Whoopie Goldberg's Problem with Jews — 'White' and 'Black' in US Political Context — False Morality of the Holocaust Narrative — Sarah Silverman's Bogus Outrage about Jews being Denied Roles in Hollywood

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/whoopi-gets-a-whipping/

French eighteenth century journalist and propagandist Jacques Mallet du Pan coined the adage that “A l’exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants,” frequently translated as “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its own children.”

“Revolution devours its own children” doesn’t apply here. It would if Jews were destroying other Jews in a mad frenzy of purity spirals. But Jewish Power, both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, tend to remain united through thick and thin. The Tribe remains intact. In this case, Jews all across the ideological spectrum closed ranks to denounce an uppity Negress who dared to point out that Jewish Power historically operated at elite ranks of society. The Holocaust wasn't about powerful white Germans oppressing weak Jewish whites but about powerful German whites versus powerful Jewish whites. But Jews are invested in portraying themselves as victims, all the better to justify their immense power and supremacist grip on the West, thereby the Rest as well. So, it's hardly surprising that virtually all Jews joined in solidarity to dump on Whoopie.

Indeed, it’s been the case that Jews generally don’t destroy other Jews(with some notable exceptions like Norman Finkelstein and David Cole). Jews stick together. In contrast, goyim tend to devour fellow goyim in radical times. Why? Because whereas Jews put identity before ideology, goyim(generally possessing weaker identities) tend to put ideology first and foremost, thereby getting sucked into purity spirals. So, Russian communists destroyed so many fellow Russians. Chinese communists destroyed so many fellow Chinese. In contrast, Zionism was the Jewish Left and Jewish Right united by identity over ideology. Jews are smarter that way. Also, Jewish communists were less likely to be outright murderous toward Jewish capitalists and vice versa.

Specifically, Goldberg, who is no critic of Jews or Israel and is as willing to submit to proskynesis before Zionist force majeure as anyone in the entertainment industry, said “Let’s be truthful, the Holocaust isn’t about race, it’s not. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man, that’s what it’s about. These are two groups of white people.”

Goldberg’s statement makes sense within the more recent American context where all peoples of European descent, including European-Jewish, have been categorized as ‘white’. After all, Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, Greek-Americans, and etc. all simply became ‘white’. And Jews counted as ‘white’ too, though with special exemptions(like the burden of 'white guilt'). So, Whoopie’s American-centric view failed to appreciate the significance of ethnicity in the Old World. Ethnic distinctions also mattered in the American Past, but most peoples of European origin just melded into ‘whiteness’, just like black Africans of various tribal origins simply became 'black', which also includes mulattos.
Of course, this poses problems of its own. For example, it means even white Americans of Polish origin with no history of colonizing Africa, practicing the Atlantic Slave Trade, and owing slaves in the South — if anything, Jews were more involved in that — must bear the burden of ‘white guilt’. Also, there's no sense of Poland's history of oppression under Russians and Germans. Or, you could be of Lithuanian origin, but there's no special regard for Lithuanian tragedy in the great wars and under Soviet domination — most Lithuanians, like many Europeans, had a far more difficult time in the 20th century than most blacks in America. The moment any Lithuanian's foot sets down in the US, he too counts as 'white' (in the American sense of the term) and is associated with 'white privilege'. You could be a recent immigrant from Romania, and you too would be stained with ‘white guilt’ despite having no roots in America. In contrast, you could be an African immigrant whose ancestors actually captured and sold black slaves to white slave ships, but your blackness automatically becomes associated with cotton gins, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Movement. So, your identity is aglow with special consideration merely for being black and instantly showered with all sorts of Affirmative Action advantages. THAT is the real idiocy of racial politics in the US. Recently arrived black Africans whose ancestors massively profited from the slave trade are lumped into the Black American Narrative, and white ethnic groups(with tragic horror stories of their own) who arrived post-Civil-War and had nothing to do with the oppression of black Americans are lumped in with America's 'racist' past. And it's almost always about blacks. Take Scandinavian-Americans in Minnesota who, if they have some blood on their hands, played a role in the expulsion of the American Indians. One thing for sure, they had nothing to do with black American history, yet, their primary moral responsibility is toward blacks, much like the people of Sweden have been goaded into playing savior for all of Africa, even at the risk of losing their native land to migrant-invaders.

At any rate, as Whoopie is ignorant of European History, her 'provincial' black-American mind lumps all peoples of European origin into the generic category of ‘white’. She’s unaware of the powerful ethnic hatreds and resentments throughout European History, which ebbed since the end of WWII but flared up in fracturing Yugoslavia of the 90s. Worse, ethnic hostilities have recently been stoked in Ukraine, pitting one bunch of Slavs against another. Jewish-controlled US that controls EU made it fashionable for Western globalists to hate Russians(and Hungarians) for rejecting the cult of Globo-Homo and for reinvigorating traditionalism and ethno-preservation.

In a way, the deracinated ‘deracists’ are now the most hostile people in the West toward other whites. ‘Deracist’ whites in the US hate white patriots(deemed as 'racist') for having retained or revived some semblance of ethnic or racial identity and pride, and ‘deracist’ whites in Europe hate nationalist whites who regard mass immigration and great replacement as existential challenges.

Of course, deracination or ‘deracism’ is really a tool of Jewish Supremacism as it's directed at goy whites, not at Jews. Though white dummies or whummies take it to heart as virtue, most Jews are careful not to drink the 'deracist' kool-aid themselves. After all, even as white ethnic identity has been shamed and subverted, Jewish identity has only been further emboldened. But then, Jews will opportunistically encourage ultra-ethnic politics among goyim IF it can be directed against another bunch of goyim on the shit-list of Jewish Power. So, even as Jews denounce moderate Hungarian nationalism, they fan the flames of ultra-right nationalism in Western Ukraine against the Russian population in Eastern Ukraine. It's also why Jews, who generally deride goy nationalism, support Kurdish nationalism as it is useful against Arab, Persian, and Turkish rivals of Israel. There is no principle to Jewish Power. It’s always a matter of “Is it good for Jewish Power?”

While the Shoah was clearly about man’s inhumanity to man, it was also an extreme reaction to Jewish inhumanity to goyim. If Jewish behavior hadn’t been so excessive, would the National Socialists have come to power in Germany? No, one-third of Germans bit the bullet and voted for National Socialism in 1933 because they just about had had enough with bad Jewish behavior. (Some may argue George Soros and his ilk act destructively toward the West to avenge their fallen tribesmen in the Holocaust, but many Jews acted the same way BEFORE World War II, which is what paved the way for men like Hitler in the first place. Furthermore, Jews act the same way toward non-Western goyim. Soros sure raped the economies of Asia, and Neocon Jews concocted foreign policy to rain down maximum pain upon the Arab World.)
Of course, even those who voted for Hitler didn’t vote for war and genocide. The fact that the Nazis went out of their way to hide the horrors in the killing fields and certain concentration camps is proof that they understood all too well that mass killing was too much even for most ‘anti-semites’. Likewise, the Soviets and their useful idiots denied the Great Famine. Even as millions of Ukrainians perished, the official line was the New Order resulted in bountiful harvests and more food for everyone than before.
That said, both National Socialism and Communism were extreme reactions to real problems. Jewish Power was understandably hated for its exploitative, subversive, parasitic, and supremacist ways. And the appeal of communism owed to real problems of class exploitation under either aristocratism or capitalism.

 Still, there were more rational and sensible ways to deal with the problems, as opposed to the radical way, which ends up committing great evil in the name of fighting a great evil. Sadly, when people are driven to the edge, they tend toward extremism. A good lesson would be “don’t drive people to the edge”, but it's a lesson self-aggrandizing Jews never seem to learn as, time and time again, they're hellbent on driving goyim to the edge once again, whereupon goyim can submit and fall into the abyss and take the last stand with zealous fury. It must be said rational, moderate, and sensible opportunities were often lost in addressing the Jewish Question/Problem because Jews refused to meet the other side halfway. If one side does wrong and infuriates other sides, it's usually helpful if the former acknowledges accountability at least in part. Then, a series of negotiations can take place where lessons are learned and the problem is settled more or less. But when Jews refuse to admit any wrong and are utterly intolerant of any criticism of Jewish abuses, the wronged party may conclude there is no rational, moderate, or sensible option when dealing with Jews. It becomes a zero-sum game of Jews win and take all OR goyim win and take all. The radical will of Jews had a way of radicalizing the other side. Will Jews ever admit that German radicalism under National Socialism owed in part to utter lack of Jewish accountability in regard to the woes of Weimar Germany and Bolshevik conflagration in the East? If anything, Jewish sense of moral culpability has grown only worse following World War II. Full of themselves as the Holy Holocaust People, their every abuse is laundered as a righteous expression of "Never Again". 

So, there's no discussion of the murderous Jewish role in communism. Jews whine about Joe McCarthy and HUAC but ignore Jewish role in Soviet espionage. Jews pushed a total lie about USS Liberty and never came clean. They pull every trick in the book to get the worst Jewish crooks pardoned by puppet-presidents. Jonathan Pollard for one is sitting warm and cozy in Israel giving a big fat middle finger to the US. There's been zero accountability about Nakba and the Neocon Wars that killed so many. Or, what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s, which led to Putin's rise. Jews never admit any wrong and blame everything on 'Russian aggression'. No Neocon Zionist, whose foreign policy proposals have turned out to be disastrous, has paid a professional price or expressed any contrition. If anything, they've been placed in elite positions in the media to spread more lies in service to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews act this way, even those who desire a moderate, sensible, and rational solution to the Jewish Problem is pushed to extremes because Jews themselves are extreme. If someone burns your house down and admits no guilt(and if anything sends you the medical bill for the burns he suffered while torching your house), the chances are you're going to become 'anti-semitic' and counter-extreme against the vile extremism of the Jew.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it assumes that Jews were wholly innocent pure-as-snow angels but set upon by crazed Anti-Semites for no reason at all. This is utter BS, rather like arguing Japan and Germany were smashed in WWII just for the hell of it.

If another Jewish Holocaust were to happen now, it’d be a horrible crime, BUT once again, it would have been an extreme reaction to vile and obnoxious behavior by Jewish Power: financial shenanigans, murderous foreign policy, medical tyranny, political subversion, cultural degeneracy, and etc. One may argue NOTHING justifies genocide, but people driven to the edge tend towards the extreme. It's just part of human nature under duress or in a state of outrage. Take the Morgenthau Plan. Henry Morgenthau the Jew was understandably appalled by Nazi atrocities and wanted revenge on the Germans. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. US went crazy from the war. Palestinian terrorism has been reaction to Jewish Nakba, and Israeli bombings of Gaza are extreme reaction to Palestinian harassment via constant rocket attacks.
In his autobiography, Woody Allen wrote of his sympathy with black rage and commendation for any amount of black violence against whites, however extreme. Blacks have the right to attack whitey. (Predictably, the book was much praised by cucky National Review.) Allen’s moral logic is hardly different from that of antisemitism. If blacks, feeling so terribly aggrieved, are justified in committing extreme violence on whites(even indiscriminately), then one could argue Germans and their collaborators felt similarly justified in their anti-Jewish violence in reaction to Jewish perfidy.

The lesson of the Shoah should not only have been “genocide(especially of Jews) is a great evil” but “try not to act in a manner that stirs up great hatred against your kind.” The tragedy of the Holocaust Narrative is it taught one lesson at the expense of the other instead of emphasizing both. Paradoxically, it has effectively turned Jews and their cuck-collaborators into the New Nazis as the Holocaust Narrative unwittingly(or maybe wittingly) became synonymous with Jewish Supremacy. If Jewish-Gentile History is about totally innocent Jews being set upon by totally loathsome goyim, it means Jews are innately noble and therefore could never have done wrong, which further indicates that any anti-Jewish expression or action among goyim must ENTIRELY be their fault and never the fault of Jewish attitude or behavior. The presumption that says Jews can be wronged but can never do wrong is essentially supremacist because it stems from the conceit of Jewish moral perfectionism, as if every Jew is a little jesus.

Such outlook can only further Jewish arrogance and supremacism. After all, Jews would feel that they, as a race of Anne Franks, must always be right while those at odds with their identity or interests must be 'anti-semitic' reprobate scum. Then, is it any wonder that Jewish Power in the 21st century has waged wars that have led to the deaths of so many? Jews, being a race of Anne Franks, feel they have the license to judge, sentence, and kill, and it's the way things should be because Jews are never do wrong and can only be wronged.

Palestinians sure know how this game works. Jews can encroach ever more into remaining Palestinian territory, but Jews have the total support of US and EU under the spell of Anne-Frankism. As for Palestinians, they are a bunch of ‘terrorists’ and ‘anti-semites’ for resisting Jewish occupation and colonization.

And in the US, Jews, as the Perfect Race, can wage endless wars on whites and whiteness. As Jews are deemed to be morally perfect, their murderous hatred toward whites not only gets a pass but underpins the national narrative and curriculum as a 'moral' imperative. Jewish supremacist contempt is deemed as 'justice', whereas white desire for identity and heritage are condemned as 'far right' hatred. But if you call out on Jewish hatred against your kind, YOU are an ‘anti-semite’ who deserves to be dehumanized and destroyed.

The Holocaust Narrative would have done real good if the lesson were, “Jews must act better because bad behavior can lead to the rise of demagogues like Hitler.” Instead, Jewish Power led Anne-Frank-worshiping goyim to concur that Jews have always innocent(and right and noble), and all tensions between Jews and goyim had entirely been the fault of the latter. But without criticism, bad Jewish behavior only becomes worse. And today, it is utterly rotten. Who would have thought US foreign policy would come to be dictated by harridans like Victoria Nuland and US domestic policy would be directed by lawfare gangstoids like Merrick Garland who pushes anti-white CRT down the throats of white school children?

“The Holocaust was about the Nazi’s systemic annihilation of the Jewish people — who they deemed to be an inferior race. They dehumanized them and used their racist propaganda to justify slaughtering 6 million Jews. Holocaust distortion is dangerous.”

While it’s true that Nazism was rife with contempt and hatred for the Jewish People, there was also fear and anxiety about Jewish superiority. While Nazis were loathe to admit Jewish superiority in anything, they had genuine trepidations about predatory Jewish Power. Germans had a strong dose of Jewish Craziness in the Weimar Period. Germans learned of what Jewish Bolsheviks had done in Russia. Also, Germans hated the fact that World Jewry gained considerable influence over Anglosphere and steered its peoples toward intense animus toward Germans, their racial cousins. Also, speaking of racial supremacy, Anglo World was hardly different from the German one, and World Jewry worked hand-in-glove with Anglo global supremacism to penetrate all corners for the world for control and exploitation.

Nazis most likely wouldn’t have pushed for outright genocide IF World Jewry hadn’t declared war on Germany. Indeed, the preferred policy was mass expulsion than mass extermination. But as Jewish Power had used its influence to turn Anglo World against Germany and as German war efforts seemed doomed in Russia, Nazis decided to pull all stops in their war on Jewry as revenge and last chance at 'victory'. Fated for defeat, Germans would take down as many Jews as possible with them, a kind of Nazi Samson Option. (Jewish mentality isn't all that different. Israel has hundreds of nukes and is dedicated to nuking all of Europe if Israel were to fall, EVEN IF Europeans didn't cause the fall. The way Jews see it, whites exist to serve Jews and ensure the survival of Zion. So, if whites fail in this, Jews should wipe out as many whites as possible as Israel falls, presumably to Arabs/Muslims.) Same happened in Rwanda where the genocide got especially heated it seemed Hutus would be defeated by the Tutsis. Kill as many Tutsis before the Tutsis wipe the floor with the Hutus.

Little Marco denounced “upscale liberals who control the media” in a tweet and was immediately attacked for “the anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the media,” which of course they do, but an ardently pro-Israel Rubio surely was not suggesting anything like that.

If the perception of “Jews control the media” is ‘antisemitic’ and if Jews do indeed control the media, isn’t Jewish Behavior ‘antisemitic’ as it fulfills an ‘antisemitic trope’? If “Jews controlling the media” is antisemitic, then Jews should relinquish their control of the media because it’d be ‘antisemitic’ for Jews to control the media.
It’s like, if the statement “Italians are prominent in organized crime” is anti-Italian, then Italians are ‘anti-Italian’ because they are indeed disproportionately involved in organized crime, thereby fueling an 'anti-Italian trope'. But then, none of this is about truth or principles. It’s about power. Jews got the power and decide what we can and can’t say. That’s about it.

(Sarah) Silverman has been on a roll complaining about the paucity of “Jewfaces” displayed playing obviously Jewish characters on television or in movies…. she is particularly incensed that a non-Jewish woman Helen Mirren is playing Golda Meir in an upcoming movie. Silverman is enraged that anyone but a Jew should be cast in roles “in which Jewishness is an inherent and substantive component.”

Her outrage is fake, and she knows it. She’s feigning outrage to portray the Jews as poor little victims. She knows Hollywood has been Jewish-controlled and that goyim have often been cast as Jews for pro-Jewish reasons. One reason is ‘Aryan’ types are deemed more attractive. It was more glamorous to have Charlton Heston play Moses and Ben-Hur. Indeed, even big Jewish stars often looked rather ‘Aryan-ish’, like Kirk Douglas, or was half-‘Aryan’, like Paul Newman.

Jews figured their public image would be improved by Aryan-types playing Jews. If Jewish characters look more Aryan, goy whites are more likely to identify with the Jews. Like Aidan Quinn as a Jew in Barry Levinson's AVALON. Ingrid Bergman played Golda Meir in an earlier TV show. Jews worry that Jewish characters played by very-Jewish-looking characters will elicit less sympathy and identification on the part of goyim. So, goy-playing-Jew, far from being a marginalization of Jews, has been a calculated move to make Jewishness more attractive and palatable to goyim. Silverman surely knows this, and so her complaint is full of shit. Take the film JULIA directed by Fred Zinnemann based on the life of Lilian Hellman. Hellman wasn’t an attractive woman, and guess who played her? Jane Fonda. But this decision was made by Jews, not by goyim. But will Silverman blame the Jews? Of course not. The vile Jewess only seeks to create the impression that poor little Jews are being denied roles in Hollywood because of… ‘anti-semitic discrimination’. ROTFL. Never mind the only roles that Arabs got from Hollywood were as subhuman terrorists.

WHOOPIE GOLDBERG’S HOLOCAUST BOO-BOO - Brother Nathanael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOY'S GUIDE TO KEEPING KOSHER - Brother Nathanael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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