Logic of 'Antisemitism' would Indicate Powerful Jews are Most 'Antisemitic' for their Actions Exhibiting Obscene Levels of Jewish Power and Influence

Is Alan Dershowitz an Anti-Semite for saying Jews indeed do possess disproportionate power and influence?



Jewish commentators and social critics often argue that Antisemitic Stereotypes or Tropes never seem to go away. What are their examples of 'Antisemitism'? The perception that Jews control the mass media. The suspicion that Jews control banking and finance. The accusation that Jews have inordinate controls of elite institutions of society and abused their power to make the US fight Wars for Israel. The impression that Jews are more loyal to other Jews around the world and to Israel than to the particular nation in which they reside. And there are other matters too: Jews control vice industries such as gambling. Jews promote drugs, illegal and legal, to demoralize and even destroy goy peoples. Jews push for Mass Migration-Invasion to increase Diversity to play divide-and-rule among fractured and contentious goyim. Jews promote prostitution, pornography, and sex slavery to exploit goy women as sexual commodities. Jews are two-faced and play both sides. Jews favor minority elitism over majority power. Jews are rank hypocrites in insisting that goyim support Jewish identity, territoriality, and nationality while doing everything to undermine national autonomy & sovereignty among gentiles. Jews seek to drive a wedge between goy men and goy women to weaken organic unity within the goy population. Jews invoke universal principles not to partake of them but to cynically disarm goy nationalists while strengthening their own identity and tribalism. While Jews are perfectly fine with well-armed tribal brethren in Jewish-majority Israel, Jews seek to take away the guns of American goyim so that the Jewish-controlled state will have monopoly of arms over the populace. And so on.

Now, if all such inklings, suspicions, impressions, perceptions, accusations, and convictions are 'antisemitic' and if we push its moral logic to conclusion, then one would have to admit that those who PRACTICE acts and behaviors that support 'antisemitic' THEORIZING are most guilty of 'antisemitism'. After all, if John commits murders and if I suspect that he is committing murders, who is more guilty of anti-Johnism, that is IF 'anti-Johnism' is defined as an unwarranted negative view of John as wicked character despite his virtue, nobility, and innocence? If John is indeed innocent and a wonderful fellow but if I suspect him of being a cretin and a killer, I would then surely be guilty of anti-Johnism. But suppose there is hard evidence that John is a serial killer and goes around murdering people. And suppose my suspicions/accusations are based on that evidence. Then, who is the real anti-Johnist? Isn't John the Killer the true anti-Johnist because his actions have destroyed the pro-Johnist position that John is a good guy and wouldn't hurt a fly? Actions speak louder than words, or Actions SHOULD speak louder than words(though too often they don't), and moral logic would place the burden of anti-Johnism on John's shoulders if he is the one who committed acts that betrayed the spirit of pro-Johnism that contends that John is a jolly good fellow.

Then, the same logic applies to the issue of antisemitism. If our perceptions of Jewish wealth, power, influence, corruption, abuse, crimes, perfidy, and nastiness aren't supported by evidence, then we would indeed be guilty of 'antisemitism', which is defined as irrational fantasizing and hyper-exaggeration of Jewish impact on society, much of it negative. To clarify this matter, let us consider Eskimos. We know Eskimos or Inuits have no power over us. They may be good at constructing igloos, walking on snowshoes, and lifting stuff with their ears, but they have no control of media, finance, Deep State, gambling, Hollywood, the Military-Industrial Complex, pornography, music industry, real estate, law firms, the courts, the universities, and etc. So, if we were to spread rumors about Eskimo power and how it harms society, we would indeed be delusional. We could be said to be Anti-Eskimoan, in this case defined as "Casting irrational and fantastical aspersions of power, influence, and problems on the Eskimo community." Now, if Jewish influence was on the level of Eskimos(or the Amish or West Virginia hillbillies), I could agree with those who sound the alarm about 'antisemitism'. It'd be ludicrous to ascribe so much of social, economic, and political phenomena to Jews when Jews are so feeble and ineffectual as a group. But seriously, are Jews comparable to Eskimos and the Amish? ROTFL. Of course not.

Jewish Power is real, and it is vastly disproportionate to their share of the population. Jews are only 2% of Americans, but Jews are seriously over-represented in elite institutions, upper echelons of finance, top law firms, Ivy League universities, State Department, most influential think-tanks, Big Tech monopolies, uppermost courts, vice industries of gambling-drugs-and-pornography(which should be called E-Prostitution or Electronic Prostitution, very useful to Jews after they lost the business of pimping to the lowly blacks), Big Pharma(such as the sinister Sackler Family, the 21st century counterpart to the Jewish Sassoon Family that dominated the opium trade in China), and etc.
Now, Jewish Power isn't necessarily evil or wicked. Power, like fire, can be used to do good or bad, and indeed, positive Jewish contributions to humanity in many fields such as medicine, arts & literature, philosophy, science, math, and etc. have been nothing less than astounding. Most human groups have been inconsequential, and only a handful have been consequential, and Jews have been among the most consequential if not the most. But as with all great consequential peoples, there has been much that was bad as good. No one would say Romans were all bad or all good. No one would say the Chinese or Hindus, very consequential in Asia, were all good or all bad. Same goes for the British, French, Germans, and Arabs(who spread Islam). Great power is such that it can never be about only the good. Just like the Force in STAR WARS has a dark side, all forms of Great Power are open to abuse and exploitation, and all great peoples and empires have done their share of wicked things. Then, this would apply to Jews as well.

Personally, I believe the concept of Antisemitism has moral validity if defined as follows: (1) Blaming Jews for just about everything, even for things they are not guilty of. (2) Noticing only the negative side of Jewishness and Jewish history without acknowledging the positives.
But 'antisemitism' is not defined thus in our age. Rather, the mere noticing of Jewish Power is said to be 'antisemitic'. Criticism of Jewish power & influence and even the state of Israel is said to be 'antisemitic'. The notion that Jews have been bad as well as good is also 'antisemitic'. We are to believe Jews have always been noble innocent victims even when they were the villains, bad actors, or oppressors. For example, Palestinians are accused of denying the right of Israel to exist while there's hardly any mention that Israel was created as a denial of Palestine to exist. We are bombarded with endless scare stories about how Iran is on the verge of getting nukes while ignoring Israel has 300 nukes(made from uranium stolen from the US), most of them aimed at Iran that could be wiped off the map by Zionist nuttery. We are also to believe that Holocaust Holiness passes down through the generations(as if in accordance to Old Testament logic). So, even descendants of European Jews of the World War II period are paid reparations from the German government. And it doesn't matter how nasty Jews may be as individuals. Never mind what they do. The mere state of BEING Jewish means they are washed of their sins. So, Jonathan Pollard was sprung from jail even though his treason led to the deaths of many. Jeffrey Epstein the pervert-psychopath is walking as a free man. And white-collar Jewish crooks can have their own luxury prisons whereas white goyim must be stuck in cells with Negroes who fuc* them in the ass. Such social arrangement would suggest that Jewish Semites are now Supremites, or Supremacist-Semites who believe that they, as the Chosen People or Holy Holocaust people, are god-men over us and live as VIP with a separate set of rules that privilege their ilk uber alles. In a way, it's as if the world is divided between Jews & 'Meta-Jews' and Palestinians & 'Meta-Palestinians'. Jews and 'Meta-Jews'(or'Other Jews') — groups favored by Jews, such as Homos/Trannies and American Negroes — are above the law and get special treatment... like Jussie Smollett recently. In contrast, white Americans and white Europeans are essentially the 'Meta-Palestinians'(or 'Other Palestinians') as their future has been ordained to follow the fate of Palestinians who were destroyed by dehumanization, deplatforming, unperson-ization, and mass-migration(of Jewish Zionist imperialist-immigrants). What is called 'antisemitism' in the current era is really Anti-Supremitism as those who call out on Jewish Power are not opposed to Jews or Jewishness per se but against Supremacist-Semitism or Supremitism.

Jewish obnoxiousness on this matter is made all the worse because Jews hysterically indulge in the kind of hysteria, paranoia, and lunacy they accuse others of. Jews complain that Jewish Power is exaggerated, but it's the Jews who keep alive the fantasy that the KKK or Neo-Nazis have any power or influence in America. They do this by funding the SPLC and ADL that cook up mostly fake news about various KKK-sightings and incidents that turn out to be 'hate hoaxes'. Or, the cleverer Jews use the terminological net of 'white supremacism' in an 'inclusive' way to drag just about every Donald Trump voter into the 'Nazi' camp. Jews insist that even "It's Okay to be White" is 'white supremacist'. Jews also use guilt-by-association. So, since A is somehow connected to B who is connected to C who is connected to D who is connected to E, A must be in league with E. Using this logic, it's all too easy(and easier) to connect anyone in the Democratic side with extremists and radicals. If anything, Barack Obama had direct ties to Bill Ayers, and powerful Liberal institutions did much to rehabilitate some of the worst scoundrels of 60s radicalism. Certain cop-killers were hidden by their radical associates for decades. And given Jewish-American ties with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine, one can easily connect many influential Jews with extremists in Kiev. And given Thomas Friedman's close ties with Israel that has ties with ISIS, game of connect-the-dots can easily accuse Friedman of ties to terrorism. Or course, invocation of principles doesn't matter if you don't have power. Jews got the power, the megaphone for themselves and the mute-button for others, and they get to decide what is what... and too many people are sheeple and dummies to realize what is really happening.

The great irony of our era is that Jews, as the 'New Nazis', employ quasi-'antisemitic' tropes against certain peoples as the 'New Jews'. Jews do everything they accuse 'Anti-Semites' of doing to Jews. Notice how Jewish power often blames EVERYTHING on white goyim, the main scapegoat or scapegoy for all that is wicked in the world. If something is wrong, blame white men, white women, white this, or white that. It's as if whiteness is a disease and can only cured by extinction by non-breeding, race-mixing, or even murder(as in South Africa). Pathological Jewish Scholars push 'whiteness studies' that would have us believe that there is something innately sick or perverse about white identity and white consciousness.
Jews say it was wrong, even evil, for white Christians in the past to try to convert Jews, but Jews are hard at work converting whites to Political Correctness, 'Wokeness', Globo-Homomania(Queertianity as the new chrisianity), and white self-loathing as the only white virtue worth being proud about: "I'm proud of being ashamed of being white." But, it's not just whites, of course, who come under pathological Jewish ire. Jews also target Iran & Syria and spread all manner of hysteria, hatred, and paranoia on the basis of "Is it good for the Jews and Israel?" Scratch the ticket of any Jewish argument, and it comes down to "Is it good for Jews?" Why is non-Jewish immigration bad for Israel? Because it would demographically erase the Jewish State. Why is mass-immigration good for Hungary? Don't Hungarians have a right to preserve their territory and identity? No, because such right for Hungarians would undermine Jewish Power to use divide-and-rule to take over Hungary. George Soros apparently wants to play Sith Lord around the world, and that is just wonderful to Jewish Power as Jews stick up for other Jews.
To understand the psychology of Jewish and Goy relations, imagine a meeting between Yahweh and pagan gods. Suppose pagan gods of various peoples and cultures want to meet Yahweh halfway and arrive at a compromise. Would Yahweh accept? No and why not? Because Yahweh believes Himself to be the one and only God, the one true God whereas all other gods are false gods or wicked idols that must be destroyed. To the extent that spiritual space constitutes the mental landscape of a people, we need to remind ourselves that the Jewish Mind is essentially Yahwehisitic. And this mental habit is alive and well even among secular atheist Jews whose obsession is Mono-Tribalism and Mono-Nationalism for Jews. Even secular Jews will accept the validity of identity, territory, and history for Jews Only. Jews reject poly-nationalism and poly-tribalism that argues that every people have a land, legacy, and lineage worth preserving. As far as Jews are concerned, Jews and only Jews are deserving of uniqueness. In contrast, the goyim must be universalized in their worship of the Great Jews as Holy Holocaust neo-messiahs. Jewish body and blood are real. As for goyim, their identities are to be treated as baseball caps and t-shirts: Soulless objects, interchangeable and commodified. If white men controlled pornography and used Jewish women as sex meat for Arab men, how would Jews react? Jews would call it defamation and sexual imperialism. But Jews see nothing wrong with turning white women into sex meat for other men to be traded. If anything, Jews will deem it evil for white men to demand that Jews stop trading in white women as white meat.

One thing for sure, Jews are not to be trusted. Just consider the Russia Collusion hysteria spread by their control of media, academia, and Deep State. Jews claim that Russia has historically been guilty of antisemitism, but Jewish anti-Russianism seems to be many times worse(and eternal). Also, Jews don't believe in the middle ground or meeting people halfway. Alexander Solzenhitsyn, in his book TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER, called for both Russians and Jews to atone and bury the hatchet, but Jews have ignored the gesture because they want to own all of righteousness and dump all the blame on the Russkies whom they regard as subhumans who exist only to serve Jews. Like their God Yahweh who insist He and only He is the one true God, Jews must have it all. Jews may appear to haggle for compromise, but they're always aiming to have it all eventually. They are always plotting for total control. This is where Anglo-Americans miscalculated and failed in relation to Jews. They thought they could meet ascendant Jewish Power halfway, i.e. if declining Wasps welcome rising Bugs(Busy Urban Globalist Semites), then Jews would embrace Anglo-Americans as their bosom buddies. It'd be win-win for both sides. Jews didn't see it that way; they were out to make themselves the New Masters and turn Wasps into their running dogs... and that is the state of the world today. Russians learned the same thing in the 1990s. They thought Jews would act with honor and decency if given the reins over the economy, but Jews, whether Russian or American, conspired to take over just about everything and turn Russia into their fiefdom. The current Jewish hatred of Russia has NOTHING to do with past pogroms or Cossacks running wild. It's because Russia managed to thwart the Jewish Plot to take total control of Russia. Jews today aren't anxious about survival but obsessed about supremacism that they regard as their global right. Of course, the Jewish War on Russia isn't over, and it will never be over until Jews have it all. As long as Jewish Supremacism exists, it will seek to gain control of every part of the world, directly or indirectly. Jewish promotion of Globo-Homomania has one purpose: To weaken the moral and national integrity of every nation in favor of elite minority privilege. Homo elite-minorities in all nations love to hook up with elite-minority Jewish Power, especially as Jewish Power showers prizes on vain homos who choose to collaborate with Jews against their own national folks.
Jews, like white Europeans, have an adventurous spirit. When white man looked at the peak of the tallest mountain or the Moon, he didn't give up the dream of getting to the top, no matter how impossible it seemed. No matter how long it took, he was going to find a way to fulfill the dream one way or another. But if whites lionized physical feats of courage and daring, the Jewish dream was always more cerebral. Jews weren't excited by risking life and limb to accomplish the 'impossible'. Unlike Anglos and such folks, they weren't clamoring to climb mountains or make it to the North Pole. Rather, they found ways of wit to make other peoples do the bidding of Jews so that Jews could both keep their limbs and inherit the world. Consider the Wars for Israel. In the 1980s, who would have thought the events of the 90s and 21st century would come to pass? But Jews pulled the strings of media, finance, and government to make them happen. And Jews made OTHER peoples kill and die for the Jews. In the opening of the movie PATTON, the great general says that wars are not won by dying for one's country but by making the other 'poor dumb bastard' die for his country. Jews got it even better: They win wars by making one bunch of poor dumb goy bastards slaughter another bunch of poor dumb goy bastards while Jews rake in the dough and turn white women and Arab women into a bunch of whores. (Jews turned white women into sex toys for Jews and black men, and Wars for Israel have forced so many Arab women, especially Christians, into prostitution.)

Anyway, even if we play the rules of 'Antisemitism' as defined by Jews themselves, honest moral logic would suggest that Jews are the biggest 'Anti-Semites' because their actions provide ample evidence for those who notice patterns of Jewish power and influence that increasingly grows abusive and corrupt because, as they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews control the mass media, then Jews who DO control the mass media must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Media Control. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews control much of Wall Street, then Jews who DO control financial industries must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Money Control. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews control Silicon Valley, then Jews who DO control companies like Google and Facebook must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Big Tech Control. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews control pornography, then Jews who DO control the porn industry must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Porn Dominance. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews use their power to nefariously suppress freedom and liberty, then Jews who DO push for censorship must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Speech Control. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews control foreign policy, then Jews who DO control the State Department must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Israel-First Policy. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews corrupt public morals and spread degeneracy, then Jews who DO spreads Homomania and Sexualization of children must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Moral Decrepitude. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews subvert Christianity & other spiritual-moral systems, then Jews who DO push 'gay rainbows' into Christian churches must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish War on Christianity. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews commit genocide and wage wars, then Jews who DO oppress Palestinians & spread wars in Middle East & North Africa must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish World Violence. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews seek to replace goy national populations, then Jews who DO push for mass immigration & great replacement must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish strategy of demographic imperialism. (Soros must be one big Anti-Semite for making 'antisemitic tropes' come alive.) If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jews use their power to destroy the Second Amendment, then Jews who DO push for gun-banning must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Disarmament of goyim. If it is indeed 'antisemitic' to say that Jewish minorities in goy nations are more loyal to their own Tribe than to their fellow goy countrymen, then Jews who insist on Zionist & Jewish-First Policies must be 'Anti-Semites' because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish In-Group Preference. Consider US foreign policy. Is it equally fair to both Jews and Palestinians? And look how the mass media endlessly remind about the 'plight' of Jews around the world while turning a blind eye to all the whites robbed, raped, and/or murdered by non-whites. In terms of what Jews DO, they are the biggest Anti-Semites because their policies and practices all illustrate the vast, venal, and abusive power of the Jews. Zionists say Israel is the victim of double-standard that doesn't apply to other Western Democracies, but this is more Jewish mendacity. Israel is fully supported by US and EU despite its direct support of terrorism, illegal possession of nukes, occupation of West Bank, and overt racial-supremacist ideology whereas all European democracies aren't even allowed to defend their nations on the basis of identity, history, and territory.

Of course, the greatest irony is that Jews can insist that we pretend they have no power precisely because they got the most power. In history, Jews were sometimes the mouse trying to survive among elephants. Today, Jews are like the elephant that insists on being noticed as a mouse. The effect on society has been downright surreal. It gets even more surreal and twisted when so-called 'Antisemitic Tropes' are easily converted into Philosemitic Tributes via verbal trickery. For instance, if you said Jews played a key role in pushing the 'gay agenda' sometime ago, you would have been smeared as an 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist'. But now that elevation of Homomania or Queertianity as the neo-religion of the West is considered fait accompli, what with worship of Holy Homo being the most important faith in so many people's lives, there are now Jews who brag that their ilk had indeed done most to push the agenda. And it's okay for Joe Biden to say that, yes of course, Jews did play the most important role in the triumph of holy-and-wonderful 'gay agenda'. So, thumbs go up or down on whether something is 'antisemitic' or philosemitic depending on one's attitude toward Jews. If you say Jews control Hollywood and spread much filth, you're an 'Anti-Semite'. But if you say Jews control Hollywood and deserve much praise for their ingenuity and enterprise, then you may be deemed Philosemitic. As nervous as Jews are about goyim discussing Jewish power, it's permissible in some cases IF you praise Jews for their wise and wonderful use of their influence. Whether something is 'antisemitic' or Philosemitic also depends on who/whom and who-said-it. So, if Alan Dershowitz says that Jews indeed have lots of power and DESERVE TO HAVE IT, all is fine and well. But if someone like Kevin MacDonald notices the same power, he must be delusional and having hallucinations. Powerful Jews? Where? The fact that Jews can lie so much and get away with it goes to show that most people are dupes or idiots.

Granted, Jewishness always posed a great contradiction. Even as a mouse-people, they worshiped an elephant-sized God. In contrast, the pagan empires, even as elephant-powers, worshiped mouse-sized gods. Much of Jewish history is about a weak people with a strong God surrounded by strong peoples with weak gods. The Covenant is a powerful thing. In more modern times, Jewish History has been about people with weak bodies but strong minds surrounded by peoples with strong bodies but weak minds. In the end, the minds win over body. Man controls horse, not vice versa. And all goyim need to be mindful of that.

Following the logic of today's 'Antisemitism', Steven Pinker must be a rabid 'Anti-Semite' for noticing so much Jewish power, privilege, wealth, and representation:

Did Victimology associated with ‘White Guilt’ Bring Down the Power & Prestige of White Folks? Or was it the Combination of Victimology and Victorology?

Australian Aborigine, All Victimology and no Victorology

It’s been a truism in the pro-white movement that white identity, white interests, white pride, white prestige, and white power were eroded and brought low by the Victim Politics that instilled white folks with ‘white guilt’. But was that the main reason? Or was it victimology in combination with something else? Oftentimes, it is the combination that make something potent and dangerous, even deadly. It’s like certain chemical agents, though not particularly good for you, won’t cause you much harm UNLESS it is imbibed or injected along with something else. A flint stone thrown into a pile of wood won’t start a fire. A gun on its own or bullets on their own can’t do any harm. An empty gun just goes click-click. Bullets without a gun are about as deadly as rabbit’s foot. What makes a fire isn't just a flint stone on top of wood but two flint stones struck to create sparks that ignite dry leaves/grass around the wood pile. And what makes a gun deadly is when the bullets are loaded into the barrel.
In a similar vein, something like ‘guilt’ can’t do much damage unless there is something with the means(and meanness) to attack and harm those who feel the guilt.

No amount of guilt can do any harm to the guilt-feeler unless the object-of-guilt has the means to attack, harm, and ultimately even overpower him(and kill him). Suppose there’s a hunter who’s killed a lot of sparrows and squirrels. Suppose he took a BB gun and shot down hundreds, even thousands, of them. Then, one day, he wakes up and realizes that he’s acted like a real a**hole. He shot all those poor little animals just for the hell of it, for fun and sport. So, he feels guilty and decides never to harm sparrows and squirrels again. Indeed, he even goes to the trouble of offering breadcrumbs to sparrows and nuts to squirrels on occasion. Now, this man is clearly paralyzed by guilt from ever again using violence against sparrows and squirrels. But has his existence and well-being been seriously compromised or weakened? No. Even if he no longer kills sparrows and squirrels, they won’t do him any harm. After all, sparrows feed on insects and seeds, not on humans. And squirrels scurry around trees and look for nuts and other things to eat. They leave humans alone. Neither sparrows nor squirrels regard humans as prey or enemies. They are content to co-exist with humans. Their natural ideal, if such could be articulated, is, "You humans do your own thing, we little creatures do our own thing."

But suppose a certain hunter went around killing a different kind of animal. Suppose he hunted grizzly bears, wild hogs, lions, hyenas, or some such dangerous beasts. Suppose he killed a whole bunch of them, but one day, he feels bad about having done so. He looks back on his life and is overcome with grief over having killed a whole bunch of big wild animals. He suddenly feels guilt about what he’d done to those animals. He feels sorry and wants to atone for what he did. He swears to never kill those kinds of animals again. He decides to love, honor, and offer special friendship to them. He feels paralyzed in the use of any violence against such animals.
On one level, he is just like the killer of sparrows and squirrels. He’s filled with guilt for having used violence against animals. And like the former sparrow-squirrel killer, he forswears violence against certain animals and decides to be nice to the species of animals he’d harmed. So, will his fate be just like that of the former sparrow-squirrel killer? Or will he end up much worse? We know he will end up much worse.

After all, whatever one feels about sparrows and squirrels, they aren’t naturally aggressive toward humans. When did you hear of a sparrow swooping down to snatch someone’s child away? When did a squirrel ambush a person and jump on his head to tear it to shreds? So, if they are left alone by humans, they will just do their own thing. Whether man feels guilty or not about sparrows and squirrels, they pose no threat or harm to mankind.
In contrast, animals such as lions, hyenas, grizzly bears, or wild hogs are naturally threatening to man. Lions may attack humans for food or sport. Hyenas are powerful and aggressive animals that will attack and eat anything. Grizzly bears are naturally ill-tempered and often charge at people. There have even been cases of bears eating humans. Or they will enter into human habitats and mess things up. Wild hogs destroy entire properties, attack & devour house-pets, and sometimes charge at humans despite lack of provocation. All such animals are either big predators or invasive/destructive beasts. And they are bigger and more powerful than humans in physical terms. So, a man without a gun(or with a gun but without the will to use it) faced with a lion, hyena, wild hog, or grizzly bear is in serious trouble. Those animals have a Power-Advantage over humans, and some of them even regard humans as food. So, being paralyzed with guilt about those animals can be dangerous to humans UNLESS humans maintain a clear boundary between the animal realm and the human realm. If people come to feel bad/guilty about all the bears or lions they killed and create natural areas where lions or bears can thrive without human interference, that'd be one thing. But if this guilt means humans allowing bears and lions to enter into the human realm and do as they please, it means serious trouble for humankind. So, in the end, guilt in-and-of-itself hardly poses a threat to a person or people. What really matters is the nature of what you you feel guilty about. Is the object-of-guilt powerless or powerful? If treated nicely, will the object-of-guilt remain on the bottom or in the middle OR will it shoot to the top and take over? That is the crucial question.

And this question must be applied to human-to-human affairs. Looking back on the West since the end of WWII and especially beginning with May 68 Madness, the fatal danger of white folks wasn’t necessarily ‘white guilt’. It was ‘white guilt’ applied to two dangerous and aggressive groups of innately powerful and threatening peoples: Jews and Blacks. After all, there are so many cases where ‘white guilt’ hardly caused any harm to white folks. Take Australia. The so-called Aboriginal peoples were gunned down like animals by the British colonizers. They weren’t even valued as worthy of slave labor, not least because Australia could rely on steady flow of convict labor from the Mother Country.

So, it’s understandable that present-day white Australians feel historical ‘guilt’ about the Aborigines. And yet, it doesn’t matter because these people have no means of Victorhood to take advantage of the Victimology. Even though they remain poor and cause a host of social problems(related to drunkenness, disorder, or petty crime), they don’t create the kind of havoc that blacks have brought to Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit, Newark, Oakland, Gary, and etc. They are more comparable to Eskimos and American Indians, socio-economic ‘losers’ beset with a host of pathologies that remain mostly within their own communities. So, it doesn’t matter if white Australians are beset with and paralyzed by ‘white guilt’. Aborigines have no natural talent that can exploit white guilt-paralysis to their own great advantage. Whites feeling sorry about Aborigines is like a former-hunter who feels sorry about sparrows and squirrels. At most, Aborigines may be pests now and then, but they will not constitute a pestilence. So, whites can sing all the songs about ‘white guilt’ in regard to Aborigines. It will be inconsequential to the power dynamic of Australia. Aborigines will never amount to anymore than objects-of-pity.

The only way White Guilt in Australia can lead to dire consequences is IF it is divorced from the particular history of Australia and ‘universalized’ so that white Australians are made to atone for their ‘historical sins’ by taking in peoples such as black Africans, Arab Muslims, Chinese, and Hindus. Now, this would make no sense. Why would Anglo-Australians owe anything to Africans, Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus when the ‘historical wrong’ they committed was against the indigenous folks of Australia. If whites took land from the Australian Aborigines and even hunted them down, then the morally right thing would be to provide special treatment to that specific people. Why would whites in Australia owe anything to peoples in OTHER nations? Also, how does it help Australian Aborigines to have their homeland colonized not only by whites but by the world? It’d make no moral sense. But suppose white Australians decide to ‘universalize’ their sense of ‘white guilt’ and seek atonement via more ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, sacred mantras in our PC age.
Now, why would this kind of ‘white guilt’ pose serious dangers to whites? Because, unlike Aboriginal folks who never amounted to anything but clobbering kangaroos and wombats with boomerangs, the Other non-whites can exploit White Guilt to gain a huge foothold in Australia and/or terrorize whites. Indeed, consider how recently arrived black Africans have caused more mayhem and terror in Australia in a few years than Aboriginals ever did. Why is this the case? Because Australian Aborigines are not particularly a powerfully-built people. They don’t dominate sports, don’t come up with stuff like gangster rap, and don’t have the Thug Gene. And even if they were to act nasty, a white guy can give an Australian aborigine a good fight. In contrast, black Africans who recently arrived from Sudan are big and powerful. They are muscled, fast, aggressive, savage, wild, and thuggish. Even though black Africans have been mostly backward and weak economically and technologically, they have a decisive power-advantage over whites in one-on-one physical confrontations. Indeed, black men see white males as ‘faggoty-ass white boys’, as easy prey. Black thug-mentality believes white males should cuck out and kiss black ass while black guys go, "Where da white women at?" and colonize white wombs. So, when White Guilt paralyzes whites into being unconditionally nice and kindly to blacks, it can be fatally dangerous. It’s like disarming yourself against wild hogs, Grizzly bears, lions, or hyenas. Indeed, consider the explosion of black African violence all over Australia. Though a small percentage of the population, blacks immediately turned to thuggery and violence because they sensed white wussy-weakness just like sharks pick up scent of blood and go into a frenzy. They act like hyenas at the sight of a wounded zebra or wildebeest.




While ‘white guilt’ about Aborigines in Australia has been of little social significance or political consequence, once it was ‘universalized’(partly due to Jewish globalist influence that controls much of Australian media, academia, and banking) into Australian whites sharing in Global White Guilt toward People-of-Color, White Australia was threatened by various peoples who can wield real power. While Chinese and Hindus don’t have the thug gene and muscle power to beat up and terrorize white people, there are billions of them, and both nations are eyeing to take over Australia demographically. Thus, White Guilt paralysis vis-a-via Chinese and India could lead to defenselessness against endless tides of yellow/brown mass invasions, in which case historic Anglo-Australia will be lost forever. All the hard work and heavy-lifting done by Anglo-convicts to build the new nation will ultimately serve the regional ambitions of treacherous Chinese and hideous Hindus. There is also the Arab-Muslim threat. Though the Arab-Muslim world is smaller in population than China and India, Muslims are an aggressive people who are nasty and opportunistic in taking advantage of generosity toward them. Just look how Muslim communities have shamelessly exploited the hospitality of Western European nations. Indeed, Arabs/Muslims regard generosity-toward-strangers as naivete, foolishness and weakness. Thus, they feel contempt for white 'suckers' who feed and house them. Also, even as they take from whites, they feel the enraged shame of having to depend on the infidel. Also, Muslims are often unpleasant because of their grandiose sense of themselves. They believe the one and only Allah is on their side and that Muhammad, their Prophets, is the final messenger of God. Thus, Muslims supposedly hold the ultimate truth. And yet, the Muslim world has lagged behind the West and East. This fills Muslims with rage and anger, and their resentment aims to ultimately destroy or take over more advanced Infidel nations that make Muslims look bad. Therefore, when White Australian Guilt is applied to black Africans, Chinese, Asian-Indians, and Muslims, the result can be devastating. It’d be like a guilt-ridden human deciding to be defenseless against and even supportive of Grizzly bears, lions, hyenas, and wild hogs.
And the same logic affects so much of what is happening in France. The French aren’t exactly proud of their history in Vietnam. They invaded and colonized Indochina, and then they fought a bitter war to keep the territory before they finally lost the war to the Viet Minh. Today, there is a sizable though not huge Vietnamese minority community in France. But even if the French were to feel most sorry and guilt about the Vietnamese, it would be of no significance. Even though Viets proved that they could be fierce warriors on their home turf, as minorities in other nations they are just a bunch of nobodies. Physically they are scrawny like chipmunks. They are even small by East Asian standards. Also, even though decent in IQ, they’ve never exhibited the talent or knack to take over other nations culturally, intellectually, or economically. So, the French Guilt about the Vietnamese has no meaningful consequence. It’d be like apologizing to sparrows and squirrels. But matters are different with French Guilt over Jews, Black Africans, and Muslims. Jews are smart, aggressive, and part of the network of EOJ or Empire of Judea. So, French Jews not only wield disproportionate share of power, wealth, and influence but work with World Jewry to influence French national policy. Because Jews are so powerful, influential, and nasty, French Guilt about Jews can be fatal. No matter how horribly Jews act, Frenchmen better shut up or they will be called ‘Nazi’. This is why the ONLY permissible criticism of Jewish power pertains to the Zionist-Palestinian issue, a matter that unfolds OUTSIDE and far away from France itself. France now has lots of blacks, and BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — is a huge factor in French social reality. Black guys push around white Frenchmen as a bunch of ‘faggotois-asseux-cuckoisie’. But French people are defenseless because any push-back against black thuggery and African mass invasion is deemed ‘racist’. Also, as French women have long been a bunch of slutty harlots, they have fewer inhibitions and easily transfer their sexual loyalty to whichever men who seem to have the Power. French girls, now Americanized and Afro-junglized like Anglo youths of late, are now rejecting white Frenchmen in record numbers and adopting for Junglois Feverois and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) or CADWB(Colonisation Africaine des Wombs Blancs). As if Jews and Africans are not bad enough, France is now over 10% Muslim, and these Muslims are even nastier, more hostile, and more unpleasant than Muslims in Australia. At the very least, Australians have no record of violence and colonization against the Muslim World. In contrast, France used to rule large swaths of the Muslim World and even fought a bloody war in Algeria. To prove that they are now good people committed to atoning for their sins as former imperialists, the French have been very generous to Muslim ‘immigration’(mass invasion) and Muslim culture & values in France. But Muslims, given their outlook, never see niceness and generosity as goodness but as contemptible weakness and wussiness that should be exploited. (French-Muslim relations have been made especially problematic by France’s obeisance to both Jews and Muslims. Indeed, the fact that the French elites are more servile to Jews/Zionists than to Muslims have made the latter spitting mad. After all, there are taboos on Shoah but one can still mock Islam and Muhammad in France in the name of Free Speech. Also, despite much greater Muslim numbers, French Jews are so much more successful than Muslims in France whose main talent is imitating blacks and singing rap in Arabic.) There was a time when French Guilt seemed like it could only do good and not much harm. After all, the France in the 1960s was overwhelmingly French. Most Frenchmen regarded black Africans as poor dummies in need of aid. They regarded Jews as a people deserving of sympathy given the horrors of WWII. And they thought Muslims would just come to France, do menial jobs, and shut up. So, French Guilt was really a Pride of French Generosity toward the less fortunate. But as time passed, blacks began to kick French ass in sports, schools, and streets. And Muslims began to take over entire cities and create social turmoil. No matter how nicely the French treated them, their attitude was hostile and ‘gimme more’. As for Jews, they went from a Holocaust People to an Assholocaust People. Worse, when the elite power in the US and UK went from Anglos to Jews, the French found it far more difficult to stand up to US-UK power. When the power was Anglo-held, the French could snub their noses at it as it was fair game to talk shit about Yanks and Brits. But once the top power in the Anglo-World became Jewish, the French became increasingly afraid of being labeled as ‘antisemitic’ if they were to say NO to the demands of the Jew-run US. Thus, French Guilt became fatal because it paralyze the French from calling out and criticizing the harm and threat posed by Peoples of Power. Muslims got the power of numbers and collective-rage. Blacks got muscle, dong, and fist power. And Jews got brain-and-balls power and great reach around the world.

Now, let’s look at the US. It’s been said whites began to lose power and prestige because of the rise of Politics of Victimhood and White Guilt consciousness. But, let’s suppose the only minorities in the US are American Indians, Eskimos, and people of Chinese & Japanese ancestry. There was once a time when the white man fought the fierce Indians, but the Indians lost out, and that was that. Once American Indians lost their territories and warrior pride, they were finished as a people. As for Eskimos, the only thing they were ever good for was making igloos and lifting stuff with their ears. Chinese suffered in the building of railroads, and the Japanese were sent to internment camps during WWII, but they aren't peoples with innate power that could harm whites. East Asians may have IQs comparable to that of whites, but they have passive and/or conformist personalities. They are followers than leaders.
So, if those groups were the only minorities in the US, no amount of White Guilt could have real negative consequence on White Pride, White Prestige, and White Power. White people might go, "boo hoo hoo, we feel so sorry for what we did to you Indians, Inuits, Chinese, and Japanese", but what would this amount to? None of those groups would ever be able to exploit and use White Guilt Paralysis to their advantage. Indians will just say, "Come to our casinos and roll more dice." Eskimos will say, "Buy more beaver pelts." Now, Chinese and Japanese may earn some slots in elite colleges and get good jobs, but they would lack the fire to lead a minority movement to take over America. So, under those conditions, White Guilt would hardly be a threat to the White Race. It’d be like feeling sorry for sparrows and squirrels.

So, why did White Guilt become so fatal in the US? It was because certain Victim Groups have the innate power to become Victors and gain supremacy over whites in certain key areas. Now, if not for White Guilt Paralysis, whites might have come together and pushed against the New Victorology of the Victim Groups, but White Guilt became law-of-the-land, and whites became helpless to do anything about it. Suppose most blacks in the US were like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman. Suppose they are midgets, dwarfs, or cuddly munchkins. Then, it wouldn’t matter how much whites feel White Guilt about blacks because blacks would have no innate advantage or superiority over whites. Even if whites were filled with White Guilt Paralysis and pledge to be extra nice to blacks, what could a race of Emmanuel Lewises and Gary Colemans do to White America?

Jews cunningly promoted Afro-Munchkins to ease white fears about Black Thuggery. So, even as Jews were trying to infect white women with Jungle Fever for Mandingo-Shaft-Mofo, they were featuring Afro-Munchkins like Emmanuel Lewis and Gary Coleman to make white folks feel all warm and cuddly toward the Negro. (Jews promoted Oprah as Neo-Mammy for the same reason: A Negress who hugs you than talks shit like an Angry Black Biatch.) So, even though Gorillian blacks were kicking white butt in sports and schools, countless white folks gave their hearts to Negrolings as baby-chimp-chillun on TV. Anyway, imagine if black folks in the US were more like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis than Jack Johnson or Charles Barkley. Would White Guilt have been equally problematic under those circumstances? How much harm could a bunch of Lewises or Colemans do? Even when real-lifeColeman turned bad, he was a dwarf who hardly posed a threat to anyone but himself.

Recently, Donald Trump pardoned Jack Johnson in yet another display of White Guilt signaling, and it’s worth asking why this is so damaging to the White Race. What did Jack Johnson become famous for? He was the toughest boxer of his time who beat up tons of white guys and humped tons of white women. He destroyed white manhood that was beaten and humiliated before the eyes of lots of white women who then caught jungle-fever because women are sexually wired to give their bodies to physically dominant men. Given the racial reality of the times, Johnson’s story has been spun as one of racial justice and dignity, i.e. in a world of blatant white ‘racism’, Johnson stood up and defeated the symbols of white supremacism and earned respect for the black race. But here’s the problem with such a Narrative: Even if America back then had been totally friendly and welcome toward blacks in all walks of life, Johnson still would have beaten up all those white guys, robbed the white race of manhood, and conquered & colonized tons of white vaginas and wombs. As Jim Jeffries said after he got man-raped by Jack Johnson in the ring, he couldn’t have defeated Johnson in a million-billion years. Thus, Johnson’s black destruction of white manhood wasn’t limited to a historical period but established a fundamental biological truth about the races, i.e. when whites integrate with blacks, white manhood goes extinct. (It's like Charles Barkley telling Richard Spencer that the latter's daughters and grand-daughters will have their wombs colonized by tougher black men who kick white male butt.) And when the men of a race lose prestige-of-manhood in the eyes of their women, they turn cucky-wuck and wussy. And then, their women turn into whores and go with men of the stronger race. Jordan Peterson has spoken about how lobster males fight for dominance and how the loser-male-lobster loses confidence and effectively shrivels into a lobcuckster or incel-lobster. Just like Japanese men have turned into a bunch of wussies after losing WWII and having their nation occupied by Americans, the main reason why white males have grown so wussy and weak is due to the Negro Factor.
We are told that it’s mainly due to feminism, but why does the castrating effects of feminism have a greater impact on white males than on black males? Besides, despite all this talk of feminist power, there is no shortage of macho entertainment, macho fantasies, and women-as-whore fantasies in culture. If anything, so-called ‘toxic masculinity’ can be found everywhere: Sports, martial arts, video-games, music videos, pornography, action movies, superhero fantasies, and etc. So-called MMA fighters are more aggressive and nasty than fighters of old. Video-games have gotten more violent and bloody. Pro-Wrestling is going strong. Every summer has tons of movies about tough guys blowing up the world. Not only is pornography ubiquitous but even mass entertainment has been largely pornified down to stuff made for children. What is called ‘wholesome’ today would have been for Adults Only in the 1970s or even 1980s. If anything, feminism has largely been ineffective in stopping the sexualization of culture(that turns women into 'sex objects'). Kim Kardashian has been the most followed-celebrity. If anything, much of feminism turned skanky and slutty, embracing the inner whore than the Iron-Spinster-Sister.
Therefore, the recent decrease in overall white male confidence has little to do with war on ‘toxic masculinity’ & sexual expression than with their near-total triumph. After all, most kids grow up to rap songs where thugs sing about ‘muh dick’ and about fighting and humping whores. And ‘twerking’ is the biggest dance among young females. Thus, our culture is saturated with ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘toxic femininity’(or femininity that is as brazen, aggressive, and shameless in its horniness as the male kind). And this was bound to favor black manhood over white manhood because blacks have a decisive advantage in sports, can holler louder, are naturally more aggressive, and have bigger dongs. It wasn’t the feminist suppression of sexuality that led to wussiness and cuckery among white men. It was the triumph of Black ‘toxic masculinity’ or Jack-Johnsonism.

And the main reason why so many white males found refuge in beta-male wussiness and cuckery was because they lost out to black manhood. When whites were secure in their own domain, white manhood need not compete with black manhood. Thus, whites could have a Hercules, Achilles, or Lancelot who was white. When Ancient Greeks had their Olympic games, it was for Greeks only. They didn’t invite Negroes from Africa to kick Greek male ass and have Greek women run off with Negroes. But once Manhood Competition was globalized, especially by having millions of Africans settle in white nations, white guys were going to lose out to the Jack Johnsons and Usain Bolts of the world. So, if white guys cannot be the representatives of Iconic Manhood in their own societies, what is left for them? If they can’t be alpha, they turn beta and turn wussy and cuckish and 'gender-fluid'.
This is also why Japanese and Korean males are turning into soyboy wussies. Their nations having been globalized, yellow males are beginning to realize they have no value in the Manhood department vis-a-vis the men of other races. So, what is left for them but to take on eunuch-mentalities, put makeup on their faces, and act like gayish flower-girly-boys? It’s estimated that 50% of Japanese men are unmarried virgin incel losers who have lost all pride of manhood, and 80% of Japanese women, having been globalized in taste and preference, say they are dissatisfied with their own men. So, the future of Globo-Japan will be Cuckpan where Japanese women go with non-Japanese men and have mixed-raced kids who take over the icons of Japanese manhood. Look how Japanese women are having kids with black men who are now taking over Japanese sports. Stuff like sports and pop culture matter because most people think in terms of idols than individuals. So, even if Japan is filled mostly with Japanese individuals, most of them are faceless nobodies. For the representative and iconic face of Japanese manhood and womanhood, the masses look to athletes, celebrities, and stars. So, if Japanese men are dethroned from the altar of manhood in sports and pop culture in their own nation, it will have a huge psychological effect EVEN IF Japan remains majority Japanese. It’s like, if the other side takes the battle flag of your side, it has a huge psychological effect on everyone. Or, if the Hero on your side loses to the Hero of the other side, it’s not just one individual losing to another but one icon losing to another. When Achilles defeated Hector, it had significance far beyond one guy beating another guy. He defeated the iconic representative of Trojan manhood. This is why black victory in sports has had HUGE ripple effect on all of white society. It wasn’t just some black guys beating some white guys. It was black manhood conquering, man-raping, and enslaving white manhood into wussy-dom. What Japan is now undergoing under globalist pressure, the UK, France, and Holland have already undergone. The idols and icons of representative manhood in those nations are increasingly black. Even though those nations still have many more whites than blacks, blackness has taken over as the iconic banner of manhood. Thus, not only are black men kicking white men’s butts in sports and conquering tons of white wombs but even white history is being rewritten to recast classic white heroes such as Hercules, Achilles, Lancelot, and many others into black heroes. The effect of idolatrous power can be seen in the not-very-good movie TROY. When Achilles defeats the goliath-sized Hero of the Rival army, all the men lose heart, turn wussy-cuck, and surrender.


Because blacks have an innate advantage and power over whites in brute strength and aggression, White Guilt Paralysis in relation to blacks was like a hunter who is overcome with guilt for grizzly bears, lions, hyenas, or wild hogs. Blacks want to kick white butt, humiliate white boy, and hump white women. They be nasty and aggressive. So, when whites fell for the BS cult of MLK about ‘peaceful resistance’ & reconciliation, they were setting themselves for racial demise. Via White Guilt, they rendered themselves defenseless against a most aggressive, nasty, and lip-smacking enemy. While it’s true that whites historically oppressed blacks, it’s no less true that blacks biologically want to beat up white boys and sexually conquer white women because blacks look upon whites like lions look upon zebras.

And then, whites totally underestimated the nature of Jews when they embraced White Gentile Guilt about Shoah/Holocaust. Jews seemed so pitiable after WWII in which Nazi Germans went crazy and carried out a horrible genocide. Besides, Jews were a small minority in the US. Even if they were disproportionately more successful than other groups, how could a tiny minority really take over the US and act like total a**holes? Would Jews really go from Holocaust people to an Assholocaust People? It seemed unlikely. And yet, whites totally underestimated the Way of Jews. Jews were not only more intelligent than whites by a standard deviation but were tribally networked all over the world, deviously cunning-conniving-and-venal, rabidly & virulently hateful, genocidally vengeful, and contemptuous & sadistic. Jews were like a monster-creature created by combining octopus, hyena, piranha, shark, weasel, cockroach, salamander, mole rat, bobcat, gopher, badger, kangaroo, buffalo, platypus, goat, seal, dolphin, lobster, crow, and bonobo. Jews were like The Thing of John Carpenter’s movie.

The real face of Jews: Exhibit A.

The real face of Jews: Exhibit B.

White folks simply had no idea of the true nature of Jews. Jews are a remarkable people, and that means they are great in wisdom and profundity but also in wickedness and megalomania. Thus, while Jews can do a lot for mankind if their talents and energies are steered and channeled properly, they can to spiral out of control and mess up the world if allowed to act like they are god himself. Jews, with their high intelligence and immense talent, are a people who must be carefully watched. Anything of great power must always come under scrutiny. (Funny that Jews say we must pay close attention to Iran, a nation without nukes, but we must turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel has 300 nukes that hardly go mentioned.) After all, why is there so much more care and caution at a nuclear reactor than around a camp fire? If something goes wrong around a camp fire, someone may burn his hand or marshmallow. But if something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor... well... the result is:

Jewish Power is nuclear, and what we are witnessing is a Jewclear Meltdown because White Guilt Paralysis about the Jew has made it nearly impossible to notice and criticize Jewish power that, unless carefully contained and inspected, has a way of going crazy. Ironically, the problem with Jews can be understood by studying the Germans. Germans were also a great people capable of so much good and so much bad. A talented, passionate, intelligent, and creative people, they could be great artists, visionaries, scientists, and thinkers. But they could also be great madmen, destroyers, and lunatics. Few peoples in modern times have done so many great things and so many evil things as the Germans have. Same goes for Jews. But after WWII, both Germans and Jews learned the wrong lessons that were then dumped on the rest of humanity. Germans were made to feel they are essentially evil at the core and must never imbibe another shot of passion and pride because it will lead to Nazism all over again. But Germans are nothing without passion and vision. Imagine Beethoven and Wagner rejecting their own passions lest they destroy the world. In contrast, Jews were made to feel they are innately holy & wonderful and nothing they do could ever be wrong. Thus, Jewish passions increasingly ran wild and crazy to the point where they befouled the world with filth of all kind.
The ONLY effective bulwark against Jewish Megalomania was responsible White Power, but White Gentile Guilt Paralysis made it nearly impossible for white power to ever notice anything dark, sick, or vile about Jewish power. Imagine if the humans in John Carpenter’s THE THING developed Human Guilt over the Thing and pledged to serve it and never use violence to fight back. What would happen?

White Guilt also muted white resistance to the Mexican Brown invasion. Though Mexicans-as-individuals lack the advantage of brawn of blacks and the advantage-of-brain of Jews, TOO MANY of them pose a real threat to White America. It’s like rabbits aren’t dangerous like lions or hyenas, but they can over-breed and take over entire areas and eat up all the plants. But the cult of White Guilt effectively silenced white resistance to Mass Invasion(aka Immigration) by the Other. Thus, the Mexican challenge also became very dangerous.
Anyway, the lesson from all this is, "Always be careful whom you feel guilty about." Certain groups that are deemed as ‘victims’ may hold certain Ace cards that can turn them into ruthless victors over your group when the tide shifts. White folks embraced White Guilt in regards to Jews and blacks on the premise that such minorities would remain noble objects-of-pity when showered with sympathy and affection. But in fact, blacks were eyeing for physical victory over the white race with their harder muscles and bigger dongs, and Jews were eyeing for political victory over the white race with their higher intelligence, pushier personalities, and more devious agendas.