Why is Homo-Farcia — a Farcical View of Homosexuality — regarded as 'Homophobia', something that does NOT even exist?

One of the most bogus terms and tools of social and political control is the term 'homophobia'. It means just about anything or anyone hated or feared by homos. It's rather like how 'antisemitism' has some to mean 'anyone or anything hated by Jews' than the other way around. But 'homophobia' is worse than 'antisemitism', which carried genuine meaning in certain times in history when anti-Jewish hatreds were especially strong and even virulent. In contrast, 'homophobia' is utterly misconceived as I doubt if anyone has really been diagnosed with phobia of homos or trannies. Now, what does 'phobia'? It doesn't merely mean fear, anxiety, dislike, hostility, or hatred. Those emotions could be involved but aren't essential to what makes a phobia. Phobia is a medical or clinical term of Extreme Panicked Fear, Fright, or Dread of Something Harmless or Innocuous. In other words, the fear must be extreme & panic-inducing(or close to it), and it must be in irrational reaction to something that causes no direct harm. So, if a tiger leaps out of the bush and scares the living daylights out of you, that's not a phobia. It's rational to fear an ambushing tiger. But if you run around screaming and climb a tree to get away from a mouse, that is a phobia. If you freeze in fear upon seeing a cobra, that's not a phobia. But if you see a garter snake and know it's utterly harmless but still react with utter disgust, dread, and panic, that's a phobia. If you fear being stung by a hornet, that's not a phobia as the sting is extremely painful and can even lead to death in rare cases. But if you freak out upon seeing a cricket or a non-venomous spider, you have a phobia about such a thing. For this reason, phobia is above all 'irrational'. It's a gut feeling you have about certain things that fill you extreme fear, dread, and disgust, usually accompanied with panic or fright. Arachnophobes, for instance, aren't only afraid of poisonous spiders like the black widow but of all spiders, even ones that they know are totally harmless to humans. Something about the spider's features sends chills down their spines or makes them sick in the stomach. They feel frozen in fear or want to take flight. If someone is placed in a coffin and buried, his fright would be most understandable. But a claustrophobe is someone who feels severe anxiety coming over him inside an elevator.

Now, we can trace the roots of the word and find it to simply mean 'fear', but in the modern lexicon it has come to be used as a medical/clinical term. Thus, it would be irresponsible to politicize it unless one is using it merely as a metaphor. For instance, 'cancer' is often used as a metaphor to describe certain dire social or political phenomenon that has grown out of control. Or 'earthquake' is used outside geology to describe massive social events that realign the way we see the world or how people live. But 'phobia' is not used that way by the media and academia. It has been politicized and weaponized to rob the other side of any claim to sanity, rationality, and/or mental health. It's all the more disturbing because the ones accusing the other side of being 'sick' are the truly sick ones. When you or your side is called 'phobic', it means there is no point to any argument, conversation, or discussion because you or your side are beyond the pale, lacking mental balance, utterly irrational, and hopeless sick of mind. It is the secular version of calling someone 'demon-possessed'. Among the religious, it makes no sense to have a moral or spiritual discussion with those whose souls have been take over by the Devil. The only way is to exorcize the evil spirit from the soul. Among secular PC types, those with a phobia are simply incapable of rational understanding and discussion because their minds are so infected or twisted with emotions and passions that make no sense to sane people with healthy minds. The ideological use of the term 'phobia' is a sign of scientism, an unscientific or even anti-scientific turn of the mind that is, however, cloaked in scientific language. It was scientism that allowed the quackery of Freudianism to exert such tremendous influence on society in the 20th century. Scientism was also behind Marxism, supposed a wholly scientific dialectical materialist understanding of history, humanity, and society. So much of modern belief isn't so scientific — as few people are trained in science and, furthermore, scientists have their own ideological biases — as it is quasi-spiritualist draped in scientific lab coat. Notice that so many people who are into global warming believe in it so passionately without knowing the science behind it. How can they be so passionate about something they understand so little about(apart from what they've been told by mass media in the hands of Jewish oligarchs)? Now, there may be much that is true about Global Warming, and maybe something should be done about it, but the level of cult-like lunacy one sees among the True Believers is closer to the dynamics of Faith than of facts. It's something that so many secular folks have latched onto in their subconscious need for new gods(and devils). Same thing goes for all the brouhaha about race. While it's true that the Nazis abused racial, genetic, and biological sciences to cook up their ridiculous theories about 'Aryans' and the like, the so-called 'anti-racist' school is just as irrational and bogus. Instead of regarding blacks as they really are, they've concocted the cult of the Magic Negro. Instead of countering cartoonish Nazi views of the Jews, they've promoted the sacred image of Jews as a race of neo-christs who died for the Sins of Western Man. And of course, the obnoxious elevation of homos as something akin to latter-day angels goes to show that rationality isn't always a strong suit among the secularists. What does a rational understanding of homos have to do with hysterical celebrations of homosexuality and tranny-business decked out in 'rainbow' colors? And if the homo cause is secular, why has the near-reverence of homos become bigger than Easter and Christmas in the West? And why are there bigger taboos and heresies about what we can say about homos(and Jews and blacks) than about God and Jesus(and Muhammad)? If you criticize Muhammad, you might still have a job in elite or upper circles... like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. But try putting down the likes of Harvey Milk, and you're in big trouble. For a secular cause, it's rather odd that the 'gay' lobby and its enablers(with Jews at the top) are so adamant about Christian Churches bending over to the holy homo cult. It seems these alleged secularists aren't so anti-spiritual as hellbent on bending all forms of spirituality to the will of the new faith, that of holy homo worship(which is really a proxy-pseudo-spiritual tool of the Jews).

At any rate, it's important for us to know why they use the term 'homophobia' and why they use it so casually, indeed promiscuously, to invalidate whom they disagree with. Indeed, it is rather odd how such a powerfully damning term has been used so widely and loosely to denounce so many people. People say Joe McCarthy got into the habit of arbitrarily accusing 'everyone' of being a communist, but he was an amateur compared to the Jew-run media/academia/state complex. Under Jewish control, not only has just about everyone been accused of 'racism' but 'antisemitism'. If you dare say anything to displease blacks, you're a 'racist'. You might be a 'racist', a subconscious one, even if you're a dye-in-the-wool Liberal. And today, 'anti-Semite' can even be someone who notices that Jews got a lot of power or that Zionism has been abusive toward Palestinians. Indeed, therein lies the power of weaponized terminology: On the one hand, the term defines something extreme, thereby implying something rare, unholy, or monstrous, and yet, on the other hand, it can easily apply to you as well. It's rather like the use of 'devil-worshiper' in the Christian lexicon. At once, it denotes something very dark — who but the most demented would worship the Devil? — and connotes it can apply to just about anyone. YOU could be the next one who is demon-possessed, and therefore you must join forces with all the GOOD people in impassioned & forceful denunciation of the Devil and his demon-possessed minions. The pop culture variant of this is the flesh-eating zombie movie. On the one hand, what can be more extreme and incredible than a dead person who walks again to feed on human flesh? And yet, the greater fear is that YOU could become a zombie too and all too easily with one bite. We see something similar now with the Covid-19 Virus scare. It's been depicted as a terrible disease of singular monstrosity, but guess what? You, your family, your relatives, your friends, your community, your city, your nation, and everyone on the planet could be next and indeed will be next unless there is a massive lock-down where we hand over all our keys to the government. In most horror movies, the monstrous is barely human and certainly not ordinary. Michael in HALLOWEEN is a rare breed indeed. He may stalk you and try to kill you, but he's not spreading Michaelism throughout the community. But in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the unspeakable isn't only happening but can spread and take over the world. As such, they are even more horrifying than something like HALLOWEEN where, as long as Michael isn't in your town, you're safe.

And so, it is in the interest of the Power to (1) concoct something that sounds horrible and (2) make it seem rabid, infectious, and/or already widespread. It is thus pan-damning. Naturally, upon being told that there is something awful and that this awful thing is potentially everywhere, you want to take precautions against it to prove that YOU are clean of the disease or contamination. You either want the afflicted to be quarantined from the rest of society or even to quarantine all of society in fear that the sickness will spread to them as well. If the disease is mental, as in the case with the 'phobia' or some other scientifically(or more accurately scientistically) formulated sickness such as 'racism' or 'antisemitism', then it's deemed necessary for the media and academia to constantly fumigate the airwaves with ideological disinfectants and mass-vaccinate us with proper world-views and approved idols & icons.
While only homosexuals can be homosexual — as the current science says virtually all homos were born that way — , anyone can be afflicted with 'homophobia', and therefore all precautions and measures must be taken to limit the spread of this sickness. And just as anyone can be a sickly 'homophobe', anyone can be a healthy or cured 'homophile' who has gladly learned to love the Big Gay Brother. In a world where everyone fears being demon-possessed, there is a widespread desire to prove that one's with God against the Devil. Likewise, in a world where everyone has been informed that he or she could also be one of those dreaded 'homophobes', there is tendency, even mania, to prove that one is groovy with the homos(and trannies) against all those seemingly incorrigible and incurable cases of 'homophobes', the mental lepers of our age.

Now, it is necessary for people to take a time out and think for awhile. Of course, this is more difficult with the so-called millennials as PC-ideologizing-and-idolatizing from virtually the cradle began with that generation in full force. If they get you when you sleep in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the Power figures that the trick is to get them when they're young as children are without critical faculty and most vulnerable to emotional manipulations of faith and guilt. Then, it is no wonder that the Power(mostly Jewish) is so eager to push globo-homo PC at the youngest age possible in schools(and even kindergartens). It is a way for Jews to push elite-minority-supremacism as the New Normal to children of all races. As the Power now practices mind-snatching at the youngest possible age, it is getting ever more difficult to sustain a culture of thought. After all, emotions and sensations oftentimes override thought, however factual and honest it may be. Reason tends to weaken in relation to beauty & bliss and ugliness & blight. It's been said the IQ goes down around 20 points in the presence of a pretty/handsome person. It's no wonder that so many people make poor decisions when they're in love and eventually end up in divorce court. People are also less likely to think clearly in presence of the sacrosanct. Their reverent, even rapturous, state of mind favors faith while fearing anything that might undermine one's blissful unity with the holy. Such spiritual inclinations are the most potent when instilled at a young age when the mind is most malleable and without critical/skeptical barriers, and this explains why some highly intelligent adults who are rational about most things go into Manchurian-Candidate gear when it comes to spiritually-charged topics, such as evolution. Thought is also weakened in relation to strongly negative responses. No matter how decent a person may be, he will elicit negative feelings if he's ugly and gross. No matter how nutritious(and tasty) insects-as-food may be — as well as more moral as it's better to kill insects than fellow mammals — , many people feel disgust at the mere sight of them. A man may go with a bad woman with good looks than good woman with bad looks, and both responses fail in reason and basic judgement. The good looks blind the man to one woman's badness while the bad looks blind the man to the other woman's goodness. One reason why many people cannot rationally fathom something like pedophilia has to do with extreme disgust and animus they feel about the subject. They see it as so beyond the pale that they want to regard it as pure evil than the possibility that some people are born with the sickness, i.e they chose to be evil than were born with a sickness. Likewise, many people cannot think objectively about National Socialism because of all the radioactive toxicity surrounding the subject. Of course, being rational or objective on the subject doesn't mean endorsement or lack of judgement. Rather, it means a cool-headed understanding as to why it came to power and what positive things it may have achieved. For many people, even that much thought on the matter is near-impossible as they've been led to see Nazism as pure evil, a form of diabolism.

So, the power of reason wilts under extreme-gloss and extreme-gross. Certain irresistible flavors make people ignore the nutritional downside of certain foods. No wonder so many people are obese, have diabetes, and/or suffer from tooth decay. But then, many nutritious foods are avoided by people who'd do better to eat them because the flavors are bland or off-putting. It takes strong mental constitution to resist the temptations of gloss and overcome the repulsions toward grossness. And most people don't have strong mental constitutions, and therefore, their power of reason operates within the space between 'gloss' and 'gross'. And the Power knows this, which is why it's so involved in moving the goal-posts of what is glossy and what is gross.
Now, some things are naturally full of gloss while others are naturally gross, at least to most humans. Most people have a natural like for lakes, sunshine, and beautiful forests, and most people dislike darkness, dung & rot, and fetid swamps. Most men like pretty women and dislike ugly women, and most women like handsome men and dislike ugly men. Most people like the taste of honey, and most people would surely prefer not to eat monkey brains or goat testicles. Among the spiritual, most love God or gods and hate Satan, the devil, and demons. Still, the natural likes and dislikes can be overridden with artificial manipulation, especially when imprinted on young ones. Consider how traditional Chinese culture had men thinking that mangled feet(via foot-binding) were a thing of beauty. Consider how Ancient Egyptians developed a method of flattening the heads of elites, a kind of mind-binding. And so many primitive cultures have developed rites of passage involving horrific scarring. While those outside the culture can readily see the sickness of the ways, those within the culture have been rendered blind to the ugliness because they grew up with it as a defining, even sacrosanct, element of what they're all about. This is why some cultures not only practice something as vile as human sacrifice but regard it as what makes them whole and holy. As they've grown up in a culture with a cosmology requires blood sacrifice to maintain the balance and harmony of all things, they cannot conceive of an order without the rites. Thus, even the ugly can be made to feel beautiful, even the diabolical can be made to seem holy. For sure, homosexuality that had once been reviled is now revered as the greatest thing since baked buns. And gambling has gone from a vice to even something like 'family values' virtue — Las Vegas is for the entire family, and besides, legal gambling in Indian Reservations have associated the once-vice with 'historical justice'.

But it can also go the other way. The beautiful can be made to seem unholy, or ugly in some deeper way. Jews have done this with 'Aryan beauty', not least because they are envious of it, have been driven mad by it, and were mass-killed by an ideology, Nazism, premised on defending and revering it. So, even as Jews have been unable to convince people that 'Aryan Beauty' is ugly per se, they've made it seem evil, diabolical, and vile as a thing unto itself. So, if beautiful 'Aryans' want a community of their own to preserve and admire their own beauty, that is so 'racist' and 'Nazi-like'. According to Jews, 'Aryan Beauty' is acceptable and redeemable ONLY IF it puts out to other races and mixes with others. In other words, its beauty must serve other races than serve itself. It must serve the lusts of Jewish and black men. Also, by race-mixing, the advantages of 'Aryan Beauty' must be appropriated by Jews, blacks, and other races. The 'Aryans' aren't supposed to have an identity or agency of their own. Any hint of autonomy for 'Aryan Beauty' is anathema. Thus, even if Jews can't convince you that beauty is ugly, they can convince you that beauty is evil UNLESS it is reduced to interchangeable commodity for Jews and others. Of course, Jews do the same thing to entire territories. So, if Hungarians say Hungary is their own beautiful nation, Jews may not convince you that Hungary is ugly but can convince you that Hungarian land, however beautiful it may be, is EVIL unless it loses its national autonomy and becomes global commodity for Jewish hegemonists. In other words, even if Jews can't convince you that the gold you possess is worthless, they can convince you that is EVIL for you to have possession of it. The Jewish message to goyim is that goy property has MORAL value, as opposed to merely material ones, ONLY IF it is made available for Jews to take and place in their pawnshop. Jews want all the goyim to pawn their entire nations and treasures to the Jews, the arch-financiers of the world.
Now, one might argue that it makes little sense for vilifying 'Aryan Beauty' for wanting autonomy. After all, the crimes of Nazism had to do with Germans invading other nations, not maintaining Germany for Germans. But that is from a goy perspective. As far as Poles, Greeks, and Russians were concerned, German nationalism would have been just fine AS LONG AS Germans didn't invade their territory. Their beef was with German Imperialism, not German Nationalism. Likewise, the Vietnamese and Algerians had no beef with French Nationalism AS LONG AS French Imperialists didn't rule over them. Then, why is German nationalism itself a problem? It is because, even without Nazi imperialist aggression, Jews in Germany suffered under German nationalism that led to the unity of German elites and German masses against semi-alien Jews. So, no matter where Jews live, even in non-imperialist or anti-imperialist nations, they fear goy nationalism as the binding force that allows the goy majority to work together against Jewish interests. What if goy nationalism is moderate and not particularly anti-Jewish or is even protective of Jews without totally putting out to them? Even such moderation is unacceptable to the Jewish Ego in the long run because the ultimate aim of Jews is not tolerance or co-existence with goyim but supremacist rule over them. Jewish vision of the world is one of Jewish Masters and Goy Cattle.

The term 'phobia' as currently used by PC doesn't just mean fear, dread, dislike, or even hatred. It really means you have NO VALID OR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your antipathy. After all, if 'phobia' were to be used merely as a generic term for dislike or hostility, then we could call Jews 'Nazi-phobes', we could call capitalists 'communist-phobes', we could call Christians 'Satan-phobes', and so on. But we don't do that because the prevailing orthodoxy is Jews have good reason to hate Nazis, capitalists have good reason to oppose communism, and Christians have the duty to denounce the Devil. And 'phobia' doesn't mean just any fear, no matter how powerful it is. No one calls a man who fears tigers in the jungle a 'tiger-phobe'. No one calls a swimmer who fears being eaten by a shark a 'sharkaphobe'. A man wandering in a jungle filled with tigers better fear tigers, and a swimmer in a shark-infested sea better be wary of big jaws.
If 'phobia' in current discourse simply meant hatred, fear, or opposition, then we might as well call Democrats 'Republicanophobes' and call Republicans 'Democratophobes'. And if straight people who have issues with homos are 'homophobes', then homos with issues with straight society should be called 'normophobes' or 'straightophobes'. At the very least, such use of the term would be fair-minded. But of course, 'phobia' isn't used that way. The Power that controls the academia and media — and dictates what is to be allowed as approved definitions on Wikipedia and as acceptable discourse on social platforms — uses the term 'phobia' in the most selective manner to push its own agenda. The Power meant 'phobia' in ideological discourse to be a loaded term. It doesn't mean just any kind of fear, antipathy, or hatred but the kind that is disapproved or denounced by the Power. So, homos shitting on straight society is not a problem, just like it's okay for Jews to shit on goyim, especially whites. Such is never designated as 'phobic' but, if anything, as provocative and interesting. Despite the 'scientific'-sounding term borrowed from clinical psychology, it is used ONLY against those targeted by the Power. It's like Jews used the term 'paranoia' during the Cold War mainly against the anti-communist Political Right. Apparently, those who feared communist infiltration or propaganda were overcome with mass paranoia, whereas Jews who see 'anti-Semites' everywhere and another 'Holocaust' just around the corner are to be treated with the utmost courtesy, sympathy, and respect. Of course, in reality, the far-left came closer to taking over the US government in the 20th century than elements of the far-right did. But as Jews, many of whom were on the left and even far-left, had more sway in media and academia, especially in alliance with Anglo-American reformers who weren't sufficiently 'paranoid' of Jewish intentions, they got to portray the communist-sympathizers and even outright communists as sane & rational All-American patriots standing by the U.S. Constitution while those who sensed radicalism afoot in key institutions and industries were not only smeared as fear-mongers but mass-clinically-diagnosed as 'authoritarian personalities' overcome with mass delusions. Just think. Many Jewish-Americans spied for the USSR and plotted with Soviet agents to undermine American Security. Some of them went as far as sending atomic secrets to mass-killer Stalin who'd just swallowed up all of Eastern Europe. And yet, the Narrative on the Cold War has been mostly about HUAC and Joe McCarthy plotting against innocent patriots whose Constitutional Rights were trampled upon. And even though it was the Jews who plotted against America, Jewish authors and media moguls push narratives of how the plot against America was hatched by the American Right. But then, Jews pulled the same trick with the Palestinians. Even though Jewish imperialist-immigrants invaded and took over Palestine, dehumanized the native population, and denied them the right of nation-hood, the dominant 'American' narrative on the Zionist-Palestinian issue has been, "When will Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist?" Never mind that Israel was founded on denying the right of Palestine to exist. Jews plotted against Palestine, but Jews have so many people duped that Palestinians plotted against Israel. Palestinians did no such thing. They merely tried to defend and preserve Palestine from Jewish invaders. It was the Jews who plotted to take over Palestinians, first by posing as New Palestinians who just wanted to get along with Arabs as Fellow Palestinians. But it was all just a ruse as the ultimate Zionist Plot was to wipe Palestine off the map and replace it with Israel. Likewise, Jewish immigrant-infiltrators in the US initially acted like they just wanted to be a part of the great country founded and built by Anglo-Americans, but their ultimate aim to replace the Original America with the New America of Jewish Supremacism, Diversity-Imperialism, Eternal White Guilt, and Globo-Homo-Worship(as Jewish-controlled Queertianity). Jews are not to be trusted as they regard goyim not as fellow adults but as children who cannot be trusted with the truth and must be lied to.

Not only is the term 'phobia' used selectively by the Power to designate certain groups, positions, and attitudes as irrational, pathological, sic, or diseased but it is then used casually and loosely to besmirch anyone within that group or with that position. It's like, not only can whites be accused of being 'Anti-Semites' while Jews cannot be accused of being 'Anti-Whites' or 'Anti-Whitites' BUT just about ANY white person can be called an 'Anti-Semite' for whatever reason. While Jews, being mostly on the 'Liberal' spectrum of the political divide, usually use the term against those on the American Right, they also encourage American Conservatives to denounce American Liberals as 'Anti-Semites' for being insufficiently servile to Israel or expressing sympathy, however slight, for the Palestinians. Though 'antisemitism' gained moral currency as a term describing oppressive attitude toward Jews, it now means not being with the Jewish program of oppressing non-Jews, especially Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians(and white middle and working class Americans). 'Anti-Semite' went from a man who wants to oppress or kill Jews to a man who opposes Jews' exploiting, oppressing, and/or killing such peoples as Palestinians(who suffered Nakba and live under Zionist apartheid), Russians(who underwent the Jewish Rape of Russia), Iranians & other Muslims(who've suffered semi-genocidal sanctions), and white folks of the West(who now face White Nakba, aka the Great Replacement). Even though Jews have become the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis, the term 'Anti-Semite' is affixed to Jewish victimhood of bygone history.
Jews are cunning and play it both ways, which is why so much of accusation of 'antisemitism' comes as much from goyim as from Jews. When Jews are not accusing goyim, mostly white conservatives and Iranians, of 'antisemitism', it's the goyim who denounce one another as 'antisemitic' as so many of them are such craven toadies to Jewish Power or brainwashed dolts who look upon Jews as the holy race who are beyond reproach. Many Jews say Donald Trump is 'literally Hitler', so how does Trump respond? He accuses the goyim in the Democratic Party of being the Real 'Anti-Semites' by supporting Israel only 200% than 300%... or 6,000,000%. Jews have long accused the GOP as the party of bigotry, so how did the likes of Mitt Romney respond to the charge? They've accused the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of being 'antisemitic' by not giving Israel 1,000% of what it requested(or demanded). That's about half of all US political discourse. Jews say, "GOP, you're the party of Hitler", and GOP cucks say to the Democratic Party, "Democrats, you are a bunch of 'Anti-Semites' for not supporting the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians 300% instead of just 200%." Behind closed doors, Jews must be laughing at the idiot goyim caught up in this clown show.

In the current discourse, the term 'phobia' is used almost entirely against those who refuse to bend over to the globo-homo agenda. There is no need for 'Judeophobia' or 'Afrophobia' because Jews and blacks already have potent terms as shields and battering rams: 'Antisemitism' and 'racism'(that only carries weight in relation to blacks and maybe Jews, as its permissible to badmouth Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, Palestinians, and even Mexicans). Homos, the favored of Jews, also got a special word as their terminological weapon, and it is 'homophobia' that has been adopted and used uncritically and aggressively by the entire media-academia-government apparatus. There have been attempts to widen the use of 'phobia' — 'Islamophobia', 'Russophobia', 'Sinophobia', and etc. — , but no term gains traction and currency UNLESS it is adopted and disseminated by the big media-academia-state complex. In the end, it is not so much the idea or term that matters but the manner and range of its promotion and marketing. Other than 'homophobia', the only potent politicized term with -phobia as suffix is 'xenophobia', but then it has a longer pedigree than 'homophobia', a bogus concept cooked up by Jews. (It is bogus because no one has demonstrated that anyone has an intense panicked fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Plenty of people are put-off by homosexuals, the way they look and talk, but such disdain hardly fits the profile of phobia. And people who find sodomy or homo-fecal penetration to be gross are only feeling a natural reaction to a filthy and foul act that serves no biological function but is a prime way to spread disease. It's like being disgusted by the idea of licking toilet seats or eating-shit is not a phobia. It is healthy and normal to feel grossed out by gross behavior. Some might say homos who were brought up to despise homosexuality are filled with self-loathing, and that constitutes a kind of phobia, but that is false. A homo who wants to do homo things but feels ashamed for feeling that way is suffering from a complex, or homo-complex, not a phobia. A phobia is where a person truly and intensely feels dread and antipathy for something that is harmless. In contrast, a self-loathing homo truly and intensely would love to do homo things but feels shame for feeling that way. He feels loathing for what he truly desires. Phobia, unlike a complex, is not the product of repression. Phobia is someone truly being scared of a little white mouse that can do him no harm. A complex is someone truly loving white mice but having been made to feel shame for such affection. What about people who feel hatred or animus toward homosexuals as freaks, degenerates, or sinners? Their hostility may be pretty strong, but it's not a phobia without panicked fear/fright of something harmless. After all, many people have strong hatred for rapists, pedophiles, bigots, and the like — and plenty of homos virulently hate those who condemn the very idea of 'gay marriage' or refuse to bake 'gay wedding cakes', but their hatred, even if unhinged, doesn't necessarily amount to a phobia. A person with a phobia of rats freak out at the mere sight of a rat, even if it is outside and poses no harm to him or his property. In contrast, someone may hate rats because of they've done his house considerable damage. Such hatred is a reaction to what rats have done, not a mindless fear of rats per se. Likewise, this thing called 'xenophobia' is mostly bogus because, at least in current usage, it is rarely about mindless, irrational, and extreme fear of foreigners but totally warranted concern over what mass demographic migration and replacement may do to one's own nation. Isn't it odd that Jews, who love to demean others as 'xenophobes' for saying NO to mass immigration-invasion, are the first ones to say Israel must remain Jewish by an ONLY JEWISH IMMIGRATION policy. One thing for sure, Jews seem to be truthophobes who have no use for consistency.

Because 'homophobia' is a weaponized term to demean, dehumanize, and destroy modern heretics who refuse to kneel at the altar of globo-homomania, it is used rather liberally against ALL who are deemed threatening to the agenda. The term is targeted not only at those who resolutely stand against the homo agenda but those who dare to mock anything homo or tranny. In other words, the 'gay' agenda not only demands total acceptance but total reverence. It's not enough to target and destroy sincere opponents of the agenda but even those who joke about homosexuality must also be destroyed. It's akin to the domain of religion where not only the heretics must be burned at the sake but those who seem uncaring, irreverent, and mocking of the sacred dogma. Not only those accused of being devil-worshipers and idolaters must be destroyed but those who've failed to show due diligence in holy observance and due reverence to proper authorities. The same logic operated in the secular theocracy or ideocracy of communism. Not only were capitalists and anti-communists purged but even communists who dared to crack jokes about the Party and its leadership also had to be punished.
In a similar vein, it's not enough for the 'gay' lobby to call for the heads of sincere and dogged opponents of the Agenda. They are not the only 'homophobes' who must be burnt at the stake or forced to take it up the bung. According to the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, even those people who don't necessarily oppose the Agenda but love to make jokes about homosexuals, trannies, and their ways are also branded with the Mark of Cain of 'homophobia'. So, even though all they did was observe the silly, funny, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous, and outlandish ways of many homos and trannies, they are deemed to be 'phobic'. You see, if you're insufficiently reverent toward homos and trannies, you are sick in the head or afflicted with some pathological malaise... because after all, there is nothing more naturally wondrous than homo fecal-penetration and tranny peniscutting. This is all the nuttier when we consider how homos love to mock each other and actually revel in being 'different' and 'faggy'. After all, the camp sensibility arose largely from the 'gay' community with their fruity ways. But when homos rib and mock each other, that's oh-so-wonderful and charming. But if straight people notice the same things about homos and trannies, why that is 'phobic'. It's also like how blacks love to act the wild-ass jigglins, throw apelike antics, and act plenty crazy(and even take pride in it) but scream 'racism' when white people notice this very facet of Negro-hood. And notice how Jews love to incessantly talk, write, and discuss about Jewish money, Jewish power, Jewish influence, and Jewish everything, BUT they are the first ones to condemn goyim of being 'obsessive Anti-Semites' who go on and on about Jews who are just ho-hum minding their business.

Anyway, no straight person has a panicked fright of homos or homosexuality. They don't break out in sweat or wet their pants in abject terror at the first sight of homo or tranny. Many straight people feel uneasy about homosexuality or being around homosexuals, but mere discomfort doesn't make a phobia. After all, many people are put off by the sight of grossly fat people, but that doesn't amount to 'fatophobia', 'lardophobia', 'blubbophobia', or 'buffalobuttophobia'. They are people who feel strong animus, hatred, or contempt for homosexuals for whatever reasons. For the religious, homosexuals could be deemed as wallowing in sin and going against the way of God. For certain macho types, the mere sight of homo girly-boys fills them with contempt. They have certain ideals of manhood and are put off by men dressing, acting, and/or talking like pansies. But then, some people who prize intelligence and/or wisdom feel great contempt and derision — indeed very strong emotions — for the dumb, stupid, or imbecile. It's obvious that Richard Dawkins virulently looks down on people he considers to be idiotic. He believes humans have intelligence and the power of reason, and therefore those humans who've failed to live up to his ideal of the thinking person is deserving of his arrogance and tongue-lashing. Now, this self-righteous and self-aggrandizing side of Dawkins' character may be off-putting, but it wouldn't be a phobia. Whatever Dawkins is, he is not a dumbophobe who cowers in frightful fear in the presence of someone who strikes him as hopeless dumb, stupid, or ignorant. If anything, Dawkins, who is as witty as he is arrogant, loves to poke fun at people he deems to be too dumb to be human. Indeed, such derisive use of wit is very much a part of British culture. And Jews have their own way of mocking and deriding whatever and whomever they disagree with, look down upon, and hold in contempt. Jews surely love to mock Christianity, indeed a national pastime in Israel and even among American Jews who no longer fear the much-cucked Christian community, much of which is now more taboo-riddled with sanctities surrounding globo-homomania than about God, Jesus, and the long line of martyrs and saints. And yet, when Jews like Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Larry David, and others mock and joke about Christians and Christianity, are they denounced as 'Christophobes'? Indeed, is the term 'Christophobe' regularly used whenever some non-Christian mocks or makes fun of Christians, the Church, Jesus, and etc? No.

But even a farcical attitude about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies is deemed 'homophobic'(though 'transphobic' is also now being disseminated far and wide by the Jew-run media). If 'phobia' means an extreme, irrational, and panicked fear or fright attack over something harmless, how is it 'phobic' to joke about homosexuals? Granted, some might argue that people seek to relieve tension by joking about something that truly terrifies them. After all, some Jews have made jokes about Adolf Hitler and the Shoah to come to terms with them. And Woody Allen certainly told many jokes about things that make him feel uneasy, even queasy. But jokes about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies are not therapeutic efforts to ease one's extreme fear of 'gay' stuff. Rather, they are akin to fat jokes or jokes about especially ugly or dumb people. Generally, people find odd, weird, or extreme stuff to be funny. Even extreme qualities deemed to be positive come under mockery because they seem so different from the normality of most people. So, people with extremely high IQ are often mocked as 'geeks'. And women who are 'too beautiful' are caricatured as bimbos, stuck-up princesses, or vain-shallow dolts. Men who are overly powerful are lampooned as 'moose' or 'dumb jock'. The popular assumption is that if someone is over-abundant in one area, he or she must be lacking in most other areas. So, the stereotype of the absent-minded professor who is good with book-knowledge but lacking in common sense skills and general sociableness. True or not, none of these qualify as 'phobic'. Why have homosexuals and trannies often served as targets for comedy? In most cases, it's not even about hatred or contempt. The material made for easy laughs because most people are not homo or 'gay' in style, and therefore, homos, trannies, and their ways seem weird, goofy, nutty, ridiculous, and/or outrageous to most people. Thus, it's really a matter of Homo-Farcia and has NOTHING to do with any kind of phobia. But once homos got powerful, their vanity got the better of them and, with the backing of super-powerful Jews, they decided to use the media, academia, law firms, the courts, and the state to spread the message far and wide that any insufficiently reverent and celebratory attitude or expression regarding homosexuality and tranny-stuff is to be designated and derided as 'homophobic', in other words, pathological, demented, mentally sick, irrational, immoral, and even unholy as 'gay' vanity has deigned to be the new spiritual essence of the Modern World. So, what should properly be called Homofarcia is called 'homophobia'. Imagine if fat people — people with a natural impulse to eat compulsively to the point of becoming excessively overweight — had the power of homos and pushed the idea that fat jokes are 'fatophobic', i.e. the product of pathologically unhinged minds than natural expression of merriment among people who find gross obesity to be abnormal and extreme to the point of ridiculousness. Such a world would be plenty retarded. Well, we are living in such a world, except that it's not the fatsos but the fruitkins who have waged war on 'gay joke' comedy as a heresy that cannot be tolerated.

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

Should Zionist Killers and Shills of World Jewry be called DEATH SQUADS? — The Power of Terminology — Waging War of Terminology on Jewish Globalist Supremacism

Zionist Death Squad?

A good example of media manipulation of mass perception is the term ‘death squad’. It was an oft-used term in the 1970s and 1980s, and it almost always applied to ‘right-wing’ regimes. So, we heard of ‘right-wing death squad’ over here, ‘right-wing death squad’ over there. But we almost never heard of ‘left-wing death squads’ even though there were plenty of them beginning with Bolshevik Terror. NKVD and communist henchmen terrorized entire villages and executed many people. Millions died under Stalin. Communist lynch-mobs were assembled by Red China to wage class war. Mass terror and killings were carried out by both the Right and Left in the Spanish Civil War. The most horrific leftist mass-killings were carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And yet, ‘death squads’ only applied to ‘right-wing’ regimes(usually allied with the US in the Cold War) as far as the Media and Academia were concerned. Strange, isn’t it? (Back then, it was deemed okay for Liberals and Progressives to embarrass US neo-imperialist hegemony because Marxist ideology was still in vogue among intellectuals and elite power was still held by Wasps who were resented by Jews who were willing to push any narrative to discredit Anglo-American prestige. Today, with Jews as the ruling elites of US and EU, there is far less media condemnation of US hegemony that is now pretty synonymous with Jewish globo-homo domination. If anything, the Neo-Libs and Neocons in the Deep State seem most triggered when Trump threatens less aggression and more peace in US dealings with the world.)

Why were right-wing killers ‘death squads’ but left-wing killers weren’t designated as such? Was it because left-wing violence was motivated by a sense of justice even if horribly misguided or extreme? Thus, one could argue leftist violence was fueled by moral passion. In contrast, many right-wing regimes were perceived as concerned only with privilege, wealth, and power of reactionary elites. Thus, at least from the leftist perspective, right-wing killings were cold, heartless, and robotic. It was more like slaughtering animals. Right-wing elites recruited and trained killers to not think-and-feel but just follow orders and mow down any people who posed a challenge to the status quo of inequality and injustice. These killers were like the Terminator in the James Cameron movie. Mindless, programmed, and mechanical. In contrast, even if leftist killers often got out of hand, they were motivated by moral passion and sense of justice... or so the Left wanted to believe.
At least in the hotbeds of political violence in Latin America from the 1950s to the late 1980s, such a view was not without merit. Though the Castro-Guevara-Mao-inspired guerrillas, insurgents, and radicals adopted an extreme ideology and were all-too-willing to indulge in terror & sabotage, they recognized the fundamentally oppressive and corrupt socio-economic systems that had taken root all across Latin America. So, they wanted to make a difference. They identified the problem as stemming from a cynical alliance of parasitic oligarchs, military-men, Yanqui imperialists, and the Church(even though there were left-leaning schools of Catholicism that sympathized with the Marxists). If the Left was struggling for justice, the Right seemed to be standing for power. It was idealism vs cynicism. Leftists were willing to kill for a cause. Rightists were willing to kill for control. Leftist violence had a human face. Rightist violence was faceless. Or that was how the Left conceptualized the conflict. It’s like Sergei Eisenstein’s use of Facial Politics in BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and ALEXANDER NEVSKY. Tsar’s troops that gun down protesters on the Odessa steps are faceless. They march lockstep like automatons and coldly gun down noble idealists with terrified faces. And in ALEXANDER NEVSKY, the faces of the Teutonic Knights are hidden behind helmets. In contrast, the visages of the patriotic Russian warriors are prominently featured. It’s like Mecha-Godzilla vs Godzilla.


The Left drove home the point that, even if its ideological comrades shed a lot of blood, their violence was generally more justifiable because it was based on a Theory of Justice that on that Greed-of-Power that supposedly animated the Right.

But when we look back on the 20th century, such conceit is difficult to sustain. While early communists may have been fired up by genuine idealism and commitment to justice, once in power the communists could be just as mechanical, brutal, and heartless in their mass slaughter of innocents. Violence that had been fueled by hunger for justice, shining idealism, and/or vengeful rage(against right-wing tyranny) became a mindless habit of destruction and terror to intimidate and control. This was especially true when the communists, after running out of class enemies to destroy, turned against fellow communists to be purged as ‘saboteurs’, ‘renegades’, or ‘capitalist-roaders’. It wasn’t long before politics in communist regimes came to be mainly about power and control, as George Orwell satirized in ANIMAL FARM. What is striking about the victims of Stalin and Mao was that they were so unnecessary. It was one thing for the Reds to have spilled a lot of blood during the Civil War and early campaigns. But the mass terror didn’t end and kept on expanding even against countless innocents who posed no threat to the regime. Indeed, most of Stalin and Mao’s victims were powerless peasants or fellow communists(who were purged and even executed in power struggles or out of sheer paranoia). Wherever communists came to power, there was a good chance of mass violence that became cold, mechanical, and ruthless. Even after their power was consolidated, certain communist regimes couldn’t get enough of more killing. It would not have been far-fetched to designate their killing machines as ‘death squads’. But they were hardly ever called any such.

The Western Media preferred to reserve ‘death squads’ only for right-wing regimes. It’s like the term ‘lynch-mob’ has been selectively used to especially vilify White Southerners even though the number of blacks lynched by white mobs over the century following the Civil War wasn’t that high. If anything, many more blacks die of lynching in any given year in black Africa than all the blacks were lynched in America. But the media almost never refer to the black African violence as being carried out by lynch-mobs. And black pack behavior in the US has led to many group-racial attacks on both whites and blacks. Blacks often run riot in packs and attack white people, sometimes resulting in fatalities. But the media never refer to such violence as lynch-mob attacks. And blacks often gang up on other blacks(especially of rival gangs or neighborhoods) and sometimes use extreme violence that leads to deaths. But again, the media don’t call them lynch-mobs.
Same is true of the term ‘pogrom’. 99% of the time in media usage, it is mob violence used against Jews. But similar mob violence against non-Jews is hardly called a ‘pogrom’. And when Jews use such violence against others, there is zero chance of it being called a pogrom. Nakba, the mass-expulsion of Palestinians from what was soon to become ‘Israel’, had all the hallmarks of a pogrom, but when have you ever seen the media designate the Palestinian Tragedy as ‘Nakba pogroms’? Indeed, the Jew-run media hardly ever use the term ‘Nakba’ in relation to events in 1948. And of course, even though Zionists were among the innovators of Modern Terrorism, the term is almost never used in relation to Jews and Zionists. So, when Israel used explosives to assassinate nuclear scientists in Iran, New York Times put ‘terrorist’ in quotes, as if it was just a subjective and biased opinion of the Iranian government. Of course, if the Iranian regime had used similar violence against a scientist or engineer in Israel, it would have been called pure and simple TERRORISM(and would have been cause for war). But then, Jews also cynically use terms such as ‘paranoia’, ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘racism’, ‘supremacism’, and ‘privilege’ to their tribal advantage. So, anyone who speculates about the Deep State and Jewish power is suffering from ‘paranoia’ and fueling ‘conspiracy theories’, but any globalist who pulls the fire-alarm about ‘Russia Hacking’ and Trump-as-Putin’s-puppet is supposedly ‘woke’. And for some reason or another, whites are ‘racist’ no matter what they do, but blacks and Jews are always ‘anti-racist’ no matter how nasty and hostile they act at the expense of other groups. (Jews, both prizing black alliance and fearing black rage, do their best to channel most of black rage at WHITEY away from Jewey even though Jewey has been at the forefront of using tough neo-liberal policies to cut down on black crime to revive globo-homo Jew-run cities.)
And the mere desire of white peoples/cultures to preserve themselves from the globalist onslaught of massive economic disruption, cultural degeneration, and demographic imperialism is denigrated as ‘white supremacist’ or ‘far right’. But Jewish globalists using their elite power to force Western nations to favor Jewish interests and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians is apparently not ‘supremacist’. And according to the PC logic of ‘privilege’, a poor white person working in a West Virginian coal mine has more advantages than Jewish oligarchs who rake in gazillions in ill-gotten profits in Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Wall Street.

Control of buttons on the Terminological Switchboard in academia, media, and the state means you can manipulate most minds. It’s like the power of RNA to regulate DNA. After all, why is it that so many suckers think ‘hate’ applies only to white patriots but never to Jews, blacks, homos, Mexicans, and etc.? Surely, everyone hates something, and all groups have their likes and dislikes, even strong hatreds. But when have you heard of Zionist attitudes toward Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians designated as ‘hate’? We are told by Jew-run Hate News that Palestinian children are raised to hate Israeli Jews, and that may well be true for historical and social reasons. But Jew-run Hate News overlook the fact that Jewish kids are also raised to distrust and hate Palestinians, Christian Arabs, Persians, and Muslims-in-general(even though Jews will cynically ally with one bunch of Muslims against another bunch of Muslims). So, why is it ‘hate’ ONLY WHEN Palestinians feel antipathy toward Jews? Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a more hateful people than Jews in our globalized world. Jewish Power has expressed rabid and virulent hatred for white Americans, white Europeans(too many are ‘far right’ apparently), Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Christians, Chinese, and etc. Now, Jews are not the ONLY people filled with hate, but their hatreds are more extensive because they have such over-sized ambitions all around the world. For example, Greeks and Turks don’t much like each other for historical reasons. But that’s just hate between two nations. And Chinese and Vietnamese don’t much like each other either. But again, it’s about one nation vs another. India and Pakistan still have simmering resentments against one another. There are certain tribes in Nigeria that harbor mutually hostile feelings, but those hatreds are limited to the borders of Nigeria.
In contrast, Jewish globalist power extends its tentacles all over the world. (To be sure, nasty and clever Jews project their megalomania onto OTHERS and pretend that Putin and Russia, with the support of Iran, are about to swallow the world, LOL.) So, Jewish Power ends up hating all nations and peoples who dare to say NO to Jewish power in the way that some women said NO to Harvey Weinstein to no avail. Just like Weinstein’s sordid horniness, Jewish Power operates on the principle of ‘Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you’. So, even as Weinstein pressed himself on his female victims, he was acting like they were doing him wrong by saying NO to his ‘boing’-ish lust. Boo hoo, HE was the wronged party. Likewise, Jews go all around the world to peddle their brand of globalism, but if you say NO, they flip out and accuse you of being ‘far right’, ‘hateful’, and ‘not inclusive’. But because Jews control the Terms of Debate, they can get away with all their hatreds because their virulence is never called ‘hate’, whereas even the mere desire by whites to be left alone is smeared as ‘hateful’, ‘far right’, and ‘extreme’. But then, we are dealing with a people who call illegal invaders ‘dreamers’ and denounce American patriots who care about borders and Rule of Law as ‘nazis’. Never mind that Nazis were imperialists who had no respect for the borders of its neighbors. And never mind that Jews came to be hated in so many nations because they went from place to place without sense of roots, loyalty, and obligation to the host population. Too often, Jews acted like high-IQ gypsies. Imagine a Tribe made up of people with the personalities and attitudes of Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Maher. You don’t have to think much to realize why Jews came to be loathed in so many places. The problem with Jews is they were always pro-imperialist and piggy-backed on the aggressions of other peoples for opportunities to get theirs. So, Jews piggy-backed on British Imperialism to sell opium to the Chinese. Jews piggy-backed on Muslim invasion of Europe and served Arab conquerors to the detriment of Europeans. The main reason why Jews hated Russian Imperialism was because the Tsar limited Jews to the Pale of Settlement. Jews would have loved Russian Imperialism if they’d been given free rein to ply their trade all across the empire. (By the way, if Jews feel that the limiting Jews to the Pale of Settlement was so unjust, why do Zionists in Israel limit Arabs to the Palestine-of-Settlement in Gaza and West Bank? Why can’t those Arabs gain free movement and access to Israel that once used to be Palestine? Notice that Jews who bitch about how Russians had limited Jewish movement now have no problem with Zionists limiting Arab movement. Even though Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank who approach the Israeli borders are shot down like rabbits, Israelis act as if they have the right to invade or bomb neighboring territories of Lebanon and Syria.)

Anyway, we need to take the Power of Terminology seriously. After all, consider the term ‘terminology’ itself. It is related to the term ‘terminate’. The purpose of terminology is to terminate all competing interpretations and designations of reality by fixing a certain event, phenomenon, or conflict with a definitive term. Take a term like ‘witch’. A certain woman may be admired for her spiritual or magical powers in a pagan community, but Christians may decide she is simply a ‘witch’. That term terminates all competing meanings(that may be positive and admiring) and vilifies her as an agent of evil. Or consider the term ‘witch-hunt’. By designating the anti-communist investigations and purges of the late 40s and early 50s as ‘witch-hunts’, the Liberal Order and Jewish Power discredited the effort of conservatives as essentially paranoid. After all, witches, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, doesn’t exist. Thus, if HUAC and men like Joe McCarthy were supposedly hunting-for-witches, they must have been delusional paranoids like the characters in Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE. Thus, Liberals and Jews changed the Narrative from ‘US government teeming with Soviet spies, some of whom even sent Stalin the secret of the Bomb’ to ‘Crazy red-baiting right-wingers hunting for communist witches under the beds.’ Thus, a lot of Jewish radicals who should have been smoked out remained in institutions of media and the state. By toying with terminology via the power of media and academia, Jews dodged a bullet that could have really hit the bull’s eye of Jewish subversion.

Terminology is like the Terminator. Terminology is the monotheism of meaning. It purges and destroys all competing definitions that serve as basis for interpretations. It terminates anything and everything that stands in the way of the one and only meaning that serves The Narrative. Consider how Jews are so utterly unrelenting in their use of the terms ‘supremacism’, ‘hate’, and ‘privilege’ to portray White Autonomy as evil, evil, and evil. Jews know Jewish Supremacism cannot exist without White Submissivism to Jewish authority and sanctity. So, the Ziopoly(Zio-Monopoly) of Terminology commands and insists 24/7 that any white consciousness that longs for Freedom from Jewish Domination is about ‘supremacism’, ‘hate’, and ‘privilege’. And Jews do the same to Russia. Ever since Russia said ‘enough’ and ‘no more’ to Jewish-globalist financial rape, Jews have ‘weinsteined’ Russia with threats and defamation. Russia should join the #MeToo movement against Jewish Global Rape. After all, we now know that Weinstein employed a network of lawyers, rumor-mongers, defamers, and publicists to silence and destroy anyone who dared to blow the whistle than blow his willy. But then, the Deep Throat State works the same way. It hates whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden and loves willy-blowers who not only suck on the cock of power but gladly swallow as well.


It is about time that we go into #MeToo mode against the Terminological Monopoly of Jewish Supremacists who’ve been raping the English language to terminate all competing and corrective meanings that pose challenges to the narrow Jewish Globalist Worldview. What is most perverse about Jewish Globalism is there has never been a power so expansive and intrusive but also so petty and narrow. If Jews want to be nationalist or tribal and care mostly about Jewish affairs in Israel and some cities in which they are prominent, then fine. But, Jews aren’t content with just minding their own business. They want to rule the world and dictate their terms to all of humanity. But if a people want to play imperialist, there must be a spirit of give-and-take premised on the admittance of hegemonic power. After all, Roman imperialists, British imperialists, Ottoman imperialists, and Russian imperialists never denied that they had the supreme power over the their empires. They put themselves out there as the great rulers of others. But for that very reason, they were expected to be just, fair, and magnanimous. In exchange for the submission to their rule, they were obligated to show that their rule would be good for everyone in the imperial domain. When the US was led by Anglo-American elites, Pax Americana operated more or less along those lines, i.e. while the US empire would use ruthless means to maintain its power around the world, those who complied with the terms would be treated kindly and generously. It’s like Christianity. Historically, Christians(and Muslims too) were willing to use aggression and violence to conquer heathens. But once heathens accepted the Word of God, they too were to be accepted as fellow Christian brothers and sisters.

Thus, there are two morally feasible ways of existence. One way is to be nationalist, mind your own business, and leave other nations alone. Japan was like this for many centuries before the West forced it open. The other way is to seek world power and gain hegemony over others but also to give the others, the subject peoples, a chance to make something of themselves in the New Order. Thus, imperialism, though aggressive and brutal, partially justifies itself by allowing mutual give-and-take all over the world.
The problem with Jews is they want to have the cake and eat it too. They want World Power but pretend they got no power. They want to create a Neo-Imperial New World Order but one where the only real beneficiaries are Jews. Look what Jewish-dominated privatization did to Russia in the 1990s. It was little more than Jewish rape of Russia. Or take Jewish-led globalist policy in the Middle East. It has been total hell for several Arab nations just so Israel could benefit. And there is all this hate against Iran simply because Jews want Israel to be the One and Only dominant power in the Middle East. While all empires were self-serving and hypocritical, Jewish globalism has been utterly pathological in its willingness to sacrifice entire swaths of humanity just to serve the megalomania of Jews who seem to regard most of goyim as cattle. Jewish hypocrisy and obnoxiousness are fully on display when Jews denounce Hungary and Poland as ‘far right’ even as they demand that all white nations support Israel’s right to secure its borders and survival as a Jewish State. It’s all the more sickening because all those Arab ‘refugees’ have been unleashed by wars generated by Neocons who work for the interests of Israel. Furthermore, Israel had also directly aided ISIS death squads and carried out aerial attacks on Syria despite the fact that Syria never fired anything into Israel. So, Israel not only gets to have 300 illegal nukes but gets to wage wars on its neighbors, thereby setting off a ‘refugee’ crisis that uprooted millions of people. And yet, Hungary and Poland are the ‘far right’ evil nations for not taking in all those people uprooted by Wars for Israel while, at the same time, they are expected to show full support of Israel’s right to be a Jewish state. Jewish myopia is as deranged as that of King Leopold of Belgium whose only interest in the Congo was to rape it as much as possible. To Jews, the whole world is one big Congo for Jewish greed. Jews didn’t care about all those destitute Russians in the 1990s. Jews didn’t care about all those dead Arabs and Muslims in all those Wars for Israel. Jews didn't care about 100,000s of Iraqi women and children who may have perished due to US sanctions under Clinton. And Jews don’t care about all those whites in the US, EU, and Canada whose lives have been turned upside down by Third World mass invasion, loss of manufacturing jobs, opioid & other drug epidemics, pornification of mainstream culture(soul-destroying of young kids), addiction to gambling, slut-pride feminism, and Homomania as Satanic-Jewish-christianity(or SJC). Jews have used globalism to mess up the whole world just so they could take over the bodies and souls of everyone who comes under Jewish power one way or another: financial, pharmaceutical, quasi-spiritual(homomania), cultural(PC & porny pop culture), military(like all those Muslims killed by Wars for Israel), and etc.

Anyway, the time has come for us to use Terminological Firepower against the Jews. We need to fire them off like Katusha rockets in WWII. Relentless and ruthless. We need to take all the Jewish filth-rockets shot at white peoples, Palestinians, Russians, Iranians, and others and shoot them right back at Jews. ‘Death squads’? We need to call Zionists and the IDF ‘Jewish death squads’. Every time IDF soldiers gun down Palestinians in Gaza and every time Israeli jets rain down bombs to kill scores of Palestinian women and children, we need to use the term ‘death squad’ to characterize Zionist Power. As for what the Jews did to the Palestinians in 1948, it must be called ‘pogrom’. Whenever 1948 is mentioned, call the event ‘Nakba pogroms’. And whenever Israeli settlers and IDF work in tandem to terrorize, brutalize, and kill Palestinians in the West Bank, we need to paint them as ‘Jewish lynch mobs’. And we need to constantly invoke the terms ‘hate’ and ‘supremacism’ in reference to how Jewish Power operates around the world. And if Jews bitch on and on about the ‘far right’, call them as ‘Far Jew’ or ‘Far Tribe’.
We need our own Terminological Terminators against the Terminological Death Squads that Jewish Power has been employing against us. We need our own Letterman.

Why I’m the Only True Race-ist - How Misuse of Terminology confuses Meanings - We need to go Cold Jive Turkey on Magic Negro Myth - Why Everyone is a race-ist even if unknowingly or subconsciously

The term ‘Racism’ blurs ‘race’ and ‘ism’ and confuses people. The proper spelling should be race-ism. That way, people would be more aware of the true meaning of the word. ‘Race’ means race and ‘Ism’ means belief. So, race + ism = belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

So, I say I am a race-ist. Ism means belief, therefore race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief, creed, conviction, or thought system. Now, race-ism can become radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Nation of Islam or even extreme strains of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are on factual basis and for their psycho-social implications.

The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined by the Powers-that-be to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such way, it negates the possibility of formulating a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because the neutral formula of race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred(especially among white folks), it’s difficult to conceive of an objective term about belief in race reality. I suspect the term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term about race would be near-impossible. If ‘racism’ means hateful racial supremacism, what would be the proper term for belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and need for racial identity and consciousness? Some defensively use ‘racialism’ and ‘race realism’, but even those terms become tainted because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been associated with the Worst Evil.

Suppose I define ‘heliocentrism’ as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such meaning should be called ‘helio-supremacism’ or ‘helio-chauvinism’. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if ‘heliocentrism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term denoting the centrality of the Sun in the Solar system becomes difficult to conceive.

Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest and superduperest things in the cosmos and deserve supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as thinking-and-feeling beings on the planet.
But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity over the entire planet or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all extraterrestrials must bow down to human earthlings.
Such an outlook should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania, NOT humanism. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for human + ism to mean something extreme, maniacal, or demented. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist baggage.

But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that crazy?

Same goes for ‘nationalism’. It should mean belief in, loyalty to, and defense of one’s nation as historical entity and cultural homeland. Now, nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as national + ism simply means belief in loyalty to one’s own nation. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and inheritance. But the PC media have defined ‘nationalism’(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme or ‘far right’. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘neo-nazi’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with hatred and supremacism when, in fact, it is the globalists who HATE the sovereign right of nations to survive and preserve themselves.
So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting the rights of other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ when it’s George Soros who is the real Prince of Darkness. When something as sound as basic nationalism is defined so radically, it sucks out all the air in the room for a normal and balanced definition. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’(that actually turned imperialist and violated the nationalisms of other peoples), then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it creates a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been rendered extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term RACE-ISM to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness. Thus far, I’m the only true race-ist.

As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. America has gone way past the struggle for legal equality for minorities. The new dominant theme is about how we must all bow down before black chauvinism and Jewish supremacism. For example, when a white person is called ‘racist’, it now means ‘kiss black ass’. When he is called an ‘anti-Semite’, it means ‘kiss Jewish ass’.
Daring to say NO to blacks and Jews or daring to NOTICE negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence is anathema in the Current Year when ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are used as bludgeons against anyone who won’t play the game.

So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superiors and Jews as rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superiority, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an "extreme animus against homos who are only minding their own business" has come to mean the "refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos". So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to participate in a homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is deemed ‘homophobic’ and targeted for political extinction. Or, if a Church says NO to homo colors and banners, it must be ‘homophobic’ too. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus because ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological & panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny genital mutilation. In our demented Jew-run society, even laughing at homos or finding homo community to be ridiculously funny is ‘homophobic’.)
Those three terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. The Holy Three, the Blacks, Jews, and homos have become arrogant and contemptuous because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro demigods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him ‘Caitlyn’.
In a way, Milo represents the fusion of the Holy Three, and if he weren’t so politically correct, he would be the darling of the SRS(self-righteous supremacist) circuit. He is Jewish, Homo, and accepts only Negro dong up his bung. He also looks a bit ‘Aryan’, which can’t hurt because, despite all the anti-white-bashing, the ‘Aryan’ aesthetic still has great iconic value. Jews, browns, and blacks lust after ‘Aryan’-looking women despite all their yammering about ‘diversity’.

So often, the problem of meanings derives from the willful or misguided abuse of terminology. The ‘ism’ of ‘racism’ was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
From the start, blind racial animus or hostility should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc.

Worse, the problem wasn't just the wrongful definition but the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ that came to be associated with the term, especially via the electronic media. While dictionaries offer verbal definitions, the political potency of certain terms derives from the term’s association with sensationalized images and sounds. This is why the term ‘racism’ has special potency in relation to blacks. Hollywood, PBS, and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of association between ‘racism’ and American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians, which is inconvenient to Jewish Zionists. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s WESTERN deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of what had been the most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s a faint sense of injustice but no real outrage. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, Traumatic Muslim, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. There is little sympathy for Palestinians among Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba and the Occupation. Palestinian tragedy hasn’t been made into TV series, movies, protest songs, and popular books. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their hearts and minds haven’t been filled with the iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of sounds and images of Palestinian victimhood. Public opinion could change overnight. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I kill for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matters a tremendous deal. Consider the movie E.T. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend a little boy. But Spielberg’s movie made E.T. so lovable, and so many adults and children were swept up with emotions for the warm cuddly creature from heaven. So, even though there are 100s of millions of REAL PEOPLE suffering all over the world, many Americans felt more compassion for a fictional space creature than for, say, Palestinians under Zionist Occupation. No less fantastical than E.T. is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as a divine god figure.) So, what matters is not just the control of terms but control of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. Images like that are baked into our minds. It’s like Mel Brooks’ movie BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of a ‘nigger sheriff’, the Negro cowboy’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though some of us eventually grow out of Magic Negro Myth, it takes some effort because we all imbibed so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It takes time and effort to wean ourselves from Negropiate. We gotta go Cold Jive Turkey.


What we must do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective, or it be a form of radical racism and be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism about blacks would realize that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to intelligence, whites generally have the edge and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and raw power, blacks have the superiority and advantage.
So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Without manhood, white men will lose his soul, and white women will lose respect for white men and go for ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The only place for white males in a world racially integration with black is cucky-wuckery. Does any self-respecting white man want to be like CucKen Burns? This is why the white race needs SAFE SPACE from black thuggery.

Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manly pride. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Colin Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why white cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how many racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know the changes were extensive. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.

Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and was twisted to justify horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an Ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety or will always lead to horrors. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath-water. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t mean that socialism has NO value. Socialism has real value in right doses and with proper implementation. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist because they support things like public libraries and Social Security. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain common needs and guarantees.

Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America DOES notice race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter, and that’s why they are so rich and influential. Things get confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed as ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed as ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief of race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power to exploit us”, that is ‘antisemitic’. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, that is anti-antisemtic or ‘philosemitic’. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised.

But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept? The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child must have emergency brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got it through grade inflation of a ‘caring’ professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are going to sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.

Also, why do ‘anti-racist’ progs feel more compassion for certain races than for others? Why has there been far more concern for Jews than for Palestinians since WWII? Because of the iconography of Anne Frank and Shoah, and also because people associate Jews with great scientists, humorists, doctors, and thinkers. In contrast, their image of a Palestinian is some street urchin tossing rocks or some woman making funny sounds with her tongue. ?esthetics and iconology matter(and it goes way beyond ‘optics’).

And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, moderate left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is denounced as ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are more likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow pooters. Now, ideologically, these people may stick with PC dogma, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellows are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, even-tempered, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yabbity-dabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery. So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

So, if we are to be honest, we must fix the terminology, and we must demonstrate that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he won’t be so scared because he has a good chance of beating up Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same. The more muscular Negro can beat him up.

James Watson and E.O. Wilson on Charles Darwin