Murder of Linda Frickey by Black Criminals and What It Reveals about the Lack of Racial Immunity for Self-Preservation & Resistance against Existential Dangers — Defeating a Nation, People, or Culture by Robbing It of the Will to Resist

Vincent James on this horrible news: WHITE GRANDMOTHER HAS ARM LITERALLY RIPPED OFF BY BLACK TEENS, MEDIA IS SILENT - The Red Elephants - Vincent James
James focuses on the reluctance of the media, especially national media, to either report the news or discuss its racial dynamics. Of course, if a bunch of white teenagers had done this to an old black woman, it'd be world news spread by Jewish-run media, and Biden would made several speeches about it, and Twitter would be lit up with a zillion comments on 'racism'. Indeed, Jussie Smollett's obvious 'hate hoax' got 1000x more sympathetic attention than this horrific news story, which is all too characteristic of the nature and extent of crime in the US. Not only are the Jewish-run media remaining mostly silent about this news story but the FBI, under the control of JAB(Jews-around-Biden), decided not to publicize crime statistics, of course for ONE REASON: Black crime, already and always so high, went through the roof as the result of the fantasy of BLM that led to the 'defunding' of the police. What is truly amazing in all this is the general white silence and wimpery. Worse, so many white dummies or whummies(even highly 'educated' ones, but then that is precisely the problem as education today = indoctrination = communion into 'woke' PC) still chant the BLM slogan or put up BLM signs on their windows and front lawns, as if doing so imbues them with spiritual righteousness — apparently, for post-religious Jaberals, their spiritual void has to be filled by SOMETHING, and when it's not the 'rainbow' sodomy, it's the myth of St. George Floyd(though, of late, Ukraine is the new crusade, but I don't see that lasting too long). However, even those who haven't fallen for the BS of BLM and Floyd Fantasy dare not speak the naked truth about blacks and crime. Even those who blame BLM for the rise in crime and deaths dare not talk about how crime is linked to blacks due to evolution and genetics. And even though blacks feel ZERO sympathy for the nonblack victims of black crime and thuggery, even anti-BLM voices frame their arguments in terms of lamentation for increased black deaths. Imagine a war in which the men of Army A are rejoicing over the deaths of men of enemy Army B, but Army B pleads to end the war because, boo hoo hoo, too many men in Army A are dying as well. Never mind their own men, for whom Army A feels zero sympathy. It goes to show that being right isn't the same as feeling righteous. Ones who are factually wrong but righteous in passion often dominate those who are factually right but defensive, apologetic, and gutless in emotion. On the eve of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, a free market economist with better statistics and arguments would have been useless against true-believing Bolshevik fanatics. Maybe Bolshevik economic theory was based on false stats and wrong notions, but their adherents were extremely righteous in their conviction and willing to kill/die for their beliefs. So, in the absence of social and political order, the most strong-willed and impassioned were likely to come out on top.

All the correct statistics and the rightness in assessing reality are on the side of anti-BLM people. They are right in their knowledge that blacks commit the most crime, blacks routinely kill blacks, blacks also kill lots of non-blacks, and that white police 'genocide' of blacks is a total fantasy, despite the general 'liberal' belief that 10,000 blacks are killed annually by the police. They are also right in pointing out that increased police presence significantly reduce black deaths. But that's about being right, not about being righteous. It doesn't challenge the prevailing idolatry in the West that blacks are somehow sacred, that their bodies are special, their souls are nobler, and etc. Indeed, even anti-BLM voices often make their arguments in service to Negrolatry, i.e. they argue against BLM to save sacred black bodies that have been killed in larger numbers due to BLM policies. Righteousness can be founded on rightness in facts and reality but not necessarily, as facts often get in the way in the way of a narrative of heroes and villains, saints and sinners. More often than not, righteousness is divorced from rightness because emotions and spirituality often don't comport with facts and reality. It's like romance doesn't always choose the right or better person based on objective criteria. No wonder women fall for dangerous but dashing men, and men fall for femme fatales. Righteousness can be sentimental, or it can be furious, even murderous. Often, it starts as a gentle glow but then burns hot and threatens to set the world on fire. Consider how Christianity began as sympathy for Jesus the Good Man but turned into a worldwide crusade that destroyed countless pagan temples and persecuted so many as witches and heretics(and also led to countless sectarian violence). And, consider THE PLANET OF THE APES series, especially ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES where the apes in the first movie find themselves transported to an earlier time on Earth when humans still ruled. A man figures out what happened and realizes that the presence of the talking apes could begin to fulfill the prophecy whereby apekind eventually supersedes mankind as the masters of the planet. So, based on his calculations in regards to the future, the talking apes must either be killed or, at the very least, sterilized. But the movie audience, presumably all human, is likely to side with the apes despite the knowledge that the talking apes' presence threatens the future of mankind. Why would the audience feel this way? Because even though the correct 'math' is on the side of the man who sees the need to kill or sterilize the apes, the heart of the audience feels for the apes. They don't want to see the madonna ape and her baby be killed by Neo-Herod man. The movie ends with the baby ape going 'mama, mama'. So, 'mama' wins over 'math' because it feels more righteous even though the right thing to do, in order to secure mankind's future, is to kill or sterilize the apes. If the righteousness in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES was on the level of sentiment, it turns into inflamed passion in CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, the hero of which is the ape-baby grown into the messianic Ape Avenger. (Of course, the religious-conservative orangutan elder was also right in THE PLANET OF THE APES as to the danger posed by humans to the ape world. Still, he was better-positioned than his human counterpart in ESCAPE because the ape world was tribal, traditional, and communal in their antipathy toward humans, whereas the thinking/talking apes in ESCAPE arrive in a liberal human order that, especially in the post-WWII and Cold War atmosphere, goes out of its way to be enlightened, tolerant, and compassionate. Thus, if the orangutan elder served the general will of the ape order, the human 'villain' in ESCAPE must act on his own against public sentiment.) Even when factually wrong, the righteous possess the drive to assert their will and go on the attack. Jussie Smollett pulled the insane 'hate hoax' because of his sense of righteousness. Being black, there's obviously more natural egotism, but our culture instills blacks with angry righteousness via academia, media, and official pronouncements. Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement narrative now counts for more than all other events in US history, and MLK is deemed greater than all great white historical figures combined; his only rivals are Harriet Tubman and George Floyd. For the righteous, it doesn't matter if something is factually correct or incorrect. What matters is they are on the 'right side of history', on the side of angels, and/or war with the demonic(as currently defined). So, stuff like facts are secondary to the cause, the agenda, the crusade. If facts are inconvenient, ignore them. If lies are useful, use them. As righteousness trumps all, reality exists to serve one's sacral vision of the world. It's like biology is a mere inconvenience to a tranny who insists he's a woman. As globo-homo has been sacralized, the homo or tranny's feelings are next-to-godliness, and reality must take a backseat to the passion of globo-homo. Likewise, no matter how many 'hate hoaxes' are exposed for what they are, the phenomenon continues because they aren't about facts but the faith of Negrolatry, Globo-Homo, or Jew-Worship. So, even when the latest 'hate hoax' is factually shown to have been the work of some lowlife Negro, Homo, or Jew, what matters is that it was for a good cause, to push the holy narrative, just like the Catholic Church, knowing full well that miracle sightings were bogus, pretended otherwise to keep the flock faithful. Such mentality now affects the entire media, even academia. Not that journalists and scholars aren't interested in facts and details, but they believe that the holiest of the holies are Negrolatry, Globo-Homo, and Jew-Worship, and therefore, even falsehoods that prop up the idolatry and narrative are preferable to facts that belie them. But then, there's another trick, that of 'prestige'. The establishment media and academia posture as being rational and factual by abusing their brand to dismiss any inconvenient fact, data, or idea/theory as 'discredited', thus persuading the less knowledgeable that certain things have been rejected by SCIENCE. New York Times uses its prestige to repeat over and over that Charles Murray's Bell Curve theory has been 'discredited' but without showing any scientific proof. For many people, official prestige is enough to sway them. (By the way, Murray is a perfect example of the weakness of rightness in the face of impassioned righteousness, like at Middlebury College. He may be right about lots of facts, but he's bloodless and passionless about his knowledge. At times, he's even defensive and lamenting, like Robert D. Putman who wrote BOWLING ALONE. Both scholars operate on the basis of, "I wish it wasn't true, but it is." It's impossible to be righteous with the right data with such wussy attitude. If rightness is to prevail, it must also be righteous and grow a pair.)

As a matter of factuality, BLM is a lie, which means policies based on it are nonsensical, and as such, they can only do harm as reality is willfully misunderstood and mishandled. It's like misdiagnosis in medicine can be harmful, even fatal. Imagine a lung cancer patient being ordered to smoke more as a cure. (Just think of what the lies about Covid-19 did to the world.) Despite all the lies, so many people in the US still chant BLM slogans and even put up BLM signs. They are saying and living the lie, but they do it anyway because they feel righteous. In contrast, even though anti-BLM people are on firm ground as far as reality is concerned, they are anxious or afraid to speak the truth. A few may defend the police and even put up support-the-police signs, but virtually NO ONE in the US puts up signs saying BLACKS MURDER BLACKS, BLACKS RAPE WHITES, BLACKS ATTACK NON-BLACKS, etc., all of which are infinitely truer about reality than the fantasy of BLM. Furthermore, any sane person should know by now that BLM policies led to even more black deaths, but BLM still remains the righteous position whereas critics of BLM are still apologetic about the truth. 'Black Lives Matter' is like China's 'Great Leap Forward', which was actually a great leap backward. More black lives were killed as the result of BLM, but such facts are secondary to the righteous rage of 'social justice' where blacks are saints and whites are demons. But white people weren't always this way. They used to be rationally race-ist and have a far more realistic assessment of group differences. Sure, there was also more bigotry of the stupid sort, the gratuitous nastiness of a**holes, but there was also a good deal of common sense, as well as a sure sense of white worth, white pride, European heritage, and historical meaning, all of which kept whites believing that they were of a race, culture, and civilization worth preserving and defending, even expanding. Fast forward to today, and many whites feel as though they're diseased with a 'sinful' and 'racist' identity that must be expunged somehow. There are still many whites feel otherwise, but even many of them lack the guts to stand up and speak up for their race. Furthermore, despite their lack of white self-loathing, they tend to give special consideration to Jews and blacks over their own kind, as if they feel they must prove they are not 'racist'. It's like Donald Trump relied heavily on white support but was always yammering about how his policies are so great for Jews and blacks. All of this is a powerful demonstration of the effect of undermining resistance in a people. It's like a person with severely compromised immunity can fall seriously ill or even die from a mild disease. A healthy person's body fends off all sorts of germs, even the nastiest ones, but an unhealthy person can succumb to even the common cold or mild case of flu. For him, it could be totally debilitating or even fatal.

Jews understand this very well. One way to destroy a powerful system is to assemble a powerful counter-force and go on the attack. All throughout history, a powerful domain was defeated by an even more powerful domain. In World War II, it took the combined might of UK, US, and USSR to destroy the powerful Nazi Germany, which had been unified into a powerful industrial fighting force. It's like it takes a powerful boxer or wrestler to defeat another powerful boxer or wrestler. To amass a powerful force and hurl it against another powerful force is no easy feat. It's like it's nearly impossible to fell a tree with one blow. So, what did people do through the ages? They took an ax and slowly chipped away at the tree. Then, when enough of the tree was chopped away at the base, it would fall from its own weight. Just leave it up to gravity. Indeed, no matter how big and powerful someone is, anyone(even a child or old lady) could beat him if he was debilitated by drugs or disease. It's like naturalists in the field can work on bears, lions, rhinos, and other dangerous animals once they'd been tranquilized. White America used to be united and powerful. What made it so? Racial consciousness, historical sense, pride of achievement, sense of community, and spiritual conviction(that its faith was the best one). There was no chance that Jews or any people could bring down such a power. Politically, economically, technologically, and militarily, the White West was the most powerful entity, invincible as a united force. Nothing even came close. Yet, even if it couldn't be beaten from the outside, it could be weakened from the inside. Anti-whites could enter into institutions and rewrite the laws. They could enter the academia & media and alter the narratives and idols/icons. They could use entertainment and leisure to make the white masses prioritize hedonism and decadence over morality, family, community, and nation. They could take over medicine and promote all sorts of drugs on which people become dependent. They could use education and communication to instill whites with feelings of 'guilt' and 'sin'. Information and Media could also be used to promote non-white, anti-white, Judeo-centric, Afro-centric, and/or homocentric idols/icons and narratives over pro-white, normative, and Eurocentric ones. Also, language and terminology could be used to turn certain words into incantations and truisms that were to be accepted as 'self-evident' than debated. "Diversity is our strength, diversity is our strength..." or "black lives matter, black lives matter", "white supremacism! white supremacism!" "Migrants Welcome, Migrants Welcome", ad infinitum.

Over time, despite still being the dominant majority in the West, despite having suffered no military invasions, despite continuing to hold lots of wealth, and despite having lots of people with talent, the White World came to be near-fatally weakened on the tribal, racial, communal, moral, spiritual, and national level. Forget about European pride when you've been told that a recently arrived Arab or African is just as 'European' as a European(if not more so) with ancestry going back 10,000s of yrs. Never mind racial unity when 'racism' is the greatest sin, and 'white racism' is the worst of all 'racisms', especially against blacks even when blacks act like thugs and louts. Forget about community when individualism is all that matters; your hedonism and pleasure matter more than family and society. Besides, if a community must be formed, it has to be around stuff like globo-homo or BLM as any theme with the slightest hint of being pro-white, genuinely Christian, or truly European is anathema in the Current Year. And what is morality when right-or-wrong is a matter of mindlessly praising and serving Jews, blacks, and homos? And forget about spirituality in a world where churches fly the homo flag or care more for the Negrolatry of George Floyd than about God and Jesus. With the White World degraded to such level, forget about nationalism. What nation is left to save or defend? It's been said the US defeated the Soviet Union without firing a single shot in the Cold War. World War III was averted but US nevertheless won over the communist system. Actually, this isn't really true. Soviet Union defeated itself because communism wasn't a workable system in the long run. Even if there had been no Cold War and even if the US and USSR had just ignored one another, USSR would have lost anyway(even without US hostility) because the economic system was too confused and inefficient, and without incentives. Soviet Union defeated itself, but the US took the credit. Imagine if someone you hate drinks himself to death, but you take credit of having beaten him. In contrast, the defeat or the fall of the White World is truly amazing. Unlike the USSR that practiced a deeply flawed economic system, white people in Europe, Canada, and the US had everything, most of them right. They had freedom and democracy, they had capitalism, they had social safety nets(a bit of socialism), they had national identity and pride, and lots of other things that make society work. And yet, whites have become increasingly defenseless against problems and challenges that should have been obvious to the naked eye and could have been handled with a bit of good sense. The fate of the Soviet Union was the failure of failure, whereas the fate of the White West is the failure of success, i.e. people with so many good ideas and systems failing to secure and strengthen them and instead, meekly and weakly, letting themselves to be nudged, prodded, pushed, and attacked with ever more ridiculous demands.

The White West was the most powerful force in the world. So powerful that even after WWI, it dominated the world. And even after WWII, the white-dominant US was the biggest power in the world by far. (And even the Soviet Union was white.) There was no force that could challenge or defeat it. And yet, its mechanism of self-preservation and resistance grew ever more compromised from the inside. Instead of being defeated outright in the physical/material/military sense, its inner sense of worth, confidence, meaning, and value came to be eroded over time... until there was a critical mass of whites who called for the outright destruction of whiteness and whites who were too spineless to stand up and say NO. In a way, what happened to Russians and White West during and after the Cold War is like the mirror opposite. During the Cold War, the America-led West grew richer and more abundant and developed the most powerful military. In contrast, the Soviets with a far smaller economy strained to keep up militarily and couldn't even fill up store shelves with basic items. By every metric of material success, the American-led West beat the Soviet Union by a mile. But, despite all such gains in the West, there was a ceaseless decline in patriotism, national identity, cultural heritage, civilizational confidence, communal unity, and racial sense. White Americans had more, ate more, and had more fun, but they increasingly became defensive about their identity lest they give offense as 'racists'. In contrast, while material conditions worsened in Russia under late communism and then truly hit rock bottom in the 1990s, Russians never felt there was anything wrong with being Russian, that Russians were burdened with special 'historical guilt', or that they were soul-sick for their ethnicity or nationality. Even when material conditions were at their worst in Russia, Russians didn't feel bad about their history, country, culture, and identity.

In the end, who wins out? A rich man who hates himself or a poor man who likes himself? Such a rich man, for all his wealth, begins to work against himself, whereas the poor man, despite his poverty, works for himself, to build himself up. In the long run, a man robbed of his soul is worse off than a man robbed of his possessions. It's even worse if the man robbed of his soul is told that hating himself is the highest good, or the new soulfulness. White Californians had it so good. In the same period, Russians had it so bad. But today, Russia is asserting its national will and taking back historical parts of Ukraine. In contrast, white Californians, over several decades, have been unwilling, thus unable, to do anything to stop their decline and demise even though there has been no military invasion of California. While Russians were doing something about the globalist oligarchs, White Californians let Jewish oligarchs take over everything and demand and dictate as if the Golden State was their fiefdom. While Russia reasserted control of its borderlands, white Californians, once over 80% of the population, have been reduced to 35% and keep on losing. While Russia said NO to globo-homo, white Californians are always at the mercy of whatever fads and fashions pushed by Jews, indeed as if they have no minds or souls of their own. When the Cold War ended, white Californians had so much more than the impoverished Russians. But whereas Russians never felt bad for being Russian, so many White Californians had no ethnic pride or racial sense of pride left. They lost their sense of self-preservation and resistance because Jews gained the key into the control centers of the West and reprogrammed the White Mind via the academia and media with negative feelings about 'white guilt', 'racism', 'homophobia', and etc. (While the Soviet Union was also 'anti-racist', the policy didn't come at the expense of Russian-ness, which was not insulted and excoriated as being uniquely guilty. Jews pulled that number first on Germans, then Anglos, and then rest of Western Europe.) And this poison is the new white identity or anti-identity all over the West, from US to Canada to Australia to EU. Indeed, one reason why current Europeans hate Russians(and Hungarians) with such virulence is that their new identity is one of self-negation. A German believes it's wrong for a true German, a white German, to feel pride of identity. No, 'German-ness' has value only in association to 'diversity'. If a black African becomes a 'German citizen', then and only then does German identity have value. For true/white Germans, German-ness is a burden, a curse stained with Holocaust Guilt. Only when outsiders become 'New Germans' does German-ness gain value as newcomers(especially if non-white) are without Holocaust Guilt. But it's not just the Germans. Almost all Western Europeans now feel and think this way. Their national anti-identity is one of self-negation-and-abnegation, of welcoming the non-European world to take over as the New Europe.

Then, it's hardly surprising that such people would be terribly triggered by Russians who affirm their national identity and heritage and culture. How dare they? Don't Russians know that 'good whites' work to undermine their own national identity, national borders, national heritage? It's become customary in Europe to feature black actors in historical roles of Europeans. Whiteness is BAD and is made GOOD only through self-negation and cucking to others. When such mentality dominates the 'rules-based order' of the West, of course Russia proudly asserting its position and projecting its power to secure its existence and future is deeply offensive. Don't be like those barbarians! Be like the British, Irish, or White Californians whose highest notion of good is winning approval from Jews. So, Jews were very smart. They knew that the White West was mighty and impossible to defeat and take over militarily, but it could be rendered defenseless if its resistance mechanism were altered from within. Jews didn't have to fire a shot. Just get the key and worm inside to the inner workings of white institutions and media that control the thoughts and feelings of the white masses, especially true in the era of electronic media where virtually everyone's mind is tuned to the wavelength of those who monopolize key media centers. Then, why should anyone be surprised about the sickening silence surrounding the horrific murder of Linda Frickey? She's white, and whiteness is bad. Don't resist against black savagery! That's 'racist'! Gee, maybe those blacks(called 'teens') did us a favor by ridding the world of some of this shitty 'whiteness', of which Linda Frickey was a part. What a world we live in. White American cowards who don't lift a finger to protect their own from black savages and illegal invaders get all triggered over Russia finally pushing back against Jewish use of NATO as battering ram against Russia. Death Of The Jewish Pencil - Brother Nathanael

Identity-over-Ideology(esp if masked with pseudo-universalist-values) beats Ideology-over-Identity — Why did Jewish Ashkenazim prevail over Anglo-Episcopalians despite Comparable IQ? — Why Jews beat Whites on the Issue of South Africa

One of the biggest truths of modern history is that those who favor ideology-over-identity will lose to those who favor identity-over-ideology. Those who choose blood over ink will prevail over those who choose ink over blood. Now, everyone has some identity and some ideology. The question is a matter of which goes on top. Among whites, it used to be identity first, ideology second. Now, it is ideology first, identity second. Or it's idolatry first, ideology second, and identity last? Idolatry of worshiping the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Negroes. The ideology of DIOS or 'diversity is our strength' and 'white guilt'. And last and also the least, white identity. In contrast, Jews and blacks put identity before ideology. Also, they celebrate the idolatry of worshiping themselves over the Other. Jews elevate and disseminate the image of Jews as Holy Holocaust People and Happy Humor People. Negroes elevate and lionize themselves as the superior badass people who win in sports, pop music, fighting, and sex. Blood is stronger than ink, seed is stronger than creed.

Indeed, we can see the results of identity-over-ideology vs ideology-over-identity in recent US history(as well as in South Africa or any other part of the world). Two highly intelligent and talented groups have been Ashkenazi Jews and Anglo-Episcopalians. Studies show that both groups have equal intelligence, generally one standard deviation above the American average. Some estimates even suggest Anglo-Episcopalians may have slightly higher IQ than the Ashkenazi Jews. So, given parity in intelligence and talent, the two groups should have been neck-and-neck. Or the Anglo-Episcopalians should have had the advantage since they are Christian and share race and religion with the white majority population, among whom Anglo or Northern European stock has been prominent. But since the end of World War II, Jews kept gaining while Anglo-Episcopalians kept losing ground. Now, one reason could be personality. Maybe Jews have more a dogged, aggressive, and insistent personalities, the chutzpah thing. Or, maybe Jews were more adept at navigating through modernity due to greater(and more shameless) familiarity with strangeness, and indeed, the 20th century was a very strange era with so many upheavals and transformations. Due to their long history as a nomadic people who developed Zelig-ish and Houdini-like means to adapt to different nations and cultures, all the while maintaining a strong and resilient sense of tribal continuity and identity, Jews were perhaps more 'creative' in the way they played the game of modernity. After all, if there are two boxers of equal speed and ability but one is rather stiff while other is fluid, the latter will have the advantage. Shamelessness was part of the fluidity that allowed Jews to take control of vice industries that, though disreputable(at least initially), made Jews a lot of money in stuff like gambling and pornography. Also, this strange fluidity served Jewish Identity well because hostile identity had to be camouflaged with hopeful ideology. Jews couldn't have won over goyim if they'd insisted on their identity alone. Imagine if Jews said, "We are so proud to be Jewish and want you goyim to do the bidding of us Jews." Even the biggest Philo-Semites would have been offended by such presumption and arrogance. So, Jews cleverly sought power by spouting ideological talking points about 'justice', 'equality', 'progress', 'universal values', 'human rights', 'proposition nation', 'fighting hate', 'diversity', 'tolerance', and etc. By pushing such ideological themes, Jews created the impression that human progress depends on peoples all over the world suppressing their particular identities to welcome the one-and-only universal ideology. After all, identity is rooted and tangible whereas ideology is rootless and abstract. You can't immediately transform someone to another national identity(nor would you want to, that is if you want to maintain the integrity of identity), but you can quickly convert anyone to your beliefs and values.
Now, if Jewish Power led the charge with identity, goyim would have countered with their own identities. If Jews say, "We are Jewish, we are proud, and we work for Jewish power!", then goyim such as Poles would have countered with "We are Polish, we are Catholic, we are proud, and we work for Polish power!" Therefore, Jews decided to charge with ideology than identity. Jews said, "We are for justice and progress based on 'western values' and universal human rights, and if you oppose us, you're a bunch of 'racists', 'supremacists', 'xenophobes', and probably 'anti-Semites' too." This had a disarming effect on the goyim. After all, if Jews claim such noble neo-Christo-visions of bringing all of humanity under one umbrella of justice, tolerance, and understanding, why should any people say NO?
In truth, however, Jews weren't charging with ideology to serve ideology above all else. They were charging with ideology to smash goy identity so that Jewish identity could squeeze through the barriers and score the touchdown to win the game. In football, the offensive linemen do not smash into defensive linemen to score touchdowns. The offensive linemen rarely get to handle the ball. Their only role is to defend the quarterback and/or open up holes for the running back to slip through. And this is the game that Jews have been playing. They used the force of ideology as offensive linemen so that the ball of Jewish identity handled by the quarterback/runningback would slip through and score the touchdown. So, in the end, the elite competition in the US after WWII was not about Jewish commitment to ideology vs Anglo-Episcopalian commitment to ideology. It was Jewish commitment to ideology masked with ideology vs Anglo-Episcopalian commitment to ideology over identity. Well, guess who won that game? Increasingly, Anglo-elites lost their sense of identity. They even came to regard it as evil and wicked. This spread not only among Anglo-elites in the US but spread to the UK where the elites now celebrate the fact that UK will be overrun with Africans and Muslims. (To be sure, white elites seek to preserve their own status and privilege, so they don't really practice the ideology they preach. But unlike Jews, they are not using ideology as cover for identity. Rather, they use ideology to have immunity. Sticking with PC talking points buys them some protection from criticism.) Anglo-elites have chosen ideology(and immunity) over identity... without realizing that Jews pushed the toxic ideology that is now poisoning the West in order to favor Jewish identity above all else. Jews didn't push ideology over all identities. They pushed ideology only against goy identities to make space for Jewish identity(that got passover rights). So, while Anglo-American elites in US and Anglo-British elites in UK have been pissing away their land, legacy, and lineage, Jewish elites the world over have been doing everything to reinforce and strengthen Israel as a Jewish State and to turn Holocaustianity as the reigning neo-religion all around the world.


Now, who knows how the world might turn out IF all groups sincerely and conscientiously committed themselves to ideology over identity. Whatever the result may be, at the very least one could say all groups acted in good faith. But reality is never one where all sides behave with utmost honesty and highest principles. After all, why does every nation have an intelligence agency that specializes in spying, stealing secrets, planting disinformation, subverting other nations though covert means, and etc? So much for mutual trust and fair play. Or look how corporations operate. Why do they get sued? Why do they have to pay fines? Because they are often caught cheating or doing stuff to gain an edge. It's always been like that and always will be. If anything, most big corporations seek monopoly power so that they won't have to deal with competition. It's the nature of power. Then, it's the same with tribes, peoples, and nations. The idea that all peoples will be equally committed to ideology-over-identity is a pipe-dream. Furthermore, even if MOST peoples do somehow manage to favor ideology-over-identity, it only takes ONE violator to mess up everything. Suppose there are 100 people, and 99 of them act fair and honest while ONE guy exploits the 'naivete' of others to steal the entire loot for himself. Just like one bad apple can spread its mold and mess up the whole barrel, one transgressor can mess up everything. This is why libertarianism never works. It assumes that all of humanity could be persuaded to behave as principled individuals who are sincerely committed to liberty and personal responsibility, but that is fairyland. Consider how all those guys on Wall Street were preaching about 'free markets' and against government regulation, but the minute their fortunes were threatened by the crash of 2008, they were the first to run to government for bailouts and protection. And notice how they used their muscle to ensure that none of them would go to jail. Talk about professional(and tribal) courtesy. Indeed, the reason why the US is so corrupt is because it came under the domination of Jews who rose in power by pushing ideology only to favor their own identity above all else. Indeed, Jews favor Jewish identity not only above goy identities but above the ideology that they pretend to espouse. What applies to other groups doesn't apply to Jews. So, the US must sanction Iran, Russia, Syria, and any nation hated by Jews, but if any conscientious people want to sanction Israel for its Occupation of West Bank and brutality in Gaza, the hell with free speech, freedom of conscience, and universal justice: Criminalize BDS. Its Juden Uber Alles. Current Israel is more further right(often in dark ways) than any European nation, but notice the Jewish-dominated media never call it 'far right' while the label is used so often to denigrate even moderate nationalist movements in Europe. So, even the slightest sign of white/European identity or Christian consciousness(the real kind as opposed to globo-homo-infected cucktianity) is 'far right'(implying connection to Nazism) while even the most hardline Zionist extremism and supremacism is merely described as 'right-wing'.
The main reason why Jews get so triggered about white goyim in EU, US, Russia, and etc. expressing the slightest concern for whites in South Africa is because such sentiments suggest at the stirrings of white identity, i.e., whites coming to realize that they must choose identity-over-ideology for the survival and well-being of their race. Jews want identity-over-ideology only for themselves. Indeed, Jewish-dominated media even try to suppress it among black Africans. While the globohomo media have no problem with Jews doing everything possible to keep Israel predominantly Jewish, they have lambasted black South Africans for trying to stem the tide of migration-invasion from neighboring African nations like Zimbabwe(with economy worse than South Africa's due to total black rule or misrule). Jews fear that if whites favor identity-over-ideology, whites will come to favor their own identity over any other. And that means whites will put their own racial pride and racial interests above those of Jews. If that happens, Jewish Supremacism and globohomo hegemony could well end sooner than later. The utter hypocrisy of Jews is most evident in their reaction to white favoring of Jewish identity over goyim, white or otherwise. If Jews are indeed disdainful of identity(as tribal , dangerous, and obsolete), why are they so happy to see so many white people pledging their support to Jews and Israel? Isn't Jewishness an identity and isn't Israel an identitarian-state? For whites to favor Jews means favoring one identity over another. e.g. Zionists over Palestinians. If the politics of identity is so toxic and if Jews insist that whites must forsake their own racial identity, why do they also insist that whites must extol Jewish/Zionist identity and do everything in the world to serve and defend it? Why should whites favor Jews over Palestinians? Why should whites favor Israel over Syria or Iran? Why should whites favor economic sanctions on any people, nation, or group hated by Jews -- consider the sanctions on Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Palestinians, Christians who won't bend over to Homomania, white identitarians like Jared Taylor who are denied Twitter and Paypal, and etc. -- while showering Israel with billions in 'aid' every year? Why should whites get all worked up over non-existent nukes in Iran while overlooking the nukes in Israel built with uranium stolen from the US? But then, Jewish logic would have us believe that actual Jewish communist spies and subversives in the 40s and 50s were innocent victims of the McCarthyite 'witchhunt' whereas Trump and his associates are guilty of 'Russia Collusion' even though there isn't a shred of evidence and the 'evidence', as such exists, was fabricate by goons hired by the Hillary Campaign and the Deep State. Jews often deflect criticism by invoking the concept of Protected Groups. Because Jews have defined themselves as the Holy Holocaust people, they insist on Protected Status. Perversely, such protection has led to Jews becoming the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis. It's one thing to offer special protection to weak and helpless groups. After all, it makes sense to offer protection to few remaining tigers in their natural habitat. But if tigers were plentiful and prowling the streets to devour people, should they be protected? Maybe it made sense to offer protection to the badly wounded Jewish tiger after WWII, but today, the Jewish Tiger is the apex predator, and protected status for such power is dangerous for all of humanity. Just ask the Palestinians, Russians, Syrians, Iranians, white Christians, Libyans, white Europeans, Arabs, Muslims, etc. Or, consider the twisted logic when it comes to Jews and Muslims. Jews say Muslims need to be protected in the West due to 'Islamophobia', but it was Jewish Hollywood that made all those movies that portrayed Arabs and Muslims as subhuman scum terrorists. Furthermore, the biggest tragedies that befell the Muslim World since the End of the Cold War have been due to Wars for Israel steered by Jewish Neocons and Neolibs. So, Jewish Power has done tremendous harm to Arabs and Muslims. And yet, Jewish idea of Protected Status for Muslims and Arabs has NOTHING to do with what Jewish Power is doing to those people. Rather, it's about protecting Muslims from Donald Trump and his supporters who, if anything, are more likely to oppose further Wars for Israel and want to bring US troops from the Middle East. The concept of Protected Groups has rendered justice meaningless when it comes to Jewish-and-Arab relations. If, as Jews insist, Jews and Arabs/Muslims both deserve special protection, what are we to do when Arabs/Muslims need protection from Jewish Power? After all, isn't BDS a movement that calls for special protection for the much beleaguered Palestinians from Zionist-imperialist-supremacism? But, because Jews are also protected or more-protected-than-others, Jewish greed takes precedence over Palestinian needs. The end result is the Protected Supremacism of the Jews who, posing as Eternal Holy Holocaust People, get to justify all their nasty deeds by pretending to be a 'victim group' in this day and age. Imagine Nazi Germany invading Poland and then trying to silence all international opposition by claiming Protected Status for Germany. Nazi Germany and Judeo-Nazis both demonstrate how the Cult of Victimhood can blind so many to their victimization of Others. Because so many Germans felt that their nation got a raw deal at Versailles and suffered so much during the interwar period, they regarded themselves as righteous victims righting wrongs even though they were doing wrongs to other people. And because Jews rationalize everything through the prism of 'Munich' and destroying 'new hitlers', they are blind to how they've become the new hitlers.

Identity-over-ideology will always beat ideology-over-identity. The recent history of Jews vs Anglo-Episcopalians bear this out. And it explains why Israel is proud and has healthy birthrates while Scandinavian nations are browbeaten and have low birthrates; it's because Israeli Jews put identity over ideology whereas the Scandies put ideology over identity.
Now, this doesn't mean that a people should be all about identity and no ideology. "My country right or wrong" is a terrible idea. There must be a constant effort toward shared principles of fair play, justice, and mutuality among nations, peoples, and cultures, just like individuals mustn't think in terms of 'myself uber alles'. If you did something, you need to pay the price. Even so, to an individual, his own survival and well-being come first(as long as he doesn't maliciously harm others). To a nation or people, their survival or well-being comes first. As long as a nation or people acknowledge the right of other nations and peoples to feel and act likewise, there should be no problem. The problem with Jewish Power is not universal nationalism, which is a sound idea. The problem is mono-nationalism whereby Jews and Only Jews get to enjoy the rights of nationalism while all other peoples must forsake their own nationalism mainly so that Jewish hegemonic power can systematically penetrate their nations and take control, especially with the aid of globo-homo 'gay' collaborators of every nation. (Homos around the world collaborate with Jewish Power because the spread of Jewish supremacism means homo-favoritism.) Even as Jews tell goyim to abandon their identity, Jews not only cling to theirs but practice what is essentially 'my country right or wrong'. Jewish mono-nationalism isn't a fair kind of nationalism but a gangster-nationalism where the politics of Jewish Identity is above the law and beyond reproach. Zionists occupying West Bank? Israel aiding terrorists in Syria? Wars for Israel turning millions of Arabs/Muslims into homeless nomads? Whatever happens, never blame Jews. Even though Israel is aggressor against Syria, the cuck-puppets in the media yammer about how ISRAEL needs to be protected from Syria. It's all so surreal, so very strange and Kafkaesque, but then, Jews are masters of strangeness. Ironically, Jews have become like the Nazis who were into 'my country right or wrong' mentality. Now, if Nazi Germans and Globo-Zionists were without power, it wouldn't matter what they think. But because Nazi Germany was a great power, its arrogance and supremacist lunacy brought the world to the brink. And now, Jewish globo-homo hegemonic power is doing much the same, spreading filth, hate, and lies all over. In some ways, Jewish globo-homo lunacy is more dangerous than Nazi lunacy because, at the very least, the Nazis were honest and forthright about their arrogance, contempt, and supremacism. Even those who admired certain aspects of National Socialism could see that it was led by real a**holes. Jewish supremacist are also monsters but notice how they pretend to be human-rightists, liberal-democracists, universal-valueists, diversitists, and etc. But boil down the Jewish stew to its essentials, and remaining salts in the pot taste like Kosher Supremacism.

Now, there is a better kind of nationalism. A tempered and moderate one where a nation, people, and culture prioritize their survival, preservation, and well-being all the while rejecting the arrogant mentality of 'my country right or wrong'. Thus, if that nation or people are known to have done something wrong, they fess up and make amends. It's like if your son commits a crime, it is only right that he should pay a fine or do time in jail. But that doesn't mean he's not your son. After serving time, you still favor him and try to help him because he's part of the family. It was this kind of nationalism that prevailed for a time after WWII. Germany and Japan were made to admit their wrongs and paid a heavy price. But they were allowed to survive and take care of their own interests. Their nationalism was okay as long as it respected the nationalisms of other peoples. Back then, the US and Europe were ruled by genuine nationalist leaders who felt a strong bond with their own folks, culture, and history.
But ever since Jews gained supremacist power in the US(that controls so much of the world through money, hard power, and soft power), the ideological coding of the West has been altered so that its goy elites would not only favor ideology over identity but abort even the mere thought of white identity within the white womb. And yet, this ideology was bogus because it wasn't molded out of good will and reciprocity but to dupe goyim into dropping their own identities so that Jewish identity could slip through the weakened cracks to make the touchdown and win the superbowl of Global Power. It's like Jews want whites to surrender their guns so that Jewish-controlled institutions will monopolize all the firepower. At this point, trusting Jewish Power is like trusting a fox in a henhouse. Tails I win, heads you lose. Maybe, it needn't have been this way IF Jews, as the new elites, favored 'what is good for American people' over 'what is good for Jewish supremacism'? It need not have been a zero-sum game. But as the new elites, Jews never felt much fondness or connection with the non-Jewish majority and just focused on increasing diversity to make goyim-fight-goyim while they grab more of the loot.

People need ideology because identity alone isn't enough. But ideology must serve or revolve around identity. Just like Earth revolves around the Sun, ideology must revolve around identity. A people must be identocentric than ideocentric, just like true astronomy is Helio-centric than Geo-centric. Those who choose to be ideo-centrists will surely lose to those who choose to be idento-centrists(while feigning as ideo-centrists). That is the history of Ashkenazi Jews vs Anglo-Episcopalians since the end of World War II. So... which side won and why? Just do the political math.
And in South Africa, why are things getting worse for white Afrikaners while it's looking so up and up for Jewish super-capitalists? Jews all over the world, in the spirit of identitarianism, stick up for Monopoly-Capitalist Jews in South Africa. In contrast, whites all over the world have been made to feel that it's 'racist' and 'white supremacist' to care about white women being raped and white children being beaten to a pulp by blacks in South Africa.