Five Tricks of Deflection used by Jewish Power to Divert Our Attention from Jewish Supremacism and Its Evils — How Jews both work with China against White America and make White America focus on China but not on Jews — Jewish Use of Globo-Homo and Tranny-Tyranny

We need to Name the Jew. Why not? Jews always name the White, even for things whites are not responsible for.

The Jewish Way has five main strategies for making whites suck up to Jewish Power and not see the light.

1. Blame White Supremacism and ‘systemically racism'. This puts whites on the moral defensive and always eager to prove they are not ‘racist’, meaning whites are afraid to make any criticism of Jews and blacks. BLM is largely Jewish use of blacks to guilt-bait and castrate whites. ‘White Supremacy’ is also useful to Jews as the ideological and iconoclastic glue that holds various nonwhite groups and self-flagellating(aka virtue-signaling) white proggies together.

2. Russia Factor. Trump won in 2016 because so many people were upset with globalism pushed by Jews. But lest more people realize this, Jews pushed the notion of Russian Collusion. In other words, Trump didn’t win due to legitimate grievances and validity of nationalism but because Russia cheated on behalf of Trump, aka "Putin’s puppet". Of course, Russia did no such thing whereas Jews defrauded the 2020 election — they stole it out in the open and could get away with it because they control all media and institutions — , but that’s how Jews play the game. If Jews do bad and people get upset, Jews blame the problem on Russia(deemed vile in the eyes of libby-dibs because it won’t bend over to globo-homo, the most sacred crusade for many idiot progs who can’t even defend the meaning of womanhood from tranny-tyranny).

3. China or the Chi-Coms. Here, Jews play a more devious game. When it comes to ‘White Supremacy’ and ‘Russian Collusion’, almost all Jews openly and loudly say IT’S EVIL WHITES or THE RUSSIANS. Jews of both parties blame Russia, Russia, Russia. In their paranoia, they hate Russia as a template for sovereign white nation that defies Jewish globalist hegemony.
But when it comes to China, Jews play it both ways. Most Jews on the Democratic side will be somewhat muted in their China-bashing. They will do it but pull their punches because they see China as a necessary partner in the globalist undermining of White West. And Chinese know Jews control the US and work with Jews as the New Masters of America. (Chinese know they must do this on a hush-hush basis as Jews don’t want to be named, but this means people notice the Chinese hand but not the Jewish one, meaning China gets all the blame.)
This is useful to Jews because China will be blamed for all that goes wrong in the US even though Jews are often the main culprits. And bashing ChiComs is a red meat that Jews allow for white conzos who are too chicken to name the Jew, black, or homo. So, while Jews don’t quite join in the pile-on against China(and even pretend to defend Chinese from ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’), they don’t use their formidable control of media and institutions to suppress white conzo attacks on China; usually, they tolerate it and even encourage it while keeping their own hands 'clean'. While Jewish media power will jump on and savage anyone who dares to criticize, however mildly, Jews, homos, and blacks, it pretty much tolerates any level of China-bashing.
This way, Jews win both ways. By acting friendly to China, they use it as a partner in Jewish globalism against whites. But by letting white conzos growl at China, Jews take no blame, all of which falls on the Chinese. (Conzos are like masochistic jealous jilted lover who will do anything to win back their Jewish master-hubby who is dilly-dallying with dragon lady Suzie Wong.) It's a smart move by Jews. Jews outsource China-bashing and China-goating to white conzos. Take the election fraud of 2020. Jews did most of it, but conzos blame China(and Iran and even Venezuela, and some even mentioned Pakistan). Jews know that white conzos are much frustrated in the New America controlled by anti-white Jews, and these conzos need some outlet to vent their spleen against. As white conzos are too afraid of Jews, they need something to bash, and it's usually Russia(among libby-dibs) and China(among conzo-wonzos).

4. Iran and Muslims or the Neocon thing. This may have declined in value over the years. Also, these days, libby-dibs are more likely to support More Wars than the Conzos are. Libby Dibs control all the Deep State and love the game of power; they are more gullible when it comes to so-called 'mainstream news', which is really Jewish Supremacist propaganda, not least for More Wars for Israel. Still, even though Conzos aren’t as war-crazy like in the post 9/11 Dubya years, many of them still love to growl at Mooooooooslims in the manner of Samuel Huntington's CLASH OF CIVLIZATION(and in the hope that if they bark at Muslims loudly and long enough, they will prove their worth to Jewish masters who will pet them on the head and offer more doggy biscuits). Never mind this CLASH wouldn't have existed but for Wars for Israel and Mass Immigration to Europe(pushed by Jewish forces and their cuck minions).
Many Conzos still knee-jerkedly support Israel as the ‘last outpost of Western Civilization’ against the Moooooslim barbarians. It’s seen as ersatz crusade. And more Libertarian types argue we must hate and even kill bushels of Mooooooslims because there’s less feminism and ‘gay pride’ in the Middle East; and Israel is so great and awesome because it puts on the biggest ‘gay’ parades in the world — this is what passes for ‘conservatism’, aka cuckservatism, in the West. (Never mind Iran ensures more rights and freedom for women than Saudi Arabia does, which goes to show that these libertardian arguments take backseat to ‘what is good for the Jews’.) As long as enough white conzos and white libby-dibs are into neo-crusade mentality(for whatever reason, e.g. ‘Muzzies are terrorists’, ‘Support and defend Israel’, ‘women’s rights’, ‘Christians vs Muslims’, ‘Assad gasses babies and eats them for lunch, and must go’ etc), Jews can direct white energies away from Jewish Power toward the Mooooooslims.

5. Use globo-homo as front and proxy. Multi-Culturalism was part of Jewish bait-and-switch. Initially, Jews attacked Western Civilization and the White West by calling for appreciation and celebration of ALL Cultures, especially those of key minorities. But, Jews showed no interest in the real values of Hindus, Arabs, Muslims, East Asians, North Africans, and many other groups. But then, why should they? Most cultures around the world tend to be conservative and traditionalist, at least relative to the deracinated West. Jews used Multi-Culturalism only to the extent of rallying nonwhites(as victims) into a coalition against whites(as perennial villains). It was never about any genuine appreciation of different cultures. Indeed, the globo-homo & tranny-tyranny cult has proven the lie of Multi-Culturalism. Instead of promoting various cultures equally, Jewish Power favors 'gay pride' uber alles. US embassies don't fly banners saying PALESTINIAN LIVES MATTER. Only Jewish Identity and Black Identity get equal billing with globo-homo. The rest are all sideshows or mere backdrop. As most cultures around the world are anti-'gay' agenda, Jews know that true Multi-Culturalism would be mostly anti-globo-homo and tranny-tyranny. So, instead of urging homos to respect other cultures, Jews demand that all cultures change their values and alter their attitudes to welcome, promote, and celebrate homo decadence and tranny degeneracy. Jews especially target the urban affluent and/or educated in cities around the world as such types tend to be most deracinated, rootless, status-conscious, and eager to conform to global trends emanating from Jewish-run metropoles. This is good for Jews because they totally control the money and brains behind globo-homo and also because homos and trannies are avid allies of Jews as both groups have much to gain from spreading rootless globalism and vain cult of narcissism around the world. Globo-Homo is essentially proxy of Jewish Hegemonism. Furthermore, globo-homo is a useful diversion for Jewish Power. If people direct their outrage at 'gays' and trannies, Jews themselves get less abuse. Jews are also devious. While the bulk of Jewish Power pushes globo-homo, Jews also take on the token role as opponents of globo-homo. Thus, Jews hedge their bets and even fool dimwit or sappy conservatives into believing that Jews are on their side.

Now, the sad fact. Jews attack whites, Russians, Chinese, and Iranians(& Muslims), BUT none of them dares mention that Jews rule America and are behind this madness. Just like Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, they are afraid to Name the Jew. Even Russia, China, and Iran, despite their national sovereignty, dare not name the Jew.
Why not? They fear Jewish power because Jews control the West. Whites, conzos and libby-dibs, are so reverential toward and protective of Jews that any naming of Jewish Power by Russia, China, or Iran will be construed by most white cuckservatives and wuckerals as ‘ANTISEMITISM’ or ‘NAZISM’!!
Russia, China, and Iran know that Jews control white people’s minds in the West, and they don’t want ALL THE WEST to be against them. So, they choose not to name the Jew who has the power over institutions and individuals in the West and can turn the Idiot White West against any nation. Jews are the cowboys, whites are the cattle to be herded this way or that way. But as long as whites play cattle to Jewish cowboys, their main role is as meat headed for the slaughterhouse.

JEWISH SCIENTIST PROPOSES CURE FOR WHAT HE CALLS THE “PARASITIC CONDITION OF WHITENESS.” - The Red Elephants - Vincent James

How does Critical Race Theory work? — How Jewish Power uses CRT to rouse Blacks against Whites — How Zionism Employs BLM as Moral Cover for Its Racial Oppression of Palestinians — The Misuse and Dangers of the Politics of Examples

More important than any theory is the question of WHO CONTROLS IT? If Critical Race Theory were controlled by Palestinians, it would focus on Zionist villainy. If it were controlled by the so-called Dissident Right, it would focus on 'race-realism' and pro-white identity. In a way, what Jared Taylor does is a kind of Critical Race Theory but from the vantage point of Hu-White Interests. Of course, the 'right-wing' discussion of race is currently closer to the truth than the 'left-wing' kind, but it wasn't always so. One could argue that National Socialists were one of the first modern Critical Race Theorists, and they got much about race wrong.

The Frankfurt School wasn't about race but class and culture(though they were plenty racial in their sympathy for Zionism). The classic left disdained discussion of race & biology, preferring to focus on social forces, economics, and culture(in some cases). It was the Right that insisted on biology. The Left insisted that all races were more or less the same and that apparent racial differences could be overcome with new laws and policies. The Frankfurt School was about Critical Theory, not Critical RACE Theory.
The introduction of the element of race is actually an appropriation of rightism into leftism, just like so-called Multi-Culturalism appropriated from rightism the element of culture. Classic Leftism, especially stemming from Marxist Theory, focused on economics and material forces of history. Culture, though important, was seen as a product of economic forces than an influence, let alone a determinant. So, those who emphasized the power of culture were missing the point. The real prize was economic power, and then, the rest, including the proper kind of culture, would logically follow. Turn the economics leftist/communist and the culture would naturally reflect the new reality of economic justice.
But Antonio Gramsci dissented from this dogma and emphasized culture as a shaper of future events. Even so, his view was decidedly leftist in that, by 'culture', he meant the arts, literature, propaganda, music, and etc. He didn't mean culture as in 'cultural heritage and identity'.
But that is precisely what Multi-Culturalism focused on. It argued that Liberal Capitalist society was robbing people, especially minorities, of their cultural identities, heritages, and roots. Therefore, people must keep their cultural identities separate and intact from the mainstream culture dominated by the majority. It sounded like a program of mini-traditionalism for minorities against the cultural imperialism of assimilation into the majority.
Of course, it was a bait-and-switch as Multi-Culturalism wasn't really interested in different cultures and identities but mainly served as a rallying cry against whiteness, Western prestige, and/or Christianity. It was a Jewish ploy to use Diversity against the White Majority. In the end, Multi-Culturalism didn't encourage various minorities to cling to their roots but to indulge in trashy pop culture, demented feminism, decadent globo-homo, and mindless Afrodolatry. Still, Multi-Culturalism was a leftist appropriation of the Right in that it used CULTURE or cultural identity as a weapon against the mainstream. Classic Leftism encouraged the abandonment of traditional cultural identities, customs, and values in favor of universal theory of justice for all brethren and sistren.

Now, with Critical Race Theory, the so-called 'left' went another step and adopted the element of race from the Right. If the Classic Left was about the need to overcome the notion of race, Critical Race Theory and the 'neo-left' are about discussing and determining everything through the prism of race, race, race, especially black, black, black. Of course, ostensibly CRT is about overcoming the legacy of 'systemic racism' and 'white supremacy', but it is really based on two convictions that CRT proponents dare not spell out but deeply feel in their core:

1. Despite all the new social policies and programs, racial differences remain. Blacks underperform, dramatically in many cases, vis-a-vis other races and, therefore, RACIAL solutions must be found to address the problem: More 'affirmative action', more 'diversity'-mongering, more paeans to blackness, more 'white guilt'-peddling, and even reparation(to be followed by many more as blacks will take the money and waste it on bling, weaves, flashy cars, crack, and fried chicken). This part of CRT is based on black inferiority. No one dare say it, but the assumption is blacks need extra help or HEP forever and ever cuz they just can't cut it on equal footing with others. In the past, stuff like racial remedies were proposed and defended as temporary measures that would aid blacks to gain equal footing, but with CRT, they are meant to be permanent fixtures because it is widely assumed that blacks will never catch up and therefore require special attention indefinitely.
We know it, they know it, but no one dares say it cuz it be "racis' and shit". Thus, CRT is a paradox. It is based on racial differences but theorizes to pretend otherwise. Boiled down to essentials, it says blacks need Extra Hep cuz they be less intelligent but theorizes about 'white supremacism' and 'systemic racism' to justify the Extra Hep. That way, CRT gets to be racial and anti-racial at the same time. "Honkey, gibs me extra gravy cuz I is a dumbass Negro... but dat be hurtin' my bigass ego, so, let's pretend you is racis' & shit and dat's why I's gots no money, sheeeeeeiiiiit?" Blacks get something from this, but so do white libby-dibs in their endless 'virtue signaling' about BLM.

2. If one side of CRT is really based on black inferiority, the other side is based on black superiority. Every people have a tragic history, but why do blacks get extra attention? Same reason Jews do. Shoah is deemed more tragic because Jews are the superior race of Albert Einsteins and Carole Kings. No one quite says it like this, but they feel it.
Same goes for Negroes. Because of the song-dong-strong factor(rap music, sexual prowess, and athletics), blacks are fetishized as a special super race, which was the point of the movie GET OUT where white liberals love blackness so much that they take over black bodies. Of course, as CRT grew out of leftist Critical Theory, it cannot honestly and forthrightly express its racial bias, but the bias is clearly there. Would people care so much about blacks if not for their prominence in music and sports? When blacks howl about CRT, they are not talking about mere justice but yapping about how they done deserve the most money, respect, power, privilege, and etc. because they be the superior race of song-dong-strong factor, and besides, they gots them bouncy booties dat be 'twerking' and shit. Black women think, "We be twerking, and dem white girls be imitating, and dat means we be creative while white folks be stealing and shit." That is how they really 'think'.

So, CRT is a strange racial theory of both black inferiority and black superiority. At the core, it's about 'blacks need reparations cuz they be dumber' and 'blacks deserve more blings cuz they be cooler', but both obviously racial propositions are paved over with politically correct 'theory' that pretends black problems are the product of 'systemic racism' and 'white supremacism'. And this is good for Jews because they get to use blacks to milk 'white guilt', which is then used to make whites obey Jews and support Zionist tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa.

Rather than examining CRT, we need to look into WHO CONTROLS IT, and it's the Jews, far more so than blacks. Jews think, blacks drink.
It's like the fates of communist ideology in various settings ultimately depended more on who controlled it than what it preached. No wonder communism in the USSR and communism in China turned out so differently. And CCP under Deng moved in a very different direction from CCP under Mao. Officially they were all Marxist-Leninist but the theory could be molded into whatever by whomever had control over it. Same with Christianity. It could be anything from Russian Orthodox Church that served the conservative Tsars to Liberation Theology that allied with Marxists in Latin America against the oligarchies backed by US power.

In America and the West in general, CRT is really Jews using blacks against whites. And it’s not because Jews like blacks. It’s that Jews know blacks are profitable due to sports/music and symbolically valuable because of ‘muh slavery’. In a way, black success in sports/music adds to the symbolic value as whites feel more sympathy, guilt, and awe about those they deem superior. Many whites regard blacks as the superior race and feel more guilt about what they did to them. About American Indians, not so much as they’re seen as stone-faced drunkards who aren’t good at much of anything(even though the Indians are by far the most tragic people in American History).

Notice how CRT is never about the evils done to Palestinians by Jews. It’s almost always about Jews using blacks and ‘diversity’ against whites. Jews set the basic template of blacks-bitching-about-whites, and so, other groups play along as they are generally lacking in agency, honesty, originality, and integrity. So, yellow dogs bitch about whites even though blacks attack them in the streets. (But then, white dogs bitch about China even though Jews are leaders in White Destruction. It’s all very idiotic but understandable given the fear and awe that the various goyim feel toward Jewish Power.) You have Hindus and Muslims bitching about whites even though they can see plain as day that Jews control everything in the US. Jews have done great harm to the Muslim world, but most Muslims in the US ally with Jews against whites, but then idiotic whites serve Jews against Muslims. Why do Muslims ally with Jews? Because Jews are for more non-white immigration. Also, even though Jews are more dominant in the Democratic Party, Muslims find the GOP even more servile to Zionism and Israel. Besides, Muslims are a bunch of cowards who go for the strong horse(Jews) and, of course, they are divided amongst themselves and will side with non-Muslims against other Muslims. (But then, Europeans routinely sided with Muslims against other Europeans, like Germans in alliance with the Ottoman Empire in WWI. And, UK recruited non-white soldiers in their empire to kill other Europeans.)

CRT never addresses the tragedy of all those Arabs and Muslims killed by white soldiers used as attack dogs by Jewish supremacists.
CRT is about anti-whiteness, but where does it come from? It comes from Jews who control media and academia. And its main purpose isn’t justice or equality but to perpetuate Jewish Supremacism. Jews know their power depends on abject white servility. Jews know physical servility is downstream from soul-servility. To make white souls servile to Jews, the cult of ‘white guilt’ is promoted, especially pertaining to blacks, the race of MLK and Michael Jordan. That is the essence of CRT. Thus, once Jews own white souls, white bodies follow and do as Jews order.

Always go to the source. We need to ask, "What is the source of CRT in America?" Consider two films: MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON and THE RIVER.

MOUNTAINS is about the search for the source of the Nile. A great river, but where does it originate? And THE RIVER is a Taiwanese film where water keeps pouring from above in an apartment complex. But instead of dealing with the source of the problem, the characters seek various palliative means that don’t address and solve the real issue.

Many on the dissident right discuss blacks and CRT and this and that, but many still refuse to address the SOURCE of this pollution. It is Jewish Supremacism.

Jews regard goyim as animals, and current Jewish policies reflect this.

Consider humans and nature. Humans cannot do without nature. No nature, no mankind and civilization. Still, mankind insists on 'taming' and controlling nature, dominating other organisms be they animals or plants. Mankind builds dams and canals to control flooding or to harness nature’s energy in a productive way. Mankind relies on oxygen produced by jungles but creates its own space that is separate from and relatively free of the forces of nature. Jungles must exist but apart from mankind. Soil must exist and rain must fall but be kept out of homes. And semi-natural farmlands are separate from cities and towns where most people live. Mankind relies on ants to enrich the soil, but ants mustn’t be allowed into the house. So, mankind relies on nature but maintains dominance over it or keeps it at bay even while harnessing and harvesting its bounties.

Of course, mankind doesn’t only control nature but itself because, left unrestrained and unregulated, mankind may well overly exploit nature and pollute/destroy everything, thereby destroying mankind along with the nature. And so, there are environmental laws and all sorts of rules that regulate human behavior. Still, look at any map, and mankind favors its interests far above those of other organisms. US is a huge nation, but most of the land has been turned into cities, towns, farms, and etc. Relatively few areas are left to wilderness. Even so-called National Parks are heavily intruded upon by mankind. And there are only few sanctuaries left for animals deemed dangerous to mankind: bears, wolves, cougars, and etc. The bias is overwhelmingly in favor of mankind. Mankind totally dominates but is restrained from absolute exploitation. Meanwhile, wildlife is allowed to flourish unperturbed only in a few areas.
Indeed, mankind’s magnanimity toward organisms depends on the total domination. It’s like the US could be nice to Germany and Japan only after their total defeat in World War II. It’s like white Americans could be kind to American Indians only after the Red Savages were totally crushed. Compassion follows compulsion. Because there is no danger of Indians scalping white folks any more, whites can look upon Indians with sympathy. Because there’s little danger of wild animals devouring us, we can speak up for nature and defend wildlife. But if animals roamed all around us and routinely attacked us, we wouldn’t be so nice.

This is why Jews reacted so hysterically to the rise of populism. To them, it was the equivalent of mankind being challenged once again by nature. In the Jewish mind, Jews are humans whereas goyim are closer to beasts and animals. Goyim exist like dogs and cattle to serve Jews as the mankind. Goyim must either be domesticated(and turned cucky-wucky) or, if unwilling to be trained or neutered under the Jewish whip, be kept away from the Jewish-human domain. In the current US, Jews offer carrots to the cucky-wuck whites and use the stick to push ‘antisemitic’ white goyim into the outer-zone. No jobs, no banking accounts, deplatforming, censchwarzship, and even prison. If you’re a white dog, you must obey. If you’re a white wolf, you must be cast out and even hunted down as ‘domestic terrorists’.

Jews rely on goyim like mankind relies on nature. But just as mankind insists on controlling and dominating nature, Jews insist on controlling and dominating goyim. Mankind can have nice feelings about nature AS LONG AS nature doesn’t encroach upoon and challenge man’s dominance. Even the most fervent environmentalist wouldn’t want wolves to enter his town and eat his dogs/cats and attack his wife and kids. Likewise, Jews believe goyim are tolerable only when they are totally in the control of Jews. If goyim take on minds of their own, Jews get awful pissed as such would challenge their rightful sense of total dominion.

The difference between whites and Jews comes down to this. Even though whites were ‘racist’ in the past, their Christian value system has had an ameliorating effect. So, even though they were ruthless in invading and crushing the Other, once the dust cleared and whites won, whites could be somewhat generous and conciliatory. Even a bit remorseful. This was also because whites became the solid majority or the overwhelming power. In the US, whites came to outnumber the Indians by a huge margin. Over Japan, US domination was so total that the US could make nice with the Japanese who were crushed in body and soul, even forced to abandon their gods.

In contrast, Jews have nothing like Christian values. At the core, they are animated by tribal supremacism. Also, Jews are fated to be a small minority even in countries where they gain great wealth and power. Thus, they feel paranoid about the day when the goy mobs may finally awaken and come at them with pitchforks. Also, Jewish racial personality is nastier than that of whites.
So, if white domination had some limits, there is no limit to Jewish domination. Unlike whites, Jews never feel, “We have enough and should make nice with the Other.” Just ask the Palestinians. After having taken most of the land, Jews are now even carving up what remains of West Bank. And Jews allow ZERO sympathy for Palestinians(or Syrians and Iranians for that matter) in the media that they control. It’s always about the poor, poor, holy, sacred Jews. If Jews feel zero sympathy for the Palestinians, a truly powerless people, imagine how they feel about whites. Jewish feeling is a combination of fear, hatred, contempt, resentment, paranoia, arrogance, and greed. Jews exploit goyim like some people exploit nature: Without limits, without conscience. There's no sense of reciprocity in the Jewish attitude toward goyim, just like some people feel nature exists merely to be exploited for short term gain.

Unlike whites who came to concede that the peoples they defeated also had their pride, reasons, and justifications, Jews insist that only they are right while all their rivals, enemies, or whatever are totally wrong. Jewish attitude toward goyim isn’t much different from Hitler’s attitude toward Slavs. “We rule, they obey”, and that’s that. In the end, American Indians got some respect from whites. But Palestinians get NOTHING from Jews.

Now, consider how Zionists exploit BLM to serve their own agenda. It’s such a dirty Jewish trick. Via BLM, Jews pick up moral credits and shield.

Of course, BLM is bogus as, in reality, it's the blacks who are most bigoted and violent, but that’s not how official/public morality works. What matters is the Idols and the Narrative. Because of the idolatry of MLK and Mandela, blackness has been made synonymous with ‘anti-racism’, ‘justice’, and ‘human rights’. So, blacks can act like louts and trample on the rights of others, but it doesn’t matter because the mere fact of blackness places blacks upon the pedestal of ‘justice’. It’s like Negro Nobility or Negrobility.

It doesn’t matter how blacks act because blackness has become synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement. If Marxism lionized a class, the proletariat, the BLM movement lionizes blacks as automatically and inherently noble based on historical associations and idolatry. But such mentality has roots in Christian and American histories as well. Christians long believed, “Because Jesus was crucified and early Christians were persecuted, all Christians are eternally holier and nobler… while Jews are forever tainted with the killing of Christ.” And Americans have this crazy idea that just because the new republic was founded in rebellion against the British Empire, Americanism has always been and shall always be about freedom, justice, liberty, and etc…. when, in fact, Americans broke apart not to be free of empire but to create an empire of their own and indeed became the new empire that not only expanded westward and took land from Mexico but also grabbed the remainders of the Spanish Empire and engaged in destructive wars in Asia and Middle East and continues to use Latin America as its backyard. So often, identity becomes associated with morality. We know this from Jews certainly: Just because of the Shoah, every Jew is an Anne Frank forever and ever.

So, it doesn’t matter if BLM is BS in the minds of multitudes of morons. What matters is the idolatry around blacks. Blacks, being ‘holy’, can make any accusation, throw any tantrum, riot & loot, sack city after city… but they are always a holy noble people who must be understood, sympathized with, placated, and appeased.

Granted, there is an element of fear as well as guilt-and-compassion. After all, blacks are tough, aggressive, and wild. In the past, whites had the spine and wherewithal to retaliate harshly against black thuggery, but no such resolve exists today. So, when blacks act up, whites fail to unite and fight back. Fearing black rage and violence, whites cuck harder and harder in the hope that black rage will subside… that is until the bitch is in heat again.
Same with Jews. Part of the reason for whites cucking to Jews is due to sympathy stemming from the Holocaust, but the bigger reason is Jewish Power. Jews can destroy anyone financially, legally, politically, or socially, and so most people suck up to Jews. Because whites don’t want to admit their fear and come across as a bunch of scaredy-cats, they pretend their favoritism toward blacks and Jewishness is a matter of sympathy and admiration than fear and cowardice.

Because of the ‘iconic’ status of blacks, it doesn’t matter how blacks behave. The thing is to have blackness on YOUR side as a moral boost. It’s akin to having ‘god on our side’. As Jews paid off blacks by funding BLM, blacks don’t discuss the plight of Palestinians and instead make nice with Jews. Why bite the hand that feeds you? We saw this with Al Sharpton who began his career by bashing Jews as ‘diamond merchants’. But Jews paid him off, and he’s been a House Negro in the Jewish Mansion ever since. Jews got plenty of money, and they can buy off any number of blacks.

Jews sure play dirty. Even as they ordered the police to crack down harder on black crime to make cities safer, whenever blacks riot or express rage Jews scapegoat the ‘white supremacist’ police and pretend to be friends with blacks. Blacks surely know this dirty trick, but hey, they love money, and Jews are willing to pay big bucks. And as Jews control the gods, the big corporations and the deep state play along because they operate on the rule of “Jews lead, Goyim follow.”

With BLM on their side, Jews got their moral cover, and they can do whatever they want to Palestinians, Arabs, Syrians, Iranians, Muslims, and etc. Sure, some people do call out on Jewish-Zionist evil, but the official morality in the West is about who/whom. Some peoples have the aura of sanctity while others don’t. So, when Jews or blacks complain, it's a big deal because they are holy, which makes their words holy. But if other groups complain, it doesn’t matter because their identities lacks sanctity. We know there’s a difference between a Jew wailing over a dead Jew and an Arab wailing over many more dead Arabs. Jewish voice matters because Jews are holy. As for Arabs, who cares? When blacks bitch about a dead black killed by a white, it’s a big deal. But when whites bring up the issue of whites killed by blacks, there’s silence or condemnation of it as 'racism'. You see, any negative stereotype about blacks is 'racist', therefore any negative fact about blacks is also 'racist' because the sum of all those facts confirms the stereotype as valid. In other words, you must favor the 'anti-racist' fantasies about blacks than consider the 'racist' facts about them. When it comes to blacks, moral fate precedes material facts. Judgement comes before truth. The judgement is 'blacks are holy', therefore facts must bear out that judgement. But what if facts say otherwise? What if facts say blacks aren't naturally holy or glowing with sanctity due to history? What if facts say blacks are the most problematic and troublesome race? Then, the facts must be rejected as 'racist'. Indeed, the Derek Chauvin conviction flows from this logic. As it's been judged blacks are holy, George Floyd who really died of drug overdose has to be made into a saint murdered by white 'racism'. But what about the facts that say otherwise? Never mind them, and always remember, it's been judged by the powers-that-be that blacks are holy, therefore if fantasy is more useful than facts in confirming the judgement, go with the fantasy.

Because blacks have been made officially holy in the West, Jews know that an alliance with blacks will bestow moral cover upon the Tribe. Jews pay off BLM, and BLM colludes with Jews and blames everything on ‘white supremacism’. With the BLM moral shield, Jews spread death & destruction in the Middle East and destroy the lives of millions of Arabs, Muslims, and/or Iranians. It's like Christians of old using Jesus as moral shield for all their conquests and wars.
Jews are thus doubly protected from criticism. As Jews, they are the holy holocaust people. Protection #1. As friends of BLM, they have the blessing of the other holy people, the blacks. Protection #2. Of course, Jews are triply protected because of globo-homo. Having made homos & trannies holy in the West and having gained their blessings in return, Zionism can justify itself in Western eyes as the premier ‘pro-gay’ force in the Middle East. What about the lands stolen from Palestinians, you say? Well, who cares about those Palestinian ‘homophobes’ when it’s the wonderful Jews who are spreading the holy message that sodomy is a rainbow-dream?

BLM demonstrates the power of the Politics of Examples. Those who get to choose the examples pretty much get to dominate the Narrative. Suppose there’s Billy and Bob; suppose both sometimes acted good, sometimes acted bad. Now, suppose the teacher wants to discuss the topic of Good and Bad(or Evil). Suppose he only uses Billy’s good deeds as examples of goodness while only using Bob’s bad deeds as examples of badness. Even if both kids did good things and bad things, it will create the impression that Billy is always good while Bob is always bad.

Take the issue of ‘racism’, meaning racially bigoted. There are tons of examples of Jews being ‘racist’, but such examples are never used. Instead, Jews are always featured as victims of ‘racism’ and/or ‘antisemitism’ while whites are almost always the primary examples of perpetrators of ‘racism’.
Same with slavery. Jews were involved in slavery. Blacks practiced slavery in Africa for 10,000 yrs. And slavery was a universal thing, and it ended only because of Anglo imperialism that turned moralistic at some point. But rarely are the official or approved examples of slavery those practiced by blacks or nonwhites. Also, there’s little awareness of slavery of Europeans under Turks or Mongols. Instead, most of the examples are about blacks enslaved by whites, especially North American whites(even though Latin American whites/Jews enslaved many more blacks).

So, even if an institution claims to be ‘anti-racist’ and fair to all sides, it can end up favoring certain groups over others by the misuse of the Politics of Examples. This can be downright funny as when news and entertainment deal with crime. Blacks are the top criminals and thugs, but most news or entertainment prefer to feature whites as top criminals. Of course, there are white criminals, but the dishonest and disproportionate use of examples create the impression that white violence is the scariest thing in America.
Or, consider the Politics of Examples as pertaining to terrorism. Israel was created through terrorism. It has committed many terrorist acts. It continues to commit terrorist acts in Syria and Iran. It has aided ISIS and Alqaeda and most likely nudged Alqaeda to attack the US on 9/11. But the examples of terrorism are usually Arab or Muslims. At times, when Jews want Arabs/Muslims in the West as their allies, they resort to making ‘white supremacists’ out to be the main examples of ‘terrorists’. Just like the use of sampling determines the statistics on the general population, the use of exampling shapes the impression among the general population.

No wonder the US came up with the idiotic policy of going lenient on black misbehavior in the classroom. We all know more black kids got suspended because they act worse than other students. But the cumulative impact of the Politics of Examples(that usually featured blacks as victims than perpetrators) led to the idiotic notion that black kids were being denied the opportunity of equal education because of ‘racism’.

WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING IN JERUSALEM W/ ROBERT INLAKESH

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.

There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their core interests on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. Marxism = Interests > Identity. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race, culture, and nation.

Among capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so 'crude' as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal mode of cosmopolitanism would go from elite privilege to mass reality if all worked according to plan. With rising prosperity, expanding leisure, and growing sophistication, cosmopolitan model could define mass consciousness.

But as things turned out, identity(and ethno-cultural inheritance) mattered after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, cultural consciousness, historical memory, & ethno-solidarity, and, if anything, nationalist tensions flared up even within the socialist camp, as between USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and sense of history.
And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that neither political ideology nor mere economic interests(usually short-term and ever-shifting) cannot supply the meaning and compass that could be found only with identity-of-inheritance(which is distinct from PC identity-of-grievance). Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.

Also, certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusionary toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was Main America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America had to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identities and melt into a single pot of new-found unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it(not least because the melding of various white ethnics into a Common Americanism had succeeded more or less in many parts of America). And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about the overall impact of such 'melting' assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites(meaning White Christians). So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found new value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own (apparently more authentic)identities against whiteness.
This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 1980s. So, if assimilation were the magic formula for America, it meant non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood by becoming 'honky-ass white'. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore.
If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks managed to. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they couldn't assimilate into whiteness(at least not 100%) and become mere imitation-wasps(as some White Christian Conservatives wished them to be). Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reached the top, they figured it should be the whites(and others) who should try to assimilate to the Jewish Way(mainly be sucking up to Jewish Power). After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into the Jewish Way than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. (Assimilating into the Jewish Way isn't the same thing as goyim-becoming-Jewish. Rather, it means goyim regarding Jewish Power and Jewish 'values' to be the dominant New Normal of America and the West. For example, Homomania as replacement for Christianity.) Granted, some goyim literally do assimilate into Jewishness because they are so in awe of Jewish Power. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and/or prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.

So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right.
Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. It is an identity-of-grievance than an identity-of-inheritance(and reverence). Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory(native homeland). Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrant-invaders usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges non-whites to abandon their own homeland nations/folks/cultures and head to White/Western nations and surrender to Hollywood culture of degeneracy, PC dementia, Homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But surely, living in a world of Diversity makes it more difficult for any group to preserve its identity, heritage, and culture; obviously it's more difficult for a Burmese or Syrian to maintain his identity and culture in the US or Canada than in his own home nation. Homogeneity means there are others who share in your identity & culture and cooperate with you in maintaining the history and heritage of your people. Diversity means your people/culture constitute just another minority that is surrounded by other groups with different identities and cultures. Diversity undermines every culture as every group will lack a solid support system of like-minded and like-cultured national kinfolk. Surely, it's more difficult to secure Irishness if an Irish group is surrounded by many other groups who aren't Irish. There must be a constant struggle to prevent members of the group from joining and interbreeding with other groups. Also, Diversity means all groups must be united by something generic, bland, and/or superficial that has easy but shallow appeal to all groups. As America grows more Diverse, the sniffing-glue that holds America together is Pop Culture and Food. In contrast, in a Irish nation full of Irish people, you don't even have to make an effort to preserve Irishness since it's all around, organic and rooted.
Anyway, to make things even worse in the Current West, the Cult of Diversity is interwoven with Homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. The lie of Multi-Culturalism is that it appreciates and defends non-white cultures from Western Hegemony. Its real agenda is to associate non-white cultures with PC grievances and degeneracy. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam per se. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans maintain their Islamic ways and cultural values. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to uphold Islamic values or spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into the Way of Islam. They've done just that with Christianity already. Especially Mainline churches are now into Queertianity.

Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for but an identity-of-against. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are and what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims' of 'white racism' and 'white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.

And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-Culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homo lunatics? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims who still live by the Faith.

The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to reverberations of Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for genuine bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything.
Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It provides reprieve from the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is to ensure continued Muslim immigration-invasion to the West, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.

http://forward.com/opinion/360847/thanks-donald-trump-you-actually-brought-jews-and-muslims-together/

Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something.
In contrast, the identity-of-for or identity-of-inheritance(of history and heritage) has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He'd be a proud Greek regardless of Victim Politics. His Greekness has value apart from Hurt Feelings.
In contrast, an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something and whines endlessly about victimization. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate and blame, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has no inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is a vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou.
Given the anti-white vitriol of PC, why are so many white people(ranging from SJW harpies to cucky-wuck GOP Constitutionalists) on-board with the lunacy? Because white people have adopted a kind of negative-identity and fetish-for-exoticism. Given human nature, even guilt soon turns into pride, and so, it's not surprising that 'white guilt' morphed into a new twisted kind of white pride. Since whites are no longer allowed to feel pride in white identity, they seek neo-pride in White Guilt, just like Christian obsession with Sin became just another form of pride, that of sanctimony and holier-than-thou shtick. Christians took pride in their displays of atonement, and white proggies and Cuckservatives practice neo-white-pride in the form of the Great White Atonement. They indulge in Good White Pride by loudly beating their chests and bashing the 'racist' Pride of Baddy Bad Whites. Also, so many whites are now so bored with their own history and culture that they are into exoticist fetish for other cultures(and 'genders').

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-mighty-wokeness-is-their-god/

I imagine the Ethiopian eunuch as a delightfully androgynous soul – dark of skin, flamboyant, dressed in bright silks, bejeweled, his lips colored and his eyes lined with kohl. He is sitting under a parasol in a large chariot, and around him are mounted soldiers and attendants. A wagon carries tents and food so that he can camp in luxury on the journey home.

Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity-of-depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted the Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Shoah. Under this limited formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics and recent history.)
Precisely because even shallow-identity can lead to deeper-identity, Jewish Power decided to unleash Homomania especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, despite the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism(or the Outpost of Western Civilization), and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites, especially the secular ones. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-Anno-Sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. Otherwise, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings are most effectively washed with shameful white acts(of homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting).

The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI.
The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It had one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Anything that didn't submit had to be destroyed or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control had to be in hands of the radical left.

In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another.
The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany than in most communist nations was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all away and created hell on earth when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.

So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial.
Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way. Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"

Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini made a foolish pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian).
Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.

In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the scratching of branches of different trees at the whims of winds.
Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads.
In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration-invasion to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something in common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality -- just take a look at California -- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definitive. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." And libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean. They mean 'equality of opportunity'.

It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.

Neo-Fascism is the best intersectionality between the Real Right and the True Left. Left-Rightism must be the Way of the Future.