Holodolatry(or Holocaust-Idolatry) needs to be countered with Holo-Correction and Holo-Context — Don't Deny the Horrors of World War II but Correct the Falsehoods and Provide the Contexts

Why Not Question “the Holocaust” in Schools? - The standard narrative does not stand up to serious historical scrutiny - by PHILIP GIRALDI — https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-not-question-the-holocaust-in-schools/#comment-4993303

This Texas proposal might as well be a gift to Jewish Power because it defines the discussion into "Holocaust Did Happen" and "Holocaust Didn't Happen", with precious little in between. It's like posing the Soviet Question as one of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and "Stalin hardly killed anyone." What about the possibility that Stalin might have killed 20 million, 10 million, or 5 million? Should the question about the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodia Tragedy boil down to "Did Pol Pot kill 3 million?" or "Did Pol Pot kill no one"? It's a false dichotomy, the kind which has long dogged the discourse on the Shoah.

What we need is to treat the Holocaust as history, thereby opening up discussion and allowing questions, some of them inconvenient(given the current political/moral climate). The real problem is the Holocaust is treated as dogma, even a quasi-religion. We are to believe that 6 million Jews were killed(and one digit less is tantamount to 'denial') and that Jews were totally innocent and pure-as-snow, i.e. the German and other Anti-Semites just went bat-shit crazy due to history of European Christianity and 'scientific racism'.
But this is like saying 200,000 Japanese perished instantly in the nuking of Hiroshima(and don't you dare ask if the casualty number might have been less, say 100,000 or 80,000 as that would be Denial!) and that the bombing was done just for the hell of it(because America couldn't resist doing something horribly 'racist', which is part of its DNA). Now, it's true that many innocents died in Hiroshima and there was a lot of anti-Japanese and anti-Asian animus in the US. But the nuking cannot be understood without the larger context of the Pacific War and Japan's aggressive role in it. Even if one concludes the nuking was unjustified or believes that countless innocents died(even if the nuking was justified), it'd be foolish to argue that it happened simply because white Americans, riled up by anti-Asian prejudice, decided to nuke Japan for the fun of it. Japan too had been a player in the imperial conflict for hegemony over the Pacific and had plenty of blood on its hands. Of course, just because Japan did bad doesn't mean the US did good. And even if one were to argue the US did bad in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it doesn't follow that Japan was good. After all, gangsters fight and kill one another all the time. It's possible that all sides are bad in one way or another. Some may be worse, but that still doesn't make the less psychotic gangsters good. They too are thugs after all. Foreign Affairs have always been gangster politics, and genuine good guys on the international scale have been as rare as the white tiger or two-headed snake.

Then, in order to have a deeper and more meaningful discussion of World War II and Shoah, there must be an honest discussion of the historical-social-economic context. Now, care must be taken so as not to use the context as mere excuse or rationale. After all, that would be too easy. Any side can say, "We did it cuz they did it" or "They did bad, so we did bad too to get even." It's like a trial where lawyers for the prosecution and the defense frame events in such manner to favor their side.
History isn't about who is innocent and who is guilty. While it's reasonably simple and fair-minded to ascribe guilt or innocence to individuals, matters are far more complicated as players and participants in History aren't lone individuals but entire systems, vast populations, and agendas across entire eras. Thus, one can be part of a nation or population that was once victimized by aggressors but later became powerful and aggressive toward others. Americans, for instance, can see themselves as rebels against British Tyranny, 'genocidal' invaders against the American Indians, the enslavers of blacks, the liberators of blacks(and enders of slavery), spreaders of liberty(and democracy), champions of free enterprise, neo-imperialist exploiters, robbers of Mexican lands, slayers of evil German and Japanese empires(and saviors of Jews), and/or enablers of Jewish Supremacism.
And in some events, a nation could be both good and bad. Some see the US role in Vietnam as noble, an attempt to spare the Southern Half from the brutality of communism in the North. Others see US as neo-imperialist interventionists trying to prevent the natural unification of a nation that had finally freed itself from French Colonialism.

Even when it comes to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, one will not understand history if they're merely seen as evil. If Hitler was little more than Charles Manson and if National Socialism was about nothing but murderous nuttery, how did they come to power? Why did they gain such popularity? Isn't it more likely that they had some good ideas that appealed to the long-suffering German masses and had some genuine policy triumphs before Hitler increasingly embarked on a game of 'chicken' with neighboring nations that, since late 19th century, developed a certain dread about German power? So, even if National Socialism steered toward the abyss by gambling with history, it had come to power with a measure of legitimacy because its platform and criticism struck a chord with many German folks who'd directly witnessed the degenerate dystopianism of the Weimar years. (If the Weimar era and National Socialist era demonstrate one thing, it's that neither brazen dystopianism nor radical utopianism is the answer). If National Socialism and the Germans who supported it weren't all bad, then it follows that the Jews, who became its main victims, weren't all good.

Besides, it's not as if the Germans picked on some hapless and powerless minority. It was not like a cat attacking a sparrow that poses no harm. Rather, the Germans targeted Jews as the most powerful and problematic minority group in Europe(and the UK and US). Germans felt especially betrayed by Jewish crimes during the Weimar Period because their nation, relatively speaking, had been nicer to Jews than, say, Poland and France have been. Germans-against-Jews wasn't like a cat picking on a sparrow or a dog attacking a rabbit. It was like a dog attacking a fox or weasel in the henhouse. Many Jews weren't a hapless and powerless group of kindly merchants selling toys(as depicted in THE TIN DRUM the film by Volker Schlondorff) but gangsters, financial thieves, cultural degenerates, and/or part of the global World Jewry cabal. Of course, there were nice Jewish merchants who had no part in Jewish Evil, and the National Socialism was demented in targeting all Jews, but Germans had good reasons to tackle the Jewish Question as Jews were an extraordinary people with tremendous potential for good or evil, or both, but that could also be said for National Socialism, a movement that did much good before it did much bad.

It's true that context is often invoked(especially by polemicists) to excuse a certain power and its actions, but history cannot be understood without context. Nothing just happens out of the blue. People react to conditions and events. They may misdiagnose the problem and do foolish and even horrible things. Also, the so-called response or solution may make things worse. It's like we can understand why Ugandans and other black Africans were upset with the domination of Asian Indian merchants in the aftermath of British Empire's departure. But the solution was also misdiagnosed because, while it was true enough that Asian-Indians took advantage of a world order established by British Imperialism, they also gained market dominance because blacks lacked the skills to run modern economies or even a sincere willingness to learn. And so, the forced departure of the Asian-Indians didn't lead to economic boom for the blacks but depression and shortages(that soon fueled more social strife and political crises).
Still, we can understand why the native majorities were upset with so much of the economy being dominated by a foreign minority, a sentiment also widespread in Southeast Asia and Philippines in regards to the Chinese. Part of the reason is envy, but it is also a matter of anxiety. How can any patriot be certain that the foreign minority influence, especially in bribing and corrupting politicians, may well undermine the sovereignty of the nation? (Indeed, what have Jewish wealth and power done to the sovereignty of Western nations?) And the super-rich rarely happen to be men of integrity or principles. While plenty of successful people have smarts and talent, few rarely reach the top without dirty tricks; it takes a certain sociopathy to violate so many rules for personal gain. Then, it should be of no surprise that European native majorities found Jewish Minority Power to be deeply problematic. Not only were Jews smart and successful but many of them were devious, cunning, and even downright criminal(and without scruples). Also, even if good many Jews had redeeming qualities and were capable of loyalty, their fealty and devotion were mainly tribal than for the goy nation and people in which they made their fortune. It's like Sheldon Adelson made his billions in the US and the goy world, but his stated regret is having donned the uniform of the US military than of the IDF. So, Adelson's one redeeming quality, that of patriotism and loyalty, wasn't to the majority goy America but to the Jewish Israel.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it concentrates on 'Anne Frank' Jews while wholly ignoring 'Leo Frank' Jews. (Leo Frank was an American Jew, but we're using him as a metaphor here.) The Narrative would have us believe Jews were all or mostly sweet and innocent like Anne Frank, but deranged 'Anti-Semites' just went crazy and decided to murder a whole bunch of the nicest people in the world. In truth, there were many Jews who were more like Leo Frank, especially in the upper echelons of Jewish Power. Indeed, the Leo Frank case offers a glimpse into how World Jewry operates. Instead of good Jews standing with good goyim against bad people(Jews and goyim alike), Jews(even more than goyim) stick with the bad among them on the basis of tribal loyalty and supremacism.
So, the Shoah was more like goyim reacting to Leo-Frank-Jews of the world but then, tragically enough, even going after Anne-Frank-Jews.
Sadly, it's often been the case that war on one tribal pathology led to another tribal pathology, which is what National Socialism turned out to be. But then, there was a time when Neo-Conservatism was greeted with much interest as having set forth a new path for American Conservatism that had grown moribund over the years — indeed the old-school Republicans in the late Sixties and Eighties capitalized on Liberal/Democratic failures than came up with winning formulas of their own. It was at this time that Neo-Conservatism saw their opportunity as the energetic and creative wing of American Conservatism. It gained traction for valid reasons. But just like National Socialism had a pathological core, the innermost agenda of Neo-Conservatism turned out to be pathological Jewish supremacism, and once the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton's synthesis of 'economic conservatism' and 'social liberalism' was achieved(which is exactly what most Jews wanted), the so-called Neocons had little on their minds but Wars for Israel. Zionist fingerprints are not only all over the plans for war but on events like 9/11 that finally pushed the American Public over the edge in supporting massive troop deployments to the Middle East to transform the entire region into puppet-democracies(the strings of which would be pulled by US in the palm of Zion) or a ceaseless war zone where Arabs and others, driven into sectarian distrust, would end up slaughtering one another while NATO and Zion armed the various sides to further the blood-letting. But as with National Socialism, the evil of Neoconservatism cannot be understood without taking the larger context into account. One wonders if Neoconservatism was always demented at the core with future war plans to bring about Jewish-Zionist hegemony or it became demented over time because power has a way of growing bolder, more arrogant, and more reckless with every victory. Given the Zionist fingerprints all over 9/11, it suggests Neocons were always dark agents of Zion or, at the very least, inseparable from the Zionist or Yinonist Agenda. Still, Neoconservatives gained influence by proposing some useful ideas to an American Conservatism that had grown staid and stale.

Now, if Jews were a poor and powerless people, it wouldn't much matter what we believed about the Holocaust. It's like what we believe about the American Indians or Australian Aborigines hardly matters because they are a powerless group. But the Holocaust Narrative has had a malignant impact because Jews are the most powerful people in the world, not least because they tamed the Northern European stock to be their war horse. It's one thing to be willfully naive about a powerless people but quite another to be that way about the most powerful people whose megalomania, political-spiritual-moral-historical-intellectual-etc., is totally out of control. It's like the West's willful naivete about blacks-as-innocent-childlike-saints has done great harm, especially in the Era of St. George Floyd. In truth, the black comprises some of the most aggressive, most criminal, most brutal, and most savage thugs in the West, BUT the Jewish-run Narrative holds that innocent blacks are being brutalized and murdered by 'racist' white cops and whites in general. Result has been demands to 'defund the police' while defending the thugs, leading to more murders and mayhem in city after city.

Now, just because Jews are powerful and have done lots of bad doesn't mean that the Shoah didn't happen or that many innocent Jews perished in it, no more and no less than the fact that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in World War II, even those who opposed their regimes and the wars. Also, even the worst Jews deserve their day in court. It's like the dire facts of black brutality and aggression(that largely arise from black genetic character) don't mean that blacks weren't exploited as slaves and were victimized by whites in the past. It'd be fallacious to say, just because Jewish Power is currently so evil, innocent Jews weren't met with goy evil, or just because so many blacks are now deranged thugs, they didn't suffer in the past under white domination. But it's also fallacy to assume that, just because Jews experienced a great horror in WWII, Jews today are a bunch of Anne Franks radiating with victim-sanctity, or just because blacks were once slaves or faced racial discrimination, blacks today are upright and struggling for a righteous cause. If the character of a people become affixed to an event in history, it all depends on the event that is memorialized. It's like 1776 makes Americans out to be resisting tyranny and struggling for independence. If we focus on the years in which Japan invaded China, the Japanese come across as a bunch of murderous aggressors. But if we focus on post-war Japan when the nation developed into a peaceful 'democracy', Japanese seem a kindly people. But history never stands still. Just because Romans once kicked Germanic Barbarian butt didn't meant Romans/Italians were eternal victor-invaders while Germanics were eternal victim-conquered. Indeed, it wasn't long before Rome was sacked by the Germanic barbarians.

The problem is the Holocaust is treated less as history than idolatry or Holodolatry, canonization of a historical event into quasi-spiritual matter. Worse, Holodolatry forces us to speak of Jews as a single entity. So, we can't speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, good Jews and bad Jews, radical Jews and moderate Jews. When it comes to most peoples, we speak of the powerful and the powerless. For example, we don't blame all Japanese for all time for what happened in the Pacific War. The main blame goes to the militarist rulers. This allows for one perspective on powerful Japanese and another on powerless Japanese, such as civilians who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, there is no absolute dividing line between the powerful and the powerless, as so many of the powerless often support the powerful. Lines become blurred. Many Japanese supported their ruling regime, and many powerless Jews looked to powerful Jews for direction and purpose.
Still, there are decision-and-opinion-makers(the powerful) and those who blindly follow along(the powerless) because they don't know any better, have been hoodwinked, or feel obligated out of tribal loyalty. Any interpretation of events must hold to account the powerful with greater burden of responsibility. Such approach can make us understand Jewish Power and 'antisemitism' better. Some powerful Jews acted badly, and it led to anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because the Jewish Community as a whole didn't take a stance against bad powerful Jews. (And when some Jews did stand up to Jewish Greed, they took it to radical extremes with ideologies like communism that devastated societies.) If we speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, we can better distinguish between guilty Jews and innocent Jews. But Holodolatry forces us to look upon ALL Jews as sacred victims of 'antisemitism'. This would be like bunching together Tojo and other Japanese militarists with the Japanese victims in Hiroshima. Holodolatry has turned into trickery whereby powerful Jews morally shield their abuses from scrutiny and criticism by hiding behind the cult of Jewish Innocence. When will the world admit that bad Jews must partly answer for the plight of good Jews? If bad Jews didn't act so bad, good Jews wouldn't have gotten burned in the goyim's overreaction against bad Jews... just like so many good decent innocent Germans and Japanese would have spared the horrors of WWII if the bad and powerful among them didn't play fire with History. But if the world holds the bad/powerful Germans and bad/powerful Japanese accountable for the suffering of innocent Germans and Japanese, it has yet to do the same with bad/powerful Jews whose vile deeds led to a backlash that destroyed many good Jews. If anything, whereas all Germans, even good/powerless ones, have been tainted with the guilt of Nazism, all Jews, even bad/powerful ones, have been sainted with the aura of Holy Holocaust.

If ALL Jews must be regarded as holy-schmoly innocent victims, then ALL Germans must be regarded as evil-schrivel guilty murderers, which is why every new generation of Germans is inculcated with the cult of eternal guilt regarding Jews. Under rules of Holodolatry, even the worst Jewish thug-murderer is a holy victim while even the nicest German must bear the burden of guilt. Holodolatry has merely led to a new kind of quasi-spiritualized racial supremacism where a certain historic tragedy absolves everyone within a certain group of guilt while abasing everyone of another population to the status of forever-damned. Notice how even the foulest Jew, like Michael Cohen, seeks a way out by yammering about how his so-and-so relative may have been a 'holocaust survivor'. This is why, in the current climate, if a Jew raped and murdered a white goy's mother, the white goy is likely to praise the attack as justified because a holy Jew done it. Just ask the Palestinians how morality works in the current West. Jews can do no wrong because Holodolatry elevated them to permanent status of holy-hood.

If someone has clearly been murdered, it'd be retarded to turn the discussion into a matter of "It was the greatest and worst murder of all time" vs "It didn't happen." Rather, the murder should be investigated thoroughly and understood within the larger context. Was the victim a totally innocent saint who was killed for no good reason by some deranged nutter, or was it more complicated? Among individuals, moral simplicity is sufficient for understanding murder: A real sicko killed a perfectly nice person for no rational reason. But on the historical level where every nation/group is made up of so many individuals, some good and some bad, moral dynamics becomes far more complicated. As for WWII, it's reasonable to say the Jew acted badly and the German overreacted with brutality and even murder. Why deny the murder when it did happen? But then, was it the greatest murder of all time? And did the German really stab the Jew six million times?

Of course, many Jews will spin even the most sincere attempt to better understand WWII and the Shoah as just another kind of 'holocaust denial'. To these Jews, anything shy of the narrative claiming that "totally innocent six million Jews died at the hands of totally deranged Germans" is tantamount to 'denial'. But whatever such rabid Jews say, responsible people can and should support a new historical approach that tries to understand the context in which the horrors happened.
Indeed, this is the approach with communism. While most historians will agree that millions perished under communism, they nevertheless take into consideration the context in which these things happened. Communism gained in influence because there were real problems with capitalism. Bolsheviks did terrible things but had popular support because the Old System had failed on so many fronts(and because White Armies offered nothing new). Khmer Rouge came to power because the CIA destabilized Cambodia and the US rained tons of bombs on the country. And even though the Khmer Rouge were genuinely nuts, many Cambodians turned to them for a reason. So, even without justifying the evils of communism, one at least tries to understand the events and why they happened under the historical circumstances.

And the same kind of perspective is necessary in regards to the Holocaust. Why did so many people come to hate Jews, and not just in Germany? Was Hitler simply evil or were some of his decisions justified given the challenges? Also, should we speak of simple good guys and bad guys when the British, Americans, French, and Russians were also super-imperialists with blood on their hands in the creation of their empires? And what was the Jewish role in geo-politics(of World War I, Russian Revolution, and World War II) that made the tensions between National Socialist Germany and World Jewry all the worse and more dangerous?

In other words, we don't need the Denial Narrative to better understand WWII and the Shoah. We only need the Corrective Narrative(to revise the falsehoods about the Holocaust) and better contextual understanding to understand why such a thing could have happened. And if Jews had many enemies, why should that be surprising? Many peoples throughout history were hated or dreaded for some reason or another. Romans, Germanic Barbarians, Huns, Assyrians, Egyptians, Vikings, Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Japanese, and etc. They had fans but also haters. Given that Jews amassed vast fortunes and used influence to steer world events(to the detriment of certain peoples), why is anyone surprised that some of this led to Jew-hatred? We aren't surprised that those under British Imperialism came to hate the Anglos. Or that Poles came to hate Germans and Russians. We understand why the Chinese came to hate the Japanese. Then, it should be understandable why some peoples came to resent or hate Jews. Indeed, should Palestinians be marked as 'irrational anti-semites' for hating Jews given what Jews did to Palestinians? You see, anti-Jewish hatred can be totally justifiable. If Germans and Japanese came to be hated and died in large numbers as a result of the backlash from their enemies, then why is anyone surprised that Jews were also met with violent backlash? (Jews bitch about past pogroms against Jews but usually rationalize black pogroms against whites and non-blacks on account of black victimization in the past. But using the same logic, pogroms against Jews could be justified on account of Jewish exploitation of goyim. But of course, Jewish Morality accords Jews the power to fix or nix any narrative. So, goy violence against Jews was, is, and shall always be bad, but black violence against whites or non-blacks can be deemed justifiable on account of 'history'. It's almost as if Jews are above history as they and their favored allies cannot be judged by it even as they tirelessly judge it.)

Instead of denying the Shoah, its falsehoods need to be corrected and questions must be asked as to what role Jewish Power played in exacerbating tensions around the world that led to the conflagrations of the 20th century. While Jews shouldn't be scapegoated as the sole villains of history, neither should they be escape-boated as the only ones with clean hands who, for no reason at all, got their knuckled smashed. (Perhaps, the hope among some goyim is that smart and pushy Jews will change their nasty ways and treat them nice IF they denounce Nazis as the worst evil and defend Jews as eternal saintly victims. Fat chance. Jews will grab the mantle of eternal victimhood but not act saintly. Result is consecration of Jewish megalomania as the summit of morality.)

GOY'S GUIDE TO KEEPING KOSHER - Brother Nathanael

How the Game of GO illustrates the Importance of Context as Nothing Exists in a Political Vacuum — Facts are contained within the Context like Chickens are inside the Coop — Modern Jews don't worship God but take pride as the Creators of God

There is something to be learned from the game of Go. It's about routing and counter-routing, surrounding & sieging and counter-surrounding & counter-sieging. Your position on the board, advantageous or disadvantageous, is relative to who has the edge in surrounding whom and/or whose space has been made siege-proof. So, it doesn't matter how much area your pieces occupy if they're surrounded by your opponent's pieces that rob them of 'liberties'. It's like it doesn't matter how many men you command and the space they occupy IF they're surrounded by the enemy who have built walls or fences to cut them off; they've essentially been reduced to captives, like German soldiers under siege in Stalingrad — they were 200,000 men-strong but surrendered to the Soviets because they were deprived of reinforcements and supplies from the main force outside. When your forces have been routed, surrounded, and sieged, whatever freedom they have is confined to the space enclosed by the enemy. At best, it is freedom within the larger unfreedom dictated by the enemy. As the survival and well-being of your men now totally depend on those who control the supply routes, the ins-and-outs of your enclosed domain, you must accede to the terms set by the enemy.

So, everything exists and operates within a context. Even in the most tolerant and permissive prison system, your freedom is limited within the walls and in accordance to the rules set by the prison system. Same with slavery. Even under the kindest and most compassionate slave-master, the slave is still a slave. He may be freer than other slaves, but his freedom, even if extravagant for his ilk, is within the whims of the master. This is true of the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. They do have freedoms but within the confines and context of what is allowed by the power and reach of Greater Israel. Their freedom of movement and settlement operates within what is permitted by Jewish Power. This is why the British control of the seas was so elemental to imperialist dominance in the 19th century. It enabled the British to surround and besiege many parts of the world, and not surprisingly, the US sealed its role as the new hegemon by taking over as the premier naval power in the world. US also built military bases all over to block the influence of Russia, China, Iran, and etc.

But the Go-strategy need not be physical, as with pieces on the gameboard or ships-and-soldiers around the world. It can be emotional, moral, ideological, idolatrous, historical, and etc. Indeed, a prisoner's physical confinement follows from the logic of moral containment. No matter how good and decent an individual may be in prison, society has deemed he must remain imprisoned because he is guilty and must pay for the crime. And if it's a life sentence, it doesn't matter how good and decent he is while in prison. He is still at a moral disadvantage on the basis of what he owes to society, which is to remain in prison for the rest of his life.
Now, we would all agree that putting a man in prison per se is a grave wrong, even an evil. Who would want to be arbitrarily arrested and placed behind bars for the hell of it? And yet, this wrong is regarded as righteous and justified IF the prisoner has been convicted of a crime. And even something as grievous as life-sentence is seen as necessary if the crime was serious enough; indeed, certain crimes are regarded as so heinous that the convicted is given multiple life-sentences.
So, even what seems like a terrible wrong can be seen a just act within a certain context. On a far larger scale, consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, any sane person knows it's a great evil to nuke a city and indiscriminately kill countless people. If the US did it for the hell of it, virtually all would agree it committed a horrendous act. But given the context of the Pacific War — Japan's aggressions in Asia, its attack on Pearl Harbor, calculations of human cost in invading Japan, and etc. — , good many Americans have been convinced that it was necessary and even justified. So, what seems like an evil act is made nonevil(or necessary evil) or even righteous based on the context. Indeed, the nukings go to show that even the most horrific acts can be justified depending on which context has narrative primacy.

It also goes to show almost nothing is a stand-alone moral certainty. Even matters regarded as fundamentally wrong take on moral shadings depending on the contexts presented. Most people would agree with one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Killing is dirty business. So, don't kill and instead try to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want someone to kill you or your loved ones, you shouldn't go around killing others. And yet, many killings are justified in the eyes of society and the law depending on the context of the event. Obviously, if some psycho-criminal broke into your house and threatened to harm your family, most people would agree you were justified in killing the intruder. Or, if a much-abused wife shot her husband dead in self-defense or out of rage, it's far more understandable than cold-blooded murder. The term 'murder' is used only for unjustified killing.

So, even though we all agree that killing is wrong, it can be justified within the context of self-defense or justice(as in capital punishment). On a larger scale, the US government(and governments all over the world) even justify bombings, invasions, and all-out-wars on the basis of moral necessity or outrage, e.g. such-and-such regime is so odious and pose such a threat to World Peace that the global community or the (self)designated 'policeman of the world' must do SOMETHING, even if it means war and considerable loss of life. It all depends on how one surrounds the act with what moral context. US is currently illegally occupying Syria, but the narrative pushed by the Deep State and the Jewish-run Media is "Assad is a butcher and tyrant, and therefore the US must be there to protect such-and-such groups." It's horseshit, but Jews control the deep state and the flow of information that shape the dominant context. They can 'rout' and justify any act with their favored narrative contexts. Palestinians know this all too well. They're a terribly wronged people, but most of the West doesn't care. While people in the West would agree that ethnic cleansing, occupation, and apartheid policies are wrong, they tend to see the realities and events in Gaza, West Bank, and the Middle East in general within the framework arranged by Jewish Power and their cuck-allies.
In the game of Shoah-and-Tell, whatever Jews have done in the Middle East is always deemed necessary because of 'Muh Holocaust', 'Never Again', and 'It is Anti-Semitic!'. The Holocaust Cult says Jews need their own homeland for survival. So, if Arabs resist the Jewish Homeland built on Palestine, they must be the New Nazis. Also, as the West has been judged guilty for 'antisemitism' that led to the Shoah, they owe something big and eternal to the Jewish Community. It's the only way they can pay back the Holocaust-Debt. And it's gotten to the point that anything that offends or displeases Jews is 'Anti-Semitic', which can destroy careers in the West. As a result, all the evils perpetrated by Jews are spun as morally necessary or justified by historical context. As in the Game of Go, what is within a certain space matters far less than what forces surround it. So, even if there's white pieces over a portion of the board, they come to be owned by the black pieces that surround them and seal them off. Likewise, the reason why so many moral arguments against Israel, Zionism, and Wars for Israel are ignored is they are surrounded and hemmed in by the larger context of the 'Muh Holocaust' narrative. Sure, Jews do a lot of questionable things, BUT they are the Holy Holocaust People, and as such, their tragic wisdom and tribal survival cannot be questioned... unless you be one of those odious 'Anti-Semites'! That context surrounds, suffocates, and seals off any counter-argument.

Similar dynamics explain why American discourse has become so useless. Jews control America, and as such they control the gods. Now, there is a thing called Reality, but it is at once starkly simple and infinitely complex. Due to its simplicity, it has to be contextualized. Due to its vastness, it has to be framed. Reality is both the tiniest micro-fact and the grandest macro-truth. It is both too minute and too much for the human mind. Just like food is served in limited portions on a platter, reality has to be cut, cooked, and prepared for human consumption. Jews, long known for their dietary laws, are no strangers to preparing and serving reality in their own way.
Context both broadens and truncates reality, much like how a movie screen functions. The screen places a person or object within a larger space and context, but however large the space or vast the vista, it is limited to the screen size-and-shape. The Bible served as a Jewish Screen. On the one hand, it broadened our perspective on the Jews. In the Good Book, they aren't just another desert tribe but the Chosen of God whose lives and stories have significance within the vast context of history and God's design. And yet, its very Judeocentrism leaves out the counter and competing perspectives of other tribes and groups often at odds with the Jews. The Biblical context broadens the Jewish Experience while excluding other contexts of the goyim.
This is why Christian-Zionists are so utterly blind to the plight of the Palestinians. As their view of Middle East affairs is so fundamentally shaped by the context of the Biblical Narrative, they view current events as mere extensions of the prophecies of the Bible: Jews as God's Chosen People struggling for the Holy Land against the various Rottenites and Lowdownites. Given Christianity's overtly 'Anti-Semitic' context of Jews-as-Christ-Killers and the coming of the New Covenant, one might think Christians would be immune to such a mindset. But apart from anti-Jewish Christians who believe Jews must return to the Holy Land in order for Jesus to return(to finally mete out justice to Jews by killing them by the bushel), the Christian-Zionist types are just as much affected by the 'Muh Holocaust' contextuality. By being so mindlessly pro-Zionist, they seek to prove to themselves and the world that they, as Good Christians, had been friendly with the Jewish People all along and that Christianity, far from being 'Anti-Semitic', is the best friend of the Holy Jews.

How did Jewish Power prevail in shaping the American narrative and moral context? By corralling and containing reality within their favored contexts, even facts that undermine the Jewish-favored Narrative are rendered ineffective. (It's like it's a fact that rabbits are fast, but their speed is moot in an enclosed area; they have no place to run.) Take crime statistics. Whether one is familiar with FBI crime stats or not, most people in America know that blacks commit disproportionate amount of crimes. After all, even 'leftist' Jews and 'liberal' whites tend to live away from heavily black areas. Then, how come discussions of this fact fail to gain traction in the American Narrative and Moral Discourse? Because they've been routed and sieged within the Noble Negro historical narrative: Evil greedy soulless whites committed a great crime against a noble and wonderful race of Magic Negroes, and therefore blacks are righteous victims whereas whites have much to atone for.
It's like the WWII context of the Good War, one of the Free World vs Fascist Tyranny. So, it doesn't matter that the Allies had some cretins among their ranks and committed their share of war crimes and that the Axis powers had some soldiers of honor, principle, and courage. All said and done, one side was Good, the other side was Evil. Thus, the macro-goodness of the Allies contextualizes and absolves their crimes and guilt, whereas no amount of facts of exemplary behavior on the Axis side matters because, all said and done, the it stands for Evil in the postwar narrative established by the winners.

Jews are deep inside the power structures of goy society and are surrounded by so many goyim. Physically, Jews are surrounded by goyim, but they've mentally surrounded the goyim(especially white goyim) with Holocaust Guilt. Such is the power of the prophetic mind. Even if physically surrounded, you might surround your enemy with YOUR favored worldview. No wonder a shepherd has control over the far more numerous sheep. He has a mind and can manipulate their behavior whereas the sheep, though numerous, lack minds and agency of their own.

This is why the Dissident Right focus on black criminality, though factual and reality-based, doesn't really go anywhere. They are like white pieces besieged by black pieces in the game of Go. No matter how factual, they are owned by the narrative that surrounds and captures them. No matter how many facts and how much truth whites speak, they are regarded as guilty prisoners of history. It doesn't matter that most whites aren't in literal prisons. What matters is they are captives of mental walls constructed by Jewish Power. According to Jews, whites have been judged guilty by History, and as such, they must be held as moral prisoners by the Holy Peoples, mainly Jews and Blacks. The only kind of whites who are relatively guilt-free are Homos and Trannies, but this is fine with Jews as globo-homo craziness has a subversive and corrosive impact on white unity and solidarity.

In an order where whites are hemmed within the mental prison of endless excoriations about 'racism'(and its various forms, such as 'institutional racism', 'subconscious racism', 'systemic racism', etc.), they can never be innocent whereas blacks can never be guilty. While it's true that individual blacks who commit crime will be locked up behind bars, the black race as a whole is regarded as innocent and sacrosanct whereas the general white population is regarded as tainted with 'historical sin' and 'white guilt'. If anything, the fact that so many blacks end up behind bars despite America's commitment to 'anti-racism' confuses matters even more. As a matter of fact, more blacks end up in jail because they do terrible things and commit lots of crime due to their racial nature owing to evolution in Sub-Saharan Africa. If American Society was defined by simple racial truths, no one would be surprised or troubled by lots of black criminals and thugs ending up behind bars. But because America reveres the idolatry of the Noble Negro and places all blame on whitey, it seems terribly unjust that so many blacks end up in prison, not least for their attacks on whites. If indeed the US is in sync with its chosen narrative, shouldn't tons of whites be going to prison for 'racist' attacks on noble and innocent blacks? But the reality is the opposite, what with black-on-white violence being the norm and with many more blacks being incarcerated for attacking whites than vice versa. And yet, Jewish Power is such that so many whites remain locked within the Jewish-constructed mental-moral prison and seem incapable of breaking out. If anything, things have gotten worse since the Civil Rights Movement when whites from cradle were indoctrinated to see 'racism' as the worst evil, and the worst possible form of 'racism' is one directed at blacks.

So, what are whites to do about the stark reality of racial differences and why blacks cause so much trouble? Ideally, they should accept it for what it is and break out of the contextual walls erected by Jews. But, as they've failed at that, there only remains the coping mechanisms. One way is to turn a blind eye to reality and pretend that high crime rates don't exist among blacks; it's all just a 'racist' fantasy. Another way is to identify and blame a characteristic other than race, e.g. if black thugs run amok, pretend 'teens' or 'youths' done it. Yet another way is to admit blacks do commit lots of crime but it's all due to poverty caused by history of 'racism'. And some even go so far as to celebrate the violence as a form of rough justice, i.e. 'no justice, no peace'.

As long as the context remains, no amount of dissident-right detailing of facts and numbers will make any difference. The what-of-facts is routed and immobilized by the why-of-narrative. Americans must be more cognizant of the power of the context. After all, the 'genocide' of the American Indians was justified on grounds of progress and development. Sure, it was sad what happened to the Indians, BUT and it's a Big But, it was necessary to create America the Land of the Free, the Land of Liberty and Opportunity. You see, context can even justify the eradications of entire peoples and cultures.
And sure, the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty awful, BUT it was the Good War between the Free World and Tyranny, and besides, the 'Japs' acted really nasty and deserved it. Control the context, and you can control just about anything as nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything has meaning and place relative to everything else. While we can't control the universe, we can control our perception of the universe and the world around us. Every religion sought to contextualize the universe with its own cosmology. Every history contextualizes the Story of Man to contain events in the service and justification of certain groups and interests. It's no wonder Jews focus so much on history. It's not just about remembering the past but controlling the present and the future, as George Orwell said. History serves as context, and those who control history control the mazes of the mind. Depending on the context, something is justified or unjustified. In the past, slavery in America was justified on account of the oogity-context favored by whites. It was argued that blacks are oogity-boogity savages in the Dark Continent, and even though slavery as an institution was regrettable, it was necessary and a step up from the darkness for the black race under the tutelage of the white race that taught them to pick cotton and worship Jesus than chuck spears at hippos and shake their booties all night. Context even made white people feel justified in their practice of slavery.

What happens in a game of Go? As your opponent tries to surround you, you try to surround your opponent. He tries to create his own safe spaces, and you try to create your own. He seeks to subvert your space while you try to subvert his. He tries to swallow you, you try to swallow him that is trying to swallow you. It's like a game of who has the bigger mouth.
The dissident right with its details and facts are like a school of fish up against a humpback whale that represents the power of context. Context has a big mouth and swallows up all the details. It wasn't a school of fish that swallowed Jonah, that's for sure. Therefore, one way to counter the Jewish context is to create a larger context that can swallow it. If your enemy lays siege on your forces, you try to muster bigger forces to lay siege on your enemy that is laying siege on your forces. The besieger becomes besieged. Germans besieged Stalingrad in World War II, only to be counter-sieged by Soviet forces. If Jewish Power sieges whites with the contextual narrative of 'white guilt', then whites need to besiege Jewish Power with 'Jewish Guilt'. In a way, this shouldn't be too difficult as 'white guilt' cannot be divorced from 'Jewish Guilt'. After all, consider all the Jewish money that was invested in Western Imperialism. The Rothchilds sure lent a lot of money to British explorers and conquerors. Also, consider the roles Jews played in the South American slavery and in opium trade in China.

Of course, narrative power isn't just about saying but about being heard, and to be heard, one needs control of the industries of media and institutions of academia. How foolish it was for whites to allow Jews to grab so much of the media. And how foolish it was for American 'conservatives' to ignore institutional power in favor of 'muh individualism'. After all, even in the Wild West, it was cooperative communities than lone mythic John-Wayne figures who made a difference and created civilization.

Still, everything must start somewhere, and in the game of contextual Go, whites must be more like whales(or pythons) than schools of fish. All the FBI statistics on crime discussed by honest whites and the members of the Dissident Right only go so far. They are right about reality, but humans are emotional than factual. The righteous context prevails over the right data. It's sort of like how love works. When you really love someone, so many of his or her faults are overlooked or absolved. "Love means never having to say you're sorry", says Ali Macgraw's character in LOVE STORY. Alida Valli's character is so in love with Harry Lime in THE THIRD MAN that she didn't care about the dark facts about him. In some cases, the faults become part of what's lovable about the man or woman. In Film Noir, femme fatales are alluring and irresistible precisely because of their dark side. And in THE LONG RIDERS, Jesse James' fiancee says she wouldn't like him any other way.

Consider how long it took for science to finally break free of theology. So many rational and factual minds lived under the shadow of spiritual righteousness that few dared to challenge lest they end up burnt at the stake with jeers from the mobs. The West was so in love with God and Jesus that it was dangerous to speak facts that might undermine the total devotion. Indeed, science made headway under religious authority not so much in opposition as with a vow to reveal the divine ways of God to prove how totally great He is. It attached itself to religion for protection even as it revealed secrets that finally subverted religion. But given that science lacks a grand vision, it was the only way it could progress. After all, science is about how things are, not how things should be; it lacks prophetic reach.
There are surely some in academia who justify their scientific inquiry in the name of proving the truths of 'progressive' ideology, only to have the science reveal the very opposite. They speak through both sides of their mouths. Under the cover of PC, they are allowed to pursue real science. But even when the discoveries undermine PC, the scientists cleverly explain the findings as being in line with the official ideology... when they really aren't.
It is an artfully devious strategy of power. When the official dogma of an order is so overwhelming and almost universally accepted by all, it is hazardous to speak heresy, no matter how true. Thus, the only chance of getting the ball rolling is to present the heresy as actually being in tune with the dogma. It's like Jews want to destroy Christianity but knew they couldn't do it outright. There were too many Christians who would have been outraged. So, using the Rules for Radicals, they presented anti-Christian agendas as pro-Christian, just like Jewish Power pushed anti-Western agendas as part of 'Western Values'. Thus, Jews injected globo-homo into churches and then gleefully watch as the church rots from within. And in China, the regime moved toward capitalism with the Marxist rationale that it's all part of the eventual plan toward real communism. And it never gave up on the Maoist symbolism.

But for those in the Culture War or in the Revolutionary Struggle, such strategies are too subtle, slippery, and slow. Also, while science may be on our side, our main motivation isn't objective truth but a sense of who we are, where we came from, and where we, as a people, must go. Pure objectivity, after all, doesn't care who wins. In a jungle war between chimpanzees and baboons, objectivity is totally neutral. It doesn't care if chimps wipe out the baboons or vice versa. Indeed, objective reality doesn't care if a virus spreads and kills all apes and monkeys. It doesn't care if an asteroid hits Earth and wipes out all life. Facts not only don't care about YOUR feelings but EVERYONE'S feelings.
So, while it'd be good to be grounded in facts and have them back your arguments, they are not what the battle is really about. One thing for sure, given the brutal nature of history, there are sufficient facts to make your side seem virtuous or villainous. It's like the coin-toss that is 50/50 heads and tails. Every group won as many times as they lost and lost as many times as they won in the brutal game of history. For the longest time, the Germanic barbarians were clobbered by the Romans, but then they clobbered the Romans. Before Spain became a world power, it was under Moorish occupation for a long spell. Russians were crushed by Mongols before becoming a great power.
To be sure, the human species broke out of the natural balance and gained overwhelming supremacy over the other species. And, the white race broke out of the civilizational balance and gained world dominance, but those are recent events in the arc of history. Taken as a whole, white race got clobbered as badly as all the other races.

It's like there are equally facts of chimps as victims and chimps as killers, and the same goes for baboons. Sometimes, the chimps bit off the groins of baboons, and other times baboons bit off the groins of chimps. But notice Jews aren't interested in such truth, that all human groups have been victims and villains. They are motivated by Jewish pride and power. As such, they ignore, suppress, or rationalize facts that make them look bad while emphasizing the facts(or even fantasies) that make them look good. This is the kind of power that whites are up against, but then, it's the white folks who've forgotten the laws of power. It's as if whites, in their great prolonged & unprecedented success and prosperity, forgot about this in a foolish fit of magnanimity, especially with Jews and blacks.
By the way, if you're going to be compassionate, always ask yourself, "What is the nature of the object of pity?" After all, if you bring home an orphaned baby bunny, at most it will grow into a harmless rabbit. But if you bring home an orphaned baby gorilla or tiger cub, it's going to grow into something that can totally whup your butt. Given blacks & brawn power and Jews & brain power, whites should really have considered the long-term implications of letting Jewish/black power grow in their midst. It's like the American Indians who took pity on the Pilgrims and gave them food might as well have been feeding a T-Rex baby that would grow into a giant Tyrannosaurus that would devour the Indians. Take pity on a baby rabbit or baby fox, not a Grizzly cub... unless you have a plan to release the bear back into the wild away from human areas.

The Game of Go isn't only about the macro-strategy of surrounding your opponent's pieces but about the micro-plays along the barriers to gain an advantage. Indeed, sometimes it's a matter of a single piece that decides whether you have your opponent surrounded or vice versa. In the complex and intricate web of pieces aligned on the board, it finally comes down to a few pieces that determine if the player A has player B sealed off or the other way around. In this way, it's not unlike wrestling where one special move tips the balance and turns two men interlocking one another to one man locking down the other man.

Likewise, there are two ways for whites to take on Jewish Power. One way is to formulate a bigger narrative to surround the Jewish narrative. Out-contextualize the Jewish context. But, the other way is to look for weaknesses within the Jewish narrative wall, break down down, and form a white wall that intersects and cuts off the Jewish context with a pro-white context, thus linking white elements trapped within the context with white elements on the outside. It's like the motorcycle Go in TRON where the riders create trail-barriers to contain the motion of the opponents.

To play this game, whites must go beyond wimpy notions such as 'white advocacy' and adopt the bolder vision of White Liberation. The very concept is deeply threatening to Jewish Power as, to the question, "Liberation from what?", the answer is "From Jewish Supremacist Power(which can be detailed factually without fail)". The wussy notion of 'white advocacy' is merely a plea to be left alone and allowed to survive as whites. "Oh, dear Jewish Master, you are so almighty and powerful. We whites got nothing against you and just want to be left alone in our spaces, please pretty please." Does anyone thing Jews will let this happen?
No, there must be emancipation, independence, and liberation from Jewish Supremacist Power that is not only bad for whites but for all the world as it pushes for New Cold War with Russia and endless mayhem in the Middle East. It is also encouraging anti-Chinese rhetoric on the American 'right'(as it inflames anti-Russian rhetoric on the American 'left') so that idiot American goyim will fulminate against other goyim around the world than on Jewish Power that is really destroying the White West. 'White Advocacy' is at best a battle plan without a war plan. It fixates on little battles without a larger war strategy. But in order to win, you must know who your main enemy is and devise a grand plan against them. That is the real war. It's like doctors don't merely advocate for health but wage war on the disease and target its source. Battles are then chosen and fought as part of the larger war plan. 'White Advocacy' picks pro-white battles but totally disregards the larger war waged on whites by Jewish Power. It'd be like the US fighting the Cold War without ever addressing the Soviet Union & Communism as the main enemy. It's like a man with eyes closed swinging his stick at threats nearby without ever opening his eyes to see the real enemy standing further back.

Facts are important, and the Dissident Right has many useful facts on its side. But they are hemmed in by the contextual power of the Jewish Narrative. As such, whites and their facts are about as useful as Palestinians with stones stuck within walled communities in West Bank. For those facts to gain traction and make a difference, the Jewish contextual walls must be attacked from both inside and outside. Even as whites chisel away at the walls from the inside with facts about Jewish power & abuse and black crime & thuggery, the walls must also be attacked from the outside by narrative routing-and-siege efforts controlled by whites. It is possible to come up with grand narratives that portray Jews as the villains of history, just as Jews have done with whites.
Now, it'd be ideal if whites and Jews don't vilify each other, but the truth of the matter is Jews are in supremacist mode and rely on white submission, therefore they've decided to institutionalize 'white guilt' premised on the special historical guilt of whites. This means whites have been convicted with life-sentence for all history; even as physically free men, they are mentally imprisoned within the Jewish moral context and worship at the feet of Jews, blacks, and homos. What kind of future is this?
Besides, mental imprisonment invariably and eventually leads to physical imprisonment as well. Consider the rapid demographic transformation of the West. As whites are mental prisoners/slaves of Jews, they do as the holy Jews say. If Jews say, "Open up your borders and let in tons of darkies", whites feel morally obligated to do just that. If Jews say, "Even when blacks burn down your city, do nothing but kiss the black ass", whites do just that. When you've lost your pride, agency, and will, you won't be free for long even on the physical and material level. After all, if your mental-master commands you to hand over all your money and the key to your house, you will do just that because you can't muster the courage to say NO. It's like how a cult operates. Legally, you are free and can walk away from the would-be-guru and the community. But the guru and his cult have gained control over your soul. You feel spiritually indebted to them, and so, it's difficult for you to walk away even if legally possible.

When we compare US and China, one key difference is China is ruled by the Chinese whereas the white majority in the US is ruled by the Jewish minority. There is enough historical evidence to shame the current CCP regime or to justify it. The crimes of Mao are legion, and millions of innocent lives were destroyed. But there is another context. China under CCP gained total autonomy from foreign intervention and imperialism after a 'century of humiliation', and the CCP has presided over great economic development in the past decades. So, current China can be made to seem good or bad. Both views are valid depending on the selected facts and chosen narratives. China prefer to make the Chinese the good people. It wasn't much different for White America. American History, like modern Chinese History, is a checkered affair. It was a great political experiment and achieved greatness unseen in history. But US was also built on 'genocide' of the natives, relied heavily on slave labor in the early decades, 'stole' huge swaths of territory from Mexico, and engaged in neo-imperialist wars that destroyed millions of lives. While acknowledging the dark side, white Americans nevertheless favored the positive view of their history, and it served as the moral context for whatever happened. That is until whites lost their minds and handed the keys of power to the Jews.

Whereas Chinese, nationalist or communist, kept control of the Narrative and Context in their own hands, the white Christian folks in the US outsourced American Narrative to the Jews out of some sentimental notion of JUDEO-CHRISTIAN solidarity. But then, maybe the Anglo-American elites didn't have a choice. They raised their kids on privilege, but the kids hungered for prophecy, and Jewish thinkers supplied it. So, in the post-war years, Anglo-American kids of the elites, under the tutelage of Jewish Ideas, were already at war with their parents. But then, so many Wasps had been turned onto radical ideas already by the 1920s with the disgraceful tragedy of World War I and the excitement over the Bolshevik Revolution. Too many had already become like Alger Hiss.

At any rate, when the power of Narrative fell into Jewish hands, most whites probably thought Jews would do what was good for all of America. But for the Tribe, it was Jews-uber-alles, and the Narrative was devised to maximize 'white guilt' mainly in relation to blacks(but also to American Indians in the Sixties) so that whites, paralyzed with self-doubt and self-loathing, would no longer be able to pursue white interests, thereby channeling their suppressed tribal passions toward serving Jews and their interests. Thus, whites, 'conservative' or 'liberal', who are utterly loathe to mutter anything resembling pro-white sentiments, will loudly profess their total commitment to Jewish identity, Jewish nationalism, Jewish pride, and etc.

Given the importance of the Narrative in the game of Political Go, it is one thing that should NEVER be outsourced to another. Perhaps, whites let Jews control it on the assumption that Jews are allies or wise men, but Jewish wisdom was always about furthering the Covenant at the expense of goyim. Also, modern Jews are even more dangerous than traditional Jews. The latter believed in God, and therefore, their tribal pride was tempered by humility before God. The Covenant meant Jewish submission to God. But modern Jews no longer believed in God. Thus, instead of seeing themselves as the creation of God, they saw God as the creation of Jews. Jews took pride in the fact that the Jewish Mind constructed the greatest spiritual idea/force in history. Jews created God, not vice versa. Thus, it is Jewishness itself that is the real center of the universe, so think the modern Jews. The Covenant, which used to mean Jews belong to God came to mean god belongs to Jews.
With the Jewish Mind being the greatest thing, one that even invent god, all peoples must serve the godlike Jews. And lucky for Jews, they formed a symbiotic relationship with the Anglos, the history's greatest empire builders. Jews rode on the underbelly of the Anglo Beast that conquered the world, and when the conquest was complete, especially with Anglo control of North America, Jews climbed to the top and rode on its back as the master. And this arrangement can last AS LONG AS whites play the subservient managerial role in the Jewish Empire. But then, whites will be content to play the subservient role ONLY IF they feel Jews(and their allies such as blacks) are morally superior and objects of worship by which whites can redeem themselves and wash away the sins of 'racism' and stains of 'white guilt'.

If, at the very least, whites were allowed to keep their majority position in the West, it wouldn't have been so bad. After all, Japan, even as cuck-puppet of the US, was allowed to remain majority-Japan. But Jews, in their determination to permanently secure power, have decided to turn the West into white-minority nations so that no goy majority could ever wake up and unite against Jewish elite power. And as the West is now Jewish-ruled, this New Normal is pushed on nations like Japan as well. It's as if Jews feel, "Let there be no example left of a successful and prosperous homogenous goy nation."

CHRISTIAN ZIONIST SLAVES - Know More News

European Civilization's Great Advantage over the US was HAVING NO BLACKS, but No Longer as EU has gone Afro-maniacal — PC is Ideological Veganism & the Need for a Food Pyramid of the Mind with Ethno-Nationalism as Foundation

https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/blacks-are-13-of-london-englands-population-blacks-represent-50-of-the-murder-suspects-in-london/

Blacks Are 13% of London, England's Population: Blacks Represent 50% of the Murder Suspects in London

Prior to black immigration-invasion into Europe, the virtual lack-of-black or Black-Lack was the one true blessing and advantage that Europe had over the US. And same for Canada and Australia. Whatever was wrong with Europe or deficient vis-a-vis the US, it didn’t have the ghastly Black Problem. Nations without the Black problem have no idea how fortunate they are. If they think things are bad at home, they should take heart in knowing it could be much much worse with blacks. Things bad in Uzbekistan or Nepal? Just be thankful it doesn’t have the black problem. Indeed, "at least we don't have the black problem" should be the bright side for nations without a black population. Just when it seems things can't get any worse, it can if the nation fills up with blacks.

Despite the horrors of World War I and World War II(and tragedies associated with Communism and National Socialism), Europe could at least rest assured in having had no blacks(or just a tiny fraction that kept blacks at the level of curiosity than problem). In the long term, even horrible wars were less destructive than having Negroes. Indeed, look at the recovery of Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, and even Hiroshima soon after WWII. Tens of millions died and entire cities were turned to rubble, but in peacetime, there was breakneck construction, restoration, and return to normal. Whites and Japanese can be tremendously destructive in wartime(because their logistical and organizational skills are so impressive), but in peacetime, they are builders and maintainers. In contrast, blacks are ceaselessly destructive even in peacetime if they are afforded full freedom.

Unlike Europe(and Japan) that rebuilt rapidly after WWII, many American cities from the 1960s onward turned into cesspits of degradation and deterioration due to the BAMMAMA factor: Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. Blacks can easily overpower whites, terrorize communities, and destroy social trust & order that are so central to maintaining a good society. (Even though some American cities recovered via gentrification, the black problem didn’t go away as cities like NY and Chicago sent the blacks to towns and suburbs. Rather, rich yuppie-hipsters or yupsters just passed the buck or hot potato to OTHER communities that had less clout and resources to say NO to the Black Flood.)

So, despite Europe being engulfed in the biggest conflagrations in human history while continental US was spared the devastation of both WWI and WWII, things got bleaker in American cities than in European cities in the postwar period. The looming threat for American cities was the time bomb of black rage and savagery that was just ticking to go off. Indeed, even relatively impoverished Communist cities in Eastern Europe were nicer and safer than American cities like NY, Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, and etc beginning especially in the mid-60s.

Surely, Europeans(and Canadians and Australians) knew about the American Race problem from watching the news. Their one great blessing and one great advantage over the US were HAVING NO BLACKS to run wild, terrorize law-abiding citizens, and wreck communities. Tragically, instead of feeling thankful and lucky for having no blacks, it was as though Europeans felt envy for not having them. Why? Not enough 'vibrancy'?

1. Blacks won in sports and were prominent in popular music, and whites all over the world came to swoon with adulation over figures like Muhammad Ali, Pele, and Miles Davis. So, Europeans wanted their own ‘cool’ blacks too, especially as black American athletes often beat up white European ‘palookas’. Why should the US win in all the cool events with their blacks? If Europe couldn't compete on the global level with black Americans, maybe they needed 'black Europeans' to bring home the trophy.
In time, Rap and Afro-Pop became the main music of France, and Rap and Reggae came to dominate UK pop scene. And as blacks came to own the most popular sports, European cucky-wucks found themselves cheering for blacks as their national heroes. Most British boxing champions have been black since the 80s. French soccer players, boxers, and runners are virtually all black. People are tribal but also naturally servile to winners(even of the Other Tribe). Just like French women went with victorious German men during the Nazi Occupation, white folks rejected loser white athletes and prostrated themselves at the feet of black stars. Whites pledged their cuck-loyalty to the tribalism of blacks as the superior race. Tribalism is most effective when backed with pride and victory. When one's tribalism is associated with loss, defeat, and humiliation, there is the temptation to forsake one's own pathetic tribe and serve the masterful tribe.

2. World Media were dominated by Globalists and Jews, and they spun American racial problems as entirely the fault of whites and ‘racism’. Hollywood spread the image of the Magic Negro who only knew oppression under white bigotry and the nobility of struggle for justice. Many such movies featured haloed blacks. It's no wonder that Europeans loved Barack Obama and felt envy for not having someone like him or Mandela as their own leader. Media and Entertainment made whites(and other races) look upon blacks as sacred objects as John Derbyshire has opined many times.
So, the conventional wisdom was that American blacks were just rebelling against legacy of slavery and discrimination. Black violence is always innately noble and moral.

Conceited Europeans figured that they would teach ‘racist’ America how to properly treat blacks. Europe would welcome blacks(from Africa, America, Caribbean, and etc) and treat them with love and decency, and these 'black Europeans' won’t become like American blacks who had no choice but to resort to violence against oppression. Furthermore, Europe would redeem its 'historical sins' by transforming poor African blacks into first-rate 'European blacks'.

In one way, Europeans worship blacks as the superior race with great idolic or idolatrous value. But they also doted on blacks as the childlike race in need of the guidance and beneficence of whites. After all, Europe is rich and modern, Africa is poor and backward. Blacks have become objects of both worship and condescension, as if they are almighty god and helpless baby. Fiendish blacks adroitly sensed and manipulated this delusional white psychology to squeeze ever more concessions from whitey. Blacks toyed with both the servile and maternal instincts of white folks. (Also, as white elites in affluent communities were safe and secure from social problems and rubbed shoulders with better blacks or Good Diversity, they didn’t care about the fate of poor whites who'd likely end up integrating with Bad Diversity. The rich whites get Obamas, the poor whites get Mike Tysons.)

3. In time, white women got jungle fever and white guys strapped on their cuck-shorts. A hit movie in France had a rich white paraplegic who is taken care by big muscular Negro. The message is clear. White guy is reason & riches but no body, and the black body must become the new body of Europe. Whites elites, as the head of the West, don't need the white mass as national body; blacks will take over as the new national body and colonize white wombs. And in BITTER MOON by Roman Polanski, the white guy(Peter Coyote) in the wheel chair is tormented and humiliated by his former lover who gets it on with a Negro. He can only watch helplessly. BBC TV is now all about match-making white women with black men in movie and TV roles. As for white guys, their roles are usually cucky or ‘gay’. No more white national heroes. And young white girls in Europe grow up twerking like their American counterparts. And they go to dance clubs to have their butts bumped-and-grinded by black men.



It just goes to show that the fantasy-reality of media & entertainment can override reality. The grim reality of the US since the 1960s has been "blacks + freedom = fall of civilization", along with end of white manhood as racial integration leads to black guys jumping white guys and humping white girls. Blacks cannot handle freedom like civilized people. Nature and evolution made them too wild and crazy. (Also, feminist 'liberation' has led to white women hankering to be whore-slaves of black men. Women find greatest happiness in surrender, not domination. So, women's liberation really comes down to women freeing themselves of relations with'loser' beta-males and seeking out alpha-males to submit to. As black men have tough-guy-advantage over white men, women's liberation has meant 'empowered' white women increasingly rejecting beta-white-males in search of alpha-black-males, even if only for short-lived affairs. Women's Liberation is not about women seeking equality for all people but about rejecting whom they deem to be inferior men in pursuit of superior men. Women's Liberation has made women more competitive for the limited number of winner-men.)

Europeans should have sighed with relief at their good fortune of black-free cities and towns because news depicted so many reports of race problems in America and black pathology in Africa. But, the media spun American race problems as “It’s all racist whitey’s fault” and “noble blacks are so cool”. And media spun the black African problem as either “It’s all due to white imperialism, and all the world must worship Mandela as god" or "Just a little bit more of white love and compassion can do SO MUCH for black Africans who are just brimming with limitless potential waiting to be tapped."
Also, the dogma of blank-slatism and ‘race is just a construct’ had too many whites believing anyone can be molded into anything. So, if millions of black Africans come to the EU, they can easily molded into 'New Europeans' with a bit of education, acculturation, and training.
As the result of such follies, Europe is going to hell. If Japan, which is so far away from Africa and West, is going afro-jungle with Japanese women having kids with black men and raising them to beat up smaller/weaker Japanese and take over Japanese sports and pop culture, imagine the fate of Europe where millions upon millions of muscled and big-donged Negroes are coming from Africa with only two things in mind, “Where’s the free stuff” and “Where the white women at?”

The biggest threat to the world is the vilification of ‘racism’ that prevents people from realizing the most important truth: Blacks will destroy your nations, and therefore, you must form a tribal defense system to keep blacks out of your domain. (If Ism means belief, then Race + Ism must mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. 'Racism' is the most ill-defined term in the world. As races do exist and racial differences are real, race-ism must be embraced by all peoples if they are to properly understand reality and take necessary measures to safeguard their own race and community. As blacks are superior in muscle power, aggression, and thuggery, all non-black societies must be wary of blacks coming to settle, terrorize, and take over.) Denial of race-ism is like political veganism. Without honest-to-good race-ist nutrients of tribal protein and iron, the white mind-and-body will be too anemic to change course and save Western civilization from the Ghastly Negro.
PC veganism must stop. By denying natural tribal proteins for the white soul, white people(lacking in their own red-meat tribalism) end up seeking tribal satisfaction by taking up radical ideologies or OTHER PEOPLE'S tribalisms. It’s like the vegan body, starved of necessary animal proteins, tries to absorb nutrients, vitamins, and minerals from foods that are deficient in them. It is so futile as there is no real substitute for real animal protein and iron. Women especially do much better with some red meat after menstruation.

Likewise, there is no substitute for real healthy race-ism and tribalism for one’s own kind. Jews gorge on the meat of Jewish tribalism, and look how hale and healthy Zionists in Israel are. (The problem with Zionists, as was the case with the Nazis, is that they insist on gorging on the meat of OTHER peoples as well. Jewish uber-predators aren't content with their own blood-and-soil and must feed on the blood of other volks in imperialist mode.) But because whites are denied white meat and must stick to PC vegan diet, their tribal-protein-starved bodies desperately seek substitute-tribalist-nutrients from ideologies(that never quite satisfy tribal cravings) and OTHER TRIBALISMS, e.g. whites trying to be black in attitude or taking up the black cause against fellow whites. Or, among the cucky-wucks of Conservative Inc., it’s usually about vicariously sharing in the Triballistics of Jews and Israel. As whites aren’t allowed white identity and interests(deemed ‘toxic’ as ‘white supremacist’), whites conservatives seek substitute tribalism in ‘civic nationalism'(which has become useless in overly diverse America) or Zionism(which has no benefits for whites whatsoever). Or, they seek tribal satisfaction in the atomized tribalism-of-one, aka libertarian individualism. But as humans are social animals, individualism alone never satisfies one’s needs.

Whites must learn to eat tribal and race-ist protein again.

Healthy ideology is like the food pyramid. At the bottom(the foundation), there should be tribal identity, the blood and soil thing. Above that, there should be tradition and culture. At the next level, there should be freedom and individualism, and so on.
We all need some degree of idealism. But for white folks, the pyramid has been inverted. Idealism or individualism makes for solid base for complex society. It is too abstract to serve as support system for all else. In contrast, blood-and-soil is real and tangible. It’s like existence comes before idealism. If you favor idealism over existence, it means that, when push comes to shove, you may well choose idealism & death over realism & survival. What people need as fundamentals are Blood, Soil, and Saga. The power of story is important as identity alone doesn't say much. What does it mean to say "I'm Jewish" or "I'm Irish" if you don't know the story and narrative of your people? Identity alone is like knowing your name but being amnesiac about your life story. Blood and Soil, yes, but also the Tale.

Consider the tale retold by Joseph Campbell about becoming what you really are.

http://portalofconsciousness.com/the-goats-and-the-tiger/

So the little one is getting that message; he’s picked up and taken to the tiger’s den, where there are the remains of a recently slaughtered gazelle. Taking a chunk of this bloody stuff, the big tiger says, “Open you face.” The little one backs away, “I’m a vegetarian.” “None of that nonsense,” says the big fellow, and he shoves a piece of meat down the little one’s throat. He gags on it. The text says, “As all do on true doctrine.” But gagging on the true doctrine, he’s nevertheless getting it into his blood, into his nerves; it’s his proper food. It touches his proper nature. Spontaneously, he gives a tiger stretch, the first one. A little tiger roar comes out—Tiger Roar 101…. The big one says, “There. Now you’ve got it. Now we go into the forest and eat tiger food.” Vegetarianism Is the first turning away from life, Because life lives on lives. Vegetarians are just eating something that can’t run away.

Jews have often said "My Jewish Relatives Died in the Holocaust" — We must ask, "What Else Did Your Jewish Relatives Do?" — Let’s Consider the Historical Record

Margaret Hodge, the Vile Vicious Jewess: "My relatives were murdered in the gas chamber’: Jewish Labour MP defends calling Corbyn a ‘f***ing anti-Semite" 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/07/28/labours-gas-chamber-blues-pink-berets-vs-fing-anti-semites/

The above is a very instructive article about the nature of Jewish Power, Duplicity, and Mendacity in the UK, but the article could apply to just about any nation in which Ashkenazi Jews have gained prominence. As a more self-aware Jew Yossi Sarid has said, “In these very moments, the protocols are being rewritten. Rich Jews are writing them in their own handwriting. They, in their wealth, are confirming with their own signatures what anti-Semites used to slander them with in days gone by: We, the elders of Zion, pull the strings of Congress, and the congressmen are nothing but marionettes who do our will. If they don’t understand our words, they’ll understand our threats. And if in the past, we ran the show from behind the scenes, now we’re doing it openly, from center stage. And if you forget our donations, the wellspring will run dry.” For much of my life, I thought ‘antisemitism’ was mostly a canard, and to be sure, there have been many anti-Jewish cranks and fantasists over the years. But upon observing Jewish Power in the here-and-now all around the world, I’ve been led to conclude that, all said and done, the ‘anti-Semites’ tended to be more right than wrong. They understood the character of Jewish Psychology and Culture and why Jews act the way they do. As these ethnic patterns have re-emerged over and over regardless of ideology — Jewish Leftists or Jewish Rights are equally subversive of the essential interests of non-Jewish populations — , critics and enemies of Jewish Power through the ages were more about facts than fantasy. And in a way, precisely because Jews have gained dominance in the US, the most powerful nation on Earth, and can’t restrain their chutzpah with too-much-money-and-power, more and more people everyday are waking up to the toxic impacts of Jewish arrogance, greed, venality, hatred, contempt, and supremacism. (That is precisely why Jews now HATE FREE SPEECH. Any honest discussion in an open forum will expose the ugly and pathological nature of Current Jewish Power. This is why Jews rig all search engines and platforms to favor Jew-concocted narratives. This is why Jews dumb-down and infantilize even elite culture because a thinking people who ask hard questions will come to see Jewish Power for what it is. Better for Jewish Power to turn Elites into Homo-Worshipers who stick with Jewish Power because it is seen as most homo-friendly.) It seems all the more perverse and weird because these Judeo-Nazis still(albeit increasingly comically) invoke the Shoah to cover up for their utter vileness. It’s like Madeleine Albright, the butcher of Iraq, giving us sermons about the dangers of ‘fascism’ taking over the US. These Jews got some nerves.


Anyway, one oft-repeated shtick pulled by Jews is to remind people that their RELATIVES died in the Shoah or were ‘Holocaust Survivors’, a term that has become nearly meaningless as it could apply to just about any Jew who lived in areas under German control during the war. When most people hear ‘Holocaust Survivor’, they think of people like in SCHINDLER’S LIST, men, women, and children who managed to make it out alive of Nazi Concentration Camps. But the term is so broadly defined that it could mean even Jews who lived with relative comfort in areas of German Occupation. While we can acknowledge that all Jews under German Occupation lived under severe duress and anxiety, it’s ridiculous to label as ‘Holocaust Survivor’ someone who was not even in the notorious Labor or Death Camps devised by the Nazis. In some nations, where the hunt for Jews was so extensive, such as in Poland and Hungary, one could argue that the entire Jewish population there were Holocaust Survivors. But the term becomes a stretch in nations where the great majority of Jews not only survived, not least because the local population resisted collaboration with the Germans. Even in Occupied France where Collaboration was commonplace, the fact is 75% of French Jews managed to survive the war.

Anyway, when Jews say "My relatives survived or died in the Holocaust", it gives a very skewed view of history. It implicitly surveys the world where Jews have been nothing but innocent victims of malevolent forces. It ignores context and other narratives. It’s like Japanese saying "My relatives survived Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Tokyo firebombing" while totally ignoring what their OTHER relatives may have done in China, Indonesia, and against the US naval fleet in Pearl Harbor. While many ‘innocent’ or ‘civilian’ Japanese were cruelly killed in WWII at the hands of the US Air Force, there was ANOTHER side to Japan’s role in the war. Japan was also an imperialist aggressor that visited unimaginable horrors upon China, Philippines, Indonesia, and etc. Also, Japan attacked the US first. So, while a Japanese wouldn’t be wrong to say that he or she knows relatives who were cruelly killed in the war, it’s also probably true that he or she has relatives who took part in the horrific Japanese Imperialist aggressions against other nations. He or she has relatives who were victims but also those who were villains(and in some cases, people can be villains and victims at the same time; surely Japanese colonists who were attacked by Chinese patriots were both villains[as imperialist migrants] and victims[of local acts of terror]).

While it may well be true that many Jews can claim to know relatives who were killed in the Holocaust or barely survived it, it’s no less true that many Jews have relatives who took part in some of the great crimes of the 20th century. When Jews say, "My relatives died in the Holocaust", we need to ask them, "What did your relatives do in Soviet Union? How many Christian Slavs did they kill? How many Christian Churches did they smash?" It’s now largely agreed that in the first two decades of Soviet Rule, close to 10 million people perished. Before Nazi Germany edged out the Soviet Union in industrial slaughter, the USSR was the international kingpin when it came to mass mayhem and destruction. And Jewish Bolsheviks played a huge role in the use of terror, slavery, and execution to bring about this so-called Workers’ Paradise. Many Jews took part in this State ruled by Fear and Terror. Many Jews were directly involved in the running of this state at the highest levels. But there were also many Jews in the West who indirectly aided the Soviet project, totally oblivious and indifferent to the death and destruction caused by Soviet Jews on the Slavic and other populations. Not only did millions die of starvation in Ukraine, but it’s estimated that a quarter of the population perished in Kazakhstan. And even for ones who didn’t die, there was the culture of tyranny and conformism, of total censorship and obedience, perhaps most powerfully satirized by George Orwell in 1984. If Soviet Jews in the USSR were controlling the media to spread propaganda to justify the Terror, Western Jews in the media did their best to deny that the Terror was even taking place. When millions of Slavic peasants were dying in the Great Famine, the great majority of Jews in the USSR and the West felt NOTHING. No pity, no heartache, no remorse. Indeed, Jews began to notice something wrong only with the Great Purge that targeted Soviet intellectuals and commissars. The Great Famine that killed millions had been about dirty goy peasants, so good riddance to them, thought the Jews. But the Great Purge targeted the class in which Jews were prominent. Even though the Great Purge, in killing around 450,000, was far less deadly than the Great Famine, it was the first time Jews began to wonder about the wisdom of the Soviet system. (But then, it’s always "Is it good for the Jews?" when it comes to Jewish ‘ethics’. We saw the same pattern in the US. For the longest time, Americans were led to believe that the Red Scare was the worst violation of civil liberties in the US when, in fact, it only led to the blacklisting of some Hollywood writers and folk singers for a few yrs. In contrast, the ‘internment’ of Japanese-in-America led to dispossession and relocation of over 100,000 people. So, why did the Jew-run media and academia care more about the victims of the Red Scare? It affected areas in which Jews were prominent.) As it turned out, the Great Purge didn’t end Jewish Power in the USSR. While Stalin removed most Jews from the highest echelons of power, many Jews(way disproportionate to their overall population) remained in the Soviet apparatus and continued to serve Stalin in his use of terror and mass executions to deal with ‘class enemies’.

At any rate, we need to stop playing the Jewish Game. When Jews bitch and whine ever so predictably, "My relatives blah blah blah...", we need to counter with the question, "What did your relatives do as commissars in the Soviet Union? What did your relatives do as Zionist Imperialists who wiped Palestine off the map?" And don’t let Jews bait you about ‘white racism’. Jews played a huge role in the Atlantic Slave Trade. And Jewish merchants sold guns to whites to kill Indians with on the Western frontier. So, if whites are guilty of American Slavery and American Genocide, so are the Jews. Also, so much of Western Imperialism was funded by Jewish bankers. And wherever whites conquered, Jews followed and profited. When the British Empire made inroads into China, the Jews were there to peddle opium to the Chinese. And in recent times, you bet that many relatives of Jews were involved in promoting Wars for Israel via the academia, media, Deep State, and finance. If you know a Jew, he will likely have Jewish relatives who took part in the Nakba pogroms, the Zionist occupation of West Bank, Neocon Wars for Israel(that killed close to a million people and reduced millions more to ‘refugee’ status), Jewish Rape of Russia in the 1990s that destroyed millions of lives, global White Slavery(in which Jews cajole mostly poor Slavic women into becoming sex slaves), Jewish control of Porn(where mostly white women are turned into ‘cumbuckets’ and sex meat for Negro men), and Cuck-castration of white men that has gelded white males into a bunch of wussy-pussified ‘white boys’ who suck up to Negroes who beat them up and hump their women. So, whenever some smarmy Jew bleats about "my relative blah blah Holocaust blah blah", you ask him about his OTHER relatives and what role they played in Soviet terror, Rape of Russia, Nakba pogroms, Opium trade, Slave trade, funding of imperialism, Wall Street mass theft, Las Vegas robbery, Opioid epidemic, pornification of society, cuck-castration of whites into wussy-boys who don’t even have the balls to stand up for their own people, land, and culture. According to Jews, whites own nothing that is their own. Everything white exists to serve Jews. So, if there is a white nation, the white people have no right to think, "We are white, this is our nation, this is our culture, and it belongs to us." No, they must think, "We whites have no culture and no identity. We exist to make Jews happy and must do anything to facilitate this... or else, we are Nazis or ‘anti-Semites’. And since we exist to serve the Other, the Jews, we must also put All the Others before our own interest. So, the UK is no longer the land of Britons, the real White Britons but must prioritize itself as a welcome mat for endless migration-invasions of Africans, Muslims, and Asians. Accordingly, white Britons exist only to make the rest of the world happy by welcoming them to take over white lands, white institutions, and even white women so that Negro men can colonize white wombs to create mulattos who identify as ‘black’ and accuse white people of ‘racism’. Yes, this is what the Relatives of Jews are up to.

So, next time you meet a Jew who whines about how his or her ‘relatives died in the Holocaust’, you ask him or her about what his or her OTHER relatives have done to the world. Here’s a sample of what the OTHER Jewish relatives have done:

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

Of course, as Jewish ethno-monopoly controls the internet, if you search for Jewish malfeasance, you mostly get search results that lead to Jewish-owned media outlets bitching about how it is ‘antisemitic’ to connect the dots between Jewish Power and Jewish abuses, such as the Financial Crisis.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jews+and+wall+street+finanical+crisis&rlz=1C1AOHY_enUS768US768&oq=jews+and+wall+street+finanical+crisis&aqs=chrome..69i57.14211j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Having turned ‘antisemitism’ into a taboo word, Jews can deflect responsibility for anything they do just by invoking the magic term. So, if a bunch of Jews beat up a Palestinian child to death and if you report what you saw, you can are denounced as an ‘anti-Semite’ for having mouthed an ‘antisemitic’ stereotype of Jews as exploitative oppressors. The way ‘antisemitism’ is employed, it means any observation or view that is critical of Jewish power and its abuses. According to this logic, Jews have always been pure as snow and blameless, and that means every negative aspersion about Jews all through the ages was wrong, wrong, and wrong, merely paranoia cooked up by ‘rabid and virulent’ looneys. So, if Jews were always right and ‘anti-Semites’ were always wrong, then it means that if YOU notice something bad about Jews in the here-and-now, YOU too are an ‘anti-Semite’ who is perpetuating the old ‘canard’ about blameless and pure-as-snow Jews. Of course, the Jew-run media are more than happy to prop up the Jewish Myth of Jewish Nobility even as Jewish elites collude behind the scenes to rake in everything for their own Tribe.
Even when Jews rob the entire world and cause havoc for all of mankind, the Jew-run media will tell us that Jews are saving the World. What a truly vile and wretched people.

Finally, Jews need to stop bitching about how OTHER nations didn't do enough to save Jews from the Shoah. Jews need to be more self-aware and ask themselves why (1) Germans came to hate Jews so much and (2) why other nations didn't care much about Jews.
The answer is obvious. Jews built up a reputation over the ages of being a vile, nasty, and subversive people. If Jews hadn't been such rapacious financial exploiters(on the capitalist side), such ruthless radicals(on the socialist side), and such degenerates(on the cultural front), there never would have been much in the way of 'antisemitism'. Just because Jews suffered the horrible Shoah doesn't cleanse Jews of their foulness, just like the horrific nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't expunge Japanese of their crimes in WWII. After the war, Japanese came to realize that they'd done terrible things but also came to be terribly victimized. There was some balance in Japan's remembrance of the war. But Jews remember 20th century only as 'We pure-as-snow Jews wronged by the world'. Jews think they have some divine right to mess up any part of the world, and if the local population rise up against Jews, OTHER nations must offer Jews refuge so that Jews can start the foul pattern of subversion all over again.
Even when the Soviet Experiment went badly for Jews in the end, Jews lacked the self-awareness to admit that THEIR project had failed them(and led to deaths of millions of Slavs and others). Instead, the Jew-run media spun it into SAVE SOVIET JEWS as if the Jews were always the main victims of Soviet Communism. Such lack of self-awareness. A hideous people. And yet, they rule the US and the world.