Notes on THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST 'RACE' by Edward Dutton — Species Cannot Exist without Race — Globalism pushed Ideology of Equality but Idolatry of Black Supremacy — Jewish Perfidy in the Discourse on Race

https://www.unz.com/article/the-arguments-against-race/

--Is “race” an outmoded, morally dubious idea that was deservedly cast into the dustbin of history, along with Stalinism, astrology, and blood-letting? Many say so.--

A hysterical(and tiresome) argument used by the Thought Police so many times. Of course, the problem with such line of argument is everything has a dark side. After all, capitalism did much harm as well as good. Nuclear science led to wonders but also destruction of cities. Socialism can mean anything from radical communism of the Khmer Rouge to the welfare state(a fact of life in all modern societies). So, if critics of race argue that racial ideas may lead to great harm, most of us would concur. But this is true of anything. Without fire, there is no civilization. But fire has also burned down entire cities. Same with water. Without rain we are dead, but floods are dangerous.

So, we need to be cautious with ideas. The problem isn't so much the concept of race per se as the radicalization of racial science into hardline ideology, as with National Socialism. (Indeed, if Adolf Hitler and his followers were more like Benito Mussolini, who was less into racial ideology than the 'democratic' Anglos were, the horrors of Nazism could have been avoided.) Socialism need not be khmer-rouge-ism, and racial knowledge need not lead us to something like National Socialism(or the more extreme forms of Zionism). The real danger is not socialism or racialism(or race-ism) but radicalization of any idea. This even goes for democracy. Radical Democratism has led to 21st century wars that destroyed millions of lives, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The US, by invoking 'muh democracy' at every turn, has justified its despicable and murderous acts of neo-imperialism. Radicalism is extremism, moral narcissism, and moral puritanism. "I am so very right, you are so very wrong" or "If you're not with us, you're against us."
So, the problem isn't race-ism per se but radical racism. (By race-ism, I mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. To emphasize the -ism element of the term, the dash[-] is used: Race-ism. It is not to be confused with 'racism' that is usually meant to mean racial hatred and supremacism, esp of the white kind.) When we consider most ideas, we don't automatically obsess over the most extreme manifestation. So, 'socialism' doesn't mean Stalinism or Maoism. Those are forms of radical socialism, but most forms of socialism haven't been extreme. Likewise, when we say 'capitalism', we don't mean the most extreme kind of libertarian plutocracy with no protections for workers and the poor.
And yet, when it comes to the matter of race, people automatically jump to conclusions and assume it's about extreme hatred, mass repression, and mass murder. Of course, it has a lot to do with Jewish control of media and narrative. Indeed, the discussion of race is not unlike the discussion of Jewish Power. For example, even the slightest noticing and criticism of Jewish Power is denounced as 'antisemitism'. So, if you notice Jewish Power and its abuses, you are automatically a 'Nazi'. You are to be denounced, that is unless you get on your knees and roll over like a dog. On some issues, taboos dominate the discourse in the West. This is where Reason and Enlightenment Values break down. While we can be rational and honest on most things, we must suspend our reason, skepticism, and critical faculties on certain matters, especially if they're 'triggering' to Jews, blacks, and homos. Their FEELINGS count for more than demonstrable facts. Blacks are the most violent and murderous, but the Taboo says we must get on our knees and bawl about BLM.

--(Anti-racists insist) there is no clear way to divide different races. They merge into each other, with great variation in-between. A version of this argument is that there is no specific gene that is found only in one specific race. It can be countered that races are, of course, not entirely discrete categories because, if they were, they would be more like species, or perhaps genera, families, or orders on up the taxonomic scale.--

It is so obvious but PC follows its own twisted logic. We all know race is not species. Races are differences within a single species. Also, different species exist only because different races evolved into different species. If races don't exist, species cannot exist. For example, take the common ancestors of (1) the apes that became the chimps and (2) the apes that became humans. At one time, there were no separate species of humans and chimps. Their deep ancestors belonged to the same species of ape. But within that species, groups went separate ways and they began to diverge gradually. For a long time, there were merely different races of the same ape species. But little by little, the differences accumulated, and something resembling separate species arose. One branch became the chimpanzee and the other branch became the ape that eventually evolved into humanhood. In other words, a species cannot suddenly split into new separate species. Rather, groups within it can gradually diverge and change. This process is race-ization. For a long time, the emerging races still belong within the same species. But over prolonged periods, especially in extreme geological separation from one another, they can evolve into separate species.
This is true of mankind as well. If human races were to remain separate for another million years, they could evolve into different species. Evolution has proven this to be the case. For now, all human races belong to one species. But they have developed different characteristics, and there is a chance that they could evolve into separate species in the next 100,000 or million years. At any rate, if race isn't real, then species isn't real. Any organism, in order to evolve into a new species, must first evolve into different races(within the species). Consider tigers and lions. At one time, they had a common ancestor. It's not like this common ancestor suddenly split into species tiger and species lion. Instead, it began to diverge into different races of itself. One race eventually became the tiger, and the other race eventually became the lion. They began as different races but eventually became different species.

Also, mixed-race people can exist ONLY BECAUSE there are different races. After all, there can't be mulattos in a world that is all-white or all-black. There can't be mestizos in a world that is all white or all brown. Those mixed-breeds came into existence ONLY BECAUSE different races interbred. If we mix apple juice with grape juice, the mixture exists only because apple juice and grape juice existed in the first place. It would be stupid to deny the reality of apple juice and grape juice because a mixture exists. If anything, the mixture proves the existence of the other two.

--Even if it were true that no unambiguous line can be drawn between races, this does not undermine the utility of race. The line between Grizzly bears and Brown bears is blurry, too—but you still know one when you see one and making distinctions between these subspecies is meaningful.--

Brown Bears and Grizzlies are not a good example. They are nearly indistinguishable. Generally, grizzlies are a bit smaller than brown bears, but they are almost the same. A better example is brown bears and polar bears. Though considered as separate species, they are actually different races of bears if we use the Rule of Fertility. Horses and donkeys are separate species because their offspring, the mule, is infertile. Likewise, a lion and leopard can mate and produce offspring but it is infertile. In contrast, the offspring of a polar bear and brown bear, like the offspring of members of different human races, is fertile. Therefore, polar bear and brown bear are really separate races within the same species. But who can deny the differences between the brown bear and polar bear? Just because hybrid bears exist doesn't mean that the differences between brown bears and polar bears are meaningless, insignificant, or negligible. Also, contact between those races of bears usually means more danger to the polar bears. Though polar bears are equal in size and weight, brown bears are built more sturdily and are more aggressive. So, in most encounters, polar bears lose out and take 'white flight' from the brown bears. (For a long time, scientists believed Neanderthals to be a different species of humans, but recent DNA studies show that 5% of European DNA is Neanderthal. That means the offspring of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were fertile, and that means Neanderthals were another race of humans. But, the differences between Neanderthals and other humans were significant.) Another useful example comprise wolves, coyotes, and dogs. Like human races and polar/brown bears, wolves, coyotes, and dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring. That means, from a scientific viewpoint, they all belong to the same species. But should we ignore the very real differences among wolves, coyotes, and many breeds of dogs simply because various mutts and mongrels exist among them? Only a fool would say so. The fact is coyotes are no match for wolves in combat, and wolves can demolish any dog, just like a pitbull can demolish a beagle(just like a Nigerian can demolish any Briton or Japanese). A coyote that ignores the threat posed by wolves because a weasel tells it, "Hey, don't be racist as if wolves are different and pose a danger" is a dead coyote.

--Some say that race is illegitimate or immoral because it is steeped in Western history (and thus things like slavery and oppression), as well as the supposedly myopic and suffocating outlook of “Western science.” But this same argument could be made about almost any concept—including the ones that supposedly undermine or overcome Western hegemony... If race is “problematic” because it’s Western, then, presumably, we cannot use Western concepts at all to analyze anything non-Western.--

Very true. Chemistry and physics are also Western Concepts. So, does that mean the world should reject medicine resulting from Western chemistry? Should people deny the laws of physics discovered by Western Scientists? Is atomic power just an illusion steeped in 'western bias'? The West developed the scientific method, and that meant it was applied to just about everything. As humans are part of biological reality, a scientific view led to categorizations of race.
Now, were all ideas associated with race valid? No, but that could be said of any scientific field. So many medical ideas once accepted as true turned out to be false. Physicists once speculated outer space was filled with ether. Science improves with more observation, testing, trials, and experiments. But in order for it to improve, there must be more truth, integrity, and honesty. There is no question that National Socialists misconceived and misapplied racial theories. Indeed, they were less interested in the science of race than in the ideology of race. Hitler and his cohorts(and the favored partisan hack scientists) insisted on the Correct Theory of Race that put 'Aryans' at the center. If they were truly interested in racial science, they would have allowed debate, but they didn't. Aryanism became the national mythos of Germany. It was not unlike the concept of Chosen-ness among Jews except that it was explained in scientistic terms. Likewise, Marxism was less a rational economic theory than a prophecy. While claiming to be 'materialist' and 'scientific', it had more in common with Judeo-Christian vision of apocalypse and redemption. Communism was secular-christianity, and fascism was neo-paganism. Marxism was a form of scientism than real science. But as science gained prestige, all sides claimed to have 'science' on their side. Indeed, even Creationists play that game. They are allied with Intelligent-Design people who argue that one can 'scientifically' prove the existence of the supreme being behind the cosmos. Even more crude forms of Creationism pretend to 'scientifically' explain how mankind once lived alongside dinosaurs by pointing to 'archaeological' evidence. And Sigmund Freud insisted that his theory of sexuality was purely scientific when it had more to do with speculation, personal hang-ups, and resentment toward goy society.

Sir Isaac Newton

At any rate, the fake/flawed radical racial 'science' of the National Socialists wasn't supplanted by true, rational, and improved science but by the fake/flawed radical anti-racial 'science' of Jewish Deracinators. It was out of the frying pan into the fire. The world went from false racial science to false anti-racial science. It went from one radical certainty to another. It was like going from a crazy pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat ONLY meat to another pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat NO meat. How about a truly scientific dietary plan that argues for meat, grains, and vegetables?

Now, given World War II and the Shoah, there is no doubt that the radical racism of the National Socialists did great harm. And we can understand why people became freaked out about race. But the radical anti-racism since World War II(which especially accelerated in the 1960s)has also done great harm. Mass migration of non-whites into the West will surely lead to the fall of Western Civilization. And lack of white defenses against blacks will lead to racial doom for white folks. Europeans Europeanize, Africans Africanize. If Europe fills up with Africans, it will be Africanized like the Dark Continent(or Detroit).

Consider the Jesse Owens and Joe Louis Narratives. They are often invoked to discredit the notion of 'Aryan Supremacy'. You see, blacks beat the 'Aryans', and that means Nazi 'racism' was all nonsense. But that is only one side of the coin. Did Owens and Louis' achievements prove that races are equal? They would have IF Louis fought Schmeling to a draw and if Owens finished in a tie with the 'Aryan' sprinters. But in fact, Louis destroyed Schmeling, and Owens beat the white runners by a considerable margin. So, even if their achievements blew 'Aryan supremacism'(in athleticism) out of the water, they demonstrated the fact of black athletic superiority.
What is the social implication of this? Tougher blacks can beat up whites. And in Europe, the racial violence is usually black on white, just like in the US and Brazil. That means blacks end up feeling contempt for white wussy weaklings. That means white males are robbed of manhood. It means white women become infected with jungle fever. BAMMAMA(blacks are more more muscular and more aggressive) leads to ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). It means total sexual triumph of blacks over whites. White males turn into pathetic cucks who watch their women go over to blacks who not only have tougher muscles but bigger dongs. (But then, the very people who say race is false and that 'we all bleed red' are also saying whites should import more blacks because blacks are so awesome in song, strong, and dong. So many Jewish-funded movies, TV shows, and advertising are predicated on Jungle Fever that says white women should reject white men and go with black men because the latter are superior in manhood. Go figure. They say one thing but show another. They say 'race is not real' but show 'look at the big muscular Negro with the big dong compared to that flabby wussy maggoty white boy'. The ideology is 'anti-racist' but the idolatry is totally 'racist' in favor of blacks uber whites.)

It's also been said that German science suffered due to the exile of Jewish scientists during the National Socialist era. But if all races and human groups are the same, why was it a loss for Germany and a gain for the US when Jewish scientists went from one nation to the other? It was a loss for Germany and gain for the US only if Jews are smarter and superior at scientific research. That would imply group differences are true, or at least true enough.

Now, there is a kernel of truth in the denunciation of Western bias in the science of 'race'. While it's true that virtually everything related to modern science, math, medicine, and technology emerged from the West, the non-human endeavors surely got a more objective treatment than human-related ones. Even today, hard sciences are more scientific than social sciences(that are never fully devoid of tribal or ideological bias). Now, there were examples of ideological bias in hard science as well, e.g. National Socialist science that denied the physics theories of Jewish physicists and Lysenko-ism in the USSR.
Still, generally speaking, when it comes to hard science, the West transcends the West, i.e. the objective is to arrive at the truth, not to trump the specialness of any people, nation, or civilization. When a German chemist or physicist works on a project, he is seeking the truth, not waving the banner of German pride. Thus, even though modern science developed in the West, it goes beyond culture and race. The scientific method can be used by any nation or people.
But the topic of race, even under scientific scrutiny, was never entirely empirical or objective. Rather, many racial scientists had ideological agenda or something to prove. And this has been the case in other nations as well. Chinese, for example, long insisted that they evolved from Peking Man than some group that emerged from Africa. Japanese racial 'scientists' insisted there is something 'unique' about the Japanese. Much of this is closer to mysticism than science. Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond has argued against race but says DNA studies can identify who is really Jewish and who isn't. Humans can be objective about lots of things but not themselves. They are too vain, too proud, too anxious, and/or too much at competition with, dominant over, or servile to other races to be totally objective. Take the controversy of "Were Ancient Egyptians black?" By the American one-drop rule, many Ancient Egyptians could be said to have been black. But as they were more Caucasian than Negroid, one could argue they were more 'white'. Or, are Jews more 'Semitic' or 'European'? Even Jews are confused about this.

Still, if there was a Western Bias in racial science in the past, the proper way forward is to be rid of those biases and approach race more scientifically than to throw the baby out with the bathwater and pretend the very concept of race is untrue. But then, was anti-racism really sincere? I don't think so. Deep down inside, many Jews surely believed in race and only pretended it didn't exist because racial thinking might probe into differences among whites, blacks, Jews, and others that might prove to be inconvenient for Jewish Power. After all, even as Jews took pride in having higher IQ over goyim, their fear was that goyim might realize this and begin to resent Jews for their superior intelligence that leads to more wealth and power, which could be used by Jews to boost Jewish Power at the expense of white interests. The fact that Jews insist on the abolishment of white identity all the while insisting that whites revere, support, and lionize Jewish Identity & Power gives the game away. But white cuckery has become so ingrained in the white psyche that whites are in habitual denial of what is really going on. Take the recent election debacle. Jews are most responsible for the Crazy 2020, but most conservatives are blaming China, China, China, a secondary player if that in the fall of White America. Denial of racial differences in IQ is also useful to Jews in perpetuating 'white guilt' & white submission and in directing black rage at whites. If it were known that black failure in education and economic achievement owes to genetic factors, whites would feel less guilty about their history. Fading of white guilt would mean it'd be harder for Jews to guilt-bait whites into seeking redemption by sucking up to Jews(and blacks and homos). Also, if blacks realized they're on the bottom due to lower IQ while Jews are on top due to higher IQ, blacks would be most envious and resentful of Jews. So, it is advantageous to Jews to blame black failure on white 'racism' and to keep blacks hating whites above all.

--While the history of words is interesting, the fact that the meaning of words change over time is simply irrelevant to our purposes here. We are clear that by “race” we mean breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments.--

True enough as 'gay' can mean happy or homosexual, but still, maybe it's useful to come up with a new term. As races developed through genetic changes over geographical distances, maybe racial science should be called geo-netics or geonetics. And maybe 'geon' should be used for 'race'.

--Another supposed problem with race is that developing the concept leads to bad consequences.--

How about we denounce Zionism because it led to bad consequences for Palestinians? Also, if race is a relatively recent idea(and a toxic one at that), could it be said human history was more pleasant in the pre-race eras? Bantus didn't have a concept of race, but they sure butchered a lot of people all across Africa. Maybe the Mongols didn't think in terms of race, but they sure could conquer, pillage, and kill. Maybe the Conquistadors lacked the scientific notion of race, but they should committed many horrors in the Americas. And before them, the Aztecs could be cruel as hell.
In contrast, the Anglos were profoundly mindful of race and racial differences, but one could make a strong case that they did most to advance mankind as a whole. Didn't Anglos do more for their colonies than the less race-minded Spanish and the French for their colonies? And didn't Anglo enslavement of blacks lead to more advancement for blacks than enslavements under Arabs and other Africans who presumably didn't think in terms of race? So, one fallacy could be countered with another. If Political Correctness says, "The concept of race is evil because of all the bad things done in its name", it could be countered, "The concept of race is good because Anglos, the most racial-minded of all imperialists, did most to advance and lift up mankind." Was it better for blacks to come under Arab rule or Anglo rule? Who did better in the Americas? Blacks who lived under Anglo-American power or blacks who under less-racially minded Spanish/Portuguese power? Anglos were more 'racist' toward the Chinese than the Mongols were. It's doubtful the Mongols called the Chinese 'chinks' since they were also a slanty-eyed people, but China achieved more under Anglo intrusion than under Mongol rule. Of course, such line of argument is fallacious but no more than the anti-racist school of thought that seeks to discredit all notions of race because some radical racists did bad things.

Another thing. Anti-racism can be used to justify imperialism. After all, if races are all the same, it wouldn't make a difference if People A invade and rape People B. After all, they are all the same. Chinese are taking over Tibet and push 'anti-racism'. They say Chinese and Tibetans are all brothers under the skin, and Tibetans should just mate with Chinese and become fellow Chinese. On the surface, this sounds humanitarian and 'inclusive', but it also means doom for Tibetans as the Han Chinese outnumber them by a huge margin. Latin American elites justify the history of conquest, rape, and domination on the premise that there is only ONE people in Mexico and South America. Supposedly, people don't see 'race' because they are all equal and all mixed. But it totally ignores the fact that the indigenous brown peoples were invaded, raped, and dominated by another people. 'Inclusion' is often a justification for invasion.

Another thing. Some anti-racists argue that race-mixing is beneficial. But if all races are the same, why would race-mixing be beneficial when all groups are the same under the skin? Either the PC-pushers are stupid and ignorant of their contradictions or they are mendacious and push for race-mixing with full knowledge that it will favor certain races over others. Interracism between whites and blacks, for example, favor blacks. Not only do mixed-race people identify as black, but it's usually black male and white female. Black men sexually conquer white women while white men are relegated to cucky-wuck dork-hood.

--Beyond that, it can be convincingly argued that suppressing the concept of race leads to very bad consequences. If a South Asian person has a kidney transplant and is given the kidney of a White person, then his body will likely reject it, elevating the possibility that the patient will die of kidney failure.--

All very true, but that is a petty example. It's about individuals and illness. No civilization ever went under because people died of disease. After all, Europe survived the Bubonic Plague and Spanish Flu. So, the medical argument for race is weak. The real danger of overlooking the issue of race is that the white race might not wake up to the black threat and Jewish threat. Blacks are superior in brawn, and Jews are superior in brain. So, when whites allow Jews and blacks to run wild and free, Jews will take over elite institutions/industries and use their power to weaken white identity and unity. And blacks will dominate sports and take over as the new idols of national prowess. Black athletes who destroy white British ones are hailed as National Champions, and that means white girls will grow up with jungle fever and white boys will be instilled with cuckitis. As whites come to celebrate blackness as 'badass' and 'cool', it will be deemed especially evil to have any doubts about blacks. And that means whites won't be able to say NO to further black immigration-invasion. And this will mean more black crime and black violence against whites in the streets and schools. And that will mean the end of Europe. THAT is the real evil of anti-racism.
However, the real danger of the Current West isn't ideological anti-racism but idolatrous pro-racism in favor of blacks. Today, many whites welcome more black immigration not on the basis of equality of the races but superiority of blacks. Whites in UK and France revere blacks as sports champions, rappers, twerking mamas, and big-donged studs. And this idolatrous supremacy of blacks is disseminated all around the world. There are tons of black-centric advertising in Germany and Poland, even in Russia. Even Japan, so distant from Europe and Africa, is falling into the Jungaru Trap. Japanese women are whores who mate with blacks, and their kids are taking over Japanese sports, and Japanese elites, ever so servile to the West, are pushing for 'Japan That Can Say Ho'.

--“There are more differences within races than there are between them.” This is wheeled out with great profundity by biased scientists when interviewed in biased newspapers, without any references. It has come to be known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy,”--

It's a fallacy alright. Besides, how can there be differences within the race when race doesn't exist in the first place? If race doesn't exist, then the differences within and outside the 'race' would be the same.

My take on Lewontin's BS is simply this. Most people within any group are average and part of the norm. So, even if it may well be that the genetic difference between a retarded Japanese giant and a genius Japanese midget is greater than between an average Japanese and an average Nigerian, the fact is most Japanese are not genius midgets or retarded giants. If we were to randomly pick two Japanese, they would most likely be average. Same if we randomly pick two Nigerians. Most Japanese belong to the average norm, and same goes for Nigerians. Now, would two average Japanese be more different from one another than either of them is to an average Nigerian? No way. That'd be like saying there's more difference between Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz than between either of them and Mike Tyson or George Foreman. That's total BS.

--Another argument—and there are many versions of it—amounts to an appeal to emotion, in which a person essentially argues that “race” makes him feel unhappy.--

This is, of course, BS and very selective. 'Race' is supposed to make people uncomfortable IF it is about the validity of white race-hood. It's NOT OKAY to be white. But blacks feel most comfortable when they are going on and on about their blackness and black identity and blackity blackness. So, when black people claim to find 'race' problematic, they really mean not enough (positive)attention is being showered on them. How dare any time be spent discussing other races when it should be about blacks 24/7, sheeeeiiiiiit.
And Jews are the same way. It's Jewish this, Jewish that. And it's not just about culture and history. After all, Jewishness isn't just about religion or historical consciousness. Even atheist Jews are considered as fellow Jews. A Jew can be a Buddhist or even Christian, but he's still a Jew and can live in Israel. Jews seem to have no problem with Zionism's blood-based identity of what constitutes Jewishness. Indeed, Zionism will accept an atheist person of Jewish lineage while rejecting an African, Chinese, or Arab who is eager to convert to Jewishness.

Also, the Holocaust has gone from an Anti-Racist Narrative — "We Jews were victims of German racial supremacism" — to a Neo-Racist Narrative: "Jewish Lives Matter More". After all, the 20th century has seen tons of deaths, and Jews did their share of killing. But it seems 80% of all moral outrage has been devoted to the Shoah. Why? Do Jewish lives matter more? Are Jewish lives more precious? Are Jewish Lives so precious that it doesn't matter when Jews kill millions of goyim, as in the communist horrors of the USSR? Anne Frank matters more than the millions of Ukrainian kids who died in the Great Famine? A Jewish life matters more than the 100,000s killed by AIPAC-driven US Wars for Israel and crippling sanctions? Jewish life is so precious that it's okay for Jews to kill others, but one mustn't harm a hair on a Jew. Madeleine Albright can say it's worth killing 500,000 Arab kids, but damnation to anyone who hurts Jewish feelings.
Thus, Holocaust Narrative has come to mean that Jewish Lives are more precious and matter more. Anything is justified to save Jewish lives, protect Jewish lives, and to favor Jewish lives. It's like the insane logic of BLM. Nothing is spoken about black violence on non-blacks. Blacks commit tons of crimes. Black soldiers in US bases around the world are the top rapists. Black athletes in colleges commit most crime and rape. Blacks are top thugs. But the moral outrage is only about the rare black who dies at the hands of whites. Same dynamics operates in US and UK. Also, this moral burden is placed on white shoulders. So, even though blacks kill blacks by the bushel in Africa, it's no big deal because blacks, being special, can do as they please among themselves. Blacks can be amoral and nihilistic, but that's okay because they are blackity-black wonderful. So, the burden of caring about black well-being falls on whites, even when blacks make other black lives miserable. (If non-whites mess up their own nations, they can't be expected to bear the burden of fixing their own problems. Rather, whites must bear the burden of providing sanctuary for them in white nations.) But then, when white cops do their job and try to minimize crime and violence in black areas, blacks howl about 'racism' and riot(often with encouragement from Jews). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So, when Jews and blacks say 'race' makes them feel uncomfortable, they really mean all the talk should be about the Jewish race or black race, all favorable. After all, if race is real and if all races matter, then Jews and blacks must share the moral space with other groups. But Jews and blacks want to hog all the space for the Jewish race and black race.

Now, there are whites who feel uncomfortable about 'race', but why? Because their minds have been molded by Jews who control media, academia, and whore politicians/officials who spout PC nonsense 24/7. This discomfort isn't natural but ideological. It's been inculcated in their minds by nonstop anti-white propaganda and education. If Jews and blacks feel angry when the discussion veers into anything other than their own noble/soulful identities, whites have been made to feel disgust about any positive expression of white identity. But then, the very PC whites who can't abide white racial identity have no problem babbling endlessly about how great the black race or Jewish people are. So, the question must be asked, "Why is racial supremacism great for Jews and blacks but mere racial identity is evil for whites?"

--On a deeper level, we should understand that science is fundamentally amoral. It is about the relentless search for the objective truth.--

But let's be honest here. Racial science is never meant to be merely scientific, objective, or amoral. When we study the differences among wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, birds, and etc., we can be detached and neutral(though some people may favor certain animals over others while others may be alarmed about invasive species that may upset existing eco-systems in the interest of preserving bio-diversity). No one in the HBD movement has been merely scientifically interested. They are usually white identitarians who root for their own kind. Even as they acknowledge certain genetic advantages among non-whites, they use those facts to argue for white well-being. Richard Spencer, for example, says it's not good for US to take in high-IQ Indians and Chinese as they might become the over-class over whites. Others admit that blacks are athletically superior, and THAT is the reason against 'inclusion' of blacks in white spaces. Tougher blacks will terrorize and wussify the whites, just like Mongol Wrestlers made a mockery of Japan's sacred fatty sport of Sumo.
So, while science itself is amoral, its uses and purpose is always moral or tribal or political. The physics behind the nuclear bomb is amoral, but the Bomb was used for reasons that biased one group against another. The dynamics of evolution is amoral, but every organism works to maximize its own survival and dominance. Indeed, why do we look into the science of race? After all, science can be used to look into just about anything. But we ignore most things and focus mostly on those that matter most to our survival, well-being, happiness, and power. The science of race is all-important because there are obvious problems in the West, and the most serious ones cannot be understood apart from race. Jewish brain power and black brawn power can only be understood in terms of racial differences. Power decides history, and racial differences profoundly affect power dynamics among various groups.

--This is why the kind of scientists who tend to make really important discoveries—so-called “geniuses”— seem to combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness (altruism and empathy) and moderately low Conscientiousness (impulse control, rule following). This means that they can “think outside the box,” not bound by conventional rules—maybe they even take pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows.--

But then, why is the scientific community so PC and craven? While certain scientists may be like William Shockley or James Watson, most are smart enough to know that they must play the game. Also, even though they think outside the box, they work within the box of specialization. Thus narrowly focused, they outsource their social diplomacy to others. Take Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Maybe deep down inside, they know more than they let on, but as super-geeks, they are savvy enough to hire public relations and parrot the party line. Or take Craig Venter, the guy involved with DNA studies. He surely knows about race but pushed the PC line to keep his position.

Now, there may be people who are so aspergish that they can't help spouting off inconvenient views. Even with public relations department all around them, they can't help muttering things that are bound to offend people(especially in a time when people are conditioned to feel 'offended' or 'triggered' by just about anything, now known as 'micro-aggressions'). But such people are hardly inspirational, and their views are narrowly focused on one thing or another. They don't offer the big vision. This was the case with James Watson. He narrowly focused on black IQ and despaired of the future of Africa. But he failed to construct and deliver a larger message about what black failure means to the West, especially with massive black migration to Europe. He also failed to address the Jewish Question at the heart of PC and anti-whiteness. After all, Jewish Intelligence may be even more fatal to the West because, despite being smart and genuinely capable, Jews use their amassed power and privilege to subvert and destroy the pillars of white power. Blacks degrade society because they are underachievers, but Jews degrade society by over-achieving and using their vast fortunes/power to subvert goy civilizations out of revenge, resentment, paranoia, or just plain nastiness that they revel in. Now, had James Watson gone further in his critique, he would have gotten into more trouble, but it would have been inspirational and earth-shaking. He would have spoken like a prophet. But he talked about race only as a geek, and just like a geek, he cowered under pressure. Aspergy types may say inconvenient stuff but lack the balls to see it through when pushed back. (Bobby Fischer was an exception though, to be sure, he went off the deep end.)

Also, high IQ types don't make good leaders for the people. They live in a world of their own. They don't feel much camaraderie with the dummies and morons who make us most of humanity. When they go on and on about IQ, they favor the meritocracy of the best and brightest regardless of race. They are for the natural aristocracy. Take the lunatic Michio Kaku. He feels nothing for the Japanese. He feels nothing for most Americans. He just thinks the dummy masses should work and consume and pay taxes so that geniuses like him can advance science to the point where humanity can merge with artificial intelligence and become 'gods'. So, even though aspergy types may sometimes go off-script, they offer nothing to inspire the masses or the volk. They are too narrowly focused than broadly aligned with 'my people'.

--In the wake of World War II, “racist” gradually came to mean what “racialist” had once meant.[21] However, the term “racist” has been extended far beyond this, to refer to anybody who is seen to deviate from ideological orthodoxy with regard to the issue of race. Terming such a person the “racist” associates him with that which is accepted as somehow evil and immoral.--

No, following WWII, 'racist' came to mean 'bigot', 'white supremacist', 'hater', or some loon. It was never meant to be synonymous with 'racialist'. The problem with the term 'racist' is it makes a mockery of the meaning of -ism. As -ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. So, how did race + ism come to automatically mean racial hatred, racial supremacism, racial bigotry, and etc? Imagine if 'socialism' automatically means Stalinism or Maoism. It would be toxic. Socialism at its radical extremes can mean Stalinism or Maoism, but the generic meaning of socialism means some degree of statist role for collective interests. Thus, even social-democracy can be deemed socialist. And fascism too.

But precisely because generic race + ism has been defined as racial extremism(especially of white variety), it's difficult for people to honestly discuss matters of race. Genericism on race has been made synonymous with extremism. But same goes for the concept of whiteness. Once a neutral term — quality of European descent — , now it's treated like some evil phantom of history. So, 'whiteness studies' doesn't mean an objective study of white people and culture but an alarmist diagnosis of white people, history, culture, and whatever as the source of all the evils of the world. Whiteness isn't a subject but a disease. It isn't something to really study but to search and destroy or burn at the stake. It's like Jewishness was never a neutral matter in National Socialist Germany. When Nazis studied Jewishness, they weren't detached scholars but doctors studying a pathogen that must be wiped out.

This is why the ONLY WAY to dig out of the hole is to embrace the term 'race-ism'. The dash(-) emphasizes the true meaning of 'ism'. Race-ism can become radical racism but need not be.

But what's most outrageous about all this is the Jews(as pathological semites) are playing a truly dirty game. If Jews, in their naive idealism, were waging war on 'racism' in an earnest effort to stamp out all manifestations of bigotry and hatred, it would at least be understandable. But the real reason why Jews bull-whip and terrorize white identity and interests is because they want to keep white people servile to Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews don't say, "You whites give up your identity and interests, and we Jews will do the same." No, Jews say, "You surrender your banner and carry ours." It's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." Jews denounce whites as 'nazis' because they want to be Judeo-Nazis over the world. Jewish message to Hungarians is as follows: "Give up your 'racist' Hungarian identity and borders but then be sure to support Israel uber alles." Jewish message to white Americans is as follows: "Feel white guilt over the Holocaust and Slavery and always remind yourselves that you whites totally suck as the mass murderers of history, but then be sure to suit up with military gear to smash and kill any number of Arabs and Muslims for the benefit of Israel." Pathological-Semites or Patho-Semites are truly sick in the head. But they rule the West because Anglos have weaker and more yielding personalities. Jews even joke about the lack of will among Anglos:

Notes on "THE GREATEST JEWISH JOKE EVER TOLD" by Spencer Quinn
https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/the-greatest-jewish-joke-ever-told/

Now, some might say that I'm trying to 'blackpill' people with all the doom-and-gloom talk. But we must speak honestly, just like a doctor must tell a cancer patient about his ailment. Unless the truth is outed, there can't be any real treatment. The current West is like treating cancer with ALL MEANS except those meant to deal with cancer cells. Imagine a cancer patient who is given the most elaborate and expensive treatment for EVERYTHING but the cancer. His eyes, ears, throat, stomach, liver, pancreas, arms, legs, groins, buttocks, and etc are given special treatment with all the tools and medicine. Millions and millions are spent on the treatment... except his cancer is ignored. He will surely die. The black problem is handled that way in the West. Why do blacks fail in school? Lower IQ and rowdy behavior, but no one addresses the problem of natural lower IQ and natural higher aggression among blacks. Instead, money is poured into everything without addressing the crucial fact.
And same goes for Jewish Power. So much of financial, cultural, and foreign policy failures can be traced back to Jewish supremacist abuse of power, but people blame Everyone and Everything but the Jews. Take the recent election. Jews were most responsible for the fiasco that was 2020. With control of medicine, media, deep state, Wall Street, and whore politicians, Jews were hellbent on doing EVERYTHING to topple Trump, but these Trumpists are blaming everything but the Jews. So, nothing will change, nothing will be fixed.

Also, what the West needs is to study the Portnoid Style in Jewish Politics, just like a famous Jewish historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote of the Paranoid Style in American Politics. 'Portnoia' is necessary if we are to spill the beans on what is really happening. There must be no more inhibitions. In a way, Jews gained over Wasps because Jews were vulgar and portnoid in spilling the beans on the Real Wasp, i.e. while Wasps put on a respectable Country Club image, they were really a bunch of a--holes like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Well, it's about time whites did the same to Jews and went totally portnoid on Jewish Power. To be sure, this is harder to do as Jews immunized themselves with shamelessness. It's easier to expose the phoniness of Wasps with their air of respectability and dignity than to expose the Jew who inoculated himself with the pride of vulgarity. One can shame William F. Buckley but not Howard Stern. Still, there is such a huge gap between the tragic and noble image of Jews as a long-suffering people full of wisdom and the obnoxious image of Jews as two-faced a--holes who've turned the Holocaust into License to Steal and Kill for the sake of stuffing their own pockets and securing their own supremacism.

Being portnoid isn't to blackpill but to see truth for what it is. Then and only then can people embark on the right and righteous path. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. I got the following email complaining that my views have a blackpilling effect:

"If your goal is to encourage cucky-wuckery and Jungle Fever then you're doing a great job. Constantly hearing about BAMMAMA, ACOWW, the pussification of the white boy and big black dongs along with your convincing but pessimistic predictions regarding the future of white manhood is extremely de-moralizing. Reading your vivid, primal descriptions of black thugs smashing wussy white boys and humping white girls to mind-blowing orgasms is going to give your white male readers an uncomfortable number of masochistic boners and your white female readers plenty of tingles. The only way then to comfort yourself in your racial-sexual loserdom as a white boy is by whanking to videos of muscular Negro studs pumping beautiful Aryan women into cascades of convulsive ecstasy. You can only repeat this humiliating ritual so many times before you accept the inevitability of white racial defeat and even the desirability of bigger, stronger, more dominant black men conquering the women of your tribe and blotting-out the genes of the degenerate males too credulous, perverted and weak to prevent it. Do you really write for White National Liberation/National Humanism as you claim? Because I can assure you that the effect you are having is very different. Enough nationalists have a white genocide fetish already without any need to encourage it. I had already arrived at these basic conclusions a couple of years ago but your writings certainly added fuel to the fire. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on these subjects."

So, the writer assumes that facing the truth and speaking of the dangers is demoralizing, therefore fatal. But the ONLY way to change course is to speak the truth as things really are. I maintain American History could have been very different IF, in the time of Jack Johnson, white people spoke of the black threat in portnoid ways. But they didn't, so here we are. Truth may not save a people, but it's the only chance they have in a world of lies.

WHY WAS THE 1960S THE PEAK OF HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (AND PRO-SOCIALITY)? by DR EDWARD DUTTON: THE JOLLY HERETIC

White Dumbness vis-a-vis Jews and White Weakness vis-a-vis Blacks — Need for White Race-ist Unity — Whites must be like Asian Indians if they're to avoid the Fate of American Indians

https://buchanan.org/blog/the-new-systemic-racism-that-is-coming-138889

A commenter asked in reply to the Patrick J. Buchanan article:

"I still don’t get how all this happened… Whites aren’t dumb or weak… Where did it all go wrong?"

'Dumb' and 'weak' are relative terms. In relation to whom and what?

If Jews never came to the US, whites would still be on top and would be setting the narrative and agenda. Sure, there would be liberal whites, but they would be in balance with conservative whites. Both liberalism and conservatism have value, and one provided reform and novelty while the other provided stability and continuity, sense of heritage and roots. But Jews came along and used their power to tip the scale in favor of Liberalism. Thus, white liberalism came to be severed from white conservatism. (American History went from reconciliation and mutual respect between Northern whites and Southern whites following the Civil War to such condemnation of white identity & the American South that even white Southerners now do nothing to defend their heritage from feral blacks and PC radicals egged on by Jews who, at the same time, demand that white Southerners support Jim Crowitz in the West Bank. Dixie Chicks just calling themselves Chicks is typical of total Southern cuckery to Jews and the mob.) Liberalism without roots finds itself adrift. Liberals may bitch about conservatism, but liberalism without conservatism is like trees severed from roots. After all, liberalism is an outlook, and it needs a vantage point, i.e. it has to be liberal on a conservative foundation. Liberalism is like the sails on a boat, which would be like conservatism. Without the boat, the sails are useless. Or liberalism is like wings on a plane.Without the main body, the wings are useless.
Therefore, when white liberalism was severed from white conservatism, it had to serve another root-foundation, and this is where Jews made it serve Jewish Power aided and abetted by Jungle Fever/Faith & eventually Globo-Homo. As for white conservatism, it faced difficult times because Jews and their white liberal cucks said whiteness is problematic, then bad, then evil. So, white conservatism could no longer preserve white pride. For white conservatism to be viable, it had to drop the 'white' and just be conservative. Conservative about what? For some, conservatism merely meant conserving wealth(property values) or, paradoxically, the engine for change. (Consider David French whose idea of 'conservatism' is preserving the social forces that led to drag-queen story hour. In other words, American Conservatism = Conservation of forces that bring about the most rapid change.) But conservatism must conserve something other than 'muh money'. If whiteness is no longer worth preserving because of 'white guilt', then white conservatism, having dropped the 'white', had to serve another identity and culture, and again Jews made whites serve Jewish identity that was deemed noble because of Holy Holocaust Cult and its great heritage. If white liberals became subservient to Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish victim-hood, white conservatives became reverent of Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish heritage — Paul Johnson, one of the premier cuckservatives of the Cold War era, often made the case that Judaism is essentially conservative and so, Jews will eventually come around to the political right; the fool overlooked the fact that Jewish 'conservatism' is about maximizing Jewish Power by any means necessary, even by pushing deracinating liberalism on whites, which explains why so-called Neocons worked with Jewish Liberals to undermine white identity and pride. The Neo-Con-Federacy alliance didn't last long. White Southerners supported Zionists, but Zionists took a big dump on white 'racism', just like Apartheid South African support of Zionism didn't prevent most Jews from reviling white-ruled South Africa as the worst thing possible. At any rate, adopting Jewish Identity as the main theme of American Conservatism was bound to be devastating to white conservatism because the main villains of the Shoah were 'white supremacists'(though, to be sure, Nazi Germans were 'Aryanists' whose greatest crimes were against other whites, especially Slavs and Jews, if counted as 'white'). Jewish victim-narrative essentially blames whites and Christians for everything.

Now, Jews could pull this off because they are smarter than whites by one standard deviation. But what about Episcopalians whose IQs are comparable to Jews? Their religion was weak, they were more about class & privilege than blood-spirituality(or ethno-religious identity of Jews), and over time, their values just became bloodlessly following the latest fashion among trendy elites. Also, Jews have stronger and pushier personalities than Episcopalians who would rather lose a fight against feisty Jews than get down and dirty. Jews were especially effective in subverting white power because of their passive/aggressive nature. If Jews were ONLY aggressive, whites would have told them to screw off. But Jews would approach whites with sappy eyes and plead for sympathy for Anne Frank and 'muh holocaust'; and whites, out of Christian magnanimity and conscience, ceded to Jews the notion that the Holocaust was the greatest evil in world history and therefore ANY negative aspersion about Jews is 'antisemitic', therefore akin to Nazism. Whites thought they were being nice to poor pitiful Jews, but Jews were planting a moral trap underneath the white ass, especially as the history of 'antisemitism' was mainly a white European/Christian thing. Once that premise was accepted as part of Official White Morality, it meant that Jews could dump on whites all they want but whites better not dump on Jews in kind because it'd be so awful and hurt the feelings of those poor pitiful boo-boo-baby Jews. Fast-forward to today, and NYT & other Jewish-run media dump on whites endlessly but whites dare not say anything back in kind to Jews. Jews dredge up all the dark past about white history, but whites dare not do the same about Jews. If anything, both white 'liberals' and 'conservatives' compete with one another on who is more pro-Jewish. Jews kick white ass, but whites are eager to kiss Jewish ass. Kick-Ass-Kiss-Ass is the dynamics between Jews and whites. And of course, to consolidate white cuckery and submission, Jews also pushed the Noble Negro cult to guilt-bait whites for all eternity. So, Jewish-run NYT and other media outlets feature black and yellow bitches dumping on white women as abettors of white male terrorism against blacks, but white men say nothing about how countless white women had been robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks. Tally up the numbers of white women robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks, and it far dwarfs the number of black thugs lynched by white mobs in a hundred years. But white men, 'lib' and 'con', are a bunch of maggoty wussy boys.
But then, there's another reason white men don't defend white women. Too many white women, being mental clay in Jewish hands, are into white self-loathing and anti-white hysteria as virtue-signaling. Indeed, consider how most of these 'Karens' who are denounced by Ugabundas and Skankishas happen to be urban 'liberal' proggy bitches. To many on the dissident right, there is a certain schadenfreude in watching these insipid whores get their just desserts, a taste of their own medicine. These deracinated slutty lowlife white traitor bitches watch TV shows and movies where white female characters go with Negro men and where white men are presented as creeps or dorks, and their worldview conforms to Jewish Hollywood propaganda. But when they are confronted with black thuggery and vileness, the first thing they do is CALL THE WHITE POLICE. Now, one may ask why did their parents raise such insipid kids? Because white parenting, especially beginning with the boomers, was 'anti-racist', but a people are finished without race-ism. Jews are race-conscious and gain in power. Blacks mess up everything but still gain in power because they are race-conscious. Whites lose and lose because they lost their race-ism. As boomer parents think there is nothing worse than 'racism', they raised their kids to worship Fartin Poother Bling. And these kids grew up to madonna the muddy skank and rap music and sexting each other photos of Negro dongs. And all they heard in schools is 'white racism', 'white supremacism', 'evil of antisemitism', 'evil of homophobia', and etc. But on some subconscious level, they grew up feeling uncomfortable because it's not natural to hate your own kind. It's no wonder the 'gay' stuff spread like wildfire among whites, even with 'conservatives', because it's like the last expression of 'whiteness'. And it's no wonder that blacks eventually caught onto this and are insisting on making June the month of Homeys than Homos. Sheeeeeeiiiit, Juneteenth be da thang.
BLM and LGBT marching together is funny as hell because, despite the outward show of solidarity, they are expressions of opposing trends. BLM is about blacks doing as they please with roughhouse reparations of looting and burning, whereas Globo-Homo is about gentrification and yuppie-regeneration of the 'inner-city', code-word for parts of the town plagued with black crime and violence. Granted, there is a connection between blackness and homo-ness as plenty of white 'gay' buns crave black dongs — the butt-cucks — , but generally speaking, homo community caters to high-earners and the fancy-pants crowd than to hood rats.

Now, the 'weak' part. Again, it's relative. Without Jews and blacks, whites would be on top of the world in the West. Mentally, whites are strong against all groups except Jews. Some may say yellows have IQ comparable or even slightly higher than whites, but the difference isn't all that notable. Also, as yellows happen to be docile and dog-like, they are incapable of gaining power and authority as a minority. Chinese are successful minorities in Southeast Asia but in a precarious than prestigious position — it's no wonder Chinese would rather settle in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the US where they face less animus and violence from the majority. If recently yellows are berating at and bitching about whiteness, it's only because they are dutiful and servile dogs of the prevailing ideology set by elite Jews. They are following orders as good little boys and girls.
So, only Jews could make whites seem 'weak' of mind. Jews have noticeably higher IQ, strong identity rooted in blood & spirituality, and pushy personalities, along with sneaky passive/aggressive strategy. The only other people who make whites look weak are, of course, the Negroes, especially as American Culture is mainly about pop music and sports. Rock music has black roots, but moreover, blatantly black rap overtook rock as the most popular musical form, and what is rap about the thuggish cult of black aggression? Also, Americans worship sports, and who dominate? Blacks do. NFL culture is rather odd in its current configuration, and it's no wonder that it is in a state of crisis. Most players are black, and the game is getting even blacker. These black guys rose up the ranks by thumping white guys in high school and college, and they hump tons of white women. BUT, the majority of the fans are white males, and many white male fans of football happen to be 'conservative'. So, you have a game that is mostly about Democratic black guys dominating the field and humping white women that is cheered on largely by white males, the majority of whom are 'conservative'. White male 'conservatives' have 'evolved' to the 'anti-racist' position along the lines of, "Look, we cheer for you awesome black guys, and you whupped our pathetic white butts and you can hump my wife and marry my daughter, but please oh please, show some respect to the red, white, & blue and stand during the national anthem." That's Rush Limbaugh 'conservatism'. But black players feel differently. They feel, "Sheeeeeeeiiiiit, we be badass mofos who be da kangs of dis here sports, and we done whup fa**oty white boys and hump white girls, and dem white boys in da stands just a bunch of punkass pussies who be begging fo' our autographs while dey's girlfriends be lustin' after our dic*s." Yep, that is how black players see the game, and why not? Suppose Germans were taken as slaves to Japan, and suppose they came to dominate the sports by beating up scrawny yellow Japanese men and were humping the yellow girls. Would these Teutonic giants feel any respect for yellow dorks begging for their autographs? Would they pay respect to the Japanese anthem and identity for long? No, they would be feeling, "We be Vikangz".
For better or worse, sports is at least 1/2 of American culture and identity. So, who dominates sports comes to shape the image of America. Without blacks, whites would dominate sports in the US, and the racial-national perception would be very different. Indeed, look at the harm done to French identity and pride as the result of black domination. Sure, the white French pretend they are all beyond race and that Frenchness has no color, but blacks notice color. They know they are kicking white French ass and France is being Africanized.

Now, one may argue that white people as a unity are more powerful than any other. After all, white imperialists took over all of Africa at one time. British fleet defeated China in two Opium Wars. Spanish took over all of what is now Latin America. This is true, but white power depends on unity of identity, and that means race-ism. Without white race-ism, there can be no white unity. Then, whites can only compete as individuals, and then they will lose mentally to Jews with higher IQ & nimbler verbal skills and lose to blacks who are more muscular and athletic. This is why 'anti-racism' is the most fatal thing to happen to whites. But with white unity, whites could easily push back against Jewish Power. And whites as a unity can kick black ass. In the movie ZULU, each black warrior is more muscular and faster than whites, but whites work as a disciplined team and mow down the savanna bunners with awesome race-ist efficiency. This is why only race-ism can save the white race or any race. This is why any white person who uses the term 'racist' as epithet is part of the problem and hardly better than fools who yammer "Democrats are the real racists."

Ultimately, the great tragedy of American History is that American Indians didn't have the personality and wiliness of Asian Indians. American Indians were a stoned-faced stone-age people who put up a fight against men with guns and wagons, then later trains. They had no hope of military victory. They fought bravely and have been honored as such, but their defeat was a foregone conclusion, and following their surrender, they just remained on Reservations and lived on bacon, tobacco, and firewater. They were 'dumb' like the big 'Injun' in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.
But imagine if American Indians were more like Asian Indians. After a few setbacks with fighting the white men, they would have put down the bows & arrows and try to deal with whites with words & wit. After all, white folks were far less likely to shoot a people who are always talking and balking than shooting off arrows or hurling tomahawks. Through incessant talk, the hindu-like American Indians might have wore down the white men on the matter of immigration. A compromise might have been reached where white Christian immigration is okay to a certain point, but come on, let's leave something for the Indians. And then, the hindu-like American Indians might even have convinced whites to send the blacks back to Africa on account of America being the land of the Indians, not of the Africans who have their own gigantic continent to themselves. Hindu-like American Indians might have argued incessantly, "Look, you white people come here and take so much. But, you built stuff and we Indians benefit too. But why did you bring all those blacks? It's bad enough we lost this land to you whites but should we lose it to blacks as well?" And hindu-like American Indians might have gotten better deals from whites with contracts. The real American Indians just trusted the white man, smoked the peace pipe, and went back to their teepees... only to discover that Pale Face was just fooling them. But hindu-like American Indians surely would have pressed upon whites to keep the word. "Look, we remember you people buying Manhattan with bead necklace. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, and no shame on me this time."

In DELIRIOUS, Eddie Murphy says you got to SING to get the girls. In SEVEN BEAUTIES, Pasqualino says, "More you pee, more you live." In our world, the more you talk, the more power you got. Even when they try to silence you, you have to keep talking and talking and talking. You have to join the conversation but not on their terms because PC is all about them talking while your side only listens or chants along or barks according to orders.




It's been observed by some that whites are like the NEW American Indians. Then, the lesson whites must learn from the fate of American Indians is that whites must act like Asian Indians to survive. American History could have been very different if American Indians fought less and talked more. Indeed, one reason why white folks in the South lent a certain ear to blacks was because the Negroes were always talking, like Jim in HUCKLEBERRY FINN. It's like the white massuh played by Chuck Connors in ROOTS has a fondness for Chicken George who always be talking. Frederick Douglas was full of talk, and of course, Fartin' Poother Bling was nothing without talk. And, you don't even need a boombox voice. Gandhi sounded like a geek, but he talked and talked and drove the British nuts like Groucho Marx with the Wasp characters.

It's incredible that Jews of all people hold such a vaunted MORAL position in the American Narrative. After all, if any people experienced something like 'genocide' and destruction on American soil, it was the American Indians, all the more tragic because they have roots here going back eons, tens of thousands of years. And yet, there is the Jewish Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. than one commemorating the 'American Holocaust' of the Red Man. And even though mass immigration did in the Indians, the Statue of Liberty as symbol of immigration is so highly prized and celebrated. Also, the US has been nothing but a blessing for Jews. They didn't face the kind of discrimination they did in the Old World, and furthermore, Jews took part in slavery/slave trade and sold supplies to whites who rubbed out the Indians. So, Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust'. And yet, Jews hold the high moral ground in America. Why? They never stopped talking. In the end, talk determines 'truth'. If Bob did wrong to John, but if Bob does all the talking while John sulks and sits in the corner, everyone will go with Bob's word. He sets the narrative. It's like the scene in GOODFELLAS where Martin Scorsese's mother tells a joke about a man who never says anything.



How did Christianity became a great religion? The Early Christians faced persecution, but they never stopped talking and eventually caught the ears of some powerful and influential folks. In the end, it wasn't a case of "meek shall inherit the Earth" but "speak shall inherit the Earth". And this is why white Americans, as they face a demise similar to that of the American Indians, must not make the same mistake. Instead of being like the noble but 'dumb' Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, they must be like Asian-Indians who never shut up. They must be like Babu(of THE SIMPSONS) or Ben Kingsley as Gandhi who's always talking and talking, even when he's sent to jail time and time again. To reiterate this point, white Americans should speak with a Hindu accent. Doing so will remind them that, unless they keep gabbing like Hindus, they will end up like the Red Man.
Whites should start with the topic of creating the white leagues in sports on the basis that white athletic inferiority needs is own space from blacks who make it virtually impossible for any other race to play, especially certain positions. So, let blacks have NBA and NFL, but let there be the white leagues. And why not? Blacks got their own chess tournaments as they can't compete with Jews. Now, the Powers-that-be will say NO, but whites should still keep talking and never drop the issue and should re-package it in so many ways. After all, the US has said NO to reparations-for-blacks so many times, but it's still on the menu because blacks never stop talking about it. (Whites should demand Realization among blacks. Realization over reparations. What would this Realization be? That, even though blacks got less than whites in the US, they got so much from contact with whites than they would have on their own if left alone in their own savagery of bongo drums and chucking spears at hippos. Sure, the argument of the Realization would be condemned as 'racist', but one must never stop talking. Even if the other side says NO, you keep making your case and drive home the point. It's like even a brick wall eventually breaks if you keep picking at it. In those prison movies, inmates eventually make a hole with a spoon. Why? They never give up picking at the wall. Words wear down the opposition only if you must keep on talking.) If whites give up on certain issues and stop talking, they lose. Even if there are setbacks, one must keep talking. Like 'gay marriage' for instance. Don't just accept it as 'the law of the land' but keep talking against it. Chip away at it bit by bit by bit. If the power of words made the Roman Empire eventually succumb to Christianity, the religion of pesty Jewish heretics, it can do wonders for whites in the long run but only if they keep talking. If the idea of White Leagues is rejected and banned, should whites give up on the idea? No, they should keep pushing for it with new arguments. Did homos and Jews give up on 'gay marriage' when the courts initially said NO? No, they pushed on. Meanwhile, American cuckservatives began to say NOTHING in opposition. When one side talks while the other side remains mute, the talkers win. So-called 'culture war' was really a game of Culture Words, and Jews and the 'left' talked more. In contrast, the 'conservatives' said close to nothing or took orders from Jews and merely said, "Muh Israel" and "Democrats are the real racists", thereby undermining the need for race-ism among whites.

Say the word and you will be free. There's a song by the Bangles, "Walk like an Egyptian", but the real lesson is "Talk like an Asian-Indian". And use their dotty accent to always remind yourself that if you don't keep talking, you will end up like the American Indians. In a way, it's ironic that American Conservatism is in such sad state despite having dominated Talk Radio. They sure did a lot of talking... but about what? 'Muh Israel', inanities about 'Feminazis', cheerleading for more Middle East Wars, Russia-bashing, Chicom-bashing, and 'Democrats are the real racists'. In other words, total BS and nothing about real issues, real truths, and real needs. White folks need to speak the truth of HBD in hindu accent. Talk truth, not nonsense.

Notes on the Saker's "The Empire Takes a Knee. Let It. But We Don't Have to!" — Problems of Blacks Gone Wild or BGW — Idolatry > Ideology — Even if You Ignore the Reality of Race, It will NOT Ignore You

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-empire-takes-a-knee-let-it-but-we-dont-have-to-2/

to the immense number of lynchings

Simply not true. Far fewer blacks were lynched than people were killed in a single major pogrom in Russia/Ukraine. From the end of the Civil War to the 1960s, a few thousand blacks were lynched and mostly for ghastly crimes. In any given year in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 30s, countless innocents were executed for NOTHING. The evil of lynchings plays a prominent role in the US moral narrative only because Americans have an overly idealistic view of their historical project. But lynchings have been common in all places and all times. It was often the primary way of justice in societies without strict enforcement of Rule of Law. Lynchings are and always have been commonplace in Africa. You can find all sorts of videos of blacks being lynched for stealing stuff in places like Nigeria and the Congo. Blacks know that nasty violence is the ONLY thing that blacks understand. Honor killings are common in the Middle East, Caucasus, and other parts of the world, and they can be as brutal as lynchings. And what was the American Indian form of justice? They tortured people to death in the most horrific ways. They made their victims sit on anthills and burned them to death.
Now, none of this justifies the use of lynchings as means of justice. There should be courts and trials and all that. But much of US history was frontier history, and vigilantes sometimes took law into their own hands. Tragically, this led to innocents being killed or the guilty being killed in especially cruel ways. (But when we consider the fate of James Fields of Charlottesville notoriety, has American justice really improved? Talk about a kangaroo court. And what kind of a sane justice system allows 'gay marriage' while harassing bakeries to bankruptcy and ruin? And why aren't the war criminals and butchers of the US and Zion tried and executed like Saddam Hussein?) And in the South, whites resorted to lynching blacks because they knew blacks are tougher, stronger, and more aggressive. Whites felt that blacks needed a clear message that there will be serious repercussions for raping or murdering whites. Rough justice has been common in hard times. Take China. Big nation with lots of poor people. To keep the order, the government has been ruthless with crime. Executions by bullet to the back of the head have been common in China. In Philippines, the drug problem got so bad that Duterte promised to use death squads on drug gangs.

And while those who point out that there have been many race riots in the past are correct, they are fundamentally missing the key fact that the current 'race riots' are not 'just' race riots... The best proof of this... is that they have not only spread across the US... also spread to Europe and in Asia and Oceania... So what is going on here? ...we have to admit that what triggered this worldwide rash of protests is... second-hand exposure to a very specific narrative spread... by the legacy corporate ziomedia. I call this narrative 'Black is Beautiful'.

And this complicates matters. Outwardly, it would appear that good peoples of all colors and stripes around the world are standing up to the Evil Empire and calling out against American hegemony. They are resisting jingoistic White Supremacism! After all, they've been fed the Narrative that the US is controlled by White Privilege. For those who rely on the globalist Jewish Media, the Alt Right descended on Charlottesville and murdered innocent people. In truth, the US today isn't what it once was. Yes, the US was once ruled by what could be called 'white supremacists' by today's standards. (But give credit where it's due. The ONLY reason why people around the world want to come to America is because 'white supremacists' in the past conquered North America, imposed their will, and created a new order of industry, modernity, and rule of law. Who'd want to come to the US if it were still run by American Indians shooting arrows at bison or fleeing from Grizzlies? Or, who would want to come to the US if whites had allowed it to become like Peru or Venezuela, a mixed race hell-hole with whites as minority?) For some time now, the US has been controlled by Jewish Supremacists. But unlike the 'white supremacists' of yesteryear who said, 'We got the power', Jewish Supremacists are more like, "Yes, we have no bananas." It's like the fat Jewish guy in WOLF OF WALL STREET saying "It's not like that" to the question of whether he's married to his first cousin but then goes on to describe exactly that.



Woody Allen made a movie called BANANAS about a Banana Republic, but the US has turned into Yes-We-Have-No-Bananas-Republic.



Jews got the supreme power in the Empire, but they prop up the myth of White Supremacism. And that means so many dupes and minions around the world think Resistance amounts to railing against white supremacism as represented by the likes of Chauvin the cop when, if anything, those working-class cops(some of whom are indeed rent-a-thugs) are mere attack dogs of blue city urban elites(dominated by Jews and homos) who trained the police to be tough on crime, especially black crime, not least by learning a thing or two from Israeli handling of the Palestinian situation.

So, we have a surreal situation where even the so-called displays of defiance and resistance against the Empire are really just extensions of the Empire's agenda. When so many idiots wave the globo-homo flag and indulge in Negrolatry as forms of resistance against Americanism, it's downright hilarious because the two main agendas of Jewish-run US empire is Anno Sodomini and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. If these 'anti-imperialists' were for real, they would have mobbed US embassies as retaliation for the economic rape of Russia, sanctions against Iran, Wars for Israel, tyranny over Palestinians, and etc. Instead, most of these people conceive of resistance against American Evil in terms of 'Orange Man Bad', Kiss the 'Gay' Butt, and Suck the Black Dic*, which are exactly what Jewish Power promotes via its media control, academic dominance, Hollywood, music industry, and pornification of culture. In a way, you gotta give Jews credit where it's due. They pulled off a brilliant trick on the dimwit goyim. They gained supreme power over the US empire and use American Power for nefarious Zionist-supremacist interests, BUT they managed to fool both proglodytes and the 'good peoples' of the world that US is ruled by the likes of evil 'racist' Chauvin while saintly Jews are on the side of the Resistance and 'Anti-Racism'. I mean the Anglo and Soviet imperialists were never this good in fooling the masses. They didn't fool half the world with their official tripe.

Still, Jews are playing with fire because Jewish Power depends on the prestige and legitimacy of American Power. By making Donald Trump look so bad and by spreading the image of the US as a hell-scape of police brutality and 'genocide' against blacks, the very justification with which the US enforces its will around the world is being called into question. If indeed the US is such a horrible place where white 'racist' cops routinely murder innocent and angelic black men, what right does the US have to serve as the Policeman of the World? Maybe someone will connect the dots and say US-Israel has its knee on the neck of Palestinians. (On the other hand, the Jewish moral preening about George Floyd has effectively given cover to Israel's current process of annexing West Bank. Jews feign sympathy for Floyd while IDF's knee is crushing West Bank to oblivion.) So, even though worldwide protests are going according to the Jewish globalist plan, it's not win-win for Jews as they are sullying the reputation of the US on the world stage, which plays to the advantage of Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and the like that can exploit the current crisis as moral ammo against Big Bad US. After all, if even leaders and elites of the US must take the knee and grovel before the mob, maybe the US isn't such an 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' nation but a vile and vicious one. Still, the global protests are mostly not spontaneous but have been orchestrated by NGO's around the world that take money and orders from Jews. If Hillary were in the Oval Office, I highly doubt if the mass media and NGO's would have spread the hysteria so far and wide and fanned the flames of violence.

The pernicious 'Black if Beautiful' ideological dogma.
Black is beautiful began in the US in the 1960 and it has since become an integral part of the western doxa, an ideological dogma which cannot be challenged without immediately resulting in an accusation of 'racism'. Simultaneously, another ideological dogma was developed, the one which claims that 'all races are equal', but without ever really defining the terms 'race' or the term “equal”.

I disagree. Black Is Beautiful or BIB isn't pernicious, and its origins were justifiable and understandable. Also, it wasn't supremacist but egalitarian or perhaps nationalist. It wasn't saying blacks are MORE beautiful than other races. It was saying blacks should regard themselves as beautiful in their own way. Thus, it could be understood as egalitarian: all races are beautiful in unique ways, and this is no less true of blacks. Or it could be justified as a form of nationalism: blacks should prize and preserve blackness like other races prize and preserve what is special about themselves. 'White Is Beautiful' was deemed unnecessary because whiteness was the standard for beauty in movies, magazines, advertising, modeling, beauty pageants, and just about everything. 'White Is Beautiful' would have been redundant or overkill, like 'Sun Is Hot'. In contrast, 'Black Is Beautiful' was deemed necessary because blacks had been made to feel inferior for so long. Blacks themselves preferred light-skinned ones to dark ones. Black men and women used chemicals to straighten their hair. Blacks lost their original Sub-Saharan identities. Kunte Kintes were made into a bunch of Tobies. Cucumonga and Ugabuguga became Tyrone Smith and Leroy Jackson. For all its inaccuracies, the TV show ROOTS was a pretty decent dramatization of the Black Is Beautiful agenda. The stress was on the need for black identity, black pride, black memory, and black nobility. And a lot of soul music from the 60s and 70s could properly be called beautiful, like Marvin Gaye's album WHAT'S GOING ON, Lou Rawls' "You'll Never Find", and Chi-Lites' "Oh Girl".

But BIB went out of favor, and blacks got shameless in what could be called Black-Be-Ugly-Mugly-Badass-Crazy-Trashy-Savage-Wild-And-Shi*-And-Damn-Proud-of-the-Tomfoolery. This has especially been the case with the rise of Rap Culture when black youths took over the culture from black adults. While black communities were falling apart in the 60s and 70s, one saving grace was that black pop culture, especially in music, was controlled by adults than by kids. So, while white rock got stupid with ugly punk and demented heavy metal, black music was classier and more adult in emotions. But then, rap culture happened, and blackness got defined by young street punks of da Hood. They wore baggy pants, used 'ni**er', 'mothafuc*a', and 'bitchass ho' as primary lyrics and wallowed in wanton shameless vulgarity. Take a song like the 70s classic "Me and Mrs. Jones". It's racy but also stylish, subtle, and mature. But if a rapper had written it, it would have went, "Jones you bitchass ho, come suck muh dic*."

BIB was a rejection of the "Credit to One's Race"(or COR) mentality that had once defined the respectable black bourgeoisie. COR was premised on black inferiority, i.e. blacks had to show that they could be as good as whites. Whites were high, blacks were low, and blacks had to make a special effort that they were worthy of respect and the same rights as those held by whites. BIB called for an independence of black identity and spirit. Still, it had one thing in common with COR in that it emphasized the need for black dignity and pride based on nobility of spirit. In other words, it had standards. It kept with the motto, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" of the Negro College Fund.

But the Black-Be-Ugly-Mugly-Badass-Crazy-Trashy-Savage-Wild-And-Shi*-And-Damn-Proud-of-the-Tomfoolery mentality, or to put it more simply, the 'Blacks Gone Wild'(or BGW) mentality had no use for standards of any kind. Instead of 'a mind is a terrible thing to waste', the attitude became 'mind is a great thing to get WASTED'. Rollo-ism won out over Lamont-ism. In an episode of SANFORD AND SON, Lamont is worried about marijuana growing on his property. In contrast, Rollo just wants to smoke it.



Whatever one may say about BGW culture, it's not beautiful. It's not dignified. Granted, look closely at any people and culture, and they're pretty corrupt. MLK was really Fartin' Poother Bling. Sam Cooke who sang some wonderful songs and whose "Change Is Gonna Come" became an anthem of the times died running naked after a woman. She shot him. LBJ was a slime-ball. GOP, the family values party, has been a den of homos and degenerates. Mormons are really hypocritical Mammonites.
Still, civilization is about the effort and the struggle to favor the noble over the ignoble. Given humans are really hairless apes, they sure aren't angels. Still, they don't have to be shameless demons either. But black culture, given the innate savagery of black nature and with egging on by nasty Jews, became brazenly ugly, trashy, and demented to the max. The music turned filthy and obscene. And black dance went from bumping-and-grinding to 'twerking'. This surely isn't a continuation of BIB but a break from it. BIB favored the Afro and rejected blacks imitating whiteness, but BGW is all about the 'weave'. BIB favored black men sticking with black women in the name of racial solidarity and appreciation of black females, but BWG is all about "We ni**az now be masters over fa**oty ass white boys who cuck at our feet while white biatches suc* our dic*s". BIB was assertive but not supremacist. It was about changing black self-image, not about making the world see blacks as superior. BWG is vulgar supremacism that says, because blacks are kings of NBA, rap & holler, invent dances like 'twerking', worship theyselves, and got bigger dongs, they should be worshiped and emulated by the whole world. It's supremacism based mostly on things that used to be disdained by civilization.
Why do Jews promote it? Jews control black bodies like they control globo-homo. Jews figure they will serve as the minds of globalism while blacks will serve as the body and homos will serve as the fingers. Jews got the wit and vision. Blacks got the prowess. Homos or Tinkerbells got the style and flair. All three groups went from self-assertion to supremacism. Jews once insisted on a fair shake in the Western Order and an end to 'antisemitism'. Blacks demanded an end to 'white racism', and homos said they wanted the freedom to be 'gay'. But, the three groups couldn't be content with equality for long because they realized they have certain notable advantages. Jews, as the smarter people, got richer and more powerful and figured they have the right to rule over dimwit goyim. Blacks, as they gained prominence in sports, went from insistence on racial equality to looking upon whites as 'fa**oty ass white boys who should serve da black master'. And just like white G.I.'s in postwar Japan came to despise Japanese men when Japanese women became willing whores of American military men, black men began to despise white men with the rise of Jungle Fever and cuckery. As for homos, their advantages in design & creativity and concentration in elite fields put them in contact with lots of rich and powerful people. As such, their attitude became neo-aristocratic. As homos love to cater to the rich and powerful, they became the favorite darlings of the Jewish Elites.

But then, to understand these changes of consciousness, we need to consider HBD and the reality of race and group differences. The change in attitudes among Jews, blacks, and homos owes to genetics. After all, would Jews have moved into supremacist mode if their average IQ were 100 or 90? Would blacks have gone from BIB to BWG if their genetics didn't favor them in sports, funky music, and fighting? Imagine if most blacks were like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman. Would homos have become nasty and haughty pricks if they didn't possess an edge in design, aesthetics, and style? Suppose whites were smarter than Jews, stronger than blacks, and more arts/culture obsessed than homos. The Empire would essentially be white supremacist even if the official ideology were egalitarian. Ideology is shaped by the factors of quality and quantity. Jewish communists were committed to egalitarian principles, but their quality of talent led to Jewish-domination in the early period of the USSR. Later, Soviet Union became more Russian-dominated due to the demographic-quantity advantage of white Russians. In quality, Jews were better than Russians, but in quantity, there were more Russians who gradually wore down Jewish power.

Because far from promoting real 'equality' the modern liberal ideology really preaches Black superiority – a special status for Blacks which cannot be symmetrically granted to White (or any other) people.

Actually, the official ideology preaches equality and 'race is just a social construct'. What is behind the cult of black superiority is Liberal IDOLATRY. One may even argue that idolatry colors the ideology, turning it into 'idology'. Same was true in communist nations. By ideology, all were equal, even the leaders. But the idolatry or the cult of personality of Stalin(or later Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, etc.) meant that idol > ideal. Most people, even smart ones, are slaves to emotions and sensations. The Stalin cult was intoxicating to the millions who came to worship him as a god. So, it didn't matter that communist ideology said everyone was equal. Emotionally and viscerally, many in the USSR revered Stalin as a demi-god. Ideologically, so-called Liberals may believe all lives are equally precious, but why do they favor Jewish lives over Arab ones? Jewish lives have been idolized by the cult of Anne Frank and other famous Jews. Arab lives are faceless. Again, idol > ideal. What Jews learned from advertising and electronic propaganda is that idols often trump ideals. Jews came to realize that Christianity had one tremendous advantage over Judaism and Islam. Whereas Judaism and Islam forbade idolatry, Christianity(especially Catholicism and Orthodox) employed it as propagandist tools of the Faith. (One reason why Protestantism has fared worse in the electronic era could be due to its drabber nature.) So, secular Jews were mindful to take over the power of idolatry. Therefore, Hollywood became the new vatican of globalist idol-worship. And all nations have been impacted by Negrolatry and Globo-Homo as just about every TV show and movie now must feature holy homo or jungle fever/faith. And of course, there is the obligatory Holocaust movie every year, not only from Hollywood but European nations.

Now, why have Jews chosen blacks and homos as the main idols? It's because both groups have natural advantages that are especially appealing in our age of vulgarity and licentiousness. Homos are shameless in their vanity, narcissism, and hedonism. They are naturally exhibitionist. Just like aristocrats loved to wear fancy things and strut around at dance parties, homos love to take over streets and show off their high heels and act whoopsy-doopsy. Buns-and-Funs is the new bread-and-circuses. While the Jew-Homo alliance wasn't inevitable — Jewish culture was traditionally the most anti-homo in history, and there was a time when Jewish Leftists tagged Hitler as a fruit — , the two groups have common biases and interests. Both have seen Christianity and traditional morality(of goyim and straights) as obstacles to their liberty and/or power. Both are minorities in almost all societies but with special talents. Both are heavily represented in arts, letters, and creative areas. Both tend to be more shameless than other groups. The Jewish reaction to Russians saying NO to globo-homo gave the game away. LGBTQ nonsense is proxy-power of Jews. Jews supported lesbians and homos to destroy Christianity by befouling churches with 'gay' colors that celebrate homo fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. In a way, homos should be anti-Jewish. After all, the pagan cultures that were most tolerant of homos were the ones condemned most by traditional Jews. The anti-homo position of Christianity has its roots in Judaism. St. Paul denounced the homosexuality of the Greeks.
But times change, and Jews have gone from traditional faith in God to a kind of neo-Satanism where they are into self-worship and care only about Power. In some ways, homos today are a weird bunch. They are usually associated with the 'left' and 'diversity' and 'equality', but homos are nothing if not elitist. Homos, with their obsession with aesthetics, are closer to Nazi beauty cultists. Homo nature isn't in sync with egalitarianism or humanism. Homos want the very best. They are into caviar and fancy jewelry. This is, of course, why the corporate capitalist elites hired homos to transform 'leftism' from class struggle ideology to ass-hustle idolatry. Indeed, consider the ways of Andrew Sullivan and Milo. Why are both into getting bung-donged by Negroes? Because they see black men as superior studs, and so their white bungs must take black dongs. Indeed, the fact that Milo is Jewish, homo, and into Jungle-Bungle-Fever makes him a perfect representative of the current supremacy. Then, why was he attacked by the Establishment? Because he spelled it all out. The Power promotes supremacist Idolatry(that Milo so colorfully represents) but still maintains the smokescreen of egalitarian ideology. After all, if like Milo, the Power spilled the beans on what is really up, its message to the world would be, "Jews should rule over dimwit goyim cuz they're smarter, homos should lord over you lame straights cuz they're more creative, and blacks should be worshiped by inferior non-blacks cuz they got more muscle and bigger dongs." And then, peoples all over the world would have to think about the contradictions between supremacist idolatry and egalitarian ideology of globalism, and the scales would soon fall off their eyes. Why would the Power want that? The Power knows it's more effective to push equality ideologically while celebrating supremacism 'idolatrically'. Stalinism did the same thing. Soviet ideology said Stalin was a humble servant of the people. As such, he was no better than any Soviet citizen... ideologically, that is. He was a good communist. But in terms of idolatry, he was superman, he was god, he was the sun. Assure everyone ideologically but intoxicate them 'idolatrically'. Ideologically, we are told Jews and Arabs are equal in worth. But in terms of idolatry, it's always about Israel, Israel, Israel, Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust, Anne Frank, Anne Frank, Anne Frank. Idolatry gives Jews a face while leaving Arabs faceless.

Indeed, one reason why the US used to be 'white supremacist' even when its ideology sincerely strove to be 'egalitarian' was because whites were the main idols in advertising, movies, and etc. For much of Hollywood history, even non-white parts went to whites, e.g. Marlon Brando as an Okinawan in TEA HOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON. And in Latin America, despite all the egalitarian ideological sermonizing, the idolatry is usually 'white supremacist', what with mostly white actors and stars hogging the TV shows, movies, and advertising. Part of the reason is white control of media there, but it could also be there's something about white aesthetics that has greater appeal the world over. In India, the 'Aryan'-looking types with lighter skin are usually favored in movies and advertising. Japanese culture is dominated by anime and manga where most characters are caricatures of whiteness idealized. South Korea has become plastic surgery capital of the world, and many dye their hair blonde. And blacks, despite all their yapping about black identity, go for hair-straightening or wigs. Black men prefer white women, and one reason why blacks welcome race-mixing is they want to appropriate more white looks for the black race. And Jewish men have long preferred blonde 'shikses'.

In the past, the ideology had no problem with white idolatry as the West was mostly white and proud of it. The problem today is whiteness is much denounced by the Narrative — "White Privilege is the product of whites having had it too good by exploiting and oppressing others(even though, in truth, widespread white affluence only became a reality AFTER World War II)" — but still remains the most desirable traits in the world. For example, despite the rise of Jungle Fever and black male idolatry, white males are still most sought after. (Affluent women of all races who seek sperm donors usually go for Nordic men.) And despite the success of black women in pop music, white women still top the charts in female desirability. Even non-whites who bitch about the white race all the time often seek out white mates. So, some black guy who is howling about evil whiteness could have a white ho or wife. A nasty yellow bitch spewing filth at whites could have a white boyfriend. Or a Latino who poses as a person-of-color and rails against the Gringo could actually be as ivory as any European. Furthermore, when we look at immigration patterns, the movement of countless feet indicates only one thing: Non-whites prefer to live as minorities in white worlds than as majorities in their own. So, they are closet-white-supremacists who prefer whiteness over their own kind, and so, their anti-whiteness is paradoxically a therapeutic exercise to conceal their slavish pro-whiteness. They are ashamed to admit they prefer whitey over their own kind. It's the same with Jews. They carry on and on about how 'whites suck, whites are bad, whiteness is evil, and etc', but if they really feel that way, why don't they all emigrate to non-white nations and live in harmony with wonderful non-whites? Whiteness in so many areas is most desired but also most derided. Indeed, it is most derided because those who desire it most are shamed to admit it. It's about time whites sang the Fleetwood Mac song to non-whites: "You Can Go Your Own Way". But of course, they don't want to because non-whites know they never had it so good as under or with whites. Sure, whites did lots of bad things around the world, but the reason why even savages in Africa have cell phones is due to whites. The only reason why China and India are now modern nations with airplanes and electronic communication is because of the West. And where would Jews be if they'd never moved to white nations?

Those who have read me in the past know that I don’t even accept the notion of “race” which, in my opinion, is wholly non-scientific.

That's insane. While the theory of race is problematic as the definition varies widely(and has yet to develop a scientific meaning), who can deny the existence of general human groups? Europeans and Asians evolved separately, and there are noticeable differences in appearance and temperament. Even among blacks in Africa, we can tell general differences among Somalis, Bushmen, and Nigerian Bantus. The peoples of the Americas may have originated in Asia, but over time, developed into separate 'races'. Scientifically, we can define race to mean 'subspecies', but unfortunately, 'race' is often used to mean just about anything. It is sometimes used as 'species', as in 'human race'. Sometimes, different nationalities are called races. Race isn't an exact category because subspecies can mate with one another. Whites and blacks can mate and produce mulattoes. Does that mean whites and blacks don't exist as races? But mulattoes are possible only because different races exist. You can't create a mulatto by mating a Swede with a Swede or by mating a Nigerian with a Nigerian. Likewise, Mestizo is the product of white mating with browns. Polar bears and brown bears can mate and produce fertile offspring. So, should we not consider polar bears and brown bears as different races of bears? Though they are categorized as different species of bears, they are really different subspecies because they can mate and produce fertile offspring. This is also true of wolves, dogs, and coyotes.

Racial differences are real and deeply impact the world. Chinese are rising in power because their racial characteristics allow for education, industry, and development. It's not just geography but geo-genetics. Different geographies and conditions led to different genetics. Why do Jews control the West? Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ due to cultural selection that favored scholar and merchant genes. Why do blacks now dominate sports in France and UK, and what are the ramifications of white worship of black idols in athletics and music? It's Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Why do Jews own NFL teams while blacks play in them? Why did Simon Mol, one Negro, spread HIV around so many Polish women? How did one Negro Mol nearly turned Poland into Moland? Because races are different, and Negroes got bigger dongs that turn on white ho's. If Russia let in tons of blacks, blacks would soon take over Russian sports, and Russian boys and girls would be like white boys and girls in the US, UK, and France who now worship black idols. RACE IS REAL.
Even among white groups, we can tell general differences due to genetic separation. Though Russians are white, why are they more likely to have Sluggo-heads than other white groups? Genetics. Look at the heads of Vladimir Putin, Fedor Emelianenko, and Yuri Gagarin. Though not only Russians have Sluggo-heads, more of them do than even other Slavs like the Poles. Why did Jews dominate the Russian economy in the 90s? They are smarter and savvier. What will happen if Russians take in lots of blacks? Blacks will become the idols of Russia, and Russians will become Russcucks. It's the truth.

The Empire is universally hated, and not just for its (very real) racism.
This would all be rather harmless and even comical if it weren’t for the 'other side of the ideological coin': the AngloZionist Empire has totally and comprehensively lost any kind of moral or political authority, both in the US and in the EU (as well as in the 5 Eyes nations and other US colonies like Germany or Japan).

But has it? Aren't you contradicting yourself? If the new religion of the Anglo-Zionist West is Negro-Worship, then George-Floyd riots all around the empire would seem to be validations of Imperial Authority. If the ruling elites of the US, the Donald included, honor the Tragic Magic Negro and IF all those subjects of vassal states do LIKEWISE, it suggests the US empire remains the trend-setter for minions all over the world. In a way, what we are seeing is akin to Roman Empire going from pagan rule to Christian rule. Romans used to be pagan and oppressive toward Christians. But when the Roman elites knelt before Jesus as the King of Kings, the new narrative/message was spread far and wide throughout the empire, and everyone had to bow down to the Messiah(who'd once been derided as a dead Jew on a stick). US power was once about Anglo-American prestige and Christian missionary might. But Jews took over and made themselves, blacks, and homos the new holy trinity. And it seems the US is very effective in disseminating this new official state religion. So, when all those in vassal states go into hysterics over the Magic Negro, they are really just bowing down to the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Of course, some sovereign nations — like China, Iran, and Venezuela — are cynically fanning the crisis, but that's not the case in nations like UK, Japan, Germany, France, and etc. If the ruling elites in China and Iran are merely exploiting the crisis to their advantage, the masses of brainwashed minions in vassal states are pouring into the streets in mindless worship of the Tragic-Magic Negro as the new christ. Thus, their supposed Resistance is just Obeisance to the Empire and its Deep State that is hellbent on totally destroying white America and Trump.

Btw, Zio-Angluck(or Anglo-Cuck) is a more accurate characterization of the US empire than 'Anglo-Zionist' because, while Jews constantly demonize 'white supremacism'(and even mere white identity, as in "It's Okay to be White"), whites and Wasps are always sucking up to Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionism, and Israeli hegemonism. When blacks accuse whites of 'white supremacism', Jews cheer them on, and so do the white cucks in the GOP. But when blacks make a fuss about Jewish Power, white cucks are the first ones to bark at blacks. White dogs get riled up at blacks ONLY WHEN black dawgs bark at the Jewish Master. When lack dawgs attack white dogs, the Jewish Master rewards the former with doggy biscuits, but when black dawgs yap at the Jewish Master, white dogs are the first to come to the defense of the Jewish Master. Anglos are now Anglucks. Pathetic.

In the past, the AngloZionist Empire was just as evil as it is today, but at least it had the means to provide a high degree of material welfare to its citizens, but now that the Empire is falling apart and in a major economic crisis, more and more people are turning their rage against their own government or, maybe even more accurately, against the obscenely wealthy ruling classes which have a total control of the US and/or EU political scene.

Not so. Blacks are rioting for free video games and gym shoes. Antifa are just degenerates who like to smash things, even when times are good. Blacks have been acting blackity-black forever, and most white protesters are not acting like Antifa. They are mostly cucks who just love to virtue-signal. There is NOTHING genuinely moral about their sanctimony. If they are truly moral, why were they silent about all those working class folks killed by opioids? Or all those innocents killed by Wars of Israel under Obama? For many of them, it's just another opportunistic political rally against Trump.

Also, due to dollar supremacy, high-tech dominance, tons of natural resources, and best farmlands in the world, Americans will never starve. Unlike past empires that were threatened with loss of empire, the US can lose all its imperial holdings around the world and still have a good life just by living off the fat of the American land.

Remember how George Orwell wrote in his masterpiece 1984 "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever"? I believe that a lot of people, Black and White, felt something similar when they saw the appalling footage of the slow murder of George Floyd by a gang of clearly stupid White cops.

This makes little sense. After all, those who make the biggest fuss about George Floyd are on the side of the Deep State, more repression, more censorship, more suppression of freedom, more Political Correctness, more witch-hunts. They were the ones who were FOR Covid-lockdowns and attacking those who called BS on the mass panic. Blacks, Antifa, and globalists are not for more freedom. They want the state to pull a coup on Trump, take guns away from whites, deny financial services to people they disagree with, shut down free speech(as 'hate speech'), and force globo-homo propaganda up everyone's bung. They are the red guards of Zio-Angluck capitalism. These are the same people who denounced Trump for daring to pull troops out of Syria. They didn't shed a tear for all the dead in Libya. They are for the BOOT. They want the BOOT to be on the face of whites forever. Steven Spielberg began LINCOLN with a black man's foot on the face of a dead white soldier. That is the message of these progs who cheer on Antifa that actually does the bidding of the Power.

Here's a foot on someone's face. Does anyone care? No. People care about George Floyd because a Negro turns magic when killed by a white cop.

Coming to a neighborhood near you when they defund the police. pic.twitter.com/kmRTVxudop

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) June 10, 2020

The Empire is taking a knee.
This is not unlike what happened to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s when basically the entire ruling elite felt that it had lost any will to stand up against the opposition and when it became trendy to bash everything Soviet (much of which very much deserved such bashing, but not everything!). That state of affairs led to, first, the collapse of the soviet society Soviet Union in 1991 and, second, the collapse of the Russian society in 1993.

The Empire is taking a knee to whom? No, the empire is trying to knee Trump's balls by making him out to be the 'racist' bad guy, thus making blacks stick with the Democratic Party. Also, the Jewish elites, by pretending to care about George Floyd, are trying to cover up the fact that Jews led the way in tougher policing and gentrification to make cities safer from black crime. And they are getting away with this BS. The Deep State and Zionists aren't taking the knee to anyone. They are just pulling a Color Revolution against Trump. They are just indulging and manipulating the childish black mind. The really goofy thing is Trump himself is a puppet of Zion, but Jews will not tolerate a 99% puppet. They demand a 100% one. The worldwide unrest is being used by Jews and globalists to push the Narrative, "Good peoples all protest Evil Trump and the white 'racists' who support him." And so many people, even Trump, are cucking to this Narrative.

The comparison with the fall of the USSR doesn't make much sense. After all, the problem of the USSR wasn't merely political. It was EVERYTHING. The store shelves were empty or stocked with inferior goods. People came to rely on the black market for essentials. The entire system was in turmoil and disarray, especially as Gorbachev's reforms only made things worse by localizing the economy without proper incentive structures. Under Gorby, Soviet people found out that half-hearted communism is worse than full communism, and they had yet to figure out a way to transition to a market economy with property rights backed by rule of law.
In contrast, the US has no problems with production. If anything, the current problem around the world is glut. Too much of everything. For all the talk of poverty, obesity among the poor is a bigger problem than hunger. There would have been no riots if the store shelves were empty. Negroes looted cuz there were lots to steal... and it's only a matter of time before the shelves will be filled with goods again. So, any comparison with the USSR is dubious.

The problem with the US is the crisis of authority. Jews got the power but won't admit it. Whites cuck to Jews, and one of the Jewish Demands is that the myth of 'white supremacy' be perpetuated. Jews need the myth to (1) hide their dominant power and (2) to keep whites paralyzed with shame & guilt, therefore subservient to Jews(and their allies). But this arrangement is close to surreal. Even though Jews got supremacist control over whites in reality, whites who cuck to Jews like pathetic dogs must pretend they got white privilege built on white supremacism that must be expunged from American politics and society. Whites must play the roles of both 'white supremacists' and hapless toadies to Jews. The problem is further complicated by Negrolatry that says blacks got the most moral authority due to American History(never mind the American Indians) and therefore deserve to rule as the children of MLK, BUT they seem unable to. The real reason for the black lag is, of course, that too many blacks aren't high enough in IQ or apply themselves to schoolwork, but the official reason is always 'white supremacism', even though whites spiritually cuck at the altar of Jungle Faith and grovel at the feet of Jewish Supremacists.

For all the financial problems, the US economy still produces more than enough food. The global economy fills American shelves with all sorts of stuff, cheaper than ever due to low labor costs in China, India, Mexico, and world over. However, there is a crisis of authority and accountability because so many people are clueless about who has the real power and what is really going on. Consider. There was three yrs of totally nonsensical Russia Collusion Hoax, but so many people, from deep state elites to cat ladies watching Rachel Maddow, either pushed it or swallowed it. When Obama was the puppet monkey of the Jews, whole bunch of conservatives worried that he might be a 'Stealth Muslim'. Right, a 'stealth muslim' who pushed 'gay marriage' and waged more Wars for Israel. At the very least, the people of the Soviet Union knew who were in charge during communist rule. Today, too many people have no idea who is in control. It's certainly not the Orange Man who got just about nothing done except to shovel more money at Wall Street. The official narrative says Blacks are so wonderful and should rule, but most prominent blacks are either puppets, tokens, or symbols. So much is said of the specter of 'white supremacy' haunting every facet of American Society, but whites in deep state and elite institutions are worthless cucks who do as Jews order them to. If white supremacy really did rule America, people would at least know who's in control. But despite all the talk of 'white supremacy', all we see is white cuckery. Maybe the homos are in control, but homos are nothing without Jewish Power. Jews are, of course, in control, but they use their power to hide their power. With such political Houdinism, there is bound to be a crisis of authority in the US. And in Europe as well. Even though European nations seem led by European leaders, they are all vassals of the US empire that is the property of the Empire of Judea. If white Americans are cucks, Europeans are double-cucks who must cuck to white Americans who cuck to Jews. But since the Narrative says that whites suck while blacks are holy, all these white cuck elites make a big show of 'checking white privilege' while extolling the virtues of blacks who, as yet, haven't shown the proficiency to rule or govern anything. So, the power game in the West is like the scene in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST where no one wants to come out and take the blame for the ruckus.

So what can decent people do next?
Well, for one thing we don’t have to chose between White and Black racism. In fact, the only logical (and moral) stance today is to reject any and all forms of racism, very much including the Hollywood-promoted anti-White (and, I would add, anti-family, anti-male and anti-Christian) and pro-Black racism.

What people need to do is choose nationalism over globalism. They need to choose rational race-ism and reject radical racism. If you're white, you should have white racial consciousness while respecting other races and their identities. The real and realistic choice is not between 'racism' and no-racism but between radical/supremacist racism and sane/rational race-ism. First of all, whites must reject the term 'racism'. So much confusion owes to the misuse of the term. If people understand 'race-ism' to mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences, scales will fall from their eyes. For instance, there is so much talk about how so many blacks fail in American schools because of 'racism'. Liberals and blacks blame the system, while many Conservatives say, "No, blacks fail not because of racism but because they don't apply themselves or because Liberals pushed bad values on the black community." Or, dissident right will say, "No, it's not due to racism but due to lower IQ and less impulse control among blacks." Such unnecessary confusion is due to using 'racism' in a misguided way.
Ism means belief, so why should race + ism mean "evil white supremacists making it worse for other races"? Race + Ism should mean belief in the reality of races and the differences among races.
So, in response to the charge that too many blacks fail in school due to 'racism', the answer should be YES, the reasons are race-ist. Races are real. Racial differences are real. Evolution made black genetics more oriented to warrior, hunter, and thug activities. Evolution is race-ist because it led to the rise of different races. Why else do blacks dominate French sports? It's evolution that made for racial differences. Why else do Jews dominate Wall Street? It's race-ist evolution. Why do blacks act more violently in schools? Because race-ism is true. Blacks are racially different and more prone to fighting and aggression. Ism means belief, Ism means belief, and Race + Ism, properly understood, explains so much. But the term has been willfully misconstrued to sow confusion in our minds.

The thing about race-ism is it will not ignore you even if you ignore it. Race-ism is the truth. Race-ism is what nature would believe if it had a mind. Nature practices race-ism because evolution is about divergences. A single species can diverge into various subspecies(races) that, over time, can develop into separate species. At one time, the apes that eventually evolved into humans were a different race within the same ape species that spawned the chimpanzees. The apes that eventually became humans and the apes that eventually became chimpanzees belong to the same species. But over time, they diverged further and further and became separate species. One bunch of apes became the chimps and another bunch of apes became the proto-human apes that eventually became human. So, race-ism is a process within evolution. As one species cannot instantly turn into another species, it must go through intermediary processes of 'raciation' that eventually lead to the rise of a new species. Though all human races still belong within the same species, the differences are as notable as the differences between brown bears and polar bears or among wolves, coyotes, and various breeds of dogs. Compare the Lapps of Finland with the ghastly Negroes of South Africa or Sudan. Compare the Swedes with the Amazonian Indians. Compare the Tibetans with Australian Aborigines. Compare the Japanese runts with the Maori savages. So, we can ignore race all we want, but it will not ignore us. Europeans can ignore the factor of race as rising numbers of monstrous black African savages flood into Europe. But it won't be long before they realize the impact of Africanization. It's like one can ignore cancer as reality but it won't ignore the one once it begins to spread.

All peoples must know these facts: Jews are smarter. Blacks are tougher. So, if your nation takes in Jews and blacks and then allows inter-meritocracy for all peoples, the result will NOT be equality but domination of elite institutions/industries by Jews and domination of sports, pop music, & sex culture by blacks. Don't we see this pattern all around? Do Gypsies control finance in UK? Do Vietnamese dominate sports in France? Every people should know of their own race, its advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis other races. And they should do whatever is necessary to protect their institutions, industries, iconography, and idols from the Other.

What must whites seek above all? Liberation. Whites are so used to ruling and dominating the world that their mindset is still stuck in old habits and old ways. In that way, there is still a legacy of 'white privilege'. But today, whites must think more like Algerians & Vietnamese under French rule, Hindus under British rule, Poles under Russian rule, Russians under Mongol rule, Greeks under Turkish rule, and etc. They must think in terms of liberation, or white liberation or white national liberation. Best way to counter the charges of 'white supremacism' is that your side is seeking white liberation. Liberation from what? That is when you explain that whites are now under the tyranny of Jewish globalist finance-media-deep-state and black thuggery, terror, & violence. There is no other way.