Jared Taylor ponders, ‟Black Crime: Why Our Rulers Hide It‟. He should also ponder, ‟Jewish Power, Why I Won‛t Address It‟

Black Crime: Why Our Rulers Hide it.

Hiding the truth is an essential part of this colossal fraud of pretending that this multi-racial society is going to work and — worst of all — that if it isn’t working it’s *our* fault. We’re supposed to believe that blacks and Guatemalans and Muslims would be just like us if only we would be nice to them. You can’t build a nation by hiding the truth. You destroy a nation by hiding the truth. And that is exactly what’s happening to the United States.

BLACK CRIME: WHY OUR RULERS HIDE IT - American Renaissance

"Black Crime: Why Our Rulers Hide It"

Okay... but how about "Jewish Power: Why Jared Taylor Won't Name It"

So much truth and untruth. In the above remark, Jared Taylor's standing as a bold critic and his reputation as a craven cuck both come into focus. In the video, he goes on and on about black violence and crime, something all of us in the racial-reality-sphere is well aware of. I suspect plenty of Democrats, mainstream Republicans, and 'censorals'(which are what so-called censorship-crazed 'liberals' really are) know the actual facts on the ground as well, but as 'Blaconography' and 'Blacrements' are of the pseudo-spirituality of the age, it would be neo-blasphemous to speak the obvious.

How could anyone fail to notice that black violence and criminality are the main causes of urban decay? But then, even as people's gut feelings are informed by raw reality, their deep sense of Good vs Evil and the Sacred vs the Profane are instilled and cultivated by indoctrination, narratives, rapture, & idolatry/iconography; and the academia & media that offer glowing images and moving tales are in the hands of the Anti-Whites. So, even as one may be rattled as a witness or victim of black street crime, such is an animal response. It's intense and powerful but hardly inspiring or uplifting. At the very least, if race-ist(meaning race + ism = belief in the reality of race and racial differences) realities were accepted as common knowledge, people could honestly process instances of black violence they've either witnessed, heard about(from friends, family members, or co-workers), or experienced. But, because what should be a matter of open knowledge and discussion is suppressed by the taboo mechanism of Negrolatry, mental processes simply fail among many who feel dirty and 'sinful' for their negative emotions and fears(about foul Negro behavior).

So, they draw themselves even nearer to the narratives and idolatry of Black Sacredness to repress their inner 'racist' doubts about the project of racial integration and America finally realizing redemption and true greatness through the Sacred Negro Heart. After all, MLK is now bigger than all the white men of US history, and Harriet Tubman than all the white women. 'Good' whites have been taught that white 'racism' once denied justice and opportunity to innately noble blacks(who have real souls whereas whites got 'holes' instead), and therefore, whites must profusely beg forgiveness and mend past wrongs by making ever bigger gestures of atonement.
No wonder then that one of the great white fantasies is to root for black success, triumph, and riches, indeed to want blacks to succeed more than oneself and one's people. Take Michelle Obama, an affirmative action fool, but she is the idol of so many urban-gentry white women who feel personally invested in her success(despite bogusly acquired) on account that Michelle Obama represents what Harriet Tubman could have been had she lived in a just society.
Now, there's nothing wrong with rooting for past underdogs to do well in the present, but the sheer exaggeration of black achievements is way out of proportion, what with so-called 'well-educated liberals' solemnly intoning about Neil DeGgrassie Tyson as a great scientific mind or pretending Tehinisi Coates or Ibrahim Kendi X are 'intellectual heavyweights' and our moral betters. In just about every white American heart, there is a tug-of-war between the reality of black thuggery and the myth of black nobility, with no resolution in sight(except in sports and rap, where the thug-factor is a big turn-on for jungle-feverish whites in awe of black toughness). For one to accept the reality, one must do away with the myth of Negro Nobility, and to maintain the myth, one must suppress the facts of black thuggery. Generally, people like warmth more than cold, and facts are often cold and hard, whereas myths glow with hope and dreams. Unless the facts are overwhelming and inescapable, people generally favor the myth, and this is why so many whites are so hopeless in their fantasies of the Negro as a figure of divinity, like with Morgan Freeman dispensing hickory-smoked wisdom long-forgotten by whites and retrievable only through the Negro soul.

So many people, including plenty of so-called ‘conservatives’, willfully or disingenuously disregard the facts about race, and people like Jared Taylor certainly have a leg-up on them on matters of racial truth. But, Taylor’s blind-spot blocks him from realizing he’s guilty of the same failing that he accuses the ‘woke’ and cucky whites of. Perhaps, it’s not a blind-spot but a sensitive issue he is very much aware of but overlooks for the time being for strategic reasons, i.e. eventually the ultra-rich and high-IQ Jews will see the light and realize their future can only be secured in an alliance with whites.
But, it seems less a strategy than a matter of desperation, like the Hail Mary pass in the last seconds of the fourth quarter of a football game. After all, the clock is running out for the white race, and there are no signs that Jews will ever regard whites as equal partners or even junior partners. Jews must have their ethno-supremacist hegemonism over the world, and whites are acceptable only as servants, agents, managers, and soldiers(or dogs and horses).

Perhaps, Jews are gravely miscalculating their future odds by pinning their supremacist dominance on the subjugation and humiliation of whites(though, of course, the white collaborators, or House Honkeys, are fulsomely rewarded with carrots), but that’s how they think and operate. At the very least, Jewish forecast of future events, however misguided it may be, is nevertheless far less delusional and demented than the white race-realist hope that there will one day be a secular conversion of the Jews towards a defense of the white race and civilization.
In other words, Jewish delusions are still less nutty than those of Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, and the like. In the 1980s and 1990s, whites on the American Right may have felt encouraged with their inroads into the Jewish Community, but what they ended up with were the Neocons. Besides, it wasn’t so much a case of the American Right winning over the Jews but Jews worming into the American Conservatism to remake it into yet another vehicle(and battleship) for Jewish Power.
Indeed, the ONLY racial angle that Neocons ever cared about was Jewish identity and interests embodied by Zionism and Yinonism. Neocons, insistent upon whites serving Jews, worked with Neo-Lib Jews to suppress any last vestige of white identity, pride, and interests. Neocons weren’t Jews allied with white conservatives against Jewish so-called Liberals but Jewish ‘conservatives’ working with Jewish ‘liberals’ behind the scenes to manipulate white conservatives into serving Jews, much like how Jewish ‘liberals’ had manipulated white liberals for the same purpose. Neocons fulfilled the Jewish Dream of gaining total control of both political parties. Democratic Party had traditionally been the base of Jewish Power, and the GOP became yet another Jewish tool through the machinations of Neocons who ran circles around the likes of Bill Buckley who proved to be weak men.

Over time, patterns emerge, and one can't help but notice Taylor has been willfully leaving out the Jewish Factor in his criticism and commentary. This seems odd when the group most responsible for his marginalization and deplatforming has been Jewish. Is Taylor fearful of Jews? They’ve done much to destroy his life and reputation, but can they do even more to totally break him? Or, is Taylor’s last conceit of ‘respectability’ — “At least, I'm not like David Duke or Richard Spencer” — , which gains him access to a few venues available for American Renaissance conferences, so precious to him that he won’t go all the way and name the Jewish Power, whereupon he will be shut out from absolutely everything?

At any rate, there are parallels between the Jewish Strategy and the Taylor Strategy. Jews(who control academia, media, deep state, and whore politicians) remain silent about black thuggery, criminality, and pathology for the same reason that Taylor remains silent about Jewish subversion, gangsterism, and pathology. An ulterior motive is at work in the tactical silence about certain topics to gain a bigger advantage. Jews-in-the-know(and most Jews know far more than they let on to the dimwit goyim) privately understand what Taylor means about racial differences and black problems. Jews have long done business with blacks, and they have as many gripes about blacks as blacks do about Jews. It’s true Jews fleeced many blacks, but blacks were often obnoxious, derelict, and unreliable(and whatever they earned, they blew on bling like idiots); and wherever possible, blacks stole and grabbed whatever they could from Jews. Jews know racial differences are real and all that. But that knowledge, if made public and acceptable, could undermine Jewish Power that relies so heavily on white cuckery to the Tribe.

Granted, even without whites cucking to Jews, Jews could be successful and wealthy on meritocracy alone, but Jewish Chutzpah-ism isn’t content to live with whites as equals or partners. No, Jews must have power over whites, and that means control. As it’s nearly impossible for Jews, a mere 2% of the population, to physically conquer and subdue the much larger white goy population, whites must be manipulated emotionally and ‘spiritually’; their hearts must be played like a violin. Jews figure they tried peaceful co-existence with white goyim, but it led to the Holocaust. (Of course, Jews omit the reasons as to why Germans and the like were driven to such hatred. If anything goes wrong between Jews and goyim, the Jewish Narrative would have us believe pure-as-snow Jews were suddenly pogromed by goyim-gone-mad, just like Mad Vlad Putin happened to wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to invade Ukraine.) And so, Jews have decided they must rule over whites, especially Anglo-Americans and Germans.
With the latter, it’s easy as Germany has been the whore-puppet of the US since the end of World War II, and there’s also the Eternal Holocaust Guilt, which obliges Germans to suck up to Jewish demands at every turn, even if it means, ironically enough, lending material and moral support to Sub-Nazi elements in Ukraine being employed by Jews against Russia. With Anglos, the trick has mainly been to guilt-bait(and jungle-feverize) them with blackness for two reasons: Black Slavery in the South(and Jim Crow) and Black Stardom in popular music and sports. White Americans, amazed and dazzled by blacks in sports and music, are prone to feel guiltier about whatever wrongs were done to them. (Of course, Jews did their share in Western Imperialism, slave trade, and exploitation of blacks, but never mind.)

So, even though Jews know blacks are exceedingly problematic, they also see them as black gold as a leverage against whites. If Jews had to choose a white world and a black world to live in, they’d obviously choose the white one. With whites, they could have civilization and order. With blacks, they’d be surrounded by savages who would drive Jews crazy. But, the danger of living in an all-white world is that whites may come to resent Jews out of envy and/or aggrievement, and the worst case scenario for Jews is explosions of ‘antisemitism’ followed by exile(yet once again), or even something like the Shoah. So, ‘diversity’ is ideal for Jewish Power, especially one that involves whites and blacks as Jews could play one against the other. Blacks, for reasons stated above, are optimally useful to Jews for their over-representation in the visceral fields(which fills whites with admiration and awe) and in poverty(which can be blamed on ‘white supremacism’ or ‘systemic racism’).

Anyway, that is why Jewish control of academia/media is so invested in suppressing the facts about black pathology, thuggery, and criminality. Jared Taylor once surmised that once whites become cognizant of the real sources of black problems in the civilizational setting — combination of lower IQ, higher aggression, and jive-ass nature — , the power of ‘white guilt’ will begin to fade. They will realize most black problems stem from nature rather than history.
Now, we can understand why blacks would object to such knowledge for reasons of pride and grift. Black egotism or Afromania is too vain and boastful to admit there’s anything wrong with blacks or blackness, and blacks know a good thing when they see one: ‘White Guilt’ is the golden goose for black race-hustlers.
Of course, there’s also the element of fear as whites are frightened of black riots and rampages, but then white fear doesn’t lead to (re)action precisely because of the paralysis of ‘white guilt’. After all, whites have long feared black thuggery and red savagery(out in the Western frontier), but they reacted with equal or greater violence in the past because whites weren’t burdened by the ‘guilt’ thing. But because of Negrolatry and white reverence for blacks(even for a lowlife scum like George Floyd), white fear doesn’t burn as white rage and reaction but shrivels into flaccidity at the feet of BLM charlatans.

Taylor has acknowledged how blacks exploit ‘white guilt’, but why won’t he discuss how Jews are also invested in it for their own interests? Why is Taylor so chicken to name the Jewish Power? Or, does he tell himself that it’s really just a matter of strategy because, as things surely get worse, the smart-and-rich Jews will have no choice but to come over to the white side, and the Ju-White Alliance will seal the deal for the future of the hu-white race?
Whatever his reasoning or motives, the fact is Jews have the intelligence of Episcopalians but the character of Sicilians. With Jews, the Rule of Law becomes a matter of Lawfare(or Jewfare), or manipulating the law as a political and/or racial weapon. Too many Jewish judges and lawyers(and of course journalists) act like mafia dons, bosses, and hitmen without any sense of principle or honor(unless absolute loyalty to the Tribal supremacism counts as some kind of higher value).

Perhaps, Jews are just as deluded in their Jewish-Black Alliance as Taylor is in his dream of Ju-White Alliance, but there it is, incontestably so, and only a fool, liar, or coward would claim otherwise. Taylor’s running cover for Jews when Jews beat him with a stick is downright pathetic, up there with Donald Trump sucking up to Jews while they ram him in the arse. It’s all the worse because Taylor, a totally vilified figure with zero respectability in mainstream circles, has nothing to lose by naming the Jewish Power.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily true that naming the Jewish Power will lead to the fate of David Duke who, by the way, ruined his reputation for life not so much by criticizing Jewish Power but by playing silly games with the KKK and the like. Nicolas Fuentes, despite being banned from just about everything, has been gaining in popularity because he’s a straight shooter on matters of power and how that power is often used for tribal purposes. Noticing and criticizing Jewish Power need not be associated with KKK or Neo-Nazis or such tomfoolery.

Perhaps, as the saying goes, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and Taylor is simply of a generation that can’t break free of the spell. They remember a time when Anglo-Americans ruled and Jews were ascendant(yet not dominant), when a Jewish-White alliance based on mutual respect and understanding was a possibility. That ship sailed a long time ago. As such, when the likes of Taylor and Pat Condell go on and on about Muslims, it’s worse than delusional; it’s downright pathetic.
Besides, even as Jews find anti-Muslim feelings among whites to be politically advantageous — Jewish ploy is always make-goy-fight-goy, and it sure comes in handy for Neocons when white dummies are led to fight Wars for Israel against Arabs/Muslims — , they also find it a bit unnerving. The way Jews see it, expressions of ‘Islamophobia’ are eerily a variation of ‘antisemitism’ of yesteryear. Today, it’s hate-the-Muslim-Semites, but it wasn’t all that long ago when Western hostilities were directed at Jewish Semites. Jews have opined numerous times that they dread to live in an all-white society as there is always the chance that whites will turn against Jews. Perhaps, Jews are being paranoid, but the history of Jewish-White relations hasn’t always been easy or pleasant, to say the least. Also, despite endless warnings about ‘antisemitism’, I suspect many Jews know full well that anti-Jewish feelings often result from anti-goy deeds by Jews. But, just as the cult of BLM always makes blacks out to be the victims, the current orthodoxy holds that Jews are never in the wrong vis-a-vis goyim(especially whites) and no blame must ever be placed at the feet of Jews.

If Taylor were honest, he would admit he is guilty of the very same thing he accuses the elites of academia/media/government of. He too is selective with facts and omits certain issues from the discussion. Jews know their power rests on white submission, which is secured via ‘white guilt’ mainly about blacks(and so, we have endless media lamentations about Emmett Till). In addition, as Jewish Power and Wealth are now so excessive, Jews sensationalize the bogeyman of ‘white privilege’ and ‘systemic racism’ as misdirection from the fact that the West is ruled by Jewish Supremacism and Zionist Exceptionalism. When it’s not Evil Whitey, it’s Russia-Russia-Russia, with some side servings of China-China-China and Iran-Iran-Iran. Any trick to make goyim in the West bark at anything other than Jewish Power(and its key allies, homos and blacks). Frame it all on whites.

But, Taylor plays the same game. In a kind of battered-wife-syndrome, cucky Taylor is like a wife who clings to the hope that her abusive husband will return to her, and they can live happily ever after. People like Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire long ago concluded that Jews are not only rich and powerful but indispensable because whites rely on Jewish brilliance, wit, and genius to make Western Civilization work. So, just like the father awaiting the return of the Prodigal Son, the likes of Taylor pray for the Prodigal Jew to finally see the light and embrace their fellow-whiteness and use their genius, influence, and wealth for the security of white folks. And so, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are never to be expected from people like Taylor. They will mention blacks, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, and etc. but they will ignore the 800 lb Jewish Gorilla in the room because their strategy hinges on the change of the Jewish heart.

JARED TAYLOR || PHILADELPHIA: DESTINATION FOR LAWLESSNESS

Response to James Lawrence's Nonsensical Piece of Misdirection on the Real Problems of Jewish Power: "AN ANTIDOTE TO THE JEWPILL (PART 2: ANTICHRISTIANITY)"

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/12/an-antidote-to-jewpill-part-2.html

Why would anyone bother to argue with E. Michael Jones' political theology? It is absurd because Jones conflates spirituality with rationalism, i.e. Jesus represents objective truths of the universe. The looniness is right there. If people want to accept religion as faith, prophecy, or imagination, that's fine. But anyone who claims religion = reason has no understanding of either.

Jones is useful to our side because, in his shotgun approach to Jewish Power, he sometimes hits the right targets. Same with Rick Wiles of TruNews. Even Neo-Nazis are useful in this regard. It's like radical leftists got so much of history wrong, but their anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism sometimes hit the right targets, the rottenness of the US empire and globalist-capitalism that needs to be exposed.
Otherwise however, there's no point in addressing E. Michael Jones' worldview. He's essentially a Paleo-Catholic crank who can't tell logos apart from bogus. But then, this 'James Lawrence' sounds rather too much like Nathan Cofnas larping as a 'Christian'. But whereas E. Michael Jones is clearly and sincerely nutty, there's something weasely and disingenuous about Lawrence's piece. It reads like misdirection that boils down to "Don't blame the Jews. Goyim started it, and Jews just followed, rather haplessly."

In Europe, it was the French revolution that emancipated the Jews, not the Jews who unleashed the revolution. In America, it was the Progressive and New Deal movements that raised them into the governing elite, and set the stage for everything that MacDonald describes in The Culture of Critique. Even Zionism, contrary to popular belief on the Dissident Right, was a 19th-century Protestant religious obsession (called ‘restorationism’) before it was taken up by Jewish nationalists like Emma Lazarus and Theodore Herzl.

First of all, only a moron rightist believes that everything revolutionary is bad and caused by Jews. Only a moron rightist thinks that everything leftist is wrong and that everything right is somehow noble. True, there are moron-rightists who still dream of monarchs & aristocracy and feel triggered by anything that hints of 'revolution'. In a way, such position has more to do with the likes of Bill Buckley — National Review ran countless articles on how the French Revolution was a dress rehearsal for 20th century radicalism, not only communism but Fascism — than with Alt-Right or the New Right, many of whom see the value of socialism and the positive role that revolution and social reforms played in the development of the Modern West. After all, what distinguished the West from the Rest? West accepted and even accelerated changes, revolutions in so many areas. This dichotomy also applies to the Christian West and Christian East, especially Byzantium. While the former grew and grew, the latter declined and fell under the Ottoman Muslims. If Christian logos is a sure formula of truth and power, why did Byzantium fail? It was far more 'theocratic' than the Christian West that broke free of Medievalism and gained much from neo-paganism of the Renaissance. What really made the Modern West was the fusion of neo-paganism(that sparked creativity in the arts and Hellenistic approach to logic and science) and Christian prophecy. The 'problem'(if it is a problem) with paganism is it lacks a unified vision of the universe and the future. According to paganism, there are many gods, therefore there is no single direction to history but a contest of competing forces, like with the gods in THE ILIAD. In contrast, Christian monotheism says there is one force, God, that leads history to fulfill a certain prophecy. Thus, the Christian mindset is more committed to a linear theory of progress. Now, Christianity alone could mean Byzantine enervation or Medieval ascetism that hardly moves history forward. But when fused with neo-pagan creativity and spark, the combination could open new horizons.

Anyway, only a fool would argue that the revolutionary spirit was necessarily bad for the West. If anything, it is what made the West, relative to the far more conservative Rest(and Byzantium). Pro-Western people don't have a problem with revolution per se. Rather, the problem has been with impatient radicalism rooted in the cult of rationalism. (Radicalism isn't content with organic pace of change and seeks to bring about utopia in single leaps. Granted, change and progress aren't necessarily organic. Rather, they must be encouraged and pushed. It's like plants need sun and nutrients to grow. Children need to be pressured by parents to study. Coaches must drive athletes hard. Inertia is often the natural state of things. Leftism in sane doses can prod society to move a bit faster, hastening the pace of change. There are limits, of course. A child can learn only so much in a week, and an athlete can improve his ability only so much in a season. Leftism sometimes pushes good ideas too fast, but it is truly fatal when it blindly pushes bad ideas as the answer, like with communism.) While the emergence of rationalism was a great thing for the West(especially in science, technology, medicine, etc), it also led to the hubris that mankind could figure everything out and know, based on 'science', what must be done. The result was Marxism(with its supposed 'scientific materialism') and, more recently, Covid Nuttery.
Science is of immense value, but it also spawned 'scientism', the conceit that one's worldview or ideology is foolproof for being based on 'science'. Such Iron Rationalism actually undermines real rationalism. This usually applies to the human sciences. At one time, the 'scientistic' element favored the 'scientific racists' who were so sure of their theories of race. Today, the 'scientistic' element favors the 'scientific anti-racists' who, based on incomplete evidence or willful self-delusion, insist that race is just a social construct. In both cases, true science is clouded by 'scientism' that really amounts to misuse of science for what are ideological purposes. ('Scientific Anti-Racism' will be far more harmful to the West as it will argue that 500 million black African immigrants won't make any difference to Europe because people are just people. 'Scientific Racism' led Europeans to mistreat or murder some peoples or groups, but 'Scientific Anti-Racism' can only lead to wholesale murder of Europe.)

Maybe some extreme Anti-Jewite or ultra-rightist believes every revolutionary movement was bad(and that we should be living in the Middle Ages) or that Jews were the key players in all these events. But that's mostly a red herring because it misses the essence of the current criticism of Jewish Power among today's white nationalists or white-centrists, most of whom don't care what happened 500 yrs ago, let alone 1000 or 2000 yrs.
Of utmost importance is what is happening NOW, and who can deny that Jewish Supremacism rules the West? Furthermore, who can deny that, what Jews push onto white goyim doesn't apply to Jews themselves. If indeed ideology controls the Jews, they would judge themselves by the same yardstick with which they judge whites. But they don't. A case in point. If the ideology of 'anti-racism' is indeed dominant in the West, Jews would not only be bashing whites for past discrimination against blacks but for white support of Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians. But the very Jews who decry white treatment of blacks insist and demand that whites support whatever Israel does to Palestinians(and Arabs in outlying territories). But 'James Lawrence' is rather like Nathan Cofnas on this issue. He'd rather sweep it under the rug while yammering about some Christian theological controversy from 1000 yrs ago. Like who cares about that crap? Maybe E. Michael Jones cares, but even most people who value Jones' criticism of Jewish Power don't care to read his books or lend any credence to his notion that Logos = Worshiping Jesus. I'd argue that most white nationalists or white-centrists are, at heart, neo-pagan, and good for them!

Also, what do we mean by Jews in the historical sense? Your average Jew throughout history didn't amount to much. The real movers and shakers were elite Jews, often the bankers and others with close ties with European elites. These individuals were most certainly manipulating events for Jewish interests. FDR, for example, had the overwhelming support of Elite Jewry. It's true that Jews were absorbing lots of ideas and attitudes from Anglo-Protestants and even following their lead, but it's also true that Jews were playing a prominent role in steering Anglos toward certain goals, like war with Germany. Sometimes, Anglo and Jewish interests overlapped, but more than any other group, Jews steered events in the interests of their tribal interest. Who can deny this? Jews were pro-Soviet at one time because Jews played a key role in the Russian Revolution and because Soviet Union fought Hitler's Germany. After the war, many Jews spied for the Soviet Union. But as the Soviet Union turned more pro-Arab and anti-Israel, even so-called 'leftist' Jews grew hostile to communism, and Neocons joined and even came to lead the anti-communist crusade in the 1980s. Who doesn't see a tribal angle to this?
And if ideology matters so much to Jews, how come all those 'liberal Jews' don't condemn ultra-rightist Israel? Why are they silent about Jewish oligarchs allied with Naziesque forces in Ukraine? If they're such good 'secular liberals', why do they turn a blind eye to Israel's support of ultra-religious ISIS and other crazy Jihadists working against secular Assad of Syria? Never mind what happened 500 or 1000 yrs ago. Why can't 'James Lawrence' address the world today? Why is he misdirecting our focus from the obvious truths in the here-and-now to some mumbo jumbo theological debates centuries ago?

Alas, this theory contradicts the central dogma of white nationalism: that racial self-interest is primary, and truths, doctrines and ideas are secondary. WNs want to live in a dark fever-dream, where every race except the white one is strategising for its self-interest under a cynical veil of ideals – and we need only become paranoid enough to perceive the hidden strategies, and deceptive enough to conceal our own self-interest in the same way. They do not want to live in the light of consciousness, where ideals really motivate individuals, and solidify the cohesion of groups – because in this reality, their own dream is reduced to a narrow and paltry ideal, a cult of biological race.

What a lying piece of turd. White Nationalists don't say racial self-interest IS primary. They know it from White Decline all around. If racial self-interest were primary, whites wouldn't be in this mess. What they say is that racial self-interest MUST BE primary. In other words, it can't be taken for granted and must be embraced as a consciousness. They say identity must dictate ideology, not vice versa. Why? History shows time and again that identity has greater resilience and longevity than ideas or ideology or whatever. Any people who forget this are fated to fade away and die.
Also, white-centrists don't believe in some 'dark fever dream' where whites must conceal their own self-interests. No, they are for exposing the Jewish self-interest and for OPENLY and HONESTLY exhorting and exercising white self-interest.

Being pro-identity doesn't mean one is anti-ideological. Rather, it means ideology must complement identity. History bears this out. Every religion came to be a tool of power, of a people or an order. Thus, Catholic kingdoms fought other Catholic kingdoms. One Arab tribe, though Muslim, fought another Arab tribe, also Muslim. Russia and China were both communist, but Russian communism served Russia, Chinese communism served China. Russian history is a clear case of identity outlasting ideology, i.e. Russia was Russia before communism, during communism, and after communism. Any people, culture, or civilization can weather the rise and fall of ideologies or political systems AS LONG AS the people remain intact. It is when the people are replaced that it's really game over. The fall of Imperial Tsarist system wasn't the end of Russia. The fall of communism wasn't the end of Russia either. But if Russians were to be replaced by another people, it'd be the end of Russia regardless of ideology. This is why 'muh democracy' is so dumb. "Gee, I don't care if white nations become 90% non-white as long as it still has free markets and elections."

 
The course of current Western History goes to show that racial self-interest doesn't come naturally or first-and-foremost among a people. A people can be brainwashed to welcome their own destruction in the name of false gods of ideology. Or a people can be conditioned to believe their purpose is to serve another people. The lower castes in India were made to feel this way about members of higher caste. In the past, blacks in the South were made to believe their lot was to serve whites because, on their own, they'd just be crazy dumb ni**ers. It's like dogs can be trained to favor the interests of the master over their own dog-hood.
But any people that wants to survive into the future better put race/identity before ideology or make ideology bend to identity. China adopted universal communism but molded it to serve the Chinese people. Iran practices universal Islam, but this doesn't mean it rejects Iranian national interest. Nicaragua practices democracy, but it's a national democracy than one that bends to the US globalist world order.

According to 'James Lawrence', the cult of biological race is a 'paltry ideal'. The white race, or any race, is the product of 100,000s or at least 10,000s of yrs of evolution. White race was forged by survival through all sorts of climates and terrains. It came into existence even before white civilization. Before there was white culture/society, there was the white race. In other words, race came before all else. What we call 'history' is maybe 5,000 yrs, or at most 6,000 yrs. 'History' and high civilization came to Northern Europe much later. Perhaps, Northern European history is 1,500 or 1,200 yrs, much shorter than Egypt's, Persia's, India's, and China's. Long before the rise of European civilization, there was the European race forged by struggle in ice and fire over many eons. This is a rich biological heritage that has value regardless of ideology. After all, a European's primary value is his European being, not whether he's a 'Christian', 'atheist', 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'capitalist', 'libertarian', and etc. This isn't to discount the importance of ideas but to state the obvious: being precedes believing. So, the most valuable ideology is one that places Being before Believing. European race came into existence long before Christianity or any other idea-system. And yet, for 'James Lawrence'(a larping version of Nathan Cofnas?), white consciousness of rich and deep racial history is a 'paltry ideal'. Maybe 'Lawrence' feels this way because he happens to be a paltry specimen of the white race: an ugly stupid dork idiot.

Now, it's true that one can read too much into the supposed Jewish Plan. It can get rather silly, like with Adam Green's theory that Jews cooked up Christianity and spread it to goyim to gain power over them. Green, like E. Michael Jones, is useful as a critic of Jewish Power because he sometimes hits the right targets. But the grand conspiracy theory of Christianity is just ludicrous.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hbt65YdfHwSi/

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

According to Green, Jews turned goyim into Christian Anti-Semites who oppressed Jews so that Jews could, 2000 yrs later, guilt-bait goyim into serving Jews. ROTFL and LOL rolled into one. It'd be like saying blacks cooked up the slave trade so that blacks could one day guilt-bait whites into kissing black ass. And maybe Japan actually planned to lose WWII to become an ally of the US and gain access to US markets.

This is where grand-theorizing can easily jump the shark. Now, there is a kernel of truth to Adam Green's view. Jews are big thinkers and tend to be more strategic than other races. Jewish personality can be glimpsed in Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series where some Big Mind prophesies future events and sees what the normal mind doesn't see. Stanley Kubrick's films were also conceived on the Big Think principle. Jews have been obsessed with chess, a game of strategy where the winner is usually the one who computes more moves ahead. Now, some might argue this is merely the result of higher intelligence, but intelligence isn't necessarily interested in Big Ideas or grand concepts. Anglos have been an intelligent people but their mental skills were focused on empiricism, things that could be observed, collected, and studied. Plenty of very smart people are narrowly focused on a single topic or task. Intelligence per se doesn't strive for the grand theory of everything or the grand prophecy of what will be(or what must be). In other words, most intelligent economists weren't like Karl Marx with a grand theory of history, one who tried to tie together all the past with all the future, the science with the theory of justice. So, the Jewish mindset isn't merely the product of high intelligence. Rather, it's part of the Jewish prophetic tradition(which is more accurate than the 'revolutionary spirit'). Now, what came first in a chicken-or-egg way? Jewish personality or Jewish prophecy? Was there something in Jewish personality that favored propheticism? Or did the culture of propheticism favor those Jews who claimed to be farther-seeing and more profounder in reach? I don't know.

Now, does this mean that Jews long ago looked into the future and brought about events that led to the 20th century? No. While Jews are more strategic and farther-seeing than most peoples, no people(however intelligent or strong-willed) can look into the future and plan events that happen centuries, let alone millennia, later. Kubrick's films are about 'perfect plans' that always fail due to some unforeseen X-factor. There are lots of X-factors and/or black swans in history. Karl Marx based his prophecy on economic trends in his time. He failed to see how those trends would change with new developments in science and technology. Also, he underestimated the element of individual will and the power of the irrational. Furthermore, prophecies tend to undermine themselves because they not only serve as vision of the future but alarm that wakes the enemy. Marxist prophecy forced capitalists to wake up and amend their ways and make compromises with moderate socialists lest growing unrest and radicalism lead to real revolution. Thus, most prophecies are self-defeating by alerting the enemy to what's up ahead unless something is done(to suppress the movement or to win over the moderate voices within it).

Jewish History cannot be understood apart from goy history as most of it is about Jews co-existing with the far more numerous and powerful goyim. Thus, Jews lacked the autonomy that the Persians, Hindus, and Chinese had. Persians had their dominant space. Hindus had their own cosmologically ordered society. Chinese had their own Middle Kingdom. In contrast, Jews had to exist alongside goyim, and this meant they could never practice the kind of centrism of the great goy powers.
Now, if Jews were simply aiming to assimilate and do business, this would have been no big deal. Plenty of minority cultures assimilated and became part of larger cultures. Most of the tribes mentioned in the Bible no longer exist. They became part of Persian folks, Arab folks, Turkic folks, European-Christian folks, and etc. It could have been the same with Jews but for the fact that they came up with the most powerful religious concept and the idea of the Covenant that set themselves apart from goyim. So, even as goyim were more numerous and more powerful, Jews held this conviction that, ethno-spiritually at least, they were the best because of the Covenant with the one true God.

But because Jews insisted on serving their own JEWISH interests despite lacking a secure world of their own, they had to be more esoteric, clever, shadowy, and devious in their thinking and approach. They had to latch onto goy systems, values, fashions, and trends while somehow manipulating them to favor Jewish interests. Of course, Jews themselves were profoundly impacted by these goy values and systems(though, with something like Christianity, one could debate til the cows come home as to whether it's 'semitic' or 'aryan' because it's 'semitic' as foundation but 'aryan' as edifice). But no matter how much Jews adopted goy ways and ideas, they eventually made them serve Jewish identity because the very foundation of Jewishness is the ethno-spiritual Covenant; this core concept of Jewishness is so essential that it even defines secular Jews.

In contrast, Christianity is about weakening one's tribal identity in favor of universal values. To become a better Christian, you favor fellow Christians of all color over your own kind on the basis of blood. However, to be a good Jew means to stick with the Covenant and to believe in the fusion of spirit and blood, the Jewish blood. Thus, even if Jews and white Christians adopt the same 'universal' values, they eventually go separate ways. White Christians try to make themselves less white and more universal because the core principle of Christianity is to unite all of humanity as brethren under Jesus. In contrast, given the nature of Judaism, Jews use the same 'liberal' or 'universal' ideals to serve Jewish identity and interests because the core function of Judaism is preservation of the race on account of its sacred blood.

Look at Jewish Liberals and Wasps Liberals from the New Deal era. After WWII, with each passing year, white liberals became less race-centric, less tribal, and less nationalist, whereas Jewish liberals became more race-centric, more tribal, and more nationalist(even to the point of supremacism). If the power of ideology is paramount, white liberals and Jewish liberals would have ended up the same way. But today, white liberals denounce Hungary for trying to preserve itself while Jewish 'liberals' not only support ultra-right Israel but work with neocon Jews to make sure ALL US POLITICIANS totally support Israel while kicking Palestinians into the dirt. What do Jewish 'conservatives' in the US and Jewish 'conservatives' in UK have in common? Do they care about the preservation of the white race or Christian heritage in either country? No, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jewish Power?" The fact that there is far less animus between Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' than between white 'left' and white 'right' goes to show that Jews put identity before ideology, whereas whites put ideology before identity, a fatal development. Now, one could argue that the relative tribal unity among Jews stems from the anxiety of minority status, but it's the same in Israel where Jews are the solid majority.

There are two reasons why Jewish Identity is easier to utilize as the basis of political conviction. Jewish ethnicity has been sacralized via the Covenant. So, according to Judaism, Jewish pride isn't based on tribal arrogance alone but on the very word of God. In contrast, there's nothing in Christianity that bestows specialness on the white race. Thus, while white Christians could feel the glow of sanctity as Christians(though not so much anymore because Jews associated the history of Christianity with 'antisemitism', 'racism', and cultural repression), they can feel no such merely as whites. In contrast, the mere fact of being Jewish means God is watching over you. He chose your kind. (This is why the only solution for whites is to forge their own covenant with the power of the universe. White blood must be sacralized, but this requires the emergence of white prophecy. Christianity, in contrast, means that your blood is hopelessly tainted with sin and can only be cleansed with infusion of Jesus's blood. Covenant binds. Goy way was to divide goyim into aristocrats and subjects. Elites and peons. Because white elites looked down on white peons, Jews could manipulate the division by aiding the goy elites in the exploitation of goy masses. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant says even the blood of the lowliest Jew is equal to that of the richest Jew in the eyes of God. One good thing about National Socialism was it valued every German as part of the national volk.)

The other reason why Jewish Identity is politically justified is ironically due to Christian morality and its emphasis on victimology as basis of virtue. Jews ran with the Holocaust Narrative and made themselves to be the biggest victims in history... at the hands of the Christian West no less. (Some will say the Nazis were neo-pagan, but Jews argue that the entire history of Antisemitism, beginning with the Christian kind, led to the horror in WWII.) Thus, Holocaustianity guilt-baits white Christians with a twist on Christian morality. Jews are suddenly the new jesuses crucified by White Gentiles/Christians as the New Romans.
This guilt-consciousness has been the Achilles Heel of Christianity, at least IF non-Christians were to gain control of the Narrative. In contrast, Muslims are immune to such psycho-emotional manipulation because Muhammad told his followers to do some Jihad, kick butt, never apologize, and convert infidels(or kill them if they get in the way). You don't see Muslims groveling before Jews or bending down to wash stinky Negro feet. Islam can be plenty repressive and dogmatic but it's not sanctimonious like Christianity with 'turn the other cheek' spiel. Muhammad told his followers to kick the other (ass) cheek of the enemy, not turn the other cheek for the enemy to slap. Of course, Christians hardly turned the other cheek and preferred to wage war and kill lots of people, but this could eventually be used to guilt-bait Christian conscience IF the enemy were to gain control of the Narrative. And Jews gained control over the Narrative, which is why the New Western or Schwestern Values are based on a litany of white historical sins, especially to Jews and blacks(as Jews don't want whites to feel sorry for what they did to Arabs and Palestinians).

Now, it's true that what we call Jewish Power is the result of interaction of Jews and goyim. It's like Jews in Italy were different from Jews in France were different from Jews in Britain were different from Jews in Russia were different from Jews in Brazil were different from Jews in America from Jews in Iran and so on. If the Anglo World never existed, Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were super-ambitious and highly talented as world conquerors, and Jews rode on that white horse to world power. Also, even though certain Jewish elites had considerable influence throughout Western history, it's only recently that Jews gained anything like supreme power via the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans who, at some point, decided to get on all fours and play white horsey to the Jewish rider.
So, Jewish worldview always changed and adapted in accordance to shifting historical landscapes. It's not as if a cabal of Jews in the 12th century were planning the Bolshevik revolution of the 20th century or globo-homo parades of the 21st century. Still, whatever Jews were faced with through history, there has been a running thread of bending and twisting things to serve Jewish interests, not least by suppressing criticism of Jews while amplifying criticism of their rivals or enemies.

 
Take Hollywood. One could say Jews didn't invent motion pictures. Jews weren't the first to start the movie business. But once they gained dominance in the industry, they were mindful to make it Jewish-friendly. Of course, Jews had to make compromises. In the early 20th century when Christians and moralists(and anti-Jewish elements) had lots of power, Jews had to agree to stuff like the Hayes Code and appease the Catholic Church. Jews were also mindful not to offend the American South. Still, Jews made sure Hollywood made lots of anti-German movies in the 1930s. And Jews in Hollywood did everything to blacken Joe McCarthy's name because HUAC at one time forced Jewish Hollywood to blacklist certain Jewish writers and directors. And Hollywood also made stuff like EXODUS while not making a single pro-Palestinian movie. So, while, in one way, Hollywood is just another American Capitalist success story, it's also been a Judeo-centric enterprise. Who can deny that Jewish control had a profound impact on how so many Americans(and global audiences) came to see the world? Via Hollywood movies, countless people around the world came to see Islam as synonymous with terrorism. Via Hollywood movies, countless Europeans came to regard white Americans as mindless gun-toting 'racists' who lynch blacks at the drop of a hat.

In a way, Jews are too smart for ideology or fashion trends even as they pretend to go along or get swept up for awhile. In the Sixties, Jews and goyim alike took part in the Counterculture. But whereas many simpleminded white goyim gave themselves fully to the hippie culture and the like, many Jews soon realized how silly it was. And there was too much money to be made than rolling in the hay, wearing flowers in your hair, and searching for Indians to touch. Better to organize rock concerts and rake in the profits than wear tie-dyes and waste your days as a 'deadhead'. Be like David Geffen.

Jewish intelligence can't help but seeing goyim as dumb. Suppose someone with 100 IQ found himself among those with 80 IQ. Would he want to take orders from the dummies? Would he consider them as his equal? He might pretend to because he's outnumbered. It'd sure be dumb for the 100 IQ guy to say to the 80 IQ crowd, "You guys sure are dumb. I'm smarter, I deserve to rule, so do as I say or kiss my ass!" Even dummies will take offense and kick his ass. So, what should he do? He pretends to be for 'equality' and act in interest of the common good while slyly gaining power over them. He may also guilt-bait the 80 IQ crowd by saying they are 'privileged' over the 60 IQ crowd even though he, with 100 IQ, is the most privileged among them all.

Higher IQ simply wants to rule over lower IQ. It's just human nature. It's like blacks, being tougher, want to be the alpha race over others. Blacks will not say it but feel it just the same. Indeed, blacks would be far less anti-white IF whites were equally tough. Suppose whites were just as good at fighting and sports. Suppose NBA and NFL were majority white and blacks made up only 13% of the players. Blacks would actually respect whites and have far less problem with whites having lots of good stuff. But blacks, being obsessed with fighting and sports, look upon whites as inferior wussy fa**oty race of slow white boys. Whites are inferior, so why they gots more than blacks? This infuriates blacks who believe they, as the alpha race, should rule. Jews feel the same way but on the basis of higher intelligence.

But it's not just about brawn or brains. After all, there are big tough guys who are mellow in temperament. And there are smart people who are nice and kind. So, their superiority doesn't make them especially nasty or hostile. But blacks are naturally oogity-boogity due to evolution alongside hippos, hyenas, and lions. They be nasty. And Jews are naturally pushy-wushy due to reasons of evolutions stemming from rabbinical and merchant competition. Thus, there are lots of Jews with personalities of Albert Brooks, Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Silverman, and Howard Stern. No wonder then that black brawn consciousness often leads to jive-ass thuggery, and Jewish brain consciousness often leads to sneering contempt, so evident among the likes of Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin, Rob Reiner(meathead), John Podhoretz, and etc.

This is why Jews and blacks sort of see eye to eye. Being advantaged in different areas, they often fear or resent the other, but they also take pride in having extra juice for causing havoc for the rest of us. Terms of Jew-Black Alliance goes as follows: "Jews will use all their might to browbeat and guilt-bait whites into elevating blacks as the gods and idols of the New US, and blacks in turn will dump on whites and 'white supremacism' but will not call out on Jews and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians."
But then, Jews get away with such anti-white crap because whites worship Jews as either the Chosen(Christian Zionists), Holy Holocaust People, Endearing Comedians, or High IQ Geniuses. Indeed, even HBD-sphere is worshipful of Jews. Why does Jared Taylor remain silent about the very people who've done most to de-platform him? It's because he's so enthralled with Jewish Greatness. People like Taylor and John Derbyshire are not hoping for equal partnership with Jews. Rather, they are willing to be servants and sidekicks of Jews in return for Jewish tolerance of white interests. "We white goyim will serve you superior Jews, the true master race, IF you Jews permit our white interests." But why would Jews agree to that? If Jews are the master race, it's only fitting for Jews to serve their own interests, not allow white interests. Now, what if some whites argue that Jewish interests and white interests are totally aligned... like the notion of Judeo-Christian? But Jews are not stupid. They know Christianity began as an anti-Jewish religion. Also, Jews and Europeans had a long troubled history, and all of sudden, Jews and whites are Best-Friends-Forever? No way. Besides, even if whites turned over a new leaf and are sworn to be nice to Jews henceforth, Jews know it's only a matter of time before 'antisemitism' resurfaces. Why? Because bad Jewish behavior will get out of control again. Jews know this. There are good Jews who prefer to play fair and decent, but there are also bad Jews who use every dirty trick in the book. The problem is, given the nature of Jewish Identity, if good Jews had to choose between good goyim and bad Jews, they will go with the latter. It's just a tribal thing. And so, bad Jews go unchecked and give Jews a bad name, and this leads to 'antisemitism'. Good Jews may not want bad Jews to act so badly, but they just can't make themselves side with good goyim against bad Jews. So, Jews have decided to destroy every last vestige of white identity and unity because, then, there won't be any white resistance no matter how badly the bad Jews act and how much the good Jews cover for bad Jews. (Of course, if good Jews aid bad Jews, they too become bad Jews.) Besides, good Jews figure, as nasty as bad Jews are, they(the bad ones) got bigger cojones to do what good Jews wouldn't dare do. Thus, sometimes, it's the bad Jews who really make things happen, from which even good Jews can profit... like the spread of gambling and Zionic scramble for world domination.

 
It's like good Anglos often relied on the ambition and adventurousness of bad Anglos to gain more territory and loot. But whereas whites reached a point where good ones called out on bad ones, good Jews dare not call out on bad Jews. Same with blacks. There are some good blacks, but in the name of 'brotherhood', they stick together and the good ones don't call out on bad ones... which makes black behavior worse, which can lead to more 'racism'. Even though good whites are far more likely to call out on bad whites, there's a limit to white conscience(as it lacks agency). In their worship of Jews and blacks, good whites dare not call out on bad Jews or bad blacks. Why, that'd be 'antisemitic' or 'racist'. It's a vile and vicious cycle of moral blindness and hypocrisy that the West has fallen into.

THE END OF TWITTER?, MAXWELL FIX IS IN, HANUKKAH CELEBRATION, JEWS SAY SANTA IS TOO WHITE - Know More News - Adam Green

Police Reform is as Useless as Soldier Reform — We need ELITE REFORM as the Elites gave orders to the Police to wage War on Black Crime and Thuggery — Jungle Faith is downstream from Jungle Fever

All this talk of Police Reform is total nonsense. It's like discussing Soldiers Reform. While cops and soldiers can be trained and pressured to act more professional, most of what they do is following orders from ABOVE. In other words, even if soldiers commit no 'war crimes' or 'atrocities', they will invade, bomb, mass-kill, and destroy entire nations at the behest of their superiors who, in turn, take orders from the Deep State. (Democracy is about politicians doing the bidding of oligarchs while pretending to represent the people. After all, politicians are vetted and funded by oligarchs than arise from the people.) Same with the police. Even if all cops were 100% professional(or composed of foolproof robots) and didn't commit acts of police brutality, problems will arise from the fact that they're doing the bidding of the elites and the propertied class. (The case of Michael Brown was a classic example of this. It turns out the cop acted 100% professionally, but the ghastly Negro died and this upset a lot of blacks and all those do-goody naive whites who get their ideas of blacks from movies like GREEN MILE and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.) The elites want safe streets and safe neighborhoods. That means using the police to get tough on criminal elements. Many such offenders are black. Also, blacks call the police to protect themselves from other blacks. So, tensions between blacks and police will be a fact of life in the US. And no police reform can fix this problem that mainly arises from black genetics, a natural propensity toward thuggery. After all, it's far more likely George Fentanyl Floyd died of drug overdose than police abuse. Police exists because the elites and law-abiding people want protection. Also, even the criminal class often rely on the police to protect them from other criminals. Even the mother of a gang-banger will call the cops if her gang-banger son is gunned down by other gang-bangers.

So, if tensions between the police and blacks are a problem, then it makes no sense to speak of 'police reform'. Policemen, just like soldiers, follow orders and do as told. Did the US military go into Iraq or drop bombs on Libya because soldiers went rogue? No, the soldiers did as ordered by higher-ups who, in turn, took orders from politicians who are in the pockets of Jewish oligarchs. The worst crime of the Iraq War was not Abu Grahib, bad as it was. The far bigger crime was that the US military was made to invade another nation on false pretext. And this decision was cooked up at the top by Jewish Neocons, Liberal Zionists, and their white cuck allies. Even if Abu Grahib and other atrocities hadn't happened and even if every US soldier had acted totally professionally, they still would have invaded another nation on bogus propaganda. And in doing so, US soldiers would have had to drop tons of bombs and shoot a lot of people just the same.

In the aftermath of the Iraq Debacle, do we talk of Soldier Reform? No, soldiers didn't make the decision. The orders came from the politicians owned by oligarchs. So, if there needs to be reform in US foreign policy, it must be at the top. Soldiers always do as they're told. When they're told to drop bombs to kill countless people, they do so. And when US soldiers were told to stand down when orgies of looting broke out all across Baghdad, they did as ordered and did nothing as the whole city was stripped clean. The responsibility belongs at the top. Sadly, there was no political reform after Iraq. Barack Obama spoke of a new foreign policy but, as just another puppet of Jews, expanded the mayhem even further, even inflaming Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. And Donald Trump promised a new chapter but just became another stooge of the Deep State. US troops are still illegally occupying Syria and continuing with the 'Afghan War' which is now just plain and simple occupation. In all this, US soldiers just did as told. No amount of Soldier Reform can fix the problem of US foreign policy that is decided at the top. US soldiers do not, of their own volition, decide to keep occupying Okinawa, South Korea, European nations, Central Asia, and much of Middle East. US soldiers are there under the orders of politicians who do the bidding of the Deep State and Military-Industrial Complex. But notice that even so-called 'leftist' Democrats are totally for more money for Pentagon. Both parties hail the US military as heroes when, in fact, it kills countless more innocent victims than the US police does. Also, if the role of police is law and order, the role of US military is neo-imperialism and lawless disorder around the world for the sake of Jewish Power and Israel. What is called "US foreign policy" or "American Interests" are all about "Is it great for Jewish supremacists?" After all, if US had a neutral and fair policy toward all the world, it would not favor Zionist tyrants over Palestinian victims.

All this talk of 'police reform' is a dirty ploy of shifting the blame on the cops(who did as ordered) away from the politicians, elites, and affluent folks who valued a police force that would effectively deal with black crime, violence, and thuggery. Crime is more a racial than economic thing as plenty of poor whites and browns aren't big on crime. While poor people tend to commit more crime than rich people, the out-of-control pathology of crime is mostly a black phenomenon in the US, and this has little to do with history and mostly to do with biology, i.e. blacks evolved to be warriors, hunters, and thugs in hot savage Africa where hippos wanted to stomp them to death and hyenas wanted to tear them apart. African beasts were the first to lament, "There goes the neighborhood".

So, if 'good' and 'anti-racist' Americans are really troubled by the conflict between the police and blacks, what they should call for is POLITICIAN REFORM, ELITE REFORM, and JEWISH POWER REFORM. The rich and the powerful gave orders and made demands on the police to get tougher on blacks. The proof that the police only follows orders can be seen in how it does little to arrest Antifa in cities like Portland and NY while working with Antifa against white nationalists at Charlottesville. Why do the police leave BLM and Antifa vandals alone while arresting the St. Louis couple that only protected their own private property? Why do the police allow Antifa and BLM thugs to paint 'Black Lives Matter' all over but arrest people for painting over such signs? Again, the police has no agency. It does as told. If the US were communist and if cops were ordered to arrest capitalists, cops will do just that. If the US were antisemitic and if cops were ordered to arrest all Jews, they'll do just that. Cops are like dogs, just like soldiers. They look powerful because they got guns and clubs, but they must do as told. If they're ordered to stand down amidst Antifa violence, they will do just that. If they're ordered to arrest Proud Boys who only defended themselves from Antifa thugs, they'll do that.

When all these Jewish elites and mayors call for Police Reform, they are deflecting blame from themselves and scapegoating another. It's like the corporate sharks in Akira Kurosawa's BAD SLEEP WELL who use underlings as sacrificial scapegoats while they themselves remain unscathed. In all these blue cities, it was the affluent class and Jewish Power(and homo gentrifiers) who demanded tougher policing to deal with black crime and thuggery. And they were happy to see the crime rates go down. It was Bill Clinton who ordered cops to arrest more blacks. And the courts convicted more blacks. Cops had no say in this. Cops were mere cogs in the system. But the Power never wants any blame. They just blame the police and call for 'police reform' when blacks explode in rage. Or, even worse, the Power encouraged black rage explosion this time around to undermine Trump's presidency and use BLM/Antifa rage as fuel for yet another Maidan-like color revolution. (But as Trump supported such in Venezuela, he too is a scumbag.)

Though there are surely rogue cops, the main problem in the US is that TOO MANY BLACKS act like thugs, and the affluent class(and everyone else) relies on the police to keep black thuggery under control. The police exists because people who fear for their lives and value their private property demand it. And the police ends up in contentious encounters with blacks because blacks are the main thugs. What was Stop-and-Frisk about but Get-the-Negro, and it was a policy that was cooked up in so-called 'progressive' cities? It was mainly a way of dealing with blacks. And it worked. And the police only did as told.

So, if the elites and the affluent class really care so much about black lives and feel it's wrong for the police to use tough means to handle black crime, then the REFORM must happen at the top. After all, police policy is downstream from elite interests and policy. If black lives are indeed so precious or even priceless, then it is up to the elites to dissolve the police and expose themselves to the brunt of black violence. The Power said Fentanyl Floyd, a noted armed-robber, is a saint. Then, it is downright hypocritical for the elites to use the police to protect their lives and property from black thugs but then to call for Police Reform when black rage explodes about the police. Just like, "Don't blame the soldiers, blame the politicians who sent them to war", we need, "Don't blame the police, blame the elites who recruited them to wage war against black criminality."

Of course, BLM is a lie, mainly the product of Jewish control of academia and media. And American Morality is just vanity and hypocrisy. So many of these white 'liberals' jumped on BLM only as yet another excuse to hurl turd at Trump. Much of 'moral outrage' in the US is just proxy for partisan politics. White 'liberals' who never cared about Russia or Ukraine were suddenly OUTRAGED that Evil Putin is the mastermind behind Trump. Or, 'conservatives' who never cared about China are suddenly alarmed that Biden is "China's candidate" or that "Uighurs are being oppressed". The so-called 'anti-war progressives' who threw a fit under George W. Bush were suddenly acquiescent and even supportive of Obama's wars. 'Conservatives' who supported Trump's relatively anti-war rhetoric against Hillary applauded his gangland murder of Soleimani. It's all BS morality to justify partisan politics. It's all selective moral outrage without principles.
If indeed these good decent white 'liberals' really cared about innocent lives, why the silence about all the victims of US wars? Why are they okay with politicians of both parties praising US 'men and women' in the military when so many people have been killed in wars based on lies and misinformation? Why hasn't there been any call for PLM or Palestinian Lives Matter? Just like most moral issues in Divorce Court are nonsense — both parties will dig up any dirt and sling mud to give moral cover for personal vendetta — , political morality is mostly utter BS, and it's truly vile and disgusting to see all these people desperately pretending to CARE about justice when they really care only about Power and partisan politics.

That said, the white Jungle Faith in blackness is not entirely posturing. White spirituality in the post-Christian age is largely shaped by white sensuality. In a world where Pop Culture and Sports are the main culture, white sense of value derives mainly from who wins in sports and dominates pop culture/music, which is highly sexualized and porny even at Disney. As whites grow from young age admiring black rappers, ball-players, orators, and studs, they have a special thing for blacks that turns quasi-spiritual. It is then fitting that Fentanyl Floyd, thug and porn performer, is now the holy icon of 'wokeness' among whites. When whites feel they must favor FEELINGS over FACTS when it comes to blacks, it is proof that Afromania is the religion of whites(along with Jew Worship and Globo-Homo) — religion is, after all, about faith than facts even if there is no evidence that God exists or cares for you; in our day and age, we must have faith in the Magic Negro, we must favor the Icon and Narrative over reality and truth, just like brainwashed minions in USSR had faith in Stalin despite his great crimes against humanity; both the state religion and corporate cult of the US revolve around Jew-worship, Globo-Homo, and Magic Negro. It doesn't matter that blacks are top thugs and do so much harm. Because blacks are badass as athletes, rappers, and studs, they must be admired, and therefore, their historical suffering matters more than all the other sufferings(except the Shoah of course), and that means everything wrong with the black community must be blamed on whites who, in the sin of all sins, dared to oppress the superior race of stud-rappers-athletes. In other words, white Superego is downstream from the white Id. Jungle Fever led to Jungle Faith.

In contrast, what do most white people care about Palestinians and Arabs? Let those 'sand ni**ers' die by the bushel as they lack the smarts/money of Jews or the badassness/toughness of blacks. In other words, there is victim-supremacy, and the past/present suffering of those with visible superiorities matter more than the sufferings of others. Even the discussion of reparations is skewed this way. Jews deserve endless reparations for the Holocaust but never mind all the Slavs who lost so much under Jewish communism. Indeed, it would be 'antisemitic' even to point out that Jewish communists were mass-killers or that Jews were top sellers of opium to the Chinese(and opioids to 'white trash'). And there is constant talk of reparations for blacks but no one calls for reparations for the brown natives of the Americas. 90% of brown natives were wiped out by disease from the Old World, and their history is one of servitude and peonage under Spanish Conquistadors and their descendants. But those people must now pay taxes in the US to pay for reparations for blacks. That's the essence of white morality, which is mostly BS: Making browns(who suffered by far the most in the New World) pay taxes to pay for reparations for blacks. And notice there is no talk of reparations for all the mayhem the US has caused in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Only Jews, blacks, and homos matter.

By the way, Nick Fuentes is right. Depending on the police is like East Germans depending on the East German police to protect them from commie thugs and commie system.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/crtWAILwV9on/

A Response to "Why Does Dr. Aprile Benner Want To Blame Whites For Minority Problems Obviously Caused By Low IQ?"(by Lance Welton) — Germanic-Protestant North vs Latin-Catholic-South — Diversity as Disingenuous Moral Crutch for Latin South against the Anglo-Germanic North

https://vdare.com/articles/why-does-dr-aprile-benner-want-to-blame-whites-for-minority-problems-obviously-caused-by-low-iq

Lance Welton:
It follows that the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to believe that people are being racist towards you... Members of minority groups who have low intelligence are going to believe that they are the victims of racism... Northeast Asians and Jews — even though they’re just as likely to be victims of racism — do not display the same behavior patterns because they have high intelligence, meaning they do quite the opposite of what races with low intelligence do.

The above comment is so wrong. Jews are high IQ but see 'antisemitism' EVERYWHERE. ADL is funded by rich Jews, and it sees Nazis on every street corner. High IQ Jews say even legit criticism of Israel is 'antisemitism'. Even noticing that Jews control Hollywood and Las Vegas is deemed 'hateful' and 'extreme', even though Jews brag about their success in those fields.

Also, blacks didn't used to complain as much. Black politics got charged when it came under the influence of Jewish and White Radicals who encouraged blacks to see 'racism' everywhere. In fact, lower-IQ blacks were incapable of coming up with all these fancy theories and concepts that supposedly explained all their problems on OTHER forces. As for Asians, they are copycats. They may be smarter but their mental attitude is 'study and obey' the prevailing power. So, in our PC culture, so many high IQ and ultra-educated yellows do nothing but parrot all the nonsense about how they are victims too. They screech about how they are NOT some 'model minority' and whine about 'micro-aggressions'.

It's worth noting that there are key differences among blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics. While American Indians are economically depressed and suffer from a host of social problems, their communities are nowhere nearly as violent as black ones. There is no American Indian Baltimore.
As for Hispanics, it's a useless category as it includes Cuban whites, Dominican blacks, Mexicans from white to brown, and etc. So, there is a huge divergence of achievement among Hispanics. Cuban whites who fled from Castro have done very well in the US. And generally, white Hispanics are much better off than Indio 'Hispanics' who shouldn't be called 'Hispanics'(just like American Indians are NOT called 'Anglos' even though they speak English). Also, the problems of brown Indio 'Hispanics' should be laid at the feet of White Hispanics(the real Hispanics) who first conquered the New World, spread diseases and committed mass 'genocide', raped tons of women & created mestizos, and then imported millions of Africans to mess things up even further. Later, white Hispanics in Latin America welcomed mass immigration from Europe to make their nations whiter as the elites feared the Rise of Color. But because 'Hispanic' in the US means everyone from white Hispanic to non-white 'Hispanics', the white ones get to pass themselves off as People of Color and play 'victim' of Blanco Gringo. It is so lowdown and dirty.

Why are White Hispanics such weasel-like louts? One reason is Latin Culture has always been more sleazy and sneaky. (Same with Greeks too. As Southern Europe was invaded by non-Europeans, the culture became less trusting and cohesive.) But another reason for weasely Latin perfidy and dirty tricks is the Long Resentment between the Germanics(Northern Europe) and Latins(Southern Europe), with France being a mix of the two. In early history, Southern Europe had a decisive advantage over Northern Europe. Climate was milder in the South, and Southern Europe was closer to the cradle of civilization in the Near East and North Africa. So, Southern Europe developed earlier, and for a long time, the Southern Europeans invaded Northern Europeans and often used them as slaves, servants, or mercenaries.
But the South was eventually overrun by Northern Barbarians in the Fall of Rome. Even so, it seemed as though Southern Europe still had more hope than the North. Byzantine(not Latin but continuation of the Roman Empire) survived, and the Renaissance kicked off in Italy. Also, Rome was the center of the Church, and until the Reformation, there was only the Catholic Faith for all of Western Europe. Through much of the Renaissance, the Latin parts of Europe generally outshone the Germanic/Celtic parts. But, over time, the North and South split along theological lines, with North becoming mostly Protestant and the South remaining mostly Catholic.
And then, there was the rise of Great Britain. Perhaps, the first Great North vs South war(or Anglo-Germanic vs Latin South war) was the naval battle between England and Spanish Armada. England won and became the outpost of Anglo-Germanic Protestant might. The English were essentially a Germanic people who developed a greater sense of independence. So, 'Anglo-Germanic' for English folks is valid.

Still, the Latin Catholic nations dominated much of Europe. Spain, Portugal, and Italy were all Catholic and Latin. France and rising Austro-imperial power were more complicated. France was a strange mix of Latinism and Germanism, far more than Spain. Still, it was a nation with Romantic language and Catholic faith. Austrians were Germanic but Catholic.
At any rate, the Latin-Catholic powers seemed dominant on the European continent even though Anglo-Germanics were gaining gradual supremacy of the seas. But then, there was the rise of Prussia. Though small, it was tough as nails. It was the wolverine of Europe. Pound for pound, the most impressive power. But, it was when Prussia united Germanic lands into the modern German Nation that the Germano-Protestant powers became dominant on the continent. By taking the nationalist idea from the French Revolution, the Germanics began to come together. And unified Germany was bigger than France and had stronger work ethic.
So, while Anglo-Germanics gained supremacy of the seas and gained dominance in the New World, the Teutonic-Germanics were becoming the supreme power on the continent. Now, Anglo-Germanics could have forged an alliance with Teutonic-Germanics, but England saw rising Germany as a crude upstart power and made a gentleman's agreement with the French Empire to suppress German ambitions.

Anyway, all throughout the 19th century, the world witnessed the rapid expansion of Anglo-Germanic power and Teutonic Germanic power. In contrast, even a unified Italy couldn't do much. Spain and Portugal were mired in backwardness. In terms of power, France was somewhere between Latin South AND Anglo-Germanic & Teutonic-Germanic North. It made considerable progress but was outpaced by the Germanics in everything but the arts and wine.

Therefore, the Catholic-Latins came to envy and resent the Anglo-Germanic and Teutonic-Germanic North. It was bad enough in the Old World, but the patterns were repeated in the New World. Anglo-Germanic founders and Teutonic-Germanic immigrants(Germans and Scandinavians) were so much more capable than the Latin-Catholic folks who founded and settled Latin America(Mexico to all of South America). Indeed, even Latin-Catholic territorial claims on the North America passed over to Anglos and Germanic by sale(Louisiana Purchase) or Conquest(Florida and later the SW territories). In both the Old World and New World, the Anglos and Germanics did so much more than the Latins. There were many theories as to why. Was Protestantism more conducive to building a nation character of honesty, diligence, sobriety, and work ethic? Were Northern Europeans of higher IQ and stabler temperament due to racial homogeneity, whereas Southern European blood became mixed with Turkic, Arab, and African blood? (After all, even Northern Italians joke that Africa begins in Southern Italy. And the Spanish, upon liberation from Moor rapist-imperialists, were very mindful of bloodlines since so many Spanish women had been sexually taken by the North African Muslims who were hornier than the Pakistanis of Rotherham.)

Because the Latin-Catholics lost so badly to the Protestant-Germanics(of whom Anglos are a part), they've been looking for ANY excuse to either (1) take from the North or (2) destroy the North, thus removing the object of their envy. What Latins considered as their fatal inferiority came to be invoked as a point of their superiority. In the past, the idea was that Northerners were more fortunate because they were More White in contrast to Southern Europeans who, either by conquering or being conquered by others, had become more mixed in blood. So, while an average Englishman or German looked very white, many Southern Europeans looked 'swarthy' and even Arab-like or Turk-like, even a bit Negro-like. OTHELLO is set in Italy, not in England or Sweden.
And this pattern repeated itself in the New World. Whereas Anglos came as men & women and had many white kids who grew up to settle North America, Spanish and Portuguese mostly came as Men Only and had no choice but to mate with native women. The result was the Mestizo. Also, whereas there was a sense of unity among all white folks, rich and poor, in North America, the Latin white elites didn't much care about their poorer white kin. They were all about their own upper crust privilege. So, the poorer Latin whites had no choice but to mix with the darker skinned folks.

Anyway, for much of the 20th century, many educated people saw this race-mixing and Diversity as the great bane of Latin America. So, they desperately tried to encourage mass immigration from Europe so that Latin America would become whiter or at least could maintain a sizable white population against the Rise of Color as non-whites bred faster.

But after WWII, Jews took over the US, the center of world media and academia. And the New Official Line was that 'white purity' is evil while Diversity and Race-mixing are the most wonderful things. So, almost overnight, Latin America was supposed to feel so PROUD of its greater diversity(in nations where whites were often the minority) and mixed-race-ness, whereas Whites in the US and Canada(and UK and Sweden and Germany) were supposed to feel ashamed and deficient for their relative purity and homogeneity vis-a-vis the Latin South.

So, Latin America became the New Model for the US, just like North Africa became the New Model for Northern Europe. Of course, it begs the question... if Diversity and Race-mixing are so good, why are so many mixed-raced people trying to flee from mixed-race Hyper-Diverse nations(where whites are the minority) to Whiter Pastures of North America? If Diversity is wonderful and if Homogeneity(relatively speaking) is awful, then people in more homogeneous nations should be moving to more diverse nations. But it's the opposite! People flee from the Diversity of Latin America and go to whiter America, just like Asian-Indians flee from ultra-diverse India and move to Canada. And peoples from racially diverse and mixed North Africa try to move to white Europe, especially the North. If people move from multi-and-mixed racial Diversity to White Homogeneity, then it must mean White Homogeneity is more appealing and precious. Then, it means White Homogeneous nations should keep their valuable white homogeneity. And they used to. Indeed, they used to be proud of it. But because Jews gained control of the Dogma and Narrative of the West, white people in homogeneous nations have been made to feel racially deficient and soulfully diseased. They can only be cured by the Vibrancy of Diversity or VD. So, the fact that non-whites, mixed-raced folks, and minority-whites flee from Diversity to find better life in White Homogeneous(or White Majority) nations has been altered by the PC Narrative into a fairy-tale of generous non-whites coming to white nations to gift the lame white-bread people with the wonders of Diversity and Vibrancy. Even though the Diverse Masses are coming to TAKE FROM WHITEY, the Narrative portrays them as a people who come to GIVE TO WHITEY.
In the real world, people run from Diversity-as-disease to White-Homogeneity-as-cure, but the Narrative has flipped what is actually happening to a case of people from the Third World bring the priceless gift of Diversity to the White World diseased with Homogeneity. People are such suckers that so many fall for the hype than see the truth.

Anyway, it's the continuing saga of Latin South vs Germanic North in European History. South had a huge head-start because of milder climate and access to the cradle-of-civilization in the Near East and North Africa, BUT the South — Greco-Roman-Latin Civilization and the Near-East-North-African Kingdoms fell into stasis or stagnation, whereas the North, for a variety of reasons, came upon a combo-formula of economics, politics, theology, and philosophy that kept pushing it toward new discoveries and triumphs, leaving everyone in the dust. This Northern Triumph could have been maintained with the alliance of Anglo-Germanic and Teutonic-Germanic peoples, but such failed in the Old World. In North America, the Teutonic-Germanic Americans just became part of Anglo-Wasp America, and the united power of Anglos and Germanics fueled American Greatness; but in the Old World, the rivalry between Anglo-Germanics and Teutonic-Germanics led to World War I that crippled both powers. A second chance at an alliance arrived in the 1930s, but the Nazis were pathological, and UK played the cards poorly, leading to WWII that spelled doom for both UK and Germany as major world powers.
That left the US as the great Anglo-Germanic power, but it wasn't long before the ambitious Jews took over as the elites of America and went about altering the Dogma and Narrative, whereby Whiteness was diagnosed as the Main Disease not only of America but of Europe as well, a disease that can only be cured by Massive Diversity Immigration-Invasion. Supposedly, the Latins were better than Anglos and Germanics because they(Spanish, Portuguese, and French) had been more into race-mixing with non-whites. Never mind that all these race-mixing were done under unequal circumstances where white men effectively carried out massive sexual imperialism against non-whites. Mestizo, after all, is essentially the product of Civilizational Rape, just like the Vietnam War led to white-and-black sexual imperialism and domination over Vietnamese women. The so-called 'progressives' claim to be anti-imperialist but they are ecstatic about the history of Sexual Imperialism and Civilizational Rape simply because Jews insist that nothing is more wonderful than race-mixing(even though, oddly enough, Jews have no problem with Israel doing everything to discourage Jewish mixing with non-Jews).

When white people in the past favored homogeneity over diversity, the Latin South was not proud of its mixed raced-ness. If anything, they tried to become whiter. After all, people noticed that, generally speaking, whiter nations were better off than swarthier nations in Europe. And even in a place like Italy, the whiter North was better off than the swarthier South. The color complex was amusingly portrayed in the Italian movie BREAD AND CHOCOLATE.

The swarthy Southern Italians eyeing the fair-skinned blonde 'Nordics':



An Eye-talian dyes hair blonde and tries to pass as 'Aryan':



The affluent blonde Northern Italians and their Swarthy Southern Italian servant: Notice the main divide is class-and-locale than ideology.



And in many Spaghetti Westerns, Italians often play the Mexican characters.



As the post-war ideology of the West increasingly became anti-imperialist, the Latins in both the Old World and New World began to identify with the Third World. So, the Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo made BATTLE OF ALGIERS. Since the Latin South couldn't compete economically or technologically with the Anglo-Germanic North, they settled for the crutch of Moral Upmanship. Since the Latin South was swarthier in Europe and more racially mixed in the Americas, it could posture as the part of the non-white alliance against Evil Whitey. So, their mixed-raceness that had been seen as a stain became a sainthood.

Che Guevara was white, but he spoke of all of Latin America as one united mestizo race. He spoke of this as a matter of pride while overlooking the fact that this Mestizo was the product of European conquest, 'genocide', and rape of the brown natives(as well as importation of millions of black slaves who also took part in the rape of natives due to lack of available womenfolk).
See the video at 2:15.



Much of the idealism among Latin Whites is really just a crutch. They are sore that the Germanic North beat the Latin South in both the Old World and New World. Since Latin whites were surpassed by Germanic whites and since much of Latin America is hopelessly lost to the Rise of Color, the Latin Whites came to pretend that their failure actually has been a spectacular success because of all the Diversity and Race-mixing. But if it's such a success, why not just stay there in the El Dorado of Mestizo-hood? Why do people in Latin America, white and non-white, seek whiter pastures in the US or Gringoland? Because deep down inside, they know the Gringo-Blancos did much better and achieved so much more. So, they want access to that bounty. But they also want to destroy it because it reminds them of their own comparative failure in the South.

The pathetic thing is so many whites in the Anglo-Germanic North have fallen for this PC nonsense about Diversity because their media and academia have been taken over by Jews who smear any desire to preserve white nations and communities as 'far right' while any plan to transform the West with Third World demography is now called 'centrist'. So, Macron's desire to turn France into North Africa(or even Sub-Saharan Africa) is 'centrist', while the desire of the French to preserve their nation as a European nation is 'far right' and 'extreme'. It is part of Jewish WOW or War on White.

Still, it's one thing to virtue-signal and another thing to face the reality. Italian Ideology had long been controlled by the Left(even through many moderate rightist governments) because the Italian Right was disgraced with defeat in World War II and the ignominious death of Mussolini. Italians loved to spout off about Marxism and etc. It had one of the biggest communist parties and so on. Post-war Third Worldism gave Italians something to be proud of. As they were swarthier and 'darker' than Northern Europeans, they could pretend they too were in the struggle against Western Imperialism. But this was fun when Italy was mostly Italian. But in recent yrs, Italy has been filling up with foreign invaders from Middle East and Africa, and this kind of virtue-signaling isn't very fun when Italian girls are being raped by Africans. Also, even Italian Organized Crime is meeting stiff competition with new gangs and thugs from places like Nigeria. Furthermore, virtue-signaling about Diversity and Brotherhood with the Global South isn't very fun anymore since the Germanic North has embraced it with even greater fanaticism. What's the point of saying 'We Italians are proudly darker than your pale nazi Swedes and Anglos' when Northern Europe is now further gone with PC lunacy and working even harder to become North Africa and Arabia? Then, it's no wonder that a nationalist party came to power in Italy.

As for why blacks have so many problems in the US, it's not just a matter of lower intelligence. Lower intelligence doesn't necessarily mean greater aggression. One thing for sure, sheep are dumber than wolves but less aggressive. There are many low-IQ people like Forrest Gump who are mild in temperament. The problem with blacks isn't only lower intelligence but greater aggression. We see problems of greater aggression among well-to-do blacks too. One study showed that middle-class blacks are more prone to criminality than poor whites are. This is why a low-IQ black is more likely to be more violent than a low-IQ white guy or American Indian. Another problem is blacks are more muscular and tougher, and that fills them with thug-pride and gangsta-arrogance. It's like Jack Johnson didn't just beat white guys but taunted them. He played with them like a cat plays with mice. And Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson took pleasure in beating up their opponents. If most blacks were built like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis(despite lower IQ), they would be far less arrogant, aggressive, and violent. Suppose some low-IQ black thug is glaring at you and acting threateningly. He acts like he owns the place. But suppose a Race Fairy appears and uses her wand to turn the tough Negro into a short Pygmy. His behavior would change immediately because YOU can now kick his ass if he talks shit. It's like Sylvester the Cat that constantly chases after tiny Tweety is frozen with fear when confronted with Mega-Tweety.



Blacks act wild and crazy because they think, "I can whup dat white boy's ass". So, they often beat up teachers and disrupt classrooms. Even many teenage black kids are much bigger and stronger than teachers. Some black kids are stronger than teachers even by 6th grade. Another problem is that blacks love to have fun and can't control themselves. Due to evolution that favored the warrior-and-dancer genes, blacks are more prone to act wild. Even White Liberals who officially disdain racial stereotypes have featured blacks in movies like LILIES OF THE FIELD and SISTER ACT where the more 'natural' and 'instinctive' Negroes teach lame square white folks how to cut loose, sing, and dance, shoo!

Their culture revolves around 'muh fist', 'muh holler', 'muh dic*', and 'muh booty'. Of course, not all blacks are like this, but plenty are. Their entire cultural interests revolve around saying stuff like "Ooh ooh, it's naaaaaasty!" or "He a baaaaaad mothafuc*a!" So, blacks feel ultra-contempt for the weaker races. But because blacks are so into 'muh whatever', they often fight among themselves over who be 'baaaad'(which means good) and who be 'naaaasty'.

Now, Lance Welton mentions that Asian kids are more vulnerable in integrated schools because they are smaller and weaker, and that is true. But he doesn't mention that white kids face the same problem with blacks. Why is it that in many integrated schools, the violence is usually black on white and the sexual relationship is black male and white female? It's because black guys usually beat up weaker and slow white guys, and white girls go with black boys because females like alpha males over loser-beta-males and seek more sexual pleasure with bigger dongs(that, according to medical science and pop culture, favor the Negro over the Blanco).

Now, April Benner can't speak the truth because she's an NPC. She's like a hound who is only capable of chasing after the Correct or Mandated Scent. The PC scent says 'Whites are to blame for everything, and blacks are sacred and blameless no matter what they do'. So, her 'intellectual' trek seeks a pseudo-academic rationalization that expiates blacks of all wrongs and places all the burden of black problems on whites.
Now, if she is Jewish, she could be promoting White Guilt to paralyze white identity and white pride because the ONLY WAY Jews can make whites serve Jewish Supremacism(the real dominant power in the US) is by shame-whipping whiteness. Unable to feel autonomous pride for what they are, white folks can only serve the Identity of another people, and of course, Jews rigged the Narrative so that Jews are the most sacred of races. It's no wonder that all those white politicians who denounce white identity and white pride go out of their way to praise Jews & Israel and serve as deranged attack dogs against whatever Jews hate: Russia, Syria, Iran, Palestinians, and 'fellow white people'. Current US policy is the Culture of Jewish Hate. If Jews hate something, we must hate it too, like a dog must growl at whatever its master orders it to feel animus against.
If Benner is not Jewish, she is likely a cuckette who's been brainwashed by PC and can't think outside the NPC box. Furthermore, it's nearly impossible to think freely in the academia that is geared to favor only PC voices and weed out dissenters from the 'right', as Jonathan Haidt documented. Academia is just an echo-chamber, and I doubt if Benner has the guts or spine to deviate from the PC Narrative.