a solution to the race problem. THAT would be difficult. But as long as her ilk claims to be fighting the big-bad-white-bogeyman, they can say their hands are tied at the moment and can't really address the problem yet.

If people like Harden are really serious, there is actually a solution. Offer more affirmative action slots for blacks in medicine, law, accounting, and other fields. And then, make sure these white 'progressive' types call on affirmative action talent for service. Need a brain surgery? Make sure it's a black doctor who got his license through AA. Need a corporate lawyer? Get an AA black guy. With so many rich progressive types, this should solve the problem. They got the money to sustain so many black professionals of AA pampering. And why should they complain? They are the ones who say there should be more 'inclusion' and that blacks are just as intelligent, capable, and diligent as any other race. They wouldn't want to be 'racist', would they?

DIS-UNITED STATES: WHY IDENTITY POLITICS ARE THE FUTURE - Black Pigeon Speaks

The So-called 'Left' should be called 'Tri-Supremacism', that of Jews, blacks, & homos — Difference between gangster Russia of the 1990s and the US(and West in general) today — Uselessness of the GOP now that Elites can get Material Greed and Moral Vanity in one bundle from Neo-Liberal Democrats

This Coming Leftist Coup Could Backfire—Like 1991 In Soviet Union by WAYNE ALLENSWORTH:

https://vdare.com/articles/this-coming-leftist-coup-could-backfire-like-1991-in-soviet-union

Why call them 'leftist', thereby giving them undeserving credit? The current PC is about Tri-Supremacism, that of Jews, blacks, and homos. No one else matters. Some idiot black criminal, Fentanyl Floyd, died of OD under police custody but became big, big news and we must hail him to high heaven; even Donald Trump was compelled to join the chorus. But all those people attacked and even killed by black mobs didn't count. All those whose properties were destroyed by blacks have been ignored. Blacks have the right to riot, at least when Jewish Power gives the go-ahead. Even though blue cities were attacked by BLM & Antifa mobs and black looters, most white urbanites are still firmly on the 'progressive' side. They feel it's their 'spiritual' duty. Homos are above the law. They spread HIV and caused myriad problems, but we are to weep for them as hapless victims and celebrate sodomy in traditional houses of worship. And June is the crazed 'gay pride' month, with the most powerful industries and institutions all flying the homo flag as the main symbol of 'global values'. All these yrs, what did we see in public spaces but 'gay' flags and BLM signs? (They serve as 'passover' markings for corporations to be spared from the ire of Political Correctness.) And of course, the Jews! The big kahuna of the New globo-homo Order. They get away with everything. They make sure the US favors Zionists over Palestinians and Israel over Iran even though Jews occupy Palestinian lands and Israel has nukes but Iran doesn't. Jews insist on Jewish Supremacism as default US policy but constantly berate whites about 'white supremacism'. Goy whores of both parties deliriously chant "Israel is America's greatest ally" at AIPAC rallies.

The 'woke' order is about supremacism of three groups: Jews, homos, and blacks. White cucks and non-white idiots are told to rally around those three holies. They themselves don't count. If the US is really leftist and cares for the underdog, why is there NOTHING about BDS and Palestinian Lives Matter on the so-called 'left'? There are grassroots elements on left and right that condemn Zionist Supremacism, but their voices never make it to the top. Most Democrats consent to blue states/cities shutting down BDS. Trumpers howl with approval when Trump pledges more support for Israel while dumping on Iran and Palestinians EVEN THOUGH Jews hate white American populists even more than Arabs and Muslims.

So, we need to start by STOP calling the current Western Power 'leftist'.  Stop giving it the credit it doesn't deserve. It should be called 'Tri-Supremacist', and Tri-Supremacism dominates elite discourse and dogma. It will also raise consciousness among most non-white groups that Jews, blacks, and homos are favored over them.

In Russia, the Left actually did its part in bringing down the Yeltsin-Jewish-oligarch system.  The Communist Party opposed the gangster-capitalism and could have won the election in 1996 if not for Zionist-US interference. Later, Russian leftists joined with nationalists against the globalists. 

The problem with the West is there is no real left anymore. The 'left' has been refashioned to celebrate the idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks, thus Tri-Supremacism. So we should call it 'tri-supremacism' because that's what it is, and then, scales may fall from more eyes. Terminology matters. Call it 'leftist', and it gives the impression that progs are for 'social justice' when they're for idolatry of three supremacist groups. Just ask the Palestinians how much progs care about peace and justice for the underdog. Tulsi Gabbard took an anti-imperialist position, and she was totally ignored. Instead, most progs, under the influence of Jewish-controlled media, actually condemned Trump for trying to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan. They are aligned with the Deep State and military-industrial complex. And they embraced the ridiculous Russia-Collusion hysteria that would have made Joe McCarthy blush.

 The difference between Russia in the 90s and US now is that, even though Jewish oligarchs gained immense power and wealth under Boris Yeltsin, they hadn't as yet transformed popular thought. As such, most Russians still thought in nationalist and socialist terms. Even though communism was bad for Russia, its one silver lining was the suppression of Jewish Capital. Capitalism has been the real instrument of Jewish Power as sky is the limit for gaining profits and privilege. Communism suppressed the rise of capitalist oligarchy. Also, communist nations tended to be more insular and conservative on social matters. And they were fairly patriotic because nationalism, like socialism, stressed unity and the collective over mere individualism. No wonder then that in the 1970s and 80s, the Soviet Communist Party tolerated Russian nationalists more than Russian 'Liberals'(many of whom were Jewish/Zionist) who looked to the West for all the answers. So, even though Jewish oligarchs gained super-power in Russia of the 90s, they had no popular support. Most Russians were in nationalist and socialist mode, and Vladimir Putin exploited this reality to consolidate power to the detriment of Jewish oligarchs. Also, as the economic plan of the 90s was so calamitous in a nation without social safety nets, many Russians faced destitution and turned against the shock doctrine of gangster capitalism and globalist 'liberal democracy', aka puppet government of the Zionist-run West.

But things are different in the West. As Jews have had control of media and academia for a long time, they managed to persuade great many folks that Tri-Supremacism constitutes the highest virtues and values of 'Western Civilization'. Howls of 'racism' means we must worship blacks as moral superiors. Sports and Pop Culture inculcated generations of white people with worship of blacks as idols of cool and badassery. Accusations of 'antisemitism' and endless Holocaust remembrance obligate whites to bless and obey Jews as their highest duty. And 80% of Americans think 'gay marriage' is a good thing. That means a huge number of 'conservatives' also feel that way. So, there is insufficient national-popular will in the West to push back against Jewish Power. Jews had the money and connections in Russia of the 90s but not the control of the Russian Soul. In contrast, Jews have such total control over what now constitutes 'Western Values' or 'American Exceptionalism' that even the American 'right' and populism couch their arguments in terms of 'We love blacks more' or 'We love Jews more'. And 'conservatives' have already come a long way to accept homosexuality and even tranny-craziness as something wonderful. Consider how the 'conservative' judge Gorsuch decided in favor of tranny nonsense. Whether 'left' or 'right', the basic premise in the West is Tri-Supremacism, i.e. "Our side is better because we suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos more than your side does." It's pure idolatry, not ideology. 

Also, unlike bankrupt Russia of the 90s, the US and much of the West have an effective social safety net system. Maybe this won't last forever, but no one in the US starved even during the 2008 financial debacle and bigger mess with Covid hysteria. The problem even now is too much obesity. We've seen how even when the so-called 'left' loses to the so-called 'right' in the West, NOTHING changes. Brexit only led to MORE IMMIGRATION of non-whites and more PC censorship. Under Trump and Republican control of both houses, we only got more tax cuts for Wall Street, more anti-Russian/Iran hysteria, more sucking up to Jews, more sucking up to blacks, and more gay-gay-gay.

Words matter, and calling globalists the 'left' has been utterly damaging by lending the false impression, especially among the naive young, that the Jews, blacks, and homos stand for 'leftism' when they are in supremacist gangster-capitalist mode. And of course, Jews are in militarist mode as they push for more Wars for Israel. And as many blacks serve in the military, they are complicit in neo-imperialist ventures to destroy so many lives. Black generals and soldiers got blood on their hands. But where is the cry of 'Arab Lives Matter', 'Muslim Lives Matter', 'Iranian Lives Matter', 'Syrian Lives Matter', 'Yemenese Lives Matter'? There is only silence because the so-called 'left' is totally bogus. They only care about Jewish power, blacks ego, and homo vanity. Call it Tri-Supremacism. One dead lousy Negro Fentanyl Floyd matters more than millions of Arab/Muslim lives destroyed by Wars for Israel and their proxies.

 Republican Party is useless because Billy Boy Clinton in the 1990s merged Republicanism with Democratism. What animates elite mentality? Material Greed and Moral Vanity. In politics, material greed amounts to the freedom of capital to make more money; and moral vanity amounts to the perception of being on the side of angels, be it spiritual or social or whatever. No wonder that the ruling elites in Western History both hogged the wealth and hoisted the banner of Christ. Material greed and moral vanity. 

In the past, the GOP offered material greed to the elites, whereas the Democratic Party, especially in association with the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement, came to define moral vanity for the elites. So, the elites looked to the GOP for material greed and looked to Democrats for moral vanity. Because of its deep connections to Big Labor and legacy of the Great Depression(which, according to New Deal lore, the Democrats overcame by favoring labor over capital), the Democrats were limited in offering material greed to the elites. So, the elites had no choice but to go to the GOP for material greed, all the while inching ever closer to the Democrats on moral vanity. 

But then, Clinton comes along and severs ties between Democrats and the Working Class. He signs onto 'free trade' and ramps up mass immigration of peon labor. And he deregulates Wall Street and hastens the rise of posh cities. Also, leftism is altered from Mayday to Gayday, which is great for the rich as homos love to cater to the powerful and privileged. 

In other words, the Democrats could now offer both material greed and moral vanity to the elites. So, why would the elites need the GOP anymore? Elites got the bundle of greed and vanity in one package from Democrats. At this point, it's difficult for the GOP to offer even MORE GREED to the elites as the elites have done so well under 'Neo-Liberalism'. Didn't Obama bail out the banks? Aren't Hillary and Biden the darlings of Wall Street? With the Democratic Party, the elites can make super-profits and make symbolic gestures with homo flags and BLM signs.

GOP has a future if it becomes a genuine populist party of the have-lesses, but Trumpism proved that's far from doable. So, it's better to get rid of the party. Its only impact is to divide the white vote along false dichotomies of 'left' and 'right'. US would do better as a one-party system where all Republicans become Democrats and form alliances with saner groups against the elites, especially the Jews. 

THE DAY OF RECKONING HAS ARRIVED BY Black Pigeon Speaks

The American Paradox: Americans are MOST UNITED in Support of the Group that is Most Responsible for THE POLARIZATION among Americans

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQds7dL7RUY/


It's often been observed that Americans have grown more polarized over the years. There is talk of the far-right and the far-left. The differences between 'Red States' and 'Blue States'. MAGA Trump supporters are said to support extreme nationalism, and there has supposedly been surges of 'racism' and 'xenophobia' under Trump. And 'conservatives' say that PC has taken over the media & academia and much of the politics on the 'left' has turned batshit crazy with stuff like 'Pussy Marches' and the like.

In a way, yes, Americans are more polarized than ever before. Americans are also more fragmented and 'sub-culturized', not least due to the rise of the internet that has allowed people to form their own online communities based on interests, passions, causes, agendas, obsessions, fetishes, or just some tomfoolery. So, the problem(if it is a problem) is not only that Americans are pulling apart in two directions but self-isolating in their own artificial communities. Paradoxically, this neo-isolationism is possible only because the internet facilitates instant communication of peoples all over the world. So, even though a certain online community may be marginal, separate, and indifferent(and unknown) to others, it is the product of coming together of peoples of shared interests from all over the nation(and even the world).

Now, it begs the question... why are Americans becoming more polarized? Why are they becoming more 'hysterical' in passion or hard-line in their positions? Why do they feel the Other Side is not only wrong but evil? Why are current political conflicts more like spiritual battles and religious wars? Why did politics, or certain kinds of politics, become like the new cults or replacement for religions with 'save the world' or 'end of times' mania? Also, we need to ask if these positions have been self-generated among thinking individuals or implanted in their minds by the system that controls news media, entertainment media, academia, and official institutions.

It appears part of the reason for the greater polarization is due to separate forms of empowerment. Take men and women. When men and women lived for the good of the family, community, and society, the discussion was not about 'what men want' or what women want'. Men worked to support the family, and women played roles of wives and mothers for the family. It was about what was good for the family together. But the phenomenon of women in the workplace and feminist ideology advanced the notion that women have interests(and an identity) separate to and often at odds with those of men. And such attitude has led to men feeling more self-consciously male or male-constantly-vilified-by-angry-women. If men and women of the past mainly thought of the family and community, now men mostly think in terms of individualism while women think in terms of individualism-while-female. This is a phenomenon seen all over the world where women have entered the workforce in large numbers and directly compete with men for jobs and titles.

Globalization also led to increased polarization. There was a time when most Americans thought in terms of the National Economy. What was good for General Motors was good for America. Most US companies relied on US workers from managers to engineers to men on the factory floor. 'American Economy' meant something back then. Even though owners, managers, and workers often didn't see eye to eye, they were united in their nationalism and Americanism. But the rise of hedonism and globalism undermined the unity. Hedonism turned the American Working Class mainly into consumers. Instead of thinking of job as a means to raise a family, it was to 'get paid and get laid'. Such sloppy thinking led to shoddier behavior on the factory floor. It also led to more social and personal problems that affected performance at work. Those factors, plus the corruption and/or incorrigibility of Labor Unions, made American businesses seek workers elsewhere, either by mass-immigration or shipping factories overseas. Of course, corporations were also motivated by more profits and greed. And as those companies that went 'global' were poised to cut costs while increasing profits, enabling them to out-compete companies that didn't, it was only a matter of time before it became standard for US companies to join the global system. In effect, the US got rid of labor problems by de-nationalizing labor itself. While American Workers in the past could unite and work together to make collective demands as Fellow Americans, the diverse workforce of overseas laborers and new immigrants made collective labor action close to impossible. For a long time, the globalist elites who got richer than ever just ignored the Silent Meniality and just hoped they'd be replaced by Diversity or die en masse from opioids.

We need to distinguish between organic polarization and manufactured polarization. For example, ethnic differences and class differences will always prove to be divisive and polarizing to varying degrees. Latin American nations make a big deal of how all the people are mixed in blood and, as such, constitute ONE PEOPLE, but the race problem never went away down there. India has a far longer history of racial conquest, hierarchy, and mixing, but 'caste' consciousness still remains. And even in cases where ethnic differences don't matter so much, there are class factors as any society, even socialist ones, are made up of the super-rich, the rich, the affluent, the middle class, working class, and the poor. Often, there are correlations between race and class. In the West, for example, Jews tend to be rich while browns(from Muslim and Latin American nations though not Hindus) tend to comprise the bulk of the helot class.

But if certain reasons for fragmentation, hostility, distrust, and division are organic and 'old as the hills', other reasons are manufactured. For example, Stalin stirred up extreme anti-Trotskyitism and soon enough anything or anyone associated with Leon Trotsky became suspect and the target of purges. While the Stalin vs Trotsky feud was genuine enough on grounds of personality and strategy, the mass rage at Trotsky and what he stood for was manufactured by the state. Indeed, Trotsky had been considered as one of the great heroes of the Revolution, the right-hand man of Vladimir Lenin and the leader of the Red Army that defeated the White Forces. And most people were unaware of the Stalin vs Trotsky split and assumed that the Soviet leaders were all working together in harmony and good will. But once Stalin consolidated his power, the state apparatus went into full gear to spread anti-Trotskyite fears and hatred, and soon enough, people all across the Soviet Union came to regard Trotsky's 'treachery' to be the gravest sin against the Revolution. He came to be hated even more than the bourgeoisie. It was manufactured mass-hate.

In the Current West, so much of the recent polarizations owes to manufactured divisions not unlike the Anti-Trotsky hysteria under Stalinism. Indeed, these manufactured polarizations are useful to the ruling elites because such are damned effective among a population of flakes, idiots, imbeciles, and morons in spreading strong passions of hostility and distrust. The last thing the elites want is mass unity. Also, elites fear organic divisions far more than manufactured ones. After all, organic ones are real and involve fundamental dynamics of economics, morality, ethnic/racial identity, and historical memory. In contrast, manufactured differences are essentially amnesiac, trivial, frivolous, and slave to fashion. In a sane and normal society grounded in tradition, morality, and responsibility, the elite manipulations would be brushed aside. Imagine if Jews had tried to push 'gay marriage' when the US was centered around family, community, nationalism, and tradition. That America would have pushed back against Jews and told them to go to hell.
But since the 50s and especially the 60s, so many Americans came to regard pop culture, TV, and college 'radicalism' as their mainstay of meaning and truth. In other words, Americans got infantilized, imbecilized, and moronized. Paradoxically, the spread of higher education made Americans stupider and shallower. Not only did colleges lower their standards to meet the demands and serve the needs of greater numbers of students but more people got infected with the conceit that they know better because they attended college and sat through lectures on Critical Theory, most of which is esoteric Jewish BS.

We see manufactured divisions all over society. Indeed, the elites must be amused that so many people — even many at near-elite levels — are such true-believing suckers for ideological fads and cultural fashions. Prior to the rise of the New Idiocy, Americans would have been united from left to right in regarding trannies as, at best, laughable. There was a time when nearly ALL Americans would have found 'gay marriage' to be a gross idea, even an EVIL idea which it really is. But nowadays, people can be made totally 'impassioned' about the latest fad even though its concepts, values, and agenda were something no one cared about just few years back. Take the tranny business. No one would have gotten all worked up over if IF NOT for the fact that elite colleges and big media(run by Jewish elites) push it so hard through politics, entertainment, celebrity cult, and faux-intellectualism. Having no roots in the ground, most minds are totally at the mercy of the latest 'idological' winds and topple and toss this way and that. Jews figure, get the dummies with vulgar sensationalism and get the smarties with sophistry. Dumb pro-tranny movies and TV shows for the masses, and 'gender studies' for the intellectual types. As for members of upper middle class, they will adhere to just about any fad or fashion deemed currently respectable and 'more evolved'. Middle Class consciousness is obsessed with status and approval than anything else. So, if Jews want to cause more divisions among goy masses, they merely need to manufacture more crusades that cause more fragmentation and polarization among masses. Jews are king-mixers.
It's all the easier today because of the fading of family values, community consensus rooted in customs & tradition, and true religions with deep meaning. As the great majority of Americans have 'muh TV' and 'muh pop music' as their Main Culture, their 'values', 'worldview', and 'spirituality' all revolve around the hype and hysteria of what's-hot-and-what's-not. Pop Culture and non-stop sensory stimulation have made people bored with tradition, heritage, community, family, and real culture. They want new sensations from the Orgasmotron. And yet, human nature being what it is, man cannot live on pleasure and thrills alone. People still seek meaning, spirituality, truth, and holiness. But since they are addicted to pop culture and inculcated with PC, they seek timeless needs of the human heart/mind from pop culture and PC. Modern people are famished for true meaning and spirituality, but they've given up on real culture and religion. It's no wonder they desperately seek those nutrients from the 2 PC's: Pop Culture and Political Correctness. Just like a desperately hungry person will devour anything and his body will try to absorb nutrients(even if the food is meager in the essentials of health), today's soul-famished imbeciles, morons, and/or flakes seek truth and meaning from Pop Culture and Political Correctness... which explains why JOKER was such a giant hit among confused men. It is then no wonder that their 'spirituality' is so devoid of meaning.
Consider how globo-homo Queertianity came to replace Christianity. Even a lifelong atheist should understand why Christianity is a great and deep religion. But today's morons and flakes bow down before Queertianity as the real thing(until of course the next big fashion comes along). And this goes for today's neo-christians too as most of them are decadent, degenerate, and deceptive. Hooked on narcissism and vanity, they think God and Jesus exist to validate and bless the fashion-passion of the hour, the hype of the day. It's no wonder that 'christians' like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton think there's nothing wrong with churches flying the homo 'pride' flag. It is of course all very ironic. All such people initially supported the 'gay' agenda in the name of liberty & free expression and against excessive religious orthodoxy, moral judgmentalism, and rigidity of social norms. In other words, their support of homos wasn't moral, let alone spiritual. Whether homos were good or bad, the idea was that a free society should tolerate the deviant and decadent, even the degenerate. And yet, the homo agenda turned from one of more individual liberty to one where everyone from cradle was compelled to cheer, celebrate, honor, praise, revere, and even worship homos(and then even trannies) as the new blessed angels of god. Today, if one freely says he finds homo 'sex' to be gross and unhealthy, he will be purged from elite ranks, shunned by so many people who worship at the altar of TV, and even fined and imprisoned(in European nations). How did this happen? When people lose deep meaning, they only have shallow meaning. But even with shallowness, they seek spiritual passion and moral depth. We now have people with strong passions based on shallow meanings. Of course, it can't last for long... just like nutball Maoist passions eventually burned out like a bad case of virus in China. True meaning arises from the blood and soul. It's real body heat. In contrast, false meanings are like fevers and delirium one gets from viral infection. True spirituality takes root in souls and grows from within. Fake spirituality comes from the pandemic of false consciousness spread by radical ideology, crackpot idolatry, and mass hysteria. Eventually it abates and passes from history, like Maoism did following the Cultural Revolution. But while it's raging, it can cause tremendous pain and destruction, like the Spanish Flu after World War I. The main spreaders of current disease are Jews with control over academia, media, advertising, entertainment, and the deep state.

The great paradox of American politics and society is that most Americans are most united in support of the group that is most responsible for manufacturing divisions that has led to increased polarization. Can people connect the dots? Do they notice a certain pattern and discern a certain strategy? Could it be that Jewish supremacists keep concocting more excuses for social divisions so that we will be easier to manipulate and handle? Also, being divided on so many things, naturally we all seek to be united on SOMETHING, and not surprisingly, Jews say that the ONE THING we should all be united on is the obligation of REVERE THE JEWS, OBEY THE JEWS, SUPPORT ISRAEL, AND AIPAC FOREVER.
This is why precisely Jews fear 'white nationalism' and Palestinian Rights Movement the most. These two are most committed to Naming the Jew as the problem. So-called 'white nationalists' demand White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism. Its message to Jews is "I ain't gonna work on the Jewish Maggot's Farm no more", and the message of BDS is Palestinian National Liberation Resistance against Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist Hegemony. It is then no wonder that the two groups MOST CENSORED in the media and internet platforms are White National Liberationists and the proponents of BDS & Palestinian Rights. The divisions that the White Liberation Movement and Palestinian National Liberation represent are ORGANIC. They understand that there is a real and organic conflict between whites and Jews, between Palestinians and Jews. Jews used Nakba to destroy Palestinian nationhood, and they are now enacting White Nakba to turn all of the West into California. The white-Jewish differences and conflict are real. And Jewish tyranny over Palestinians is real, and it's only right for Palestinians to resist and struggle against the supremacism of Jews. Jews fear and hate such polarization because it organically pits goyim against vile Jewish supremacism. And that's why Jews would rather manufacture artificial polarizations to distract people from the real differences along racial and class lines. Better to get people all riled up about bogus Russia Collusion Narrative, China-China-China hysteria, Iran-has-nukes nonsense, Assad-gassed-his-own-people slander, trannies-in-washrooms, illegals-are-dreamers, immigration-enforcement-is-new-nazism, and etc. than have people face the reality of what's going on.
Of course, Jews also create divisions by exploiting organic differences but in a disingenuously selective way. Jews play on white-black differences(which are real enough) but pretend that blacks and Jews are the best of buddies. Never mind Jews joined the White Flight from blacks: Jew Flew. Never mind that Jews eventually got sick of black crime and used Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg to get hard on black criminality. Never mind Israel was the #1 ally of Apartheid South Africa. Never mind Israel is now the #1 apartheid state; never mind that Jewish Power is the 'new nazism' that is spreading wars and hatreds. Look what Jews did to Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine. And Jews forced Obama and Trump to move against Venezuela because it formed close ties with Iran. Jews have long exploited black athletes and entertainers — and blacks have long beaten up and robbed Jews in the streets and schools — , but Jews would have us believe that the problem of 'racism' is essentially a Southern Thing with Neo-Confederacy. Jews used draconian measures to cut down on black violence in NY while simultaneously accusing rest of America of being insensitive to blacks and even killing innocent blacks, leading to BLM fiasco based on another lie. In truth, blacks kill blacks(and tons of non-blacks).

Under Jewish Power, so many goyim are divided along stupid or exaggerated worldviews concocted by the Jew-run media and academia. We even got 'slut pride' ideology and Pussy March mania where plenty of women came dressed up as vaginas. There was a time when feminism was organic and addressed basic issues of female freedom and representation. These first feminists, most of whom were Anglo and Germanic, weren't anti-male. They wanted more freedom and choice among women but also understood the obligations of women for the good of society. But once Jewish feminists came up with the Second Wave lunacy, a wedge has been driven between white men and white women who, along with POC, were led to believe that all the problems of the world come from Evil White Male patriarchy. Jewish feminism doesn't care about real justice; its main goal is to weaken the white race that is perceived as the main rival and potential challenge to Jewish Power(as it had been for most of Western History).
As for blacks and 'people of color', Jews direct their ire at white people even though the most powerful and privileged people in the US are Jews. As for whites, Jews direct their ire at FOREIGN nations, especially Russia, Iran, and China(though sometimes at Hungary, Syria, Poland, etc, all depending on how Jews feel about them at the moment). As white dogs bark at foreign nations, they forget that it's their Jewish Master who is pushing interracism & ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), the Great Replacement(or White Nakba), the Pornification of Mainstream Culture, Anti-White Political Correctness, and drugs like opioids on the masses. Divide and Rule, thinks the Jew.

But no nation can function if it's truly divided on EVERYTHING. Increasing divisions call for an even stronger need for something to bind all the peoples together. Jews of course know this. Even as they increase divisions over just about everything among goy masses, they also push REVERENCE TOWARD JEWS, OBEDIENCE TO JEWS, SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL, SUBMISSION TO JEWISH SUPREMACISM, and HOLY HOLOCAUST WORSHIP as the new pillars of the US and the West. Divide goyim on everything to unite them in service to Jews.
The reason why Jews got so angry with Jeremy Corbyn of the UK Labour Party was because, relatively speaking, Corbyn didn't totally suck up to Jews like American Liberals and 'leftist' do. Jews always loved the fact that the Labour Party stirred up anti-white feelings among non-whites. Indeed, Jews were behind most such animus and egged it on. As far as Jews were concerned, Labour was supposed to make non-whites hate and blame whites, not extend the hostility toward Jews. Unlike total cucks like Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn chose to be more consistent. If Labour is suppose to be pro-POC and champion non-white causes as indeed 'leftist' Jews have long insisted it be and do, then it only made sense for Labour to side with Palestinians and Muslims against European-Jewish Zionists who rule Israel as a neo-imperialist colony. Jeremy Corbyn's anti-white leftism is terrible for the UK, but his saving grace is he takes his politics sincerely and tries to be consistent. He didn't understand that so-called Jewish 'leftists' were NEVER sincere about ideology and principles; they were merely invoking and exploiting them to push the Jewish Supremacist agenda. For Jews, using POC against whites meant less white power and prestige, which meant more Jewish power and privilege. For Jews, anti-white-ism was a strategy, but Corbyn took it as holy writ and tried to follow it to the letter. For Corbyn, if white Britons don't deserve a white nation, white Jews don't deserve a Jewish nation. All the world must be globalized in the name of 'muh humanity'. In contrast, Jews have always pursued the strategy of Nationalism-for-me-but-not-for-thee. Attack and denounce white British nationalism while, at the same time, pressuring white Britons to support Jewish identity and Jewish nationalism(and even Jewish imperialism). Corbyn was either too dumb to get the message or too principled in his commitment to allow for Jewish moral exemption. (But then, he didn't have the balls to go all the way and call out on wretched Jewish hypocrisy.)

Look at current US, and the Jews, the very group that is most responsible for manufacturing ever more reasons for the goyim to be divided over, have managed to unify all sides on their total subservience to Jewish Power... though two other now near-universal points of unity are Magic Negro Worship and Holy Homo Celebration. But then, Magic Negro and Holy Homo are essentially tropes cooked up by Jews. The Holy Three, the neo-trinity of the new age. So, whatever the differences may be among Americans and various political factions, all sides worship MLK as bigger than god and jesus. And it's gotten to the point that even the most ardently Christian Republican elites are utterly silent and thereby subservient to the globo-homo agenda. Mike Pence the supposed devout Christian backed down from the Homo Lobby that has the backing of Jews. Of course, many times holier than blacks and homos combined are the Jews, the new god of America. If Jews like it, you better like it to. If you can't make yourself like it, you better not oppose it. As Jews loved globo-homo, the politics around the 'gay' cause became one of Liberals pushing it hard and Conservatives doing nothing to stop it. If one side pushes while the other side doesn't push back, the side pushing it will win. It's now gotten to the point where globo-homo is becoming the New Normal even among 'conservatives' and 'christians'. Even over 50% of Orthodox Christians in the US support 'gay marriage', which goes to show that Christianity has now rotted away. It is an empty shell without a living organism inside.

Why is there no impassioned polarization about Israel, Zionism, and Wars for Israel? If indeed the US is polarized about everything, shouldn’t one side be totally for Zionism & Jewish power while the other side is totally against them? One party should be totally pro-BDS, the other side should be totally anti-BDS. But red states and blue states both shut down BDS. What unity! Both political parties seem to be about Israel, Israel, Israel, more Wars for Israel, more Wars for Israel, more Wars for Israel, and ‘muh holy Jews’, ‘muh holy Jews’, ‘muh holy Jews’.

So much for polarization. When it comes to Jews and Israel, there is an excess of consensus and unity. But how could this be in a polarized nation?
Nancy Pelosi said that even if Congress were to fall, the US will stand with Israel.
Donald Trump has been harassed by Jews from day one, but he’s all for Israel and Jews.
Democrats and Republicans who bitch and snipe at one another will be the best of friends the moment a Palestinian family is dropped in their midst. They would become instant-buddies and beat up, murder, and hang the Palestinians from a tree and celebrate and sing and cheer.

Hmmm, could it be that the US has been made polarized and divided so that it would come together on Jews and Israel? After all, if all those goyim were united on many elemental and organic issues, they might unite against Jews who have so much power and abuse it like a habit. But if they are divided on everything, the nation could only function by the two sides agreeing on a few things… like ‘muh Israel’ and ‘I love Jews’. If you want to know who has power over the people, try to find out on which matter/issue all sides are united. The single biggest issue of unity in the US is “Israel is our closest ally.”

Jewish-Zionist-supremacist Ezra Klein of Vox brought up the issue of increasing polarization, but of course there’s going to be more divisions when people who control the academia-media-government keep cooking up new wedge issues that are meant to divide people. Prior to globo-homo, most Americans scoffed at ‘gay marriage’. But once homos were made holy, a new religion of homo-worship began, and that led to a culture war between those who worship globo-homo as the new faith and those who refuse to bow down before the holy homo ass. Before trannies, there was unity against the notion of man as woman. But media promoted nonsense among deracinated and deculturized Americans who grew up with TV and pop music as main staple of culture and ‘values’. Once illegals were made into ‘dreamers’, so many dummy Americans came to regard basic border controls as the ‘new holocaust’.

So, if Klein wants less polarization, how about the Tribe not using the media and academia to cook up new wedge issues? And how about not creating new enemies with Russia, Syria, Iran, Hungary, and whatever nation Jews happen to hate at the moment. Americans weren’t polarized over Ukraine but became so ever since the Jew media proclaimed it as the closet ally of the US next to Israel.

The source of American polarization owes really to a phenomenon of 'Sorolization'. That damned George Soros. Before the American public split in half, a certain group gained the power to drive ever more wedges into the body politic. It’s even gotten to the point where trannies and feminists are hating each other. It is wedger nation.

But whites are idiots. Haven’t they figured out the problem yet? Just think. If Jews are using Diversity against whites, wouldn’t the most natural thing be for whites to use Diversity against Jews? If Jews scream ‘white privilege’, then you should scream ‘Jewish privilege’, especially as it’s closer to the truth. If someone hits you with a stick, you try to take the stick from his hand and beat him with it. The last thing you should do is try to protect him from the stick he’s beating you with. Jews hit whites with Diversity but whites try to protect Jews from it. Jews use Ilhan Omar against whites, but whites protect Jews from Omar.

Of course, whites act like this because white elites have been blackmailed and bought over by the Jews. White elites serve Jewish elites than represent and serve their own people. So, white elites are useless, and white masses are clueless as their elites tell them, “Praise Jews, serve Israel, and it’s NOT okay to be white.” The game will change only when whites begin to support BDS and spread the message among non-whites that Jews got everything. Then and only then will powerful Jews stop pushing for Diversity. But as long as dumb whites protect Jews from the stick that Jews use to beat up whites, they will get clobbered and will lose.