Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Let Us Now Bless the Jews... with Tough Blessing - How did 'to bless' come to mean to 'to kiss ass' in regard to Israel in the West?

 

 Video Link

Recently, Tucker Carlson’s interview with Senator Ted Cruz went viral. What grabbed people’s attention, raising alarm in respectable circles but fanning enthusiasm in the alternative/dissident political sphere, of course wasn’t Cruz’s fanboy ruminations about Israel(as that sort of thing is dime-a-dozen among politicians of both parties) but Tucker’s pushback and counter-argument, as well as his refusal to be pigeonholed as an ‘Anti-Semite’.
Over the years, virtually everyone in the so-called Mainstream Media has either nodded along or remained silent upon politician after politician professing their utmost fealty to Israel, Zionism, and Jewish People in general. While Carlson didn’t go far enough, his eagerness to press upon Cruz to explain himself(as beholden to another country) signaled a seismic shift in the political discourse regarding Jewish Power and its impact on US foreign policy.

Even though it was refreshing to watch a popular media personality challenge what passes for conventional wisdom(or an article of faith) among US politicians and deep state operatives on matters pertaining to Israel, there was disingenuousness on the part of Carlson as well as of Cruz. While it’s true that Oozie Cruzie tried to imply that Carlson is an ‘Anti-Semite’, Carlson’s heated response wasn’t entirely convincing. Not that Carlson is indeed an ‘Anti-Semite’ but that the term has lost all meanings, not least because Jewish Power now labels as ‘Anti-Semitic’ just about anything that calls foul on bad Jewish behavior. Now, if ‘antisemitism’ means blaming Jews for everything and/or crediting Jews for nothing positive, most people would agree it’s a bad thing.
But nowadays, Jewish Power has conflated Zionism with Judaism(or Jewishness), and all ‘good’ people are now expected to unconditionally support Israel no matter what it does, such as supporting ISIS in Syria, carrying out genocidal acts in Gaza, bombing civilian targets in Lebanon, and pulling a Pearl-Harbor-style attack on Iran.

Therefore, for Carlson to still be triggered by the accusation(even if only implied) and profess innocence — “No! I’m not an Anti-Semite!” — is rather weak and wussy. Humanity needs to retire that term because it’s been redefined by Jewish Power as an apologist-justification for Jewish Supremacy: “We Jews are the masters of the universe, that’s that, and you goyim better support us or else you’re lowly ‘Anti-Semites’ who must be destroyed like ‘Amalek’.”

But more importantly, it’s disingenuous to speak of Israel merely as a foreign nation or entity when the current US is part of an empire, not a sovereign republic. The US and Israel are joined at the hip, and therefore, even though Israel is technically a foreign nation, it actually functions as the spiritual-imperial center of the Global Western Imperium.

Furthermore, the real power isn’t in Tel Aviv or someplace in Israel but in the Jewish strongholds in the US(and the EU). Without Jewish-American control of the US, there isn’t much that Israel could do. Netanyahu is able to trample all over US politicians because they are beholden to Jewish-American oligarchs and figures of influence across the institutions and industries.
Tucker Carlson must surely know this but is afraid to GO THERE: Addressing the deeper issues of global Jewish Power. It’s less risky to speak of the US vs foreign state Israel, i.e. the US shouldn’t be kicked around by a foreign government, than to speak of how Jewish tentacles reach into every corner of American Power, an undeniable reality that, however, may still be construed as ‘Anti-Semitic’.
By focusing on Zionist Israel, Carlson hopes to evade charges of ‘antisemitism’ by making a distinction between a foreign entity and Jewish Power in general. You see, he’s not talking about THE JEWS but only about a foreign country that happens to be Jewish and exerts an inordinate amount of influence on the US.

But, this is nonsense because Israel on its own couldn’t generate such overarching influence. It does so only because THE JEWs across the West have supported Zionism and used their levers to exert maximum pressure on goy puppet-politicians to do the bidding of the Greater Israel Project.
The dynamic between Jewish Power and the Goy Elites is like the one between the backwoods hillbilly and Ned Beatty’s character in DELIVERANCE. Jewish Power rams its cock into the arse of the goy who squeals like a pig, “Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee, weeeeeeeeeeee.” White goy cucks might as well be called Wee’s. Ted Cruz certainly is a Wee. Whatever comes out of his mouth is just more ‘weeeeeeeeeeee’ with a fat Zionist cock shoved into his cucked Cuban-American arse.

 Video Link

At one point, Cruz accuses Carlson of being ‘obsessed’ with Jews, and of course, it’s pure projection as it is Congress(and all institutions of consequence) that obsessively toes the Zionist line. According to the likes of Cruz, it’s purely natural and normal, not ‘obsessive’, for Congress-creatures to applaud a pathological liar and psychotic murderer like Bibi Netanyahu with 57 standing ovations. But if anyone points out such cases of goy servility to Zion, that’s somehow unhealthily ‘obsessive’.

That said, shouldn’t a supposed liberal democracy be obsessively focused on who has the most power and how it is used? It’s in tyrannies that the people are not supposed to ask questions and merely chant “Heil the Great Leader”. For anything resembling a democracy to function properly, there has to be an open discourse as to which groups are the most powerful and what their agendas are.
Given that Jews are by far the most powerful group in the US(and the West), all of us should be obsessed with it, just like the Jews were once obsessed with what the Anglo-American elites or the WASPs were up to.
If we went on and on about West Virginia hillbillies or Mexicans in Pecos, Texas, now that would be unhealthily obsessive about absolutely nothing. Last I heard, it’s not the hillbillies who run Wall Street, and it’s not small-town Mexicans who run the State Department(and make the US fight Wars for Mexico).
The last thing we should be is passive(than obsessive) about The Power. There’s no point to the US being a democracy if it’s verboten to address the sources and the problems of The Power, which happens to be Jewish/Zionist.

Even though Jewishness, Judaism, and Zionism aren’t the same thing, they’ve become too closely interwoven to the point where one cannot step on the toes of one without stepping on the toes of others as well. It’s true that the majority of Jews are secular, but their ethnic identity is inseparable from Jewish religious conceptions and tradition. While a good many Jews are opposed or indifferent to the idea of Zionism, the overwhelming majority since the end of World War II have supported the project. More importantly, the Jewish Power Elites(who get to call the shots) have overwhelmingly been pro-Zionist, reflected in their influence on both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party(and all across the vassal states of the EU).

Thus, there are times when a certain identity aligns with a certain ideology, when the two become so intertwined that it’s difficult to understand one without the other. This may not be a permanent condition but is nevertheless potent while it lasts. Think of National Socialist Germany in which Hitler’s regime was wildly popular and embodied the collective will of the nation. As long as Hitler was in power, it made little sense to speak of a Germany separate from National Socialism. Same goes for Russia under communism.
As things turned out in the end, there could be Germany without National Socialism and Russia without communism, but while those ideologies lasted, they defined the character and the destiny of entire peoples. Same might be said of Iran as an Islamic Republic.
Likewise, the main thrust of the Jewish collective will and Jewish elite power from the end of World War II until now has been to defend Israel, discredit(and defame) its critics in the West, and to destroy its perceived enemies in any part of the world(not only Iran but countries like Venezuela and North Korea that has working relations with Iran).
Unless Tucker Carlson is willing to address this problem of the Zionist grip on America(and by extension the entirety of the West), he isn’t really being candid on the issue. In the long run, it may well be that the Zionist project will fail and Jews around the world withdraw their support and forge a revised sense of Jewishness untainted by an association with genocidal-supremacist Zion, but that day, if possible, isn’t here yet.

Tucker Carlson isn’t fully convincing in his game of semantics over what constitutes ‘Israel’. True, the meaning of the term in the modern era is different from its meanings in the past. In the strictest sense in our time, it means the nation-state of Israel that was founded in 1948. However, one could construe its existence as the fulfillment of the long-dreamt hope of the Jewish Diaspora to reclaim the lost homeland. In this sense, there is an eternal or ur-Israel even without the nation of Israel as long as the Jewish people exist and keep their heritage and hopes alive. It’s like Poland was wiped off the map by various empires, but the dream of the Polish nation was never extinguished and realized once again following World War I. And even though there is no Kurdish nation-state, one could still speak of Kurdistan of the heart-and-mind. So, one could argue that Israel the nation-state is merely the political manifestation of the long-held Jewish dream of the restored homeland.

Some more theologically inclined types argue that God made the promise to Abraham, not to ‘Israel’, but given that the Jewish Tribe began with Abraham, it doesn’t matter whether it’s called Abrahamic tribe, Jews, Israel, Zion, or whatever. Surely, any people/culture evolves and changes over time — Greece today isn’t exactly the Hellas of long ago — , but there are certain constants that distinguish them from others, and in this sense, one can speak of a continuity from Abraham to Moses to the Jewish Diaspora to the European Jewry(and its rise) to Jewish Americans & Zionism.
So, even if today’s nation-state of Israel would have been inconceivable to Jews of the past, it could be seen as the latest embodiment of the ever-evolving history of the Jewish people. Likewise, would the Chinese of the past have imagined the rise of Modern China(or even have approved of it)? But modern China is a continuation of the Chinese civilization and represents the will or at least approval of the vast majority of the Chinese people.

Besides, one can understand why the nation of Israel and Zionism in general have had a certain appeal to the Christian West. Zionism, despite having developed as a secular-nationalist ideology, compels Jews into a spiritualist frame of mind.
After all, if Jews merely needed a nation-state to call their own, why did it have to be in that part of the world? The only justification is ethno-spiritual, i.e. it has special meaning to the Jews as the Promised Land as granted by God.
The Jewish Diaspora was bound to be problematic to both Western Christians and Western nationalists. To the Christians, Jews were a problematic people who wouldn’t accept Jesus and remained a tribe apart. There was also the matter of Jewish Deicide in Christian theology. As such, Christians and Jews couldn’t have much in common in the West. Despite their shared reverence for the Old Testament, the Christians went in one direction with the New Testament whereas the Jews went in another direction with the Talmud, a kind of lawfare weaponization of the Tanakh.

However, Jews and Christians could make common cause via the Zionist project. For all their differences, they had a shared interest in reclaiming the Holy Land from the Muslims. Christians could also see the project as a means by which Jews would eventually come to Christ, either out of gratitude for Christian support or because of the Second Coming whereupon Jesus would return with something like the Waffen SS and command that all the Jews who convert be spared(and be prepped for Heaven) while all those who don’t be holocausted on the spot to burn in Hell forever.

Especially given that the Jewish Diaspora, at least since the Emancipation, has been associated with rootless cosmopolitanism, liberal decadence, cultural subversion, promotion of sinful hedonism, and/or radical politics, Western Christians found it difficult to find common ground with most modern Jews. Spiritually, Christians and Jews were divided on prophecy. Morally and culturally, Christians(representing the more conservative values of the West) were often appalled by the ‘pornographic’ and irreverent inclinations of the secular Jews.
But via Zionism, Western Christians finally found something to feel excited about in their cooperation with Jews to found a Jewish nation-state. Whatever disagreements existed between Jews and Christians on the divinity of Jesus, they were agreed on the specialness of the Holy Land. If Greeks should reclaim their land from the Ottoman Turks, why shouldn’t the Jews do something similar? Even the secular aspects of Zionism might have been appealing to Christians in an odd way. The idea was that these irreligious Jews, in returning to their ancient homeland, would be so inspired that they would come to God and give up their rootless and decadent ways.

And Western nationalists also saw an advantage in Zionism. Better for Jews to pursue their own nationalism in their own country than stand in the way of goy nationalist aspirations in goy lands. Jews were problematic as tribalists, rootless cosmopolitans, or radical universalists as long as they lived among goyim. Jewish tribalism(or nationalism) could never sync with, say, Polish nationalism, German nationalism, Serbian nationalism, and etc. Jewish rootless cosmopolitanism(especially via Jewish control of media and academia) subverted the identities and culture of goyim. And Jewish radical universalism, most potently expressed through Marxism, threatened to undermine the national sovereignty of goy nations in its mission of world revolution.

Zionism was appealing to goy nationalists because it would remove Jewish Tribalism from the West and transplant it to some place where Jews could do their own thing. Thus, the Jewish plant, instead of contending with goy plants in the goy pot of soil, would be allowed to grow in its own pot(with no bother to the goy plants).

As things turned out, however, the creation of Israel, far from freeing the West of the Jewish Question, burdened it with ever increasing obligations to the Zionist entity. For one thing, Zionism didn’t ‘re-migrate’ most of World Jewry to the Promised Land but only a portion of them, with the rest gaining power in the West and using it to ensure ever increasing Western subordination to Zion.

Of course, the real Promised Land, as far as the Jews were concerned, was America. Even though Jews didn’t have the numbers to conquer it and take it outright(as they did with Palestine), they managed to pull off the next best thing: They made the white elites succumb to Jewish Will, and then all else followed to secure the Jewish takeover of America.
From the Jewish point of view, the US is their New Promised Land while Israel is a symbolic reminder of their humble but audacious beginnings. Even if Jews lost Israel, their global power would be intact. But if they lost America, they’d be in the wilderness again. Thus, in some ways, all this talk of Israel-Israel-Israel serves as a distraction from the true nature of Jewish Power: Its successful colonization of the white elites into cuck-collaborationist Wee’s squealing ‘weeeeeee, weeeeeee’ as the Jews pummel their bungs.

As for Ted Cruz(or Senator Wee), he’s of course full of crap. A total sleazebag who will say and do anything for personal advancement, the only reason he sucks up to Israel is because Jews have the most power and money. Cruz knows that Jews can make or break careers. Chuck Schumer said Donald Trump was foolish to alienate the intelligence agencies that have many tricks up their sleeves, but he might as well have been talking about Jewish Power that has the power of finance, law(fare), media, deep state goonery, gangsterism, and outright thuggery(via groups like Antifa & BLM) to derail just about anyone’s reputation, profession, or simple peace of mind.

Of course, Cruz won’t admit the truth, that he’s just a political whore bought and sold like the rest, and instead spins a fairytale of his childhood years in Sunday School, ROTFL. Right, after all these years in politics as a total sleazebag, the reason for his unbridled support for Israel has something to do with church sermons he heard as a child. Do people still swallow this swill? P. T. Barnum comes to mind.

Surely, if Cruz really cares about Christian ethos, he must have heard something about compassion for humanity as a whole, which would include Palestinian women and children being starved to death or mowed down by IDF death squads. Where in the New Testament does it say, “Thou shall support Jews in their bloodlust and give unto them all the necessary tools to wipe out other tribes deemed as subhuman Amalek”? Where does it say, “Blessed are the Jews who starve Arab Christians” or “Feed the fat Jews and starve the famished Palestinian children”? Or “Supply Jews with endless bombs signed with your names to turn Palestinians into pieces of meat”? No matter how one interprets the New Testament, there is no way any real Christian can justify what the Zionists have done to Gaza.

Now, let’s play a game. Let’s take Ted Cruz at his word and pretend that he and his ilk are utterly sincere in their convictions about Israel, i.e. they truly do believe that those who bless Israel will be blessed(presumably by God, though these days, Jews, along with homos and Negroes, seem to be bigger than god). And let us agree, for the sake of argument, that the proposition carries validity. Those who bless Israel or the Jews shall be blessed in turn. And those who curse Israel or the Jews shall be cursed in turn.

That said, we need to define the meaning of ‘to bless’. Surely, it doesn’t mean a mindless, unthinking, naive, childlike, imbecilic, and unconditional endorsement of whatever Jews do. Why, that would mean Jews are PERFECT, tantamount to saying they are god(s), because, after all, only God is perfect. That would be blasphemy, to posit that Jews are as perfect as God Himself.
If Jews are humans, there’s no way they can be perfect, which means they are capable of sin and horrible crimes. Even as the Chosen of God, Jews would still be human and would have all the human flaws(and would be tainted by the Original Sin and the Mark of Cain).

Therefore, goyim’s obligation to the Jews should be both supportive and critical. Admire Jews when they do good, admonish them when they do bad. Otherwise, if to-bless-the-Jews means to favor them and praise them regardless of the issues, that’s more canine mentality than human mindset. Only dumb dogs suck up to their master no matter what he does, no matter how lousy he is.
If God gifted us with the heart and mind(or the soul) as the source of our moral compass, then we’re obligated to use it, even against those we love, admire, or are partial to for whatever reason. Just because we admire a certain movie actor or athlete doesn’t mean we’re obliged to defend whatever he does. Just because we appreciate a certain teacher or thinker doesn’t mean we must praise whatever he says or does. Just because a parent loves his or her child doesn’t mean he or she has to always shower the kid with treats and never ever punish him. The best kind of love is tough love, and the best kind of admiration is tough admiration, which means the best kind of blessing is tough blessing.

So, even if the Bible says that the Jews are special, it doesn’t mean they’re entitled to be immune from criticism and judgement. As Jews are humans and not divine(as only God and Jesus, at least according to Christians, are divine), they are just as imperfect as the rest of us. In a family, the parents may favor one kid over the others: The kid is smarter, has a likable personality, and/or possesses good looks; or, the kid gets more sympathy because of frailty or special needs. Whatever the reason, it still doesn’t mean the special kid is perfect and incapable of doing really foolish, even foul, things.

So, if we must bless the Jews, what does it really mean? Does it mean to turn off our hearts and minds(or our moral compass) and blindly endorse whatever the Jews do regardless of the harm it may cause to certain groups, not least ourselves? Must we ‘bless’ the Jews even when they carry out genocide in Gaza, do a sneak attack on Iran, promote anti-white hatred, or push White Nakba(or the Great Replacement) on the West?

Or does it mean to press upon the Jews to live up to their spiritual and moral duties of chosen-ness. If indeed Jews(and certain types of Christians) really do believe that the People of Abraham are special and gifted by God with the mission to be an inspiration to all mankind, then it seems that ‘to bless the Jews’ impels us to remind them when they act badly and lead them back toward the righteous path, as indeed Jesus did at times, especially with the money-changers at the gates of the Temple. In other words, the Tough Blessing is the only true blessing. Unconditionally blessing the Jews no matter what they do is to assume that they are god and beyond the moral laws of man. Also, it misunderstands the essence of what it means ‘to bless’.

‘To bless’ implies a degree of authority. In other words, God blesses mankind than the other way around. Those higher above bless those below. So, Jesus blesses us, and we receive His blessing and try to live by His teachings. It would rather be presumptuous for us to bless Him as He is the Son of God and doesn’t need our endorsement.
True, ‘to bless’ has multiple meanings, and an inferior can bless the superior in the sense of praising or glorifying the powerful. But more often than not, blessings are conferred by the superior unto the inferior. And so, traditionally, the child sought the blessing of the parent, especially the father, for the wedding, like in THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. Or the priest blesses a marriage. Or a home.

And, blessings are never unconditional. In the Bible, God blesses a people or individuals based on their merit. A proper priest will bless a marriage as a moral union of man and woman, not some polygamous union of orgiasts and certainly not a homosexual union(though, in our sick times when Christianity has ceased to be a conservative value system, plenty of clergymen/women will do just that in conformity to what Jewish Power deems as the New Normal). And a home will be blessed if it will be used as a place for virtue. What priest would bless a whorehouse, a meth lab, or a gambling den run by hoodlums?
In other words, to bless requires moral compass, integrity, discernment, and judgement. It makes no sense to bless someone or something for all times for all excuses. To bless and to curse are two sides of the same coin. When people do right, they deserve to be blessed; but when they do wrong, they deserve to be cursed.

Now, there’s the stupid meaning of ‘to curse’ that is the flipside of the stupid meaning of ‘to bless’. To unconditionally curse someone or something is as retarded as to unconditionally bless someone or something.
But then, that is exactly the state of affairs in the current cucked West: Unconditional blessing of Jews/Israel and unconditional cursing of Palestinians/Iranians. Even when Jews do terrorism, it must be defended. Even when Palestinians and Iranians use justified violence against Zionist horrors, it’s called ‘terrorism’. Even when Israel does a sneak attack with acts of terror in Iran, it’s deemed ‘defending itself’, but when Iran retaliates with missile strikes, it’s a bunch of Islamofascists attacking the blessed state of Israel.
In other words, Jews are right even when they do wrong, whereas Palestinians/Iranians are wrong even when they do right. Always bless the Jews/Israel no matter what they do, and always curse the Palestinians/Iranians even when they’re justified.
After Israel’s unprovoked surprise attack on Iran, the entire West not only sided with Israel but the US dropped bombs on Iran, all the more outrageous considering Israel has lots of nukes whereas Iran never had them. Both the art of blessing and the art of cursing in the West are completely without moral compass.

To properly bless someone or something also implies the need to curse him or it when necessary. No matter how special a student may be, the teacher isn’t obligated to grade everything he does with A+. If the student slacks off and does poorly, he must expect C’s and D’s. No matter how much a critic appreciates a certain author or artist, he isn’t obligated to praise every work. The critic’s duty is to ‘bless’ what is worthy and to ‘curse’ what is unworthy.

But, moral criticism has gone out the window in regard to the Jews, rather ironic since Jews have been among the most critical people, always finding faults(even imagined at times) in other groups. The taboo of ‘antisemitism’ has somehow convinced many in the West that Jews are always deserving of unconditional support, praise, and ‘blessing’.
Even when one disapproves of the agendas pushed by Jews, the ‘correct’ thing is to blame anyone or anything but the Jews — it’s the ‘leftists’, ‘globalists’, ‘Soros & gang’, ‘neocons’, or whatever — while seeking out those Jews, however small in number, with whom you share common interest. So, if nine out of ten Jews want to bash your head in, don’t mention their Jewishness, but if the one Jew wants to shake your hand, make a big deal of his Wonderful Jewishness.
Notice most Jews are anti-conservative and anti-white, but the white cuck dogs of the GOP emphasize their happy partnership with the ultra-Zionists. (Of course, the ultra-Zionists are no less hostile to white goyim and only exploit the craven cucks, i.e. whites sprinkle holy water on Jewish identity while Jews urinate on white identity.)

Curses must accompany the blessings. Indeed, it’s the way of none other than God. God’s blessings on the Jews came with conditions that they follow the righteous path. If not, God cursed them until they atoned for their transgressions to regain His grace. If God’s blessings on the Jews are unconditional, it would imply the Jews are equal to God or even superior.

According to the likes of Ted Cruz, God sees no fault in the Jews and blesses them unconditionally, which requires the goyim to do likewise. But is unconditional blessing really a blessing, or is it submission? When a dog reveres and obeys its master, is it ‘blessing’ him? In actuality, the dog doesn’t know any better than to submit and do as told. In contrast, ‘to bless’ implies a degree of judgement. If to bless something means to appreciate its worth, it assumes the mental acuity to do so, to gauge the value of something. To praise, one must first appraise. One must be able to tell real gold apart from fool’s gold, real diamond from imitation glass. In other words, blessings aren’t conferred blindly.

Even if Christians argue there’s nothing for us to think about and we should bless the Jews simply because God in the Bible says so, aren’t they cognizant of the fact that God’s blessings upon the Jews is conditional and judgmental, i.e. His blessing could be withdrawn temporarily(or even permanently) if Jews wander off the righteous path.
After all, the rise of Christianity was predicated on Judaism having met its expiration date, whereupon the New Israel comprised those who accepted the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. Indeed, what would be the point of the NEW Testament if self-professed Christians defer to the OLD Testament for the final word on the most important matters? Whatever God had promised to Abraham, at least according to the New Testament, culminated in the New Covenant offered to all mankind through the figure of Jesus. The New Testament says that Christians, in order to be blessed, must accept Jesus as the Messiah. It does away with the idea that mankind may find favor in the eyes of God through the Jews, an Old Testament tale.

Still, even if we were to look to the Old Testament as a guide to to-bless-or-not-bless, it’s clear that God never blessed the Jews unconditionally. Also, when Jews gained favors from other tribes or kingdoms, it was on the basis of give-and-take. Goy kingdoms or empires were nice to the Jews because the latter was of some service to them.

Then, even if we were to agree with Ted Cruz and the Old-Testament-Christians that we must bless the Jews, it must be done judiciously, critically, and morally. We must confer Tough Blessing upon the Jews. Just as love isn’t all hugs-and-kisses but rebukes-and-reprimands when, say, friends or family members go astray, blessings mustn’t entirely consist of praise and support but also criticism and denunciation when wrongs are committed.
Criticism is a kind of blessing for it presses upon people to see the wrongfulness of their ways and atone for what they’ve done. History says that World War II was the ‘good war’ because the ‘good guys’ not only beat the ‘bad guys’ but redeemed them from the ashes of defeat and restored them to the brotherhood of man. In that sense, one could argue that the defeats of Germany and Japan, though traumatic and ignominious, were a kind of blessing as those countries were exorcised of the evils of supremacism and militarism.

Then, the same goes for Jewish Power that has grown arrogant, supremacist, and megalomaniacal. It has become cancerous, and the proper way to tough-bless the Jewish People is to name this disease and remove the tumor so that they may be rid of the sickness of tribal megalomania.
In other words, our blessing must be conditional and critical, in the manner of God in the Old Testament who, when infuriated with the Jews, bitch-slapped them around some until they stopped acting like Ron Jeremy sucking his own cock.

People like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton confuse ‘to bless’ with ‘to kiss-ass’. Their message to goyim is to turn off the mind, forget morality, and forsake judgement. Just believe on faith that Jews are good, great, awesome, and wondrous in every way, and everything they do is magic(like in the Police song). Everything Jews do is magic, and we should be like silly children or dumb dogs fawning over the latest policy proposal cooked up by Netanyahu, Mark Levin, or Ben Shapiro.

Video Link

Let us ‘bless’ or kiss-ass everything they do. They want to drop bombs on apartment blocks and kill everyone? Kiss-ass the Jews. They send snipers to target Palestinian children? Kiss-ass the Jews. They blow up every hospital in Gaza? Kiss-ass the Jews. They blow up every school in Gaza? Kiss-ass the Jews. They laugh at the plight of Palestinians? Kiss-ass the Jews. They lure Palestinians to food centers and mow them down with machine guns? Kiss-ass the Jews. They prevent aid from getting in and let untold numbers of Palestinians die of starvation, thirst, and disease? Kiss-ass the Jews. Appeasing Jews, the centerpiece of what Western Civilization is all about.
So, according to John Hagee and Mike Huckabee, those are the kind of horrors we must ‘bless’ or kiss-ass in order to win favors from God? And all this time, we thought that the evolution of Yahweh was a moral advancement from the crude gods of Babylon that demanded child sacrifice.

The true meaning of ‘to bless’ implies a degree of authority and agency on the part of those who do the blessing, but there isn’t a hint of such among the Christard-cucks who believe that blessing-the-Jews means serving as flunky apologists for whatever Jewish Power cooks up nest, even if it means engineering a genocide of an entire people in Gaza or elsewhere.
Even when white conservatives oppose mass immigration(mainly pushed by Jewish organizations), they feel obligated to frame the argument in defense of Jews. You see, all those darky/brown immigrants aren’t as fawning and deferential to the Jews as white dog cucks are. “We blanka hundos serve the Jewish Master like no other bunch of goyim do, woof woof.”

It’s all so ridiculous. Throughout their history, Americans have been admiring of peoples and cultures around the world but never unconditionally. Americans have found much to praise in the virtues, values, and achievements of other nations, be it Germany, France, Japan, Russia, Mexico, Egypt, India, and so on. But Americans also noted much that was bad and ugly among the nations of the world. Even Great Britain, the mother country of the US Republic, was both an object of reverence and rebuke.

At some point, however, in regard to the Jews, the US went totally ape-shit in unconditional servility, all the more troubling as it goes against the defiant spirit of Americanism, the cowboy thing. Americans staked their pride in the revolution that rejected monarchy in favor of freedom, national autonomy, and individual agency, but they now look upon Jews as their god-emperor.
Americanism maintains that Americans should be free to speak their minds, criticize any power, name any abuse, and also keep the government free of theological dogma & tyranny, the kind that burned people at the stake for blasphemy in the Old World.

But now, all we hear from the ruling elites, even tough-sounding Trump, is that we must kiss-ass the Jews, suck Zionist toes, and trample on the Constitution itself to forbid ‘antisemitism’ that, in the current socio-political climate, can mean just about any criticism of Jewish Supremacism.
Even though Jewish Power is clearly in gangsterist, supremacist, imperialist, and genocidal mode, it is ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say so. And conscientious Jews who expose and excoriate the Jewish sickness are tarred-and-feathered as ‘self-loathing Jews’, which would imply that the only way to be a proper Jew is to support the madness of Netanyahu and his deranged cohorts. If you support Jewish supremacist evils, you are a good goy. If you denounce Jewish supremacist evils for the sake of larger humanity, you’re an ‘Anti-Semite’.

I have a better way. Let us bless Jews in a more sensible way that is good for them and for us. Let us bless them with tough-reminders of what it means to be moral citizens of the world. Let us bless them with sermons against targeting women and children. Let us bless them with condemnation of genocide regardless of who does it, Jews or Germans. Let us bless them with demands that the Jewish people reject supremacism and bring the likes of Netanyahu to justice. Let us bless the Jews with lectures on the US Constitution, i.e. it’s not okay for Jews to use lawfare to distort American laws in service to the Jewish supremacist project. Let us bless the Jews by awakening them to their hypocrisies, i.e. elevating the Holocaust into a new religion while supporting far-right Nazi-type elements in Ukraine and aiding-and-abetting Islamic terrorists to bring down governments while warning the West about the threat of Jihadism. Let us bless the Jews with the ideal that the mass media are supposed to serve as the Fourth Estate, not the extension of the Deep State committed to serving Global Zion. Let us bless the Jews with the rules of honor that would surely damn as perfidious the use of surprise attack(along with terrorist acts) by Israel against Iran. Let us bless the Jews with the hypothesis that if Anne Frank came back to witness the horrors in Gaza, she would weep. Let us bless the Jews with the irony that even a semi-retard like Greta Thunberg knows a genocide when she sees one while so many well-educated Jews are still making excuses for Israel, now Diseasrael.

And we can go on and on. If we are in the position to bless the Jews, it means we must also pass judgement on them and curse them out when they do bad. Cursing the bad is the flipside of blessing the good; they go hand in hand. Otherwise, it’s not really an act of blessing but of ass-kissing, which is what the US and the West are really about in regard to Jewish gangsterism turned most foul.

Power works like chemistry, and the greatest evil in the world has resulted from the compounding of Jewish Supremacy and White Submission. Jewish Supremacy on its own couldn’t do much, and White Submission(or Cuckery) on its own would be rather aimless. It’s like a man alone isn’t much and neither is a horse alone. But put a man on a horse, and he can conquer the world.
When Christianity dominated the West, both Jews and goyim had to give up something to meet one another halfway. Goyim would worship the God of the Jews but through the figure of Jesus, the King of Kings. And if Jews fully wanted to be part of the Goy Order, they would have to convert and become fellow Christians. Thus, Jesus would serve as the glue between the Jews and goyim. Same was true of communism, whereby the goyim would submit to the prophecy of Karl Marx the Awesome Jew while the Jews would abandon their tribalism and become comrades with the rest of humanity.
As for Zionism, it began as a nationalist project for the Jews — Jews would have a nation to call their own, like various European groups had their own nations, and Jews would mind their own business in their own nation — , but that original appeal to the goyim faded as Zionism morphed into the basis for Global Zion, whereby Israel wouldn’t merely be a nation for the Jews but the quasi-spiritual center of the Empire of Judea(that took possession of the US as its jewel in the crown).
Thus, the idea of midway compromise between the Jews and the goyim was tossed to the wayside, and incredibly enough, the universal theme in the West became the all-pervasive goy obligation to bless the Jews(who only bless themselves): Surrender everything to the Jews who, in turn, feel no obligation to concede on anything. Thus, Christianity went from a midpoint compromise between goyim and Jews to a mass cult whereby the goyim would effectively replace Jesus Christ with the Chosen-ness of Jews(that trumps all other considerations, with much of the New Testament now deemed ‘Anti-Semitic’). The fusion of Jewish Supremacism and White/Christian cuckery is surely the most dangerous development in the 21st century. All the major wars and conflicts of the new century have been its product.

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Why is American Slavery deemed a Greater Evil than all other forms of slavery throughout History? — Jared Taylor fails to mention the Jewish Factor, the American Credo Factor, and the Negrolatry Factor — How the Guillermo Hypothesis illuminates 'white guilt' about Blacks

SLAVERY IS OUR ‘ORIGINAL SIN'?! - Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance - https://www.bitchute.com/video/JMsPfuD2T3Zs/

There is much to recommend in the video above by Jared Taylor on the topic of White America's unique guilt regarding the enslavement of blacks. Taylor has been in the fight for white(or hu-white)peoples all over the world for much of his adult life, and he has brought intelligence, erudition, and dignity(especially relative to Neo-Nazi morons and Alt Right bad boys). But, everyone has a blind-spot, willful or otherwise, that misses out on the whole picture. Taylor is no different. There is so much that is good about the video, but it fails to answer its own question because it ignores the the founding creed of America, the notable advantages/talents of blacks(especially in the age of hedonistic pop culture), and the dominant power of Jews in current America. Once those matters are addressed, the truth is plainly visible. It should indeed be obvious WHY American Slavery has come to be regarded as a special evil unlike all others.

Though Jared Taylor is far more honest and courageous than most commentators on controversial topics, he tends to shy away from open discussion of Jewish power/influence, the black athletic/sexual threat, and the contradictions of the American Creed(and history). It is then hardly surprising that for much of the video, he goes into Pat Condell mode and dumps on Muslims and their brutal histories regarding conquests, slavery, and atrocities. Not being an expert on Muslim history, I defer to Taylor's knowledge on the subject. But why doesn't Taylor mention the Jewish role in slavery as well? Surely, Jews practiced slavery as much as any other people. According to Thomas Sowell, Jews played a prominent role in European slave trade in the Middle Ages. Jews sold plenty of white Europeans to Arabs and the like. (Jews also collaborated with Muslim conquerors of Southern Europe.)
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR RAPISTS - Pat Condell
New World Slavery also had considerable input from Jews, especially in Brazil that brought over the most number of slaves. (Taylor says 12 million black slaves were brought to the New World. In college, I was taught that Brazil brought over 3 million slaves, and that was more than in all the rest of the New World colonies combined. So, I'm thinking the number had to have been less than 6 million.) Why does Taylor spare the Jews? He's been attacked, ostracized, and slandered by Jews and also removed from social media platforms and banking services. What does he have to lose at this point? Is he afraid that Jews will hurt him even more? Or, is he a starry-eyed seeker of the Great White Jew, the hope that Jews, being white(enough) and possessed of high IQ, will finally come over to the White Side as the intellectual engine of White Power? Well, he can keep dreaming, but reality seems otherwise.

Whatever Muslims may have done in the past(as slave-masters of captured blacks and whites), they are hardly the authors of the current Western demise. While Muslim immigrants may cause problems in Europe, Muslims themselves haven't controlled the powerful institutions that persuaded and browbeat Europeans into welcoming endless tides of non-white immigrants. White Politicians in Europe aren't generally beholden to Muslims. Rather, they take their cues from Jews who have near-monopolistic sway over media, academia, legal institutions, finance, and other centers of power. Jews also control the gods that make whites fear and tremble at the altars of Anne Frank and Nelson Mandela. And even though Muslims practiced White Slavery and exploited white women as sex slaves, so have the Jews.

Furthermore, Jews are the biggest White Slavers in the world today, even though they now do it legally. Jews control pop culture & pornography and use them to promote Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). Jews encourage cucky-wuckery among white men who are now reduced to cheering every instance of white woman ditching white man and going with blacks. Somehow, whites remaining faithful to their own race and having white children for white posterity is 'racist' even for mainstream 'conservatives'. Hardly surprising as both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are utterly taken with the dogmas, idols, and narratives pushed by Jews who control academia and media. While this isn't slavery in the technical sense, it is in a deeper sense: Biological Slavery. After all, white women are going with black men and having black children not for color-blind reasons but interracist ones that say black men are the Real Men(with more muscle, bigger penises, and thicker voices) whereas white men are a bunch of slow flabby pansies whose role is to turn 'gay' and cuck to blacks. Jews don't so much push colorblind 'anti-racism' as interracism as a form of 'neo-racism', a proggy kind that says whites should mix with blacks not because race is just a social construct but because blacks are the superior race that deserves to lord over whites. And of course, in the relation between Jews and White Goyim is the unspoken faith that whites should serve Jews precisely because Jews are superior in intelligence(IQ), spirituality(the Chosen), and/or morality(eternally noble and saintly victims of 'antisemitism').

But Jared Taylor will not touch on these issues. It's likely he avoids matters related to Jungle Fever and the like because his formative years were more uptight about sexual matters, especially when pertaining to race. Still, Taylor has held nothing back in detailing black criminality and thuggery, their psychopathy and lower intelligence. On the matter of Jews, perhaps there is a kind of proto-boomerish sentimentality, as whites in the past grew up at a time when Jews hadn't yet consolidated their control of America and shown their true face. And it could be Taylor has had lifelong Jewish friends in the HBD community whom he's afraid to offend. It could be the hope for the Great White Jew. Or, despite having lost so much as the result of Jewish Power, perhaps he could lose even more, not even being able to hold his beloved American Renaissance conferences. At any rate, his reluctance to fully address the Jewish Question or JQ hinders him from a complete evaluation of what is really going on in the world, e.g. why has American Slavery come to be seen as a unique evil?

There are three key factors to be considered as to why the AMERICAN Slavery has become the focus of intense moral condemnation.

1. Jewish Factor. True, there were strong pro-black sympathies throughout US history, even before Jews arrived in large waves as immigrants. Before the Civil War, a Jew in America was more likely to be pro-Confederate and even own slaves. Abolition Movement had many fiery radicals fueled mostly by Christian moral outrage(that later became one of the pillars of the Prohibition Movement). Even many non-extremists thought slavery was a stain on America as a political and social project. And many whites in the North supported the war against the South to preserve the Union. The mindset was both nationalist and imperialist, as US was a nationalist outgrowth of British imperialism and spawned an imperialism of its own that spanned ever westward. A project committed to gaining more territory wasn't about to lose huge areas of the South, no more than the French were willing to let go Indochina and Algeria in the post-WWII period.
At any rate, prior to Jewish takeover of the US, there was a more balanced understanding of the struggle, war, and tensions between North and South. Being Anti-Slavery wasn't the same as being Anti-White, an unimaginable concept at the time. Most Northerners didn't want Southern whites to be terrorized by feral blacks. And even most anti-slavery whites in the North didn't believe in absolute racial equality between whites and blacks. If anything, the Republican Party soon became the conservative party of Anglo-American elites, big business, and the ever-expanding state.
Also, Northerners gave Southerners their due. Even if the South fought for a lost cause(that deserved to lose), they fought with courage and honor. Consider the sympathetic treatment of the South in John Ford's HORSE SOLDIERS. Dwight Eisenhower wrote glowingly of General Robert E. Lee. Before Jews took power in the academia and media to tip the scale, White America was, more or less, evenly balanced between conservative and liberal voices, with a modicum of mutual respect between the two.

But Jews did gain elite power in the US, with profound implications. Now, it's likely that many idealistic leftist Jews(when they were sincerely ideological) believed in the Boasian notion that Race is a social construct. Given their own struggles against goy prejudice(and explosions of violence), they felt special sympathies for non-whites and convinced themselves that the real dividing line between whites and blacks was mostly skin color, which could be overcome with social conditioning. (As things worked out, it didn't work because, while whites increasingly kept their side of the bargain, blacks failed ever more with theirs. Whites made an effort to become ever less 'racist', but this made blacks even more stereotypically uninhibited in aggression, violence, obnoxiousness, and ludicrousness, even to the point of a rapper calling himself Ludicris. But because whites traditionally held power over blacks, the assumption is the racial solution is entirely contingent on white improvement because whites control everything, whereas blacks are mere hapless victims with no sway over anything. Perhaps, this made sense at one time, but it no longer does, as blacks have plenty of power over many communities, even huge areas of big cities and key states. While one can blame the abusive parent for the problems of a young child, such lopsided moral aspersion is untenable when the child is a big teenager with considerable leeway in behavior and prone to delinquency. We are now at the stage where the black 'teen' is beating up the white 'parent', but we are still supposed to blame only whitey while pretending blacky is an innocent skittles-munching child.)

At any rate, Jews rule America, and Jews have thought long and hard about the essential pillars of their power. Jews know they got the talent but not the numbers to maintain the empire. They need white support. THIS is the main reason why Jews use blackness as the bullwhip against white identity, interests, pride, and freedom. Jews fear White Liberation more than anything, just like the British who regarded India as their 'jewel in the crown' feared the stirrings of Indian nationalism and resistance movement for independence. Of course, one could say Jews are being paranoid. Most whites are okay with Jews, and a whole lot of them are totally crazy about them. Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel. Whites love Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, and Jerry Seinfeld. But, Jews figure things can suddenly go south. Jews feel that much of white sympathy for Jews hinges on the Shoah, and perhaps its effect will fade over the years. Furthermore, Jews know themselves all too well. They know there are many wicked/crooked ones among them. Now, if good Jews were to flush out the bad ones, something like 'antisemitism' might not flare up. But Jews know they tend to circle the wagons. Good Jews(or better Jews) give cover to Bad Jews. Also, even Good Jews aren't good all the time and need bad Jews to do the dirty work, like with the respectable eye doctor in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS who calls on his gangster brother to deal with the woman problem. This means that Jewish Power will grow more corrupt and gangsterish. It means that even whites who'd been partial to Jews may grow increasingly suspicious of them. They might become 'red-pilled'. The fact is, when push comes to shove, even Good Jews have chosen to side with Bad Jews than side with Good Goyim. Ideally, good whites and good Jews should be united against bad whites and bad Jews. Jews have, over the years, goaded good whites to denounce bad whites and make common cause with good Jews and good non-whites. And many good whites have done just that. But have good Jews reciprocated by denouncing bad Jews? No.
Now, if good Jews don't denounce the bad Jews, aren't good Jews also bad Jews? When the good aids and abets the bad, what's the difference? Where is the Jewish outrage over Jonathan Pollard's release? Where is the Liberal Jewish outrage over what's been done to Palestinians? To morally cover for this contradiction, Jews have increasingly fused morality with identity politics. Goodness is less a matter of what you do than what you are. So, the mere fact of BEING Jewish is good. Never mind what Zionists have DONE to Palestinians or millions of Arabs. Jews are good because they are Jews, who are forever to be associated with the Holy Holocaust, timeless wisdom, genius(that is such a benefit to mankind, like the latest Covid 'vaccines'), and crowd-pleasing humor. So, never mind what Jews do. Just dwell on what they are. They are Jews, and that means they are good. And if you praise and bless Jews, you too must be good or better than those who don't. Result is moral rot.
It means good Jews should embrace bad Jews because the mere fact of Jewishness is good. So, even bad Jews are good simply for being Jewish. But in having embraced and protected bad Jews, even good Jews have made themselves bad. And the Jewish community, in insisting that goyim embrace and praise Jewishness on the basis of identity alone, have spread the moral rot to goyim as well. Most goyim never pay attention to Jewish behavior, actions, or impact on the world. The mere fact of Jewishness alone is synonymous with morality. "I have Jewish friends" makes you automatically better than those without Jewish friends, just like being Jewish makes you automatically better than being a mere goy. When morality turns into idolatry, morality turns into ethno-nihilism. Take the latest GOP yapping about Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and West Bank. The ice cream company made its decision on the basis of Jewish behavior. Jews are occupying West Bank and tyrannizing the people there, who continue to lose land to Jewish 'settlers'. It isn't 'antisemitic' in the sense of targeting Jews simply because they are Jewish. The company policy is based on Jewish behavior. But, GOP-tards are howling like it's the biggest moral outrage simply because it was done against Jews. According to GOP-tards, being Jewish alone is enough to end the debate. Jews are right because they are Jews, just like God is always right because He is God. So, even though Jews are stealing Palestinian land, Jews are morally correct simply because they're Jewish whereas Palestinians are evil scum who dare to resist Jewish expropriation of their lands and property.

Now, a kind of 'morality' that is skewed toward favoring one group over another based solely on identity sounds like the classic definition of 'racism'. After all, if 'anti-racism' is the law of the land, all groups should be judged by the same set of rules. Then, why aren't Jews condemned for their actions against Palestinians? Why do Jews, who howl most about 'racism, racism, racism', of whites of course, demand that white goyim support what Jews do to the Palestinians simply because being Jewish makes Jews right? And why do Jews get away with this, as both most Republican and Democratic voters hardly raise a fuss about their political representatives shamelessly whoring themselves out to Zion? Fish rots from the head, and Jewish elite power has corrupted the moral health of America. Jews have done a bait-and-switch on whites. Jews pressured whites to abandon any vestige of white identity/interests and go for colorblind ethics for all, regardless of creed or color. But these very same Jews will shriek and howl if any white(or goy) says America should treat Jews and Palestinians equally with the same set of rules. Given the sheer hypocrisy of this, one would think whites would have caught on, but no. Why not? Because most whites rely on their leaders, elites, and representatives to tell them what is what, and most whites-at-the-top are bought-off and/or blackmailed whores of Zion. The other is the power of myth. As most whites grew up with Holocaust Mythology, Anne Frank Cult, and so many movies & TV shows were Arabs/Muslims are little more than swarthy terrorists or white-slavers, their emotionality favors Jews and Zionists over Arabs and Muslims. And as Jews control the news media, most Americans get a very warped view of Middle East affairs.

'Idolatrism' is the new 'racism'. This is why even Jewish Liberals are really Triberals, i.e. it's about the use of Liberalism to ultimately serve Jewish Tribalism. If white 'racism' was about favoring whites over non-whites on the basis of whiteness alone, 'idolatrism' is about favoring Jews, blacks, and homos over all other groups regardless of their deeds, action, or behavior. This is obvious with blacks. They burn, loot, and create havoc, but they are always moral saints. The notion that some creep like George Floyd would be considered a saint or angel would have been laughable in an earlier time, but it is reality today.
Now, it's true that certain groups underwent special tragedies in the modern era. So, one could sympathize with the victims of those tragedies. But to permanently affix tragic dimensions onto a group can only lead to moral nihilism. We can sympathize with Chinese of the Nanking Massacre period and with millions of Russians who died in World War II. But does the fact that many millions of innocent Chinese and Russians died mean that today's Chinese and Russians are automatically noble and saintly on the basis of identity and above moral opprobrium when they do bad? Sounds absurd, but such are the rules in the West in regards to Jews, blacks, and homos.
A major fallacy is to confuse victimhood with virtue. Most human tragedies weren't the result of saintliness, nobility, or martyrdom but of pure-and-simple defeat to the bigger power. American Indians didn't lose because they were noble pacifists who turned the other cheek. They lost because whites had the numbers and more guns. Blacks became slaves not because they were meek and humble but because they got captured by bigger African tribes who sold them for gold to white slave ships. While tragedies suffered by Christian saints resulted from pious acts of self-sacrifice, most human tragedies were really the result of one set of bullies losing to a stronger set of bullies. Japanese and Germans faced great tragedies in WWII, but they were in the fight, often as initiators. Also, while the Shoah was horrific, it was an extreme and fanatical reaction to lots of bad Jewish behavior. Jews weren't saintly victims but often a**hole victims. This doesn't excuse Hiroshima or the Holocaust, but it was not a case of wholly innocent and saintly people being killed for the hell of it.
Not only are we supposed to believe that Jews bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for the Shoah, but we are supposed to believe that all Jews everywhere forever and ever are akin to Anne Frank regardless of what they do. Saying that Jews deserve partial blame for the Shoah isn't the same as blaming-the-victim. If a woman minding her own business is attacked and raped in a park, she is blameless. Blaming her would be blaming the victim. But if someone in the park taunts and provokes others to the point where someone finally has had enough and beats him to a pulp, he is partly to blame. Given Jewish role in communism, financial capitalism, and cultural degradation leading up to WWII, yes, Jews do deserve some blame for what happened to them, just like Germans and Japanese must take some blame for the destruction of their nations in WWII. Sadly, Jews, in their Holocaust-moral-megaloamania, have learned nothing and are once again spreading filth and craziness all around the world with zero self-awareness that they themselves may be at the epicenter of world troubles. And the cucks play along and pretend all the problem stems from China or Iran(if the cuck is 'conservative') OR from Russia or 'white supremacists'(if the cuck is 'liberal'). And of course, blacks deserve some blame for the rot in their communities, but the current 'idolatrism' says that they are totally and eternally blameless(just like Jews and homos), and all the blame must go to whitey.

Unless Jews are judged for what they do than for what they are, 'idolatrism' is the order of the day in the US, and it is virtually identical with what is called 'racist'. The only difference is Jews have associated their identity with historical tragedy. Thus, one could say they are not favored for their 'skin color'. Rather, they are favored for their Memory. But morally pasting the past to the present to excuse bad behavior is just another kind of prejudice. In some ways, it is worse because Jews are invoking morality to act immoral. "Because Nazis treated us badly, we can act like Nazis and treat others the same way." Jews denounce 'white supremacism' not to attack supremacism as a general principle but to buttress Jewish supremacism.
Likewise, blacks complain about how white 'racists' in the past done stereotyped them as savage apelike thugs as a moral excuse to act like, well, savage apelike thugs prone to looting, robbing, beating, hollering, raping, murdering, shooting, and acting demented. But because we are supposed to judge blacks on the basis of Memory, they are forever the saintly slave-victim even when they use their advantage in muscle and natural aggression to terrorize entire communities. Blackkks are the main thugs and lynch mobs in America.
And of course, even though homos spread HIV and died from too many wild orgies of homo-fecal-penetration in bath-houses, parks, and wherever, they are not to be judged, lest one be denounced as 'homophobic'. More 'idolatrism'.

To better understand Jews and whites, suppose you're a rancher and have a variety of animals. You have a horse, a dog, a hedgehog, a frog, a monkey, a turtle, a cow, a goose, a chicken, a goat, a sheep, a hawk, a gopher, a deer, and etc. Which animal would you value most? Which animal would you be most mindful about having control over? It's most probably the horse. It's the most powerful and the most useful animal. Dog would be second, but you can't ride a dog or use it for plowing. Not only is the horse most powerful but it's also naturally fierce and independent(and least fearful of small man). A horse naturally wants to run free. And it surely doesn't want to carry a man on its back. Also, if it goes out of control, it can do most harm. One kick from a horse can turn a man's brains to mush.
In contrast, take a hedgehog. It is hardly of any use to man. It might be fun to have around as a pet. Also, even if a hedgehog acts out of order, what could it do? It can't harm, let alone kill, a man. Turtle might be put in a pond. Maybe it can be made into turtle soup. Again, it's hardly of any use to man, and there's no concern about its behavior. A goat-gone-bad might be troublesome, but even a bad goat isn't much of a threat to man. Also, goats aren't very useful for anything but producing goat milk. But the horse is very useful, and it must be made to obey and follow instructions. The well-being of the rancher counts so much on his control of the horse.

Jews see whites as the White Horse or the War Horse of Jewish Power. Without whites in the military, state, industries, and institutions to run things, Jews could only do so much. And among whites, Northern European whites are most prized. Indeed, would Jews have taken over the world without saddling on top of the Northern European horse? Anglo/Germanics are the prize stallion of Jewish Power. That is why Jews do everything to make sure that white people(especially Anglo-Germanics) obey and follow Jews. But carrots aren't enough. Jews have a lot of money, but money only goes so far. Japan spread a lot of money around in the 80s, and China does the same today, but they can only buy favors, not loyalty. And the stick isn't enough either, especially as Jews themselves don't have the military and/or police muscle to beat all whites into compliance. If they did, like with the Palestinians, Jews would probably rely less on 'white guilt'. After all, Jews know they got the stick of military power to crush Palestinians and don't bother to instill Pallies with 'Arab Guilt'. But Jews can't do to whites what they do handily with Palestinian men, women, and children. And that is why Jews use power of media and academia to instill white souls with 'white guilt'. THAT is why the subject of American Slavery has come to loom so large. Historically, Latin America enslaved many more blacks, but for the time being, Jews need Latinos as allies against the gringos and yanquis, and so the Narrative on Latin America is, "all the races are so wonderfully mixed, and there is hardly any racism down there, and all is forgiven and forgotten." History is often a game of selectivity. It's not about all that happened but about picking and choosing and shaping narratives to serve the power and agenda of the group that gets to select them.

2. American Credo factor.

Jared Taylor has often said that the Founders envisioned America as an outgrowth of Europe, especially the Anglospheric World and parts of Germania. The Founders also believed it would be a Christian nation despite the absence of an official religion or state church.
But the American Credo was chockful of contradictions from day one. Despite the social realities and personal preferences of the Founders(and the peoples back then), there were powerful tendencies in the American Vision that directed the national future toward universalism and globalism. There wasn't a single credo but competing credos. Some were merely sensed or taken for granted, whereas others were written down as laws and principles. And when one looks at the Constitution, pro-whiteness isn't spelled out. Perhaps, the Founders didn't need to write it down because it was taken for granted. But on the other hand, perhaps the Christian impulse and Enlightenment Values of the time gravitated toward a larger definition of Americanism. So, while the details of Americanism at the founding(and for a century and half) was Anglo-American, Eurocentric, and pro-white, the overarching goal aimed at something bigger. Also, universalism has a loftier perch than particularism. Enlightenment was credo-imperialist in wanting to unite the world with the power of reason and science. Christianity had the missionary zeal of converting the world and saving souls of all peoples. So, despite the many particularist realities of the American founding and history, there was a semi-utopianism that was either idealist or invoked idealism to justify the ambition for more conquest and power. Why did Christianity and Islam win out over more particularist cults and religions?

Consider the Old Testament, full of competing narratives and credos. At times, God is peace-loving and understanding. Other times, He is angry and violent, willing to smite entire peoples. Parts of the Old Testament suggest at the need for peace and understanding between Jews and goyim. Other parts suggest Jews should crush and destroy the goyim. God has many faces in the Old Testament, and one could use it to condemn or justify slavery. After all, Jews fled from bondage from tyrannical Egypt. But Jews also owned slaves, and Jews had no laws against slavery. There are times when God is about justice. Other times, His power seems arbitrary, a matter of whim. Old Testament says God is the only God, the sole Deity for all the world and all mankind. But it also says God has a special relation with Jews. Some Jews interpreted this as God commanding Jews to be light unto all mankind. Other Jews interpreted this to mean Jews alone have souls whereas goyim are like beasts who should be treated like cattle. So, there is no single interpretation of the Old Testament. However, the fact that the Old Testament led to the New Testament and the Koran that came to profoundly impact history suggests that its universalist urge was too powerful to overcome. Of course, Jews rejected it and kept with the Covenant. But some Jews forged a new religion that argued that God is truly for all mankind and not only for Jews. After all, if there is only one God and if He is about love and justice, why shouldn't He bestow His blessing equally unto all the peoples? And Christianity later inspired Islam, another universal faith.

Likewise, despite the contradictions within Americanism from its founding, certain ideas were bound to gain an upper-hand over others. The Founders spoke of liberty, freedom, dignity, and equal justice of mankind in general. They were Enlightenment idealists, and most Americans had a powerful Christian impulse to save the world, extending all the way to the time when Jared Taylor was a child in Japan of Missionary Parents.
History often depends on which elements have more charge, as in electrical charge. Suppose there are 50 of elements A and 50 of elements B. They are even-steven at the start, but suppose elements of A have more charge in them. Thus, they are more active and pull together and cause more commotion. Suppose, in coming together, they create sparks and create even more elements of A. So, A elements go from 50 to 100. In contrast, the elements of B have less charge. They are less active and manage to produce only 10 more of its kind. Over time, it's 100 A vs 60 B. Why did America achieve so much more than Russia since1800? Anglo-American Protestant spirit was far more charged than the Russian soul mired in Orthodox Byzantinism.
Some ideas are dry, some are wet. Some are cold, some are hot. The combination of Enlightenment Principles and Christianity(unmoored from statist controls in Old Europe) added more charge to the universalist impulses in American History. Universalists were often more aggressive and dreamy than the particularists.
Also, universalism was a way to deal with the moral contradiction inherent in the American Enterprise. America expanded by taking lands from the Indian savages who, in some cases, were wiped out. Also, America relied on black slave labor in the South. America could have created a Constitution that specifically said Whites have the right to rule over darkies and the red man, but then, the American Project would have sounded grimly Spartan. Sparta had the brooding Spartans lording over the cowering Helots. It was a dark order. Americans wanted to feel good about themselves. After all, Jefferson spoke of the Pursuit of Happiness. They were moralists and didn't want to feel mean and cruel. So, even though they did cruel things, they wanted to convince themselves that the American Experiment would eventually morally redeem all that had been done. If America had been founded on an island with no natives and without slave labor of another race, perhaps things would have been different. But to insist on a wholly white country in a land taken from the Red Man and labored by the Black Man and furthermore committed to the principles of freedom and fairness was something of a stretch. The very fact that blacks were allowed to become American citizens under the law meant that one didn't need to be white to be American. If blacks could be American like the whites, who was to say peoples from other parts of the world couldn't be Americans one day as well? Surely, whites in the 1860s had no inkling of the mass non-white immigration that would engulf the country a hundred years later, but in making blacks the equal of whites as American citizens(at least in theory), they effectively did away with the idea that only white people could be Americans.

Another factor was that white births simply couldn't keep up with the demands of American development. There was too much land to settle. Too many factories to fill. When Anglo and German immigrants weren't enough, the US looked to Eastern and Southern Europe. A lot of this had to do with white Americans favoring fellow white workers than blacks, but the need to assimilate these Other Europeans further weakened the particularist elements of Americanism. With the Other Europeans also came the radicals, especially among the Jews, many of whom were anarchist or socialist. But Jews were also the most talented capitalists and gave the Anglos a run for the money. Jews wanted more immigration to bring over more of their own kind to the New Land, a more hospitable and tolerant place than the Old World. Also, the greater meritocracy in the US meant that Jews could rise faster and higher, even challenging Wasps for mastery over the nation. Then, it was in the interests of Jews to play up the universalist aspects of Americanism. And yet, the great irony is that Jews were also the most particularist people to have set foot on America. Indeed, Jews weren't aiming to join in the melting pot but to melt the goyim into a hodge-podge so that they would be too mixed and confused to take on rising Jewish Power. The Melting Pot as Jew Stew had the Jews as the chef and the goyim as the ingredients.

In a way, American Guiltism is the flipside of American Narcissism. It's the one who highly regards her own beauty who sees every little blemish as an intolerable ugliness that must be expunged. The myth of American Founding had brave freedom fighters resisting and defeating the British. Americans defined themselves as free people in a republic or democracy, as opposed to Europe that was mostly dominated by kings and aristocrats(until World War I brought an end to monarchical rule). The 'genocide' of the Indians was spun as the great Manifest Destiny, white settlers and freedom-and-opportunity-seeking immigrant folks expanding westward to tame the wilderness and build communities fit for womenfolk and children, with schools and churches, like in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The Western genre mythologized this in Hollywood. (Jewish moguls sure funded a lot of 'genocidal' propaganda.) Americans flattered themselves as protectors of the New World(including Central and South America) from the clutches of the Old World. (Of course, Latin America saw North America as its tormentor, but that's another story.) And even though US had slavery, the Civil War Narrative redeemed America. Supposedly, no civilization had ever fought a war to end slavery. The US did because, when push came to shove, Americans are for freedom over bondage. Americans regarded themselves as saviors of Europe in World War I and II. And Americans were also full of themselves as the saviors of the world from communism. So, one of the running themes of Americanism was that United States wasn't content to be just one nation among many. No, it was different. Its destiny was grander than any other nation. America was blessed with great land and resources. It was founded on freedom. It cleansed itself of the sin of slavery with the Civil War that cost so many white lives. Not only did America break free from Old tyrannical Europe but in the 20th century stretched out to defend Europe from German Imperialism, Nazism, and Soviet totalitarianism. So, in retrospect, it seemed like America was bound to be a Nation of Destiny, a superhero nation. And of course, Jews fed on this vanity. Theodore Roosevelt ate it up when Jews flattered America as a special nation. Roosevelt was among the most racially chauvinistic presidents ever. He was a kind of 'white supremacist' even beyond the norms of the day. But even he couldn't resist the portrayal of America as the land of the free, a beacon of light unto the world, and all that.

But when a people have such high regard for themselves, they're bound to be traumatized by proof to the otherwise. It's like the Don Henley song, "End of the Innocence". Now, there was always plenty that was dark, violent, cruel, and crazy about America, but compared to the rest of the world, it wasn't a bad place to be in the 19th and 20th century. In the 19th century, it was far freer than Europe that came under aristocratic rule after Napoleon's failures. And Asia in the 19th century was the beginning of its humiliation(along with renewal). Latin America got mired in stasis and backwardness. Africa was still totally savage. And in the 20th century, even being a Negro living under Jim Crow in the US was a hell of lot better compared to what would befall the fates of those living in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Poland, China, Turkey, and etc. So, relative to the rest of the world, America went from success to success, victory to victory. American Triumphalism became mainstay of the Narrative, and this made a lot of Americans rather naive and 'innocent'. They got to seeing America as the land of baseball, apple pie, five-and-dime stores, and milk shakes at the local drug store. Even Jews couldn't resist this. In Neil Simon's BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, Jews across the ocean are facing hell, but the lead character is mainly obsessed with baseball cards and nudie photos of women. The worst thing he can imagine is eating liver and onions for dinner.

And American Amnesia has gotten worse since the boomer 60s. At the very least, white folks prior to the boomers had it pretty tough themselves. Few grew up with privilege. Many worked on farms or factories. Or coal mines. And they had tough parents who whupped them. It's like Pat Buchanan wrote a autobio about his father using the belt on him and his brothers like they was Negroes who ain't picked cotton all day. So, even though many white folks could sympathize with Negroes on some level, they didn't go overboard with 'white guilt' crap because their parents and they themselves had to struggle to make ends meet. They figured life was often hard for them but harder for Negroes. But since the 1960s, the boomers grew up and became huggy-wuggy parents who raised their kids in a world of plenty, leisure, narcissism, and convenience. So, unlike white folks in the past whose sympathy for Negroes was tempered by their own hard knocks in life, the Millennials are 'triggered' by the fact that blacks had it tough. For past whites who had it tough, blacks merely had it tougher. But for Millennials who had it so nice, it was unimaginable that anyone could have it tough. Now, if they had real knowledge of American History, they'd know that most whites didn't have it so good. But as the academia and media are controlled by Jews, the emphasis is almost solely on black hardship(and Jews facing 'antisemitism' and homos persecuted by 'homophobia'). So, Millennials don't compare black hardship of the past with white hardship. If they did, they'd realize blacks had it worse but whites didn't have it so good either. But because they're only told of black hardship, they compare past black experience with their current good times. Instead of comparing black sharecroppers with whites toiling in coal mines, factories, or railroads, they compare blacks with their spoiled white selves immersed in the leisure of watching Netflix and playing video games.
In the past, white journalists came from the school of hard knocks. They had it tough themselves. Many didn't go to fancy schools. So, even though a good number of them were liberal-leaning and could see the fundamental unfairness faced by blacks, they didn't feel like princes with undeserved privileges over blacks. But look at today's Millennial journalists. They grew up in total affluence with huggy-wuggy parents who provided them with everything. They really don't know any hardship. Many went to tony schools and rubbed shoulders with other privileged kids. So, when they read about black reality of past or present(as blacks continue to wallow in violence and misery), they just can't believe it and go all weepy-'woke'.

At any rate, one of the main reasons why American Guilt came to matter more is Americanism has been founded on More Pride. Bigger they are, harder they fall. Bigger one's pride, bigger one's shame when the pride is pricked with evidence to the contrary. A humble man isn't much bothered by the exposure of his failings. He will readily admit, "Nobody's perfect." But a man who is so full of himself as Mr. Wonderful is due for a great fall when it's shown he's not so wonderful.
America calls itself EXCEPTIONAL. Well, exceptional guilt is the flipside of exceptional pride. Hubris is met with Nemesis, and the lesson is America was stupid to be so full of itself. But then, a less ambitious America wouldn't have been America.

3. The third reason as to why American Slavery came to be regarded as especially evil can be illustrated by way of the Guillermo Hypothesis. The problem isn't slavery per se but the enslavement of blacks. Had the US enslaved another people, the guilt complex would be far less. Suppose Americans had decided to use brown natives of South America as slaves. Southern Plantations would have been packed with people who look like Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show). The slaves would have been more docile. There would have been less fear of slave rebellions. Being more docile, the Guillermo-like Gomezers would have made less trouble, and there would have been less reason to whip them. The slavery enterprise would have been less cruel.
Furthermore, slavery might have ended sooner with Southern initiative because the Guillermos would have been less threatening than muscled Negroes with big dongs who be yapping and hollering all the time. A civil war might have been avoided. And after Emancipation, the Guillermos would have been mostly a silent minority. White Men need not have feared Maize Fever. And whites would have continued to dominate sports. Over time, whites would look back and feel sorry about brown slavery, and there would be stuff about how America owes something to the Guillermos who picked cotton and helped build the American Economy. But whites wouldn't feel much guilt because Guillermos are, well, just a bunch of Guillermos, a mediocre bunch. So, whether Guillermos be slaves or free men, they could only amount to serving as the sidekicks of the white race.

But it's different with blacks because, after slavery, blacks became so prominent in sports and pop music. Also, blacks got them boombox voices that secularized white folks hear as the voice of god hisself. Even though US is vilified for its 'racism', the special American Guilt regarding blacks is predicated on a kind of 'neo-racism', the proggy kind. Subconsciously, whites feel they enslaved the superior race. They really feel this way because they hold blacks in awe in athletics, rapping, hollering, and humping. It's the song-dong-strong-wrong dynamics. Whites are obsessed with black musicality. White youths love rap, and European elites are most into reggae. They got jungle fever for black dongs(and twerking black buns). They worship black athleticism and believe in black girl/boy magic. And that's why what they did to blacks seem especially wrong. It's one thing to have enslaved the Guillermos of the world, but it's another thing to have enslaved the Muhammad Ali's, MLK's, Otis Redding, and Long Dong Silvers of the world. Of course, this is 'racist', or 'neo-racist'. 'Anti-racism' would demand that guilt be equal in regard to all peoples as a matter of principle: All Men are Created Equal. While whites ideologically subscribe to such notion, their visceral sense of awe regarding blacks overwhelms any consistency in logic. But then, it's the same in regard to Jews and Palestinians. Whites are so philosemitically smitten with Jews as geniuses and gurus that they are overly sensitive to any tragedy involving Jews but almost totally insensitive to the tribulations of Arabs/Muslims, even if they were mainly caused by Jews and their Western enablers.

Notice whites feel almost nothing for American Indians today even though the latter are, by far, the most tragic people of the Americas and even of the entire world. (Whereas blacks still got Africa and Asians still got Asia in the aftermath of Western Imperialism, American Indians lost their homeland forever.) But it wasn't always so. In the past, American Indians were respected as fierce warriors. Once the dust settled after the bloody and cruel Indian Wars, whites could romanticize Indians as brave warriors, fearsome and worthy foes. And so, for a time, Indians had a certain prestige in the annals of American Tragic Narrative. But with the passing of years, Indians became less visible and significant because they fail to cut it in the fields whites are most obsessed about, sports and pop culture.

Anyway, if we combine factors of 1, 2, and 3, we can understand why America has a special guilt-fixation about black slavery. Muslim World didn't let Jews take over elite institutions and industries. Had Jews gained such power, maybe they would have pushed 'Muslim Guilt' onto the young ones. Whites let Jews take over at the top. Furthermore, unlike Latin American countries that also imported black slaves(even far more than the US), the US was full of itself as the Nation of Destiny. Latin America countries were rather humdrum about their place in the world, their destinies. Americanism was predicated on becoming a world power, a nation like no other, a beacon of freedom, the one that would bring about the End of History. It was born of the contradictions inherent in British Imperialism and formulated as Enlightenment-Imperialism. America was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism, what the Roman Empire was to Greek Civilization.

Though the Founders were mainly focused on securing the fragile republic, the seeds were there at the beginning, and the radiant(and unrealistic) idealism outshone the racial particularism of America as a white nation, much like the sun drowns out the stars. It's like Christianity could emerge only by going beyond Jewishness. Alexander the Great could forge his empire only by going beyond Greek power and prestige. In outlook, the Founders were in many regards temperate and modest men, but the creation mythos of America as a kind of New Eden freed from Old World tyranny was bound to have huge implications. America developed as a kind of experiment where European Civilization would start anew by planting its best ideas about freedom and dignity of man MINUS all the baggage of tradition and prejudice. Also, unlike cramped Western Europe, America seemed boundless in land and resources.
Of late, Europeans reversed this dynamics in the post-WWII era. Increasingly, Europeans came to see America as the land of 'racism' with its black problem. So, by importing tons of blacks and treating them right, Europeans would start Americanism Anew in the EU but without the element of 'racism' and slavery. Blacks would be welcomed as free men, and they would prosper alongside white Europeans as equals. That would show the Americans what Americanism really could have been if white Americans hadn't been so greedy and hypocritical, so 'racist' against blacks. But of course, whites in both US and EU are dummies because blacks are the destructive race, and it has nothing to do with laws coded in books. It's in the coding of DNA that drives blacks to destroy whatever whites build, regardless of whether whites are kindly or meanly disposed toward blacks. But whites are doomed to fall because they are so in awe of blackness. In 2020, blacks laid waste to so many communities. They exhibited new levels of savagery and wantonness. But after all that, whites in Milwaukee are besides themselves with Negro-worship and Negro-lust because black 'heroes' won the basketball championship for the city. Whites are dummies, or whummies.

SOME CRAZY THINGS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE ABOUT BLACKS