Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts

Monday, October 25, 2021

What Anne Frank and Leo Frank teach us about Jewish Mendacity and where both Germans and White Americans failed with the Jewish Question — Why Jews cannot tolerate Free Speech and Facts & Reason of a Truly Secular Society

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/09/26/jasenovac-the-latest-holocaust-embarrassment/

The days of the “6 million” are numbered, and I suspect that Goldman, Goldstein, and friends know it. When that crumbles, so too collapses what little remains of Jewish credibility. When the orthodox Holocaust story goes down, the dominoes may well begin to fall. And when that happens, all bets are off.

I'm not too sure about that. Much of history has less to do with facts than the power of who gets to control the discourse. So, even if it's proven beyond a doubt that 6 million didn't die, the myth can go on as long as the Power decides if it must. The Power controls the knob and can amplify or mute whatever it wants — consider George Floyd, who died of overdose, has been canonized while Derek Chauvin will rot in prison for 22 yrs for merely having done his job of protecting blue city yuppie elites from black thugs. Most people don't do independent research and, as normies, just go with the Official Narrative. Now, there are surely historians and the like who know the 6 million figure is a gross exaggeration, but they fear being ostracized and/or blacklisted. Being labeled a 'denier' is tantamount to heresy in our so-called secular order with new gods, namely the Tri-Idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The Power will denounce you, and the normies will reject you as a 'neo-nazi', 'white supremacist', 'anti-semite', or some nutjob crank because they almost never look or think beyond what they got from public education and Jewish-run 'mainstream media'.

This is why honest people fear telling the truth. They are caught between the Power and the People. The Power is mainly concerned with control and will spin any narrative, push any lie, and suppress any truth to maintain its grip(and the Power operates likewise all over the world, no less so in China, Iran, and Russia with their own sacraments and taboos). The People, most of whom are 'normies', are easily manipulated by the Power. In some ways, they are more easily manipulated in so-called 'liberal democracies' due to the conviction-bordering-on-faith that the People are free. In truth, people in so-called 'democracies' get to vote for whore-pawns vetted and bought/sold by the oligarchs who also own nearly all the media that hire mostly flunkies, careerists, propagandists, and activists(in line with oligarchic agendas). Under communism, people were more skeptical because they knew everything was propaganda.

To be sure, in the so-called 'liberal' West, there was certainly lot more freedom than under Stalinism or Maoism, but the danger lay in the fallacy that better is best. If Bob the gangster is a better person than Tom the gangster, a real psychopath, it still doesn't mean Bob is a good person. Though not as terrible as Tom, he too is a criminal, a thug, and even a killer. The so-called 'liberal West' was undoubtedly freer than communist systems(or other hardline forms of autocracy) and more kinds of speech were allowed, but that doesn't mean it was the bastion of truth. But the cult of 'muh democracy' and 'muh free speech' fooled a lot of people that they are getting the truth from the media(because it's part of the 'free press') in a society committed to free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of conscience. But like the hare that took for granted its lead over the tortoise, people in the West have been complacent in the assumption that they are living in the best of all possible worlds in terms of freedom and truth(and prosperity). This has resulted in 'insouciance', as Paul Craig Roberts calls it, that has led to so much erosion of liberties and rights before our eyes. Even as people in the West keep losing more liberties and rights, they always assure themselves, "I'm living in a liberal democracy, therefore I'm free... unlike those living in autocratic Russia or China."

Of course, the West was always under some kind of oligarchic power, but it's getting worse because it's ruled by Jews who refuse to even acknowledge their dominant position(fueled by a tribal sense of supremacism & contempt), lack any sense of magnanimity, have intoxicated themselves on moral narcissism, and are caught in the web of their own paranoia. In the West, never has so much power been concentrated in the hands of so few who are so hostile toward and derisive of those they rule over. Why else would they push for the Great Replacement or White Nakba? It's because Jews don't regard white folks as their own people but as the Goy Other that must be kept in their place, and what better and more permanent way to destroy white power than by demographically eclipsing whites with non-white goyim. Jews say O Vey, whites better Obey. The current West is something like an 'oligomocracy', i.e. it's totally controlled by the oligarchy but within the framework of what appears to be a democracy.

Honest people find themselves caught between the Power that prioritizes control and the People who gobble up whatever slop they're fed. It's the Glob and the Mob. Consider how the Twitter Mob works. Them 'woke'(or Jewoke) idiots swallow all the crap fed them by the Jewish-controlled media and academia. They think they are more 'sophisticated', 'evolved', and 'hip' because they get their ideas and views from supposed 'progressives' with elevated elite credentials. Not that American 'conservatives' are much better as they wolf down all the crap fed them on Talk Radio which is mostly controlled by Neocon monopolists. (And even alternative voices like Alex Jones would have us believe Arabs own Hollywood and China has something to do with diminishing freedom in the West.) These proggies feel smarter because they hang around tonier parts of the city, attended fancier colleges, watch Young Turks, listen to NPR, and maybe have a subscription to the New Yorker. Now, one can get lots of valuable news and information from such sources — they sure beat the 700 Club and much of Talk Radio — , but all said and done, they dare not venture outside the boundaries of discourse as insisted by Jewish Power. Indeed, the sudden war on Free Speech by so-called 'progressives' has been instigated from above by Jewish supremacist opinion-makers.

They are not about free-ranging intelligence in search of truth but corralled and tamed 'intelligentry' in service to Jewish Power and the gods it controls. Jews fear true secularism where people are free to use reason and facts in pursuit of worldview that comports with reality. Such secularism favors no side as plenty of dirt can be dug up about any group. It could dig up lots of dirt on Anglos, Germanics, and Slavs but also plenty on Jews, blacks, homos, and etc. Mao Zedong soon realized his system couldn't be sustained by the principles of the Hundred Flowers Campaign. For a season or two, something like a real liberal spirit prevailed in China as people were allowed to say anything, even against the party. Few drips turned into a torrent that then threatened to break the dam of party authority. Likewise, the liberal experiments in Czechoslovakia in the mid 60s eventually led to Prague Spring that challenged the very authority of the Communist Party. Soviet tanks had to roll in to turn the tide. Mikhail Gorbachev had his own Hundred Flowers Campaign called Glasnost and, unlike Mao who soon reversed course, he allowed it to take root and grow. Result was a million complaints from the people and the utter demoralization of party members. It wasn't long before the whole edifice of Soviet authority crumbled. (Of course, by then, all of Eastern Europe had given up on communism and looked to the West for aid, guidance, and investment.)
In order for communism or at least communist party authority to remain, the Marxist brand of secularism had to enforce its sacraments and taboos. While lots of things could be questioned, certain things could not be. Marx and Lenin were gods, and communism was 'scientific materialism', and only a mentally ill person would dare question it.
Truth and facts are neutral. So, the Power wants truth and facts to shed light on the bad of the enemies and rivals but not of itself. The Power encourages the educated class to dig up all manner of dirt about the other side(s), even rewarding those who manufacture falsehoods(as with the Russia Collusion Hoax, Assad Gas Attack Hoax, and Jussie Smollett Hoax). The Power seeks flaws in the arguments and ideologies of competing powers but not in its own. Thus, secularism can never be totally rational or factual because the Power favors its own control than the general truth.
In a genuine liberal-secular democracy/republic, free speech and free discourse can boomerang on the Power as the educated class(often filled with resentment against the rich and privileged) may well critique the Power itself. Indeed, this is exactly what happened with the Anglo elites in US and UK. Even though they had plenty of educated men on their side, they also had to contend with the increasing chorus of criticism coming from within and without their own ranks, not least from Jews.
In regards to the Power, there are two natural tendencies among the People: Submission and Rebellion, and the two tendencies often co-exist. As often as not, rebellion is borne of resentment of not having been favored and/or approved by the Power than based on any real principle, though all rebels pretend they are motivated by higher values, and the same goes for submission, i.e. people join the Power and collaborate for personal gain, careerism, and peace of mind(as dissent can lead to harassment, purging, and even death) than out of any deep conviction. Most people are benders than standers.

At any rate, the Power is likely to attract as much criticism and pushback as cooperation and support in a free society. The opposition could be a matter of partisanship or personal conscience, as is true of compliance. When Anglo-Americans ruled the US, they had both lots of supporters and lots of critics. Of course, the influence of criticism altered the character of the ruling elites, in which case the once-supporters could become the new critics and once-critics the new supporters. Or, the change came about because the character of the support was altered by the influence of media and academia. After all, even the supporters of the Anglo-American Christian Order were bombarded by the Jewish-controlled media, and their children(groomed to work for the Power) were shaped by the increasingly Jewish-dominated academia. Consider the fate of the GOP. At times, the leadership came under Jewish influence and mandated a new set of 'values' for American Conservatives to follow, but at other times, the rank-and-file were altered by Jewish Influence and exerted pressure on the leadership to change course; or else, they threatened to leave the Party for the Democrats or the Independents.

No doubt, Jews understood this aspect of the secular-liberal dynamics of Power. Free Society meant free speech, and free speech meant the freedom of conscience and the free play of ideology to critique and challenge power and authority. Indeed, no group than the Jews did more to involve itself in taking apart, deconstructing, exposing, and invalidating the existing concentrations of Power, indeed so much so that, Jewish influence was seen almost as synonymous with social critique, dissent, ideological radicalism, and other modes of rebellion/dissidence, so much so that even anti-Jewish groups and those at odds with Jewish agendas developed grudging respect for Jews as standard-bearers of civil liberties. Now, we know it was either just a ploy or something Jews came to regret.

Secular freedoms can support and protect any side but also subvert and tear it down. One can use free speech to spread and defend Christianity or to mock and expose it as a delusion or hypocrisy. One can use free speech for or against Marxism. Secularism, in and of itself, doesn't have sacred cows, and that means ANYTHING can be critiqued, appraised, questioned, attacked, mocked, impugned, and etc.
Marxists understood this very well, which is why they made Marx and Lenin the new sacred cows. You could question, criticize, and condemn religions, capitalism, feudalism, traditionalism, liberalism, and etc. in a Marxist state but one could not question the 'scientific' and 'materialist' truth of Marx and Engel's ideas. After all, if secularism in a communist state could critique and diagnose Marxism like any other ideology or worldview, it could be delegitimized in the eyes of the public, not least because so many Marxist policies weren't working according to plan.

Jews are no different than Marxists in their grip on power. Though Jews today are super-capitalists and the LAST THING they want is communism, they know that the current Power Arrangement cannot allow total free speech founded on absolute commitment to secularism. They prefer a sacral-secularism, or 'securalism' whereby Jews get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. Jews know that official religions aren't possible in a secular order, and so, they use media and academia to generate sacral-emotions on certain topics. That way, Jews can have the cake and eat it too: Jews can maintain what is ostensibly a secular order without official religions but also have a population that feels, thinks, and behaves as virtual spiritualists on certain matters.
Under this order, there are three kinds of qualities: Holy, Material, and Unholy. 'Holy' are those subjects that command reverence & piety and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; one must idolize, mourn, and/or celebrate them. As the Michael Jackson and Oprah cults have shown, people can be made to feel 'holy-schmoly' about anyone or anything. 'Material' are those subjects that are unrelated to the Holy and, therefore, can be discussed freely: Like the science of dairy products or the migratory behavior of birds. 'Unholy' are those matters that pose a danger to the Holy and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; they must be condemned outright and, in the absence of legal protection of free speech, banned, as is already the case in UK, Canada, and EU.

MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, Globo-Homo, and Jews are holy. All Good People must gush about them. Covid-19 and 'vaccines' have also entered the realm of the Holy; the 'jabs' and the never-ending boosts are the new communion rituals. If you dare to discuss Covid-19 freely and speculate as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin, you are a heretic and must be mocked as a 'horse-dewormer' taking devil-worshiper. Most diseases and treatments are in the 'Material' realm, or open to free scientific discourse, but Covid-19 and the 'vaccines' are not; the only allowable 'science' is the one pushed by the Jewish Globalist World order that controls the Deep State, Big Pharma, and Big Media. Indeed, notice how the nay-sayers of the 'vaccines' are effectively 'excommunicated' from the church of 'trust-the-science'(or schwience). And of course, anyone who dares to freely discuss the problems of racial differences, black crime, Jewish perfidy, homosexual decadence, tranny nuttery, and etc. are immediately deemed 'Unholy'; everything is done to ban such voices from media, academia, and even internet platforms that once used to be bastions of free speech. Like the Marxists in communist nations, Jewish Supremacists realized their grip on supremacy isn't tenable in a world of free flowing opinions and ideas where anyone and everything can come under scrutiny, criticism, and reappraisal. 'Unholy' views are immediately and roundly attacked as 'far right', 'hateful', and etc., funny coming from a people who've committed the most violence and mass killings since the end of the Cold War. Just ask the Arabs and Muslims whose policies led to the destruction of millions of them. They were victims of Jewish-Supremacist policies that animate the cuckish aggressions of the Anglo-managed US and UK.

American Pravda: the ADL in American Society - From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day - by Ron Unz

Something of the Jewish character can be glimpsed from a consideration of Anne Frank and Leo Frank. The comparison may seem perverse as one was an innocent victim of Nazi inhumanity whereas the latter was a pervert-murderer. But, not if the comparison focuses on the Jewish Reaction to the two individuals(or the two events they're associated with), and it has to do with Denial, a term usually associated with the Holocaust but which applies so often to Jewish reactions to events. Even to this day, Jews are in USS Liberty Denial mode. While Nazi horrors were many times more murderous and destructive than Israel's attack on the US ship, the nature of the lie is the same: A pathological inability to face up to the truth for purpose of ethnocentrism. (Ironically, Holocaust Denialists and Holocaust Dogmatists have more in common than they realize. Both are invested in History as Faith, either in the total innocence or absolute guilt of the Germans. This false dichotomy has made it virtually impossible to have a true historical discussion on the subject as anyone suspected of 'revisionism' is thrown into the Denial Camp.) What matters is the attack on USS Liberty was clearly a hostile act by Israel, but to this day, Jews refuse to own up to what happened. And not just the Israeli government, which would at least be understandable, but Jews all around the world. What does this say about Jewish Power and the general character of Jewishness when most Jews aren't willing to face up to the most obvious facts?

And if Jews aren't willing to face up to what happened to USS Liberty, why would they be any more honest or principled on far graver matters? And if most Jews, 'conservative' and 'liberal', so readily circle the wagons on something so obvious and undeniable, the only logical conclusion is that, for most Jews, ethnic unity and power take precedence uber alles. Besides, it's not as if Jewish criminality has been limited to isolated incidents like the USS Liberty attack. Jewish finance played a significant role in the expansion of European Imperialism, not least the Anglo kind. Jews had a key role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(at least in South America) and the forced sale of opium to China. Jewish merchants played a role in the Westward expansion and the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and Jewish radicalism played a key, even decisive, role, in the spread of communism and its horrors that led to the deaths of millions. And since the end of the Cold War, World Jewry have been the main butchers of the world as overlords of the lone superpower, the US, the foreign policy priority of which has been appeasing Zion by serving as its murderous attack dog. Just ask the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, and many others.
Furthermore, Jews have been the main concocters of this 'wokeness'(or Jewokeness) that plants poison seeds in the souls of whites(mainly via Afromania and Globo-Homo degeneracy) and prepares the West for White Nakba.

But, because Jewish Power has been dispersed among various nations in which goy 'buffers' were often employed to do the bidding of Zion, much of Jewish Evil has been attributed to anyone but Jews. So, Iraq War is blamed on George W. Bush and 'Neocons'(with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the most prominent faces), and most of the current lunatic policies are blamed on Joe Biden even though he's just a puppet of his Jewish Handlers. Even when Jews were considerably less powerful in the past, they had sway over key members of the goy elites via the control of money.
What all this means is that, while Jews have much to accuse the goy world of, they also have much to be accused of and much to answer for. Also, apart from the policies of National Socialist Germany that sought to be Jew-Free, thereby making its crimes its own, it's not so easy to differentiate the Jewish Role from the Goy Role in much of the Modern West. Jews, like the Irish, collaborated in much of British Imperialism. If most Irish did it as foot-soldiers, Jews did it as financiers. So, ironically, National Socialism rendered Jews the most innocent of German crimes during the Nazi Era, whereas the Western Powers that allowed Jewish participation made Jews accomplices in their 'racist' domination of the world. Not that any of this matters in the current Jewish-controlled Historiography whereby we are to believe Jews were always pure-as-snow innocents who were totally blameless of Western Imperialism and, if anything, the main poor hapless victims of Western 'antisemitism'.

Though Anne Frank and Leo Frank are two very different individuals, both have been shrouded by Jewish Lies. Thus, what unites them is the culture of Jewish Mendacity. Never mind the stuff about Anne Frank story being partly created by her father. Never mind the rather ludicrous canonization of some Jewish Girl into the new madonna. We can accept that she was a nice girl and met a sad fate(though she died of disease than gassing or a bullet to her head). The LIE is in propping her cult as the main face of Jewishness, thereby creating a false impression as to why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred and why the Germans were driven to such extremes. It'd be like using some Japanese girl who died in Hiroshima as the main face of Japan's place in World War II.
Now, clearly many innocent children of all nationalities perished in the war, and there's no problem in remembering and mourning Jewish children who died in the Shoah. And Japanese children who died in the war should be remembered as well. But the war against Japan wasn't about some crazed desire to kill innocent Japanese girls. Rather, Japanese children were the unfortunate and tragic casualties of a war in which Japanese adults in powerful positions decided to play with fire. To understand Japan's role in WWII, one needs to focus on the politicians, industrialists, military men, ideologues, and the Emperor. Likewise, even though many innocent Jews, even children, were persecuted and killed in WWII, no real understanding of the Jewish Role in the war can be understood without taking into account the dangerous and even reckless roles played by Jewish radicals, bankers, gangsters, fraudsters, corrupters, and perverts. Remembering Anne Frank as a sad child victim of History is a decent thing to do, but using her as the Face of Jewishness in the Modern Era is utterly bogus.
After all, Germans could do the same. Consider all the innocent German children who were killed by bullets or bombs, or who were raped(most likely by Soviet troops), or perished from starvation and disease. All such lives should be remembered, but it'd be foolish to use her story as exemplary of Germany's role in World War II. No, Germany got embroiled in the horrors because of Adolf Hitler and his reckless worldview(though it certainly wasn't helped by Josef Stalin, FDR, Winston Churchill, and others itching for some kind of major conflagration). Anne Frank Cult as the face of the Holocaust Narrative overlooks the role of Jewish Power that led to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists. Germans went to the dark side not because they wanted to hurt innocent Jewish children but had-it-up-to-here with the crimes and corruption of Jewish Power. However, in handing power to a bunch of radical Anti-Semites, there was the danger of innocent Jews getting it in the neck as well. But innocent Japanese also got burned for the crimes of their rulers.
Granted, it's never quite simple to draw a clear line between guilt and innocence. After all, many Japanese supported the policies of their rulers. But then, their minds were largely manipulated by the rulers who controlled the media, so there was a kind of circular logic to the mania. Likewise, many Jews did nothing to restrain the vileness of their tribal elites(and little has changed over the years as Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal are exceptions than the rule) and a good number of them participated, though not as key players, in the vile machinations of their tribal leaders. So, absolute guilt and absolute innocence are virtually non-existent. One could say children are innocent, which is true enough, but it's only a matter of time before children are indoctrinated into soldiers of the regime, much like it's only a matter of time before tiger cubs grow into predators. Children are innocent in the moment but not in their destinies, most of which are controlled by external forces; besides, even the internal drives of human nature leads one to aggression, competition, domination, or service to dominant forces.

If Jews used an innocent girl, Anne Frank, as the face of all Jews threatened or killed in the World War II period, Jews denied the guilt of Leo Frank altogether even though he was most certainly guilty of the rape-murder. A case of rape-murder denial. Though only one girl was raped and killed by Leo Frank, the Jewish pathology behind the denial isn't much different in kind from the denial of those who naysay all documented details of the Shoah. In some ways, it's worse among Jews because, whereas Holocaust Denial is a fringe phenom among goyim, Leo-Frank's Rape-Murder Denial has been the mainstay of Jewish Power and Jewish Majority, much like USS Liberty Attack Denial. Add to this the Jewish Virtual-or-Emotional Denial of the Rosenbergs' guilt in slippling atomic secrets to Stalin. While most Jews came to admit Rosenbergs were guilty of the act, they melodramatized the Narrative to make the Rosenbergs and other communists the 'victims' of 'red-baiting' and 'paranoid' anti-communists. So, even when Jews admit a good number of Jews were involved in treason and treachery, they canonize the guilty as 'victims' while reviling the prosecutors as subhuman persecutors of all things decent and humane.

Leo Frank was eventually lynched by a mob that just about had enough. He was only one person, indeed the only Jew ever lynched on American Soil. Therefore, it may seem ridiculous and perverse to compare his case with the Holocaust where, purportedly, 6 million Jews perished(though the real number is probably half that), Anne Frank included. US was good to Jews, Germany of the Nazi period was horrible for Jews. And yet, history and truth aren't merely about numbers. One Jew or Six Million Jews, the motivations of goy hatred could be the same. Thus, what the Leo Frank Case(the death of one Jew) and the Anne Frank Case(the death of millions of Jews) have in common is the Jewish tendency to commit horrific crimes and use the tribal network to circle the wagons.
Lucky for Jews, such Jewish behavior led to minimum anti-Jewish violence in the US(relatively speaking), but consider the goy rage in both US and Germany. In the US, southern white goyim were more than willing to give Leo Frank the benefit of doubt and his day in court. Frank wasn't treated like some Negro but had all the legal defense one could hope for. And yet, facts proved his guilt beyond a doubt, and the proper thing for Jews would have been to make him face justice. But, what did the Jewish community do? They circled the wagons. They chose tribal ethnocentrism over justice for the dead goy girl. Apparently, the life of a Jewish rapist-murderer was more precious than the life of a goy girl seen as little more than a shikse whore(later to replayed by Roman Polanski's case). Jews not only refused to face up to facts but tried to frame a Negro. And then, the Jewish Press slandered southern whites(who'd been kindly to Jews) as a bunch of raving 'anti-semites' when they'd offered Leo Frank every opportunity to prove his innocence. The real issue isn't that Leo Frank was a creep. All groups have their rapist-murderer creeps; John Gacy was no Jew. The issue was the Jewish Community went out on a limb to protect a fellow Jew despite his obvious guilt(and things are even worse today, with Jonathan Pollard giving the US a middle finger as he swaggers around Israel as a 'hero').

The Southern White Goy community just about had enough and took matters into its own hands. They grabbed Leo Frank from the jail cell and lynched him. The goy rage wasn't much different from what would happen among Germans during the Weimar Period, in which many German Jews, backed by World Jewry, did horrible things to the German economy, culture, and political process, which they would repeat all over again in Russia of the 1990s. But, the difference is German Rage put radical Anti-Semites in power, and the Nazis had a worldview not so different from that of Jews: supremacism. Just like so many Jews felt Jews could never do wrong and should always circle the wagons to protect other Jews, guilty or innocent, the National Socialist direction for Germany was Aryans Uber Alles.
Still, the rage that many German citizens felt that drove them to support the National Socialists wasn't much different from the rage felt by the Southern White mob that finally had had enough of Leo Frank and had him lynched. In both cases, goyim were driven to the limit by Jewish vileness. Historically, Germany had been less anti-Jewish than most European nations, but Germans came to believe that their relative niceness toward Jews only emboldened Jews to act more shitty. Likewise, historically the American South had been kinder to Jews, but how did Jews pay back this favoritism? They circled the wagons to defend the loathsome Leo Frank, the rapist-murderer of a white Christian girl.

Most crucially, both the US and Germany failed to do the right thing. In the case of Germany, the new regime went after ALL Jews. Even if many Jews had acted badly, there was no reason to target all Jews as the majority of Jews hadn't been gangsters, communist radicals, or financial thieves. And some were patriots who had fought in World War I and respected German culture. In going after all Jews, National Socialism disgraced itself and finally blackened German reputation with war and genocide.
One would like to believe the American Example was infinitely better. After all, Americans didn't go after all Jews but targeted one Jew, the guilty Leo Frank. Not that Jews ever appreciated this as they lionized Leo Frank as a saint, and the organization that grew out of the incident, ADL, now serves as the 'moral' muscle of Jewish Power and twists arms everywhere to push for Censchwarzship.
Still, it's surely far more sensible to go after the one guilty Jew than go after an entire community. Better to kill one bad person than kill 'six million', among whom the good are mixed with the bad. And yet, Americans also made a fatal mistake in the Leo Frank case. While only Leo Frank was responsible for the rape and murder of the white girl, much of the Jewish Community had been downright vile and verminous in trying to exonerate him out of tribal solidarity that smacked of racial supremacism: "We Jews are above the law when it comes to harming lowly goyim." (What's truly disgusting is that, even after all these years, Jews have doubled-down on the rape-murder denial and pretend as if Leo Frank is their own 'Emmett Till', all the funnier when even the real Emmett Till wasn't the 'Emmett Till' of myth, though St. George Floyd takes the cake when it comes to perfidious Jewish-manufactured idolatry. Even though the white mob was pushed to extreme measures against Leo Frank because of the dirty Arnold-Rothstein machinations of the Jewish Community, Jews have blame only the whites, never themselves.)

The real shame of the Leo Frank case isn't that some lowlife Jew was lynched. It's that White Americans didn't go far enough and do more. While it's a good thing that White Americans never became radically deranged like the Germans under National Socialism, they failed to realize that the main villain of the Leo Frank case wasn't Leo Frank himself but the Jewish Power Network defined by Jewish Tribal Supremacism. Indeed, Leo Frank would have been summarily tried and sentenced, and that would have been that had it not been for obnoxious Jewish meddling. The case was prolonged and perverted because Jews pulled every string in the book to prevent justice for the rape-murder victim. So, while Leo Frank was guilty of his crime, the Jewish Power Network was guilty of something far more egregious and consequential: Corruption of the justice system, and for what? Jewish supremacism that holds in contempt the humanity of white girls regarded as 'shikse' whores. So, White Americans shouldn't have stopped with Leo Frank. They should have started a movement to root out the networks of Jewish corruption and villainy. This doesn't mean they should have become like raving Nazis and gone after innocent Jews or done what they did to the Japanese-American population during World War II. Rather, at the very least, they should have done everything to root out the widespread elements in the Jewish Community that form networks and work together in favor of Jewish lives and interests regardless of truth and/or justice. The failure to do that has led to the rise of Jewish Networks that now rob the world through Wall Street and Big Pharma, that perverts the law to let Antifa thugs and BLM lunatics to run free and get a slap on the wrist if arrested... while January 6 protesters are denied the most basic of legal rights and parents who protest anti-white CRT agenda are labeled as 'domestic terrorists' by vile Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland(who almost became Supreme Court justice).

So, if Germans went too far in their reaction to Jewish Evil by going after ALL Jews, even good ones, White Americans didn't go far enough by fixating on the individual Jew while overlooking the power of the Jewish Network. After all, it makes no sense to see Jonathan Pollard as merely a bad individual Jew. He did what he did as part of a Jewish Network, and this network, with tentacles in academia-media-government-banking-etc., eventually pulled all stops to spring that lowlife scum from prison. Germans under National Socialism, in going after bad Jews, even went after innocent Jews, destroying the lives of girls like Anne Frank as well. White Americans thought the problem would be solved by taking out Leo Frank the bad Jewish individual while overlooking the fact that Leo Frank managed to elude justice for so long because of the Jewish Power Network operating on the premise of Jewish Supremacism and total contempt for 'filthy goyim'.

The Ideal Way for Americans would have been to Name the Jewish Power, to expose the Jewish Network. Jewish Evil isn't a simple matter of bad individuals doing their own thing but, more often than not, a matter of a bunch of Jews acting in concert within a network. It's like the Mafia, which is why RICO laws were necessary to bring down the underworld empire. Just going after individual mafia hoodlums(as if they're lone wolf street thugs) hardly made an impact on the mafia network; it was like cutting off one tentacle off an octopus that merely grew new ones. To take out the Mafia, the individual crooks had to be linked to the network and its bosses.
Likewise, Leo Frank was protected by the Jewish Network, which later canonized him as a saint, much like Tony Kushner did for the Rosenbergs in ANGELS IN AMERICA. To prevent further such abuse, White America should have at least gone after the Jewish Network and exposed it for what it is. Granted, it would have been more difficult with Jews than with the Italian-Americans whose criminality was far more specific to a social milieu. Indeed, Italian-Americans who broke from the Criminal Community tended to assimilate into Anglo-Americanism or Generic Americanism. In contrast, even Jews who operated above ground retained a powerful sense of tribal identity and loyalty, rendering mafia-like much of the Jewish networks in academia, media, government, and etc. Rudy Giuliani became just a New York mayor and did little for the Italian-American community. The idiot Cuomo Brothers are mainly careerists and have nothing to do with Italian-ness. But look at Jews like Victoria Nuland, Wendy Sherman, Merrick Garland, Stinkin' Blinken, and the rest of them, and they are NOTHING without Jewish Tribalism. Indeed, the demands of Jewish Tribalism are so strong that even goyim in politics cower before its will. Even Donald Trump who, in 2016 boasted that Jews don't own him because he's so rich, did little in office but take it up his ass from the Jewish Lobby and beg, "Can I suck your dic*?"

What the West needs is a RICO-ist approrach against Jewish Power Network. The evil didn't end with Leo Frank. He almost got away with rape/murder because of the Network, the same reason Roman Polanski has been able to sit nice and pretty all these years without facing justice. Indeed, can anyone explain the silence about USS Liberty without taking the Jewish Power Network into account? Or what really happened on 9/11 and how lies were spread in the media(essentially a Jewish Power Network) to rouse public support for Iraq War? Or how Jews managed to rape the Russian economy in the 1990s? Did just a handful of Jews, as mere individuals, manage to pull off the heist of the century all on their own? Or, were they enabled by the Worldwide Jewish Network? And consider the Russian Collusion Hoax. The Covid Hysteria and the rigging of the 2020 election. These were not done by isolated individuals but by the Network with links in government, media, academia, courts, finance, etc.

So, the lesson of the 20th century in regard to Jewish Perfidy is that the Germans went too far and the Americans didn't go far enough. Germans, in going after Jewish Evil, went after the entire population. Americans, in contrast, targeted only the individual while ignoring the power of the Jewish Network. Indeed, it is precisely because the Network was left alone in the US that Jews even managed to push the narrative that Leo Frank was some innocent saint lynched by a crazed 'anti-semitic' mob that, I supposed, one day just got off their ass to kill a totally innocent Jew for the hell of it.
IAIN DAVIS DISSECTS THE PSEUDOPANDEMIC

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

We Must be on the Side of Truth because the Truth fears Freedom far less than the Lie does — Freedom & Honest Debate favor Truth over Lies, which is Why Jews as the Masters-of-Lies Now Attack Freedom — Jews fear Freedom will Expose their Power, so They protect the Lie with hysterics over 'Hate Speech'

How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler. In the last three months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics, while liberals, with virtual unanimity, have cheered. By Glenn Greenwald - https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic

Freedom favors Truth over Lies, so those who are for freedom are on the side of Truth. Those who suppress freedom are on the side of lies.

The above article implies that truth is more on our side. After all, we aren't afraid of freedom of speech. While no side has a total lock on truth and no side is entirely false, it's generally the case that the side with more truth favors freedom(and free speech) while the side protecting the lie calls for control and restriction. The Lie fears freedom far more than the Truth does.

After all, truth can be demonstrated with facts and logic backed by honesty and integrity. Truth thrives in the light of freedom. In contrast, the lie must be shielded from scrutiny; it will shrivel and wither in the light of freedom.

If boxer A says he is the best and if boxer B says he is, the better boxer will be happy to meet the other claimant in the ring. It is the lying boxer who will duck the contest and keep claiming to be the best without ever proving it out in the open.
All the censorious scum today are ducking the fight. They might as well be called 'ducks'. Globo-ducks and conzo-cucks make up the US discourse. In the past, black boxers wanted to face white boxers in the ring because blacks knew the truth was on their side as better boxers. White boxers, fearful of this truth, often ducked black boxers. Truth is like Jack Johnson in the ring.

In an honest and fair debate, the truth can be demonstrated via free speech and open presentation. If someone says 2 + 2 = 4 and if another says 2 + 2 = 5, the former can show that he is right in the court of public opinion. He can use a pair of 2 wooden blocks to demonstrate that 2 pieces plus 2 pieces do indeed make 4 pieces.
It is the person claiming that 2 + 2= 5 who is fearful of freedom and free speech because, when forced to make his case, he cannot show that 2 wooden blocks plus 2 wooden blocks make 5 wooden blocks. So, to protect himself, he might come up with a concept like 'bogus speech' and insist that the person who says 2 + 2 = 4 is 'bogus' and needs to be shut down for spreading bogusness. That way, he can maintain 2 + 2 = 5 as the favored truth.

Now, some will say that free speech can unleash idiot holocaust deniers and people like Alex Jones, but such types can easily be exposed by the truth. Indeed, the main reason why the Holocaust Debate is restricted is not because the idiot Deniers are wrong(and they are wrong about most things) but because, in having an honest discussion about the Holocaust, it will also be proven that the Holocultists are also wrong on many accounts. While the Denier line that NO JEWS WERE KILLED is bogus, so is the myth that SIX MILLION DIED. A truly honest debate will lower the number of Jewish dead and blow up other shibboleths that have become the mainstay of the Holocaust Industry or Shoah Business. Truth will destroy the Deniers but also harm the Shoah Biz.
Also, keep in mind that people like Alex Jones thrive because the so-called MSM is so full of lies and suppress free discourse. MSM deceptions turn people cynical & suspicious and drive them to people like Alex Jones who claim to know the Secret Knowledge. If there were more freedom, free inquiry, free speech, and free debate, people like Alex Jones would lose their luster. While liars and lunatics will have their say under free speech regimen, they will be exposed and discredited sooner than later by those speaking the truth.

At any rate, Greenwald's piece has proven beyond a doubt that today's Liberals should be called LINOS or Liberals In Name Only. They are also LINOS because they LIE and say NO to freedom.

Unfortunately, Greenwald doesn't explain why 'Liberals' turned out this way. Yes, again it's Jewish Power. Jewish Liberals were never liberals first and Jews second. They were Jewish first and liberal second. For most Jews, liberalism was primarily a means to weaken and deracinate the goy majority so that Jews could gain more power and control. A typical Jewish Liberal will say to goyim, "Surrender your identity... and support OUR identity." On the occasion when Jews do support identity politics of goyim, it is as a weapon against the identity of the bigger foe, e.g. Jews supporting sham-versions of Ukrainian and Georgian nationalism against Russian nationalism or Jews supporting Kurdish nationalism against Syria.

In a nutshell, Jewish Power fears freedom because it will favor the truth that exposes the fact of Jewish Supremacist Domination. And so, Jewish Power promotes and protects the Big Lie and warns of freedom as a forum for 'hate speech'. What this really means is Jewish Power hates the freedom that allows the truth to be spoken to Jewish Power. Free inquiry will favor truth over lies. When both liars and truth-tellers have the freedom, the truth-tellers will win. Liars will win ONLY IF they are afforded freedom while truth-tellers are not. US is not a Liberal Democracy but a LINO Oligarchy where Jewish Liars have the freedom to say anything while cold facts and hard truth are suppressed as 'hate speech'. Watch the video below. This is what happens when the Lie meets the Truth in free and open forum.

Because Jews used liberalism as prop than principle, it's hardly surprising that they are for speech control now that they gained dominance. It's like the Bolsheviks spoke of freedom and justice on the path to power but were always about total control once they got the power. Still, if Bolsheviks were driven by ideology, Jewish 'liberats' have been all about identity.
But then, what about all the goy 'liberunts' who agree with Jews? That's due to the simple fact of our times: Jews lead, goyim follow. When Jewish Liberats were for free speech, goy Liberunts were for free speech. When Jewish Liberats are for shutting down free speech, goy Liberunts are for shutting down free speech. Jews lead, goyim follow. Master and dog.
It's the same among the conzos. Conzos will bitch and whine about how their free speech is violated by the 'Left' but then totally support the suppression of BDS by GOP and Democrats alike. They will rant about how the 'liberal' NYT fired Bari Weiss the free speech warrior(LOL) while totally ignoring the fact that, as student, she tried to have Arab professors critical of Israel fired.

Besides, even genuine liberals who believe in free speech have to go along with the Jews because Jews control the media. If you act like Chris Hedges or Glenn Greenwald, you will be demoted, fired, or worse. Also, Jews control the gods, true among both libby-bids and conzo-wonzos. The Tri-Supremacism of Just Jews, Holy Homos, and Noble Negroes has become such a fixture in the Western Imagination that people on both sides are more than willing to sacrifice freedom and principles to appease Jews and their gods.
But, there's something similar even in the Dissident Right, especially among the IQuters. IQuters like Jared Taylor, Derbyshire, Charles Murray, and others are so in awe of Jewish IQ that they would rather die than get real about the Jewish Problem and risk earning the opprobrium of the few Jewish friends they have. It's like many whites would rather die than be called 'racist'.

Greenwald didn't touch on the Jewish Question, maybe because he's Jewish himself or because the taboo is too powerful even for Subtrack; indeed, Matt Taibbi recently ridiculed the 'conspiracy theory' about Jews owning the media. ROTFL. I guess Joel Stein and Manny Friedman are conspiracy theorists. Friedman is an interesting case. Funny that Jews are more genuinely liberal in expression in a nationalist setting where they feel confident and secure. Maybe true nationalism is the best thing for liberalism. After all, a Jew in nationalist Jewish Israel is more likely to honestly and truthfully speak his mind than a Jew in diverse America where his priority isn't liberty, truth, and honesty but how-to-hoodwink-and-control-the-goyim-who-outnumber-us. That's why they are really just LINOS.

In a nutshell, Jewish Power fears freedom because it will favor the truth that exposes the fact of Jewish Supremacist Domination. And so, Jewish Power promotes and protects the Big Lie and warns of freedom as a forum for 'hate speech'. What this really means is Jewish Power hates the freedom that allows the truth to be spoken to Jewish Power.

Free inquiry will favor truth over lies. When both liars and truth-tellers have the freedom, the truth-tellers will win. Liars will win ONLY IF they are afforded freedom while truth-tellers are not. US is not a Liberal Democracy but a LINO Oligarchy where Jewish Liars have the freedom to say anything while cold facts and hard truth are suppressed as 'hate speech'.
Watch the video below. This is what happens when the Lie meets the Truth in free and open forum.

Thursday, June 25, 2020

You are Free.. To Agree... Otherwise, You Must be Destroyed — How the Current Situation in the West is like the Anti-Rightist Movement following the Hundred Flowers Campaign in China — All said and done, the Real Power is Jewish Supremacism, and No Real Change is Possible UNLESS This Truth is Spoken


The current lunacy has often been compared with the Cultural Revolution, but in some ways, it is closer to the aftermath of the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

Consider the story in the video below:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HTE6UasbzhU/


A company that claims to value Diversity of Views & Opinions fired the mother of the Atlanta police officer who was charged with murder of a black guy who resisted arrest with physical violence, snatched the taser from one of the officers, and fired it at them. What was her thought crime? She called it 'nonsense'. She was accused of creating a 'hostile work environment' and canned just like that. So, on the one hand, the company says its policy is about the diversity of views(or freedom of speech) but, in practice, will immediately remove anyone who deviates from the official program.
It sounds like those Jewish oligarchs and commissars at Big Tech, academia & media, law firms & courts, and government who say they are for Free Speech but will not tolerate 'hate speech'(to be subjectively and politically determined by their ilk). So, 'diversity of views' are respected but not when it is 'hostile', like a mother speaking up for her son who was obviously race-framed by the system. So, free speech is wonderful as long as it's not 'hateful', with 'hate' being defined mostly by Jews who apparently think BDS(or speech calling for justice for Palestinians) is 'hateful'. For sure, anti-BDS legislation has the backing of both parties.

Now, what happened in the aftermath of the Hundred Flowers Campaign? Nikita Khrushchev ushered in a new era of de-Stalinization, something the Chinese Communists were very critical of. They feared that criticism of Stalin's legacy would undermine their legitimacy. Still, Mao Zedong wasn't one to be outdone by Khrushchev and decided to have his own experimentation with freedom and go even further. So, he declared the Hundred Flowers Campaign. He urged all Chinese, high and low, to hold nothing back and speak their minds. Initially, most Chinese were hesitant as the first six years of communist rule had been pretty ruthless and repressive. People had either been cowed into fearful conformism or indoctrinated with party dogma. They were scaredy cats or rabid dogs.
When Mao called on the people in and out of government and in all walks of life to speak freely, most people were either hesitant or confused. So, the commissars were instructed to apply pressure on the people to speak up, to complain about something, to let things off their chest. It was as if people were forced to engage in free speech and speaking-truth-to-power. Gradually, one by one, people began to speak out. Then, the voices grew louder and bolder. The criticism went from personal things to local matters to problems at work to the failings of the communist party and then communism itself and finally the big kahuna, Mao himself. Still, people were speaking out ONLY BECAUSE Mao had started the Hundred Flowers Campaign. He was the one who ordered the Chinese people to take part in proto-Glasnost, and they did. They were told to be free in thought and speech, and they spoke their minds.
But when Mao had just about heard enough, he shut down the campaign and those who'd spoken up were rounded up and punished. The serious offenders who denounced the Party and Mao were executed. But even those who mildly rebuked the political system were denounced, fired from work, and sent to forced-labor camps. In the memoir SON OF THE REVOLUTION, Liang Heng told the story of his mother. When the campaign began, she was reluctant to say anything and told her boss that all was well. But her boss pressed upon her to voice some complaint in keeping with the spirit of the times. If Chairman Mao wanted people to speak freely, they should. So, finally and perhaps grudgingly, she made a minor criticism about some details at work. And everything seemed to be fine until Mao called an end to the campaign and ordered his commissars to punish those who had spoken against the Party. Suddenly, the very people who'd urged Liang's mother to speak up came down hard on her. Especially to save their own skins, they had to condemn the very people they'd encouraged to speak freely during the campaign. The new directive, the Anti-Rightist Campaign, was about gathering up all those who'd spoken 'hostile' words about the system and punishing them as class enemies. So, the woman was denounced and fired from the job. Worse, her craven husband divorced her and denounced her, and she was sent to the farms to 'learn from the people'.

So, what is the similarity between China of the Hundred-Flowers-and-Anti-Rightist-Campaigns and the US of today? Back in the mid-1950s, the Chinese were told to value freedom and speak freely... but, as it turned out, they were only free to agree with the dogma and narrative(and to hail Mao to high heaven). If they dared to speak freely against the system, dogma, or narrative, they were to be targeted for denunciation, firing, imprisonment, and even execution. You were free only to agree.


US and the West of today follow a similar logic. They're said to be 'liberal democracies' that value free speech, but that doesn't mean 'hate speech', and of course, ANYTHING can be construed as 'hate speech' by the Jewish Supremacists who rule as overlords. And so-called 'liberal' institutions of media and academia say they value diversity of views and opinions, but they will not tolerate words that create 'hostile' work environments. But what does this mean? It doesn't mean all forms of hostility or aggression are banned. Indeed, certain hostilities are encouraged, as with Facebook and Youtube Terms of Service that, while banning 'hostile views' against Jews, blacks, homos, and the like, are not only okay but encouraging of hostile views against whites, conservatives, true Christians, and nationalists. Diversity Programs encourage everyone, from children to adults, to harbor hostile feelings toward certain groups, especially straight white men, while berating whites to be ever so sensitive about not saying or doing anything that might, just might, offend certain favored groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos. Whites are forced into fragility but then accused of 'white fragility' as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (But all those whites who wonder why the Chinese acted so stupidly under Mao should look in the mirror because their behavior is just as irrational, stupid, craven, and retarded.)
Now, is this a victory of the Left over the Right? Is it a triumph of Liberalism over Conservatism? Many think so, especially as Tucker Carlson and others of Conservatism Inc. keep blaming the Left, Left, Left. But the real power behind all this is Jewish Tribal Supremacism. True Leftism died long ago. Not only did communism fall in the East but the American Left gave up on workers and cut a deal with super-capitalists of Big Tech, Wall Street, and Global 'free trade'. The triumph of Homo-Mania has NOTHING to do with true leftism. It's faux-leftism that destroyed Mayday in favor of Gayday with full backing of Super-Capital and neo-aristo globalism.
Also, if Antifa is truly communist or against the oligarchy, why does it pick fights mostly with the Dissident Right that has NO POWER in any industry and institution. In effect, Antifa has been valued by Jewish Capitalist Oligarchs as their Janissary force(who attack any sign of white identity or white pride as 'nazi'); Jews promote and protect Antifa thuggery to clamp down on uppity whites who seek White Liberation from the Jewish Supremacist Plantation. Antifa are mostly idiot whites trained and directed by venal Jewish tribalists to hate and attack white patriots. Jews use the goy dolts of Antifa for their own supremacist purposes but hoodwinked the idiots into believing they are fighting the coming of Neo-Nazism to the West.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZGLadMoIE8ft/



There is no true left anymore. And it's not a triumph of liberalism either. Liberalism is about individualism, liberty, and free speech. The current power hates individual conscience and free speech. It insists that we all bow our heads and go along to get along with the System dominated by Jewish globo-homo capitalists. Why would Jews approve of individual conscience when a truly free-thinking moralist will surely condemn Zionist tyranny over Palestinians? Jews use PC to dictate approved-morality(the kind that is useful to Jewish Power) on the masses. Sure, some of the current rhetoric has some faux-leftist window-dressing or sentimentalism about 'liberal democratic values'(as opposed to the 'autocratic' ways of Evil Putin and the like), but boiled down to essentials, the dominant power is Jewish Supremacist.
If leftism is about the little guy or the underdog and if indeed leftism is the dominant ideology in the US, the current power should be siding with Palestinians against Zionists. But where do you see that? Some may say BLM movement is leftist in supporting justice for blacks against powerful white 'racism' and 'white privilege', but it's really a form of black supremacism exploited by Jewish supremacism. Blacks act out in supremacist contempt toward the weaker races. They love to holler, intimidate, and do as they please. They don't really care about black lives, or else they'd stop murdering one another. BLM implies that blacks lives are superior to white lives, and that's why it's an unforgivable sin for any white to kill a black; it'd be like a slave killing the master, and blacks feel as the new master race. BLM isn't about remembrance of slavery and the dark past. Rather, it is a cultist-spiritualization of the past to elevate blacks from a people with a tragic history to new gods to be worshiped and ass-kissed by rest of humanity. It is the expression of black god-complex. It is also a form of black nihilism, i.e. blacks can use anything as an excuse to rob, loot, pillage, beat up people, murder whites, shoot police officers, and etc. Blacks can act like animals by pretending to be angels.
In truth, history changes, and blacks today are not what they were 100 yrs ago, just like China today isn't what it was 100 yrs ago. Basing current perception of blacks on past history is like seeing today's China through the prism of China-as-sick-man-of-Asia 100 yrs ago. It's like pretending history is static, rather weirdly ironic coming from progs who are always celebrating the acceleration of history and change. (For those who say blacks are mired in problems due to the legacy of slavery, why not argue blacks are mired in savagery due to the legacy of savagery? After all, blacks were slaves for only 200 yrs in America whereas they were savages for 100,000 yrs in Africa? Isn't the legacy of savagery and its genetic imprint a more determinant driver of black behavior than the meager 200 yrs of slavery, which, at the very least, elevated blacks from the stage of savagery? It's been a common theme among all human groups wherein slavery played a key role as civilizing agent. It was hardly unique to blacks.) And we know Jews aren't sincere in their concern for blacks because they have no qualms about oppressing and terrorizing Palestinians and using the US to wage Wars for Israel that have destroyed millions of lives. And speaking of hate campaigns, which group in Hollywood financed all those movies depicting Arabs/Muslims as nothing but subhuman terrorists? It sure wasn't the Eskimos.

Just like the Corleones in THE GODFATHER movies had a lot of buffers, Jews have a lot of buffers or fronts. Neocons used buffers like Dubya Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Globo-Homo Zionists had their pet monkey in Barack Obama. BLM is a tool used by Jews for the most cynical reasons. Jews incited BLM rage to turn blacks away from Donald Trump. Jews use BLM to bolster 'white guilt', the key element in keeping whites ashamed and subservient, thus obeisant to Jewish Supremacist Power. The scales will fall off many more eyes when they stop blaming the 'left' or 'liberals' and just name the Power that is Jewish Supremacist.

Though Soviet leaders and CCP bigshots acted like gangsters, they were still in service of an ideology. There is no ideology in the current madness in the West. As such, it's hard to discern any thematic consistency in all that is happening. Instead, we are to believe in the magic of Diversity. But Diversity of Peoples often leads to contention and conflict. Diversity of Ideas means commitment to free speech, but free speech also means speaking-truth-to-power, something Jewish supremacist elites cannot tolerate as they fear being called out(and blamed) as the True Rulers of the West, i.e. Jewish Privilege, not 'white privilege', is the determining force in US and EU.
Because Diversity of Peoples and Cultures leads to conflict, some kind of unity is sought by 'Idology'(or idolatry as ideology) of gods and devils. Since it'd be too confusing to emphasize the equal worth of every group, the trick is to make ALL groups unite in reverence to the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, and homos. That is one part of Intersectionality. Whether you're Mexican, Hindu, Chinese, Iranian, Muslim, Arab, Filipino, or etc, your identity doesn't have much intrinsic value, and therefore, you must rally around the 'gay pride' flag because homos are special, or 'more equal than others'. All unite under Globo-Homo... or BLM or Holocaust-Worship. The other side of Intersectionality is the common denunciation of the Enemy, the Devil, the Whitey. So, never mind the problems among all shades of blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. Where they should all 'intersect' is in demonizing and scapegoating Whitey as the source of all Evil, rather ironic since they all head to or cling to the white worlds(and run from their own peoples and cultures) for better material lives and more Rule of Law.

But behind all this is the Barzini-Hyman-Roth of Jewish Power. Jewish Supremacists are pulling the strings. And yes, the current discourse is uber-stupid because 'idology' is based on cult-worship of idolized groups and witch-hunting of demonized ones. One might say the current ideology is 'anti-racist', but if 'racism' means racial supremacism and demonization of certain groups based on skin color, then it is the reigning zeitgeist of the times. Of course, many are blind to this because whites have IN ESSENCE been associated with racial supremacism while blacks have been branded as eternal 'victims of racism'. But history changes, and the victims of yesterday can be oppressors of today and tomorrow. But under the illogic of current stupidity, even if blacks were to enslave whites and make 'honkeys' pick cotton under the whip, the narrative would drone on and on about the new reality as 'justice' because blacks, even as the new master race, have been tagged as the eternal victim race whereas whites, though the new slave race, has been tagged as the eternal 'racist' master race. Such is the idiocy that blinds people to Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. Because Jews have been tagged as the Eternal Victims of Antisemitism, even criticism of Jews acting like New Nazis toward a weak people like the Palestinians is deemed 'antisemitic' because Jews are righteous and holy no matter what they do. Even as they kill and terrorize as IDF goon squads, they are to be regarded as a bunch of Anne Franks.
But then, white people deserve blame for failing to speak the truth. As long as they don't name Jewish Power in all this, they are hopeless and deserve to lose and fall. Those who are incapable or unwilling to speak the truth deserve no sympathy. They are like cancer patients who refuse to admit they got cancer and seek proper treatment. Are they so fearful of charges of 'racism' and 'antisemitism'? Don't they know that history changes and is not static? Look at China and Japan today as opposed to how things were 100 yrs ago. Look at Roman Empire and Germanic Barbarians when the former was on top and when the latter was on top and sacked Rome. Look at Jews as early immigrants to Palestine that was overwhelmingly Arabic and compare them to Jews who totally dominate Israel/Palestine today. A small immigrant community became the dominant force in the territory.
Blacks were social slaves of whites, but they soon became biological masters over whites. Being more muscular and more aggressive, they began to kick white butt. Blacks complain of 'redlining', but whites suffered even more under black violence and criminality. White Flight was something that was forced on whites by black thuggery. Whites were forced to pay HIGHER PRICES for property values just to be safe and secure from black neo-savagery. If whites were guilty of redlining, blacks were guilty of front-lining, i.e. turning entire localities into front-lines of black war on white. Many whites didn't want to leave their ethnic communities in the cities. They had roots there. They left because of the black fist and oogity-behavior. But no one talks about the biological slavery of whites under black thuggery. White Flight was like Harriet-Tubmanism for whites. If blacks tried to flee to the north from social slavery in the South, whites tried to flee from biological slavery under black thuggery. And Jews are full of shit because Jew Flew was part of White Flight. And what brought down crime in places like NY in the 1990s and 2000s? Jews worked with Billy Boy Clinton to build neo-plantations of prison systems to incarcerate lots of black super-predators who were exploited for cheap labor.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/quWjkpyJBJw4/

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Jay Leno’s Jokes about Asians-Eating-Dogs and the Asian-American Advocacy Group — Who Is Right?


A certain Asian-American Advocacy group called MANAA is up in arms about Jay Leno’s repeated jokes about Koreans eating and mistreating dogs. It is applying pressure on NBC to cut ties with Leno for perceived slights against the Asian-American community. The logic of MANAA goes as follows:

Leno has "been an unrepentant repeat offender and still has a bizarre fixation with Asians eating dogs." "Many Americans are unable to distinguish between persons of Korean heritage living in North Korea, South Korea or the U.S., or between Asians and Asian Americans generally," Aoki had written in 2012. "Therefore, when Mr. Leno jokes about North Koreans and the consumption of dogs and cats, he perpetuates a persistent belief held by many Americans that Asian Americans and Korean Americans are perpetual foreigners who bring their objectionable dining habits to the U.S. We are not accepted as real Americans; rather, we are subjected to ridicule, disdain and abuse, which has resulted in a rise in racial profiling and hate crimes against Asians, Asian Americans and immigrants."

At face value, this complaint sounds like yet another case of PC stupidity, and in the most basic sense, it is. Comedy is, by nature, irreverent and mocking, and humor is impossible in a society of thin skins. (Given that the intellectual class and elites are growing ever more censorious, one might say they have think-skins, just a brainier version of thin skins.) Humor also serves as satire, and one effective way to subvert, mock, oppose, and even destroy something is by poking fun at it. And one could argue that mocking Asians for mistreating and eating animals such as dogs and cats is a good way to voice moral concerns on an international scale. It’s certainly saner than waging wars and invading other nations to stop the barbaric practice. And in this light, we should laud Jay Leno for having the courage(and perhaps conscience) shed light on the cruelty that is all too common across Asia in the mistreatment of dogs and cats. One might hope that such mockery may shame and pressure Asians to clean up their act if they’re to fully join in the civilized world. After all, progress isn’t merely about high-rises and faster/better machines but development of conscience and advancement of morality.

Animal cruelty used to be quite commonplace in Europe, especially in ancient times when Romans slaughtered thousands of animals in gladiatorial bloodbaths. And in the Middle Ages, there was widespread torture and killing of cats deemed companions of witches. Kings and queens throughout Europe enjoyed blood sports such as bear-baiting and bull-baiting. And even today, there are vocal opposition to bullfighting and fox-hunting(which should be called fox-lynching). Progress comes by both sincere crusade and witty mockery. True, satire is often highly insensitive, but why should those who are insensitive to humanity be treated with much respect? So, on that note, mocking and ridiculing Asians for mistreatment and consumption of cats, dogs, and other animals(such as bears that are horribly harvested for bile fluids) are fair game and morally justified.

And yet, context provides additional meaning to any issue, and neither Jay Leno or Guy Aoki(spokesman for MANAA) comes off well within wider contexts. But then, all of American society comes off pretty badly given the madness of Political Correctness and Moral Hypocrisy. First, MANAA is trying to have it both ways, but then, such is to be expected under the current regimen of Diversity. According to Multi-Culturalism, there is no single ‘American Culture’, ‘American Way’, or set of ‘American Values’. One school of Multi-Cultism says that non-whites of various colors and backgrounds should cling to their identities, cultures, and traditions and NOT assimilate to the ‘bland and generic white bread’ America. In other ways, non-white groups should go out of their way to assert their differences and show pride in them. Following this logic, the argument that Aoki should put forward is that America(and the West in general) should allow Asians-in-America to practice dog-eating and cat-eating. After all, if it’s wrong for the US to discriminate against any culture and impose its Eurocentric values on others, then Asians-in-America have good cause to argue for dog-eating and cat-eating. They could also point to the HOGOCAUST and decry the hypocrisy of Americans, white or otherwise, who profess such compassion for dogs and cats but feel NOTHING for hogs that are just as intelligent and emotionally complex as dogs and cats... if not more so. (Of course, from an ‘objective’ viewpoint, the killing/eating of pigs is no more justifiable than the killing/eating of dogs and cats. If the rule is, "highly intelligent animals must be spared", then pigs more than qualify. Yet, from a ‘subjective’ viewpoint, the killing/eating of dogs and cats is worse because it is undeniable that dogs and cats are cuter, cuddlier, and more accessible to humans than pigs could ever be. A person who doesn’t respond emotionally to a pig could be said to be ignorant of its intelligence and complexity, but a person who doesn’t respond to a dog or cat has to be downright heartless. Something about dogs and cats is so aesthetically, emotionally, and ‘socially’ appealing that a culture that goes out of its way to deny this truth and coldly slaughters them for meat is lacking in basic humanness.)

Anyway, if Aoki is really into Asian pride as an Asian-American, he should feel no shame in the fact that Asians eat dogs. He should defend it as an essential part of Asian culinary tradition. If anything, he should be pushing for the US to legalize the killing/eating of dogs and cats as the prohibition of such practice would mean unfair and unjust imposition of ‘Eurocentric’ norms. After all, American Indians also ate dogs. Native Hawaiians still eat dogs. So do Australian Aborigines, and dogs are eaten in certain parts of Africa. If the US is really into multi-cultural mode and rejects Eurocentrism, then there is no reason why dog-eating and cat-eating should be banned. If Americans oppose the legalization on the basis of ‘animal rights’ or humane-treatment, it can be exposed as hypocrisy as Americans have no problem with the slaughter of millions of pigs(and cows and sheep) every year. One could even argue that America’s favoring of dogs and cats is ‘racist’ in that those species are favored over other species of animals, even pigs that are as intelligent or even more so than dogs(and certainly cats). Indeed, even all the brouhaha over killing of whales is hypocritical as one could argue that pigs are more-or-less small land-whales and whales are massive sea-pigs. Why should whales be spared while pigs are slaughtered? Because whales are bigger? But again, aesthetics matter(at least subjectively) because there is something majestic about whales to the human eye. And whale songs are among the most haunting sounds of nature whereas pigs go oink-oink and grunt-grunt.

If MANAA is for Asian identity and pride, it should defend Asian culture and practices. Though not all Asian nations eat dogs and/or cats — Japan notably doesn’t even though it’s been blasted by the West for mistreatment of dolphins and whales, though not so much in recent years — , it’s a common practice in Vietnam, China, and Korea. Also, it’s not mainly out of hunger. Starving North Koreans might eat dogs and cats out of desperation, but there are hardly any dogs and cats as most people aren't allowed to keep pets. Granted, even in nations where dog-eating and/or cat-eating are common, there is a divide, often impassioned, about whether the practice should be allowed to continue. And in some nations, it is officially illegal but more-or-less tolerated. However, as each new generation is less willing to indulge in dog-or-cat-eating, it’s likely to fade away in most Asian nations in years to come. (Granted, one wonders if Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, what with their shockingly low birthrates, will survive as ethno-civilizations.)

At any rate, what is MANAA’s priority? To shore up Asian identity, culture, and pride? Or is it about anxiety about how Asian-Americans might be perceived in the US? But if Asians-in-America are so sensitive about how OTHERS feel about them, aren’t they lacking in sufficient pride of identity? And this seems to apply more East Asians than Asian-Indians. After all, there have been plenty of jokes about how the dotkins not only don't eat beef but go out of their way to ‘worship’ cows. And yet, dotters generally don’t go around pleading with Americans to stop joking about cows and curry... though, to be sure, there is a segment of the Hindu population in the West that is hyper-sensitive about everything.
Icky Aoki
Even as Aoki condemn’s Jay Leno’s "bizarre fixation" with Asians eating dogs, he says nothing about the practice itself. But firstly, why is it ‘bizarre’ for a comedian to make jokes about what would seem outrageous and outlandish to most Americans? Comedies are often about man-bites-dog than dog-bites-man, and for many Americans, Asia seems like one giant man-bites-dog story. Shockingly to Americans(and Westerners in general), Asians seem heartless and raise dogs like chicken and eat them without any consideration of their nature and worth. Understandably, many Americans are appalled by such widespread practices in Asia. Many don’t crack jokes but feel contempt and even hatred. As Jay Leno is a comedian, he condemns the practice through the use of humor. And from a moral standpoint, it’s about time Asians realized that the killing of dogs/cats for food is untenable. No, not because the Non-West should slavishly and mindlessly follow and imitate the West(as there are plenty of sick things in the Occident as well), but it should be pretty obvious to any normal person with eyes, ears, and heart that dogs(and cats) are truly special, intelligent, warm, and affectionate animals(at least in relation to mankind because rabbits and rodents will disagree). Though the notion of universal values is problematic because the cause of ‘human rights’ has been more often about imposing one culture’s values on the rest of humanity, there are facts and feelings that can be attained universally with, respectively, objective tools of science and honest assessment of one’s senses and emotions. Anyone in any part of the world, upon dealing with dogs and cats for a day, should be able to realize that these two species evolved to be companions and ‘friends’ of mankind. Therefore, this is far less a cultural than a moral issue. Also, cultures do change and evolve. After all, if Asians should stick to their ‘Asian culture’ no matter what, then Chinese should have stuck with foot-binding, and Japanese should have stuck with their various means of ritual suicide(and with women shaving off their eyebrows and painting their teeth black); and Hindus should bring back the ritual of suttee or sati, whereby the widow throws herself into the funeral pyre of her husband. While all cultures are rich and interesting in their own ways, they can go against what is natural and healthy when a community comes under a cult-domination of a certain sect or faction. We now see this in the West with the Jewish and Homo takeover of media and academia. So many normal people have been brain-warped into worshiping globo-homo and gushing about trannies. And so many American fathers think it is only right to raise their girls to emulate the likes of Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham.
Aoki says jokes about Asians-eating-dogs can lead to violence against Asians-in-America who are perceived as the eternal outsider. But his logic would suggest that we condemn sincere condemnations of Asian-dog-eating as well. If anything, aren’t jokes less likely to stir up contempt for Asians than a campaign of sincere moral outrage? While humor is effective as satire or mockery, it also makes people laugh. People who listen to Leno aren’t likely to go out and kill. There’s a reason why PETA has been involved in violence, and one reason is it's an entirely humorless organization. At any rate, anyone in the West should have every right to denounce what he/she deems to be an act of barbarism or savagery in any part of the world. Condemning Asian-dog-eating should be as much a part of free speech as BDS, or justice for Palestinians. If not free speech, we have slave-speech, and who wants that as the New American Values? Apparently, MANAA that is pressuring NBC to cut ties with Leno is for slave speech than free speech. (Well, at least MANAA has one thing in common with AIPAC that is silencing the free speech of BDS and enforcing the slave speech of cucking to Zionism and Jewish Supremacy.) America wouldn't be what it is without free speech. After all, Americans have plenty of criticism for Europeans, and vice versa. And besides, it's not as if only white guys like Leno unload on other peoples and cultures. People in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East use their freedom to denounce what they deem to be crazy or evil in the West. It goes both ways.
Also, given that California is now minority-white and rife with anti-white rhetoric from all sides(as the only way to maintain the Democratic Diversity Coalition is to scapegoat whites for just about everything), couldn’t one argue Aoki’s hyper-sensitivity might stir up hostility against white Americans? Stirring up paranoid fantasies about how Americans(presumably white ones mostly) will go on 'hate crime' sprees against Asians on account of Leno's jokes is actually closer to hate-mongering. Actually, the overwhelming fact of Americans of all stripes is that they don't care one way or another about most of what's happening around the world, which would be okay IF American Power was NOT an empire that meddles in all parts of the world, but it most certainly is.

Aoki complains that the perception of Asians as the exotic-barbaric-other, the kind that dines on cats/dogs, may breed the impression that Asians are the Eternal Outsider. But then, isn’t that the eventual fate in America for every group given the rise of PC and Diversity Cult? We’ve been told that White Americans who ‘discovered’, conquered, settled, and built this nation are no more American than recent non-whites who just got off the boat. 75% of Asian-Americans voted for Democratic Party that now says Illegals should be called ‘dreamers’ and furthermore represent the essence of America. So, there is no traditional America, no core America. This means White Americans must be cut off from their roots, history, and culture. They must become 'white bread' and generic in their 'inclusion' of all. Or, they are to be excoriated as an Eternally ‘evil’, ‘racist’, and blah-blah people whose deserving fate is to be replaced by endless hordes from the Third World. Well, if that is the designated future for the white race as far as people like Aoki are concerned, then welcome to the club. If Core Americans are no more American than non-white newcomers fresh off the boat, then why should Asians feel any more American or any more welcome? White America used to be the majority-glue that defined and held the nation together, but now that America is defined mainly as 'diverse' and 'inclusive', what are core American values?
Besides, who’s kidding whom? Most of anti-Asian violence comes from blacks, Jews, and from within. Much of anti-Asian violence and crime in urban areas is by blacks. Has Aoki spoken out about this problem? Has he spoken the fact that blacks target Asians due to racial differences of size and strength, i.e. bigger, stronger, and more aggressive blacks see dorks like Aoki as easy victims, like a cougar sees a rabbit? Of course not. He’s just another yellow dog toady of PC who dares not speak any ‘controversial’ truth.
When it comes to media violence against Asians, Jews are most responsible. All those China-Fears stories in magazines and on TV are by Jews. Even as Jewish globalists have worked with China to gut the American working class and reap tons in profits, they’ve also pushed Yellow Peril(along with anti-Muslim and anti-Russian)fears to distract goy Americans from the fact that it’s the Jews who control the commanding towers of power. If Aoki and his ilk are truly courageous, they would name the Jew in their criticism of the media that usually feature Asians, Russians, and Muslims as The Enemy. Just as Nazi Germany made the notorious film JEW SUSS(by Veit Harlan), Jewish Hollywood made tons of movies featuring Odious Orientals, Terrible Teutons, Murderous Muslims, and Ruffian Russkies. At least Jay Leno made people laugh. Shouldn’t Aoki be more worried about neo-fumanchu types one comes across in TV shows... though, of late, Russkies, along with patriotic White Americans, are featured as Enemy #1 by the Tribe? Indeed, the new WATCHMEN TV series, along with movies like GET OUT, seem downright genocidal against whites.
The third kind of violence is found within the Asian-American community. There seems to be precious little unity among Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Hindus, and etc. in America. In many parts of Asia, the Asian-on-Asian violence is pretty intense. We know Hindus and Muslims can get pretty tense in India. And the traitor-cuck Chinese in Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be pretty anti-China. It’s been reported that in Australia and Europe, the various Arab and Muslim migrant-groups carry on with their internecine conflicts. And there doesn’t seem to be much unity between Asian men and Asian women as so many of the latter(and even considerable segment of the former) mate outside the race. Could such massive-rejection of members of one’s own race be seen as a form of violence? But that is the result of free choice among Asians.

But Aoki and the clowns at MANAA are unwilling to address any of these issues. Instead, they just pile on some late night comedian and try to have him fired because his jokes are culturally insensitive. If Aoki and other Asians are truly serious about morality, they should join with voices condemning the barbaric practices of dog/cat eating in Asia. That is the best way for Asians-in-America to demonstrate that they are fully on-board with American values when it comes to humane treatment of dogs and cats. (Of course, it’s all relative. Even in dog-loving USA, so many dogs end up in anti-cruelty centers and are killed. Worse off are homeless dogs that roam the streets. Black trash, white trash, and brown trash go for dog-fighting, and such people are no better than savages. And even though there are so many dogs that wait to be adopted in Anti-Cruelty Societies, vain people buy expensive dogs bred by people who treat dogs as mere commodity.) But then, again, the notion of ‘American values’ becomes vaguer and weaker by the day. When so many Americans embrace illegal invaders from some Third World ‘shithole’ as the new-and-ready dreamers who should be celebrated, what is an ‘American’ and what are ‘American values’? Also, if America is all about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, why shouldn’t someone argue that dog-eating should be celebrated as part of diversity and ‘included’ in the American Cookbook?
Now, on the subject of Jay Leno. I hardly watched his programs and might have seen less than ten of his shows. Late Night TV shows were never my thing, not even in the heyday of Johnny Carson and David Letterman. At face value, there’s nothing wrong with an American comedian cracking jokes, cute or cutting, about just about anything. And if Leno joked about dog-eating-Koreans for easy laughter and to score moral points, where is the problem in that?
But context matters, and given the context, Leno doesn’t come across well either. He seems less a courageous-conscientious comedian than a craven coward who goes for jokes that target a less vocal, assertive, or powerful group. After all, if Leno prides himself as a satirist who uses humor to score moral or political points, would he have the courage to mock Jews for their barbaric practice of kosher-butchering? Would he dare point out the hypocrisy of Americans who wail about whale-hunting and bark about dog-eating but have no problem butchering and consuming millions of pigs? Would Leno crack jokes about cannibalism in Africa, the murder of Albinos, or the practice of eating apes such as chimps and gorillas? (Man-eating-ape is close to cannibalism.) Has Leno ever made a joke about how the Wars for Israel have led to the deaths of 100,000, even millions, of Arabs and Muslims? And if indeed North Koreans are reduced to hunting for dogs and cats to eat, does he know about US sanctions regimen that have targeted nations like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia that won’t get on with the agenda of the Jew World Order? If South Koreans eat dogs out of vanity, North Koreans are eating them(if they can find any) to survive. Surely, it makes little sense to mock a people for eating dogs out of hunger. Even white people were reduced to cannibalism in extreme crises such as the Great Famine in Ukraine(or the Donner Party that sort of became a Dinner Party). Has Leno ever used jokes to remind Americans of ongoing Occupation of Palestine by Zionists? Has he cracked a joke in the past 30 yrs about how out-of-control fecal penetration among homos led to the horrible AIDS crisis in the ‘gay’ community, killing off so many fruiters? Of course not. Now, if he’d done all that and then made jokes about Asians-eating-dogs, he would deserve praise as a truly edgy and courageous comedian. But he’s been a corporate clown for most of his career, and he’s never uttered a word that defied the powers-that-be that control Hollywood, TV, and mass media, the Jews of course. So, coming from Leno, the jokes about Asians-eating-dogs do seem craven and cowardly than courageous and conscientious. Unable and unwilling to throw stones at those who hurl back bigger stones, he goes for easy targets as the Asian community in the US is, as yet, too mute and meek to raise much of a fuss... though things may be changing, especially in California where every group now competes for victim-sweepstakes.


Personally, I want to hear jokes about ALL groups. One of the great things about Free Speech is the means to use humor in a sardonic and mocking way to subvert the power or expose the lunacy. Granted, comedians can get high on their own supply and become crazy themselves, i.e. wallowing in the culture of ridicule for its own sake. So many comedians have burned out, destroyed themselves, and even died indulging in mockery for mockery’s sake, a comedy turned into mindless sado-masochism. Consider John Belushi and Sam Kinison. Both were funny but ended up like pigs eating their own shit. David Chappelle faces the same danger. He is more courageous than most, especially in calling out on the BS of Jussie Smollett, but so much of his antics are grotesqueries, the only purpose of which is outrage.

Sadly, far more free speech in the West has been wasted on obscenity, outrage, infantilism, and ‘extreme’ expression than on sharp and pointed critique of the Real Power. The sheer volume of outrageous-ness has created the impression of lively culture of free speech, but the opposite is true. If someone is oppressing you, and you dare not call him out and instead say outrageous things about private parts or sexual perversion, sure, it might seem as though you’re a free spirit and acting exactly as you wish. But would such hyperbolic behavior really be a sign of freedom-as-health or freedom-as-fraud? Could it be you’re indulging in aimless libertine-ism precisely because you’re afraid to use your freedom to speak truth to the power over you? In a way, it’d be no better than a man who is meek before his boss at the office but then goes home to act wild, get drunk, kick the dog, and beat up the kids. He acts so desperately free at home because he dares not use his freedom to confront his problematic boss. So much freedom in the West is of the same degree. Jews tolerate and even encourage Outrageous Behavior to create the impression of unfettered freedom. Jews don’t mind idiot goyim imitating the antics of Adam Sandler or indulging in porny behavior. Such apparent permissiveness makes the populace feel that they’re free to do just about anything. Same goes for current Japan. Though it’s had a sham-one-party-democracy since its inception following the defeat in World War II, there is the impression of 'liberal' freedom because Japan is the land of lunatic pop culture and pornography. But if the Japanese had used their freedom in a truly intelligent and pointed manner, they could be living under a system that is something more than a whore-geisha of the US empire. But as long as Japanese carry on with their combo of anime and pornography, so many will go on being fooled, inside and outside Japan, that the Japanese must be one of the freest people on earth since they got animated tentacle-porn.
For Jewish Power, humor is a useful instrument to make people forget the world and lose themselves in stupid laughter. And indeed, Late Night Comedy shows have served that very purpose for the American Masses who were lulled into la-la-land of stupid jokes and laughter before sleep. That was pretty much what Johnny Carson served up to the American people, and much the same goes for most TV shows around the world. David Letterman, being more cynical and edgy, leaned more towards satire and on occasion even touched base with certain underground elements of American life, but his show too was mostly about glibness and attitude. Obviously, most Americans wanted escapism, and the corporate entities weren’t going to hire someone to be truly bold and daring. If of late, certain Late Night comedians have been more engaged politically, it has less to do with individual conscience than corporate interest as the likes of Jimmy Kimmel and the Jewish executives of media companies are on the same page when it comes to their class or tribal prerogatives. After all, if a Late Night comedy host decided to condemn Neocons, Wars for Israel, Zionist Occupation of West Bank, black crime, and etc., how much longer would his career last? Kimmel and the rest of them are allowed to spew their bile against Donald Trump and the Americans who voted for him precisely because they are carrying water for the Globo-Homo-Shlomo elites. As such, they are court-clowns than satirists or moral critics. When Obama was destroying Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, why were these court-comics so silent? A true satirist and truth-teller will always be criticizing wherever he sees wrong; it won’t be a matter of "our side always good, other side always bad." A true satirist like George Orwell saw the fault in the Left as well as in the Right because, more often than not, he sought truth than merely an agenda.
Jimmy Kimmel who used Guillermo as a Mexican Steppin' Fetchit as the Moral Conscience of America. ROTFL.
Though Jews use comedy to shroud us in the fog of escapism, they also know it can turn against them because, after all, ANYTHING and ANYONE can be lampooned, mocked, subverted, and exposed through comedy. What Charlie Chaplin did to Adolf Hitler can be done to anyone. This is why Sam Hyde had to be canned by the Jew-run media. He was irreverent toward things that matter to Jewish supremacism. Some will say he was ridiculing the Holocaust, but his target was clearly the Schmolocaust, the shameless exploitation of the historical tragedy by Jews to use as moral cover for all the dirty things they do.

And the case of Sacha Baron Cohen should tell us all we need to know about the true nature of the Jew. Cohen has been a scummy Jew who used mockery and biting humor to expose all the nasty things about goyim, but when he realized that there are plenty of voices willing to mock powerful Jews and Jewish myths, he ran to the ADL and made common cause to shut down voices that dare to be irreverent toward Zionists and Jewish Supremacists. Such Jews want to monopolize satire like they do with nationalism. According to Jews, only their own Tribe is deserving of identity, territoriality, and national consciousness whereas all other peoples, lands, and cultures must be opened up for Diversity-mongering. And only Jews should be allowed to use humor to mock, ridicule, and deride other groups but other groups better just shut up and never retaliate with counter-humor against the Jews. If goyim are to laugh, it must only be with the approval of Jewish Hollywood and Jewish media. Censchwarzship in other words. So, ye goyim, rent out all those Sacha Baron Cohen movies and laugh like a retard at approved targets, but DO NOT dare to go the Sam Hyde way and mock that which is sacrosanct to the perpetuation of Jewish supremacist power.

Ideally, we need more comedians and satirists directing their wit, intelligence, and focus on things that really need to be exposed, mocked, and ridiculed. Given the sheer arrogance, paranoia, megalomania, hysteria, and near-psychosis of Jewish Power, I can’t think of a more worthy target of ridicule than JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. And indeed, the Alt Right was most effective in comic mode, that is before humorless Richard Spencer and others took over and turned it into a grubby neo-Nazi fest. Mike Enoch is an interesting figure in this regard. As the host of THE DAILY SHOAH, he seemed to be going from strength to strength, but then dropped his comic edge and very unironically went into Sieg Heil mode, making a fool of himself and the whole movement. A more disciplined and savvy Alt Right could have mounted a satirical campaign to ridicule and deconstruct Jewish Power, but that wasn’t in the cards once Spencer, the humorless Faustian-Pact-Man, settled for a revolution with a bunch of Daily-Stormers. Granted, DAILY STORMER is big on laughter but then even bigger on retardation as it undercuts its attack on Jewish Evil by defending the evil of Nazism.
At any rate, we can’t rely on court comedians on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE or Late Night TV shows to use humor to expose the evil, madness, and hypocrisies of Jewish Supremacist Power. As all of mass media are controlled by Jews and hire only Jews, cucks, and opportunists, they will continue to dish out the kind of comedy valued by the Deep State and Jewish Power. No stinging satire against Jewish power, globo-homo, and black-on-white violence. And as long as the Jew-run West must meddle in the Middle East, it mustn’t give the impression that the West is anti-Islam or anti-Arab. So, there aren’t many jokes about Muslims anymore either, if only to give the impression OVER THERE that the West isn’t officially anti-Islam or anti-Arab even though its policies continue to spread more havoc in the region, all for the imperium of Zion. The unspoken rule is "Don’t punch down on Arabs/Muslims with comedy so that we can punch down on them literally."
On the matter of punching up or down, it’s generally a good rule to punch up than down with comedy. However, satire isn’t only about targeting the powerful but also exposing horror or injustice, and that can be found in any part of society. Is it less worthy of moral criticism if bears are tortured by poor Vietnamese or if dogs are forced to maul each in dog-fights other by poor ‘black trash’ or ‘white trash’? Should we not talk about people abusing their wives or children simply because they happen to be poor? No, while the Power should be the main focus of criticism/satire, evil can be found in all corners of the world and at all levels of society, and there is nothing wrong with calling out on evil.
One thing for sure, while people like Guy Aoki want to narrow the range of discourse(serious or comic), people like myself want to broaden it. Instead of creating 'more protected groups', we want more scrutiny for all groups, especially for those who are currently protected: Jews, blacks, and homos. That said, I can see where MANAA is coming from. If current PC is all about gaining special protection and special privileges based on victim-hood, and if Jews, blacks, and homos have gained so much power, authority, and/or influence on those very grounds, then why shouldn't other groups join in as well? Of course, if Asians and Muslims also gain protected-group-status, it will become more difficult for Jews to use Yellow Peril as distraction and Muslim-as-Terrorist-trope to keep the majority of Americans siding with Jews and Israel against the 'muzzies' and 'raggers'. It's all turning into a Fine Mess.