Colin Flaherty did great work in reporting on the epidemic of black crime, but alas, he was just another useless ‘boomer’. He would usually ban any commenter on the Jewish Question or denounce anyone as ‘Anti-Semite’ who noticed the obvious. His page on minds.com was especially censorious.
Stuff like BLM(or Black Lives Matter) isn’t really about blacks. It’s about whites. Jews don’t care about black lives, anymore than they care about Palestinian or Iranian or Russian lives. Indeed, if the world had no white people, would Jews push BLM? Of course not.
It really boils down to the formula: Black Lives Matter = White Obedience Matters. Or, BLM = WOM.
White Obedience Matters to what or whom? To Jewish Supremacist Power. How can Jews maintain White Obedience? By White Guilt and White Shame, which fosters to White Submission and White Hope for Redemption.
Jews used the Holocaust Card, and it’s been very effective in Europe but less so in the US with its triumphalist pride of ‘We beat the Nazis!’ So, against white Americans, Jews use the Black Card. Again, it’s not because Jews care about black lives. Jews promoted gangster rap that encouraged violence in the black community, leading to more deaths. Jews pushed all manner of social licentiousness that led to family break down, which has been especially devastating to blacks. Also, it was Jewish Power decided to lock up record number of blacks beginning with Bill Clinton when 'inner-city' pathologies were threatening to undermine big cities and boost support for White Conservatism.
BLM is really just a tool directed at whites because Jews fear worsening conditions will begin to awaken white consciousness in search of autonomy from Jewish Authority. Jews fear white awakening like Catholic Church feared the rise of Protestantism, like the British Empire feared the awakening of Indian National Independence Movement.
Jews have been disadvantaged in Russia because they don’t have something comparable to guilt-bait Russians with. Sure, there’s the thing about pogroms, but Russians can fire back and point to Jewish role in communism that killed many more lives. Besides, Russians were the main destroyers of Nazi Germany. So, if anything, Jews owe the Russians. And besides, Russians remember what was done to their country in the 1990s by Jewish 'oligarchs'. (Furthermore, as Russian sports and popular culture are dominated by national folks, Russians are less enamored of the Other as 'heroes' and 'idols', whereas white Americans have come to idolize blackness in sports and music. No wonder then that Jews can manipulate white feelings about blacks.)
At any rate, Jewish Power ultimately depends on control of White Americans. Jews feel they must control the gods that decide what is sacred or profane in the US. This is absolutely crucial because it’s the sacraments and taboos that decide the character of a civilization. Power and wealth aren’t enough. After all, we can badmouth Bill Gates even though he’s super-rich. We can insult Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. We can also put down Mark Zuckerberg as a billionaire geek but never ever as a, guess what? A Jew!
So, being rich isn’t sacred in the West. Wealth can be attacked, and rich people can be mocked. But being Jewish is sacred. Indeed, putting down a super-rich oligarch is less dangerous than putting down a Jewish plumber. If a politician impugned a super-rich hedge-fund shark or Big Tech oligeek as a greedy a-hole, his career will remain intact. But if he muttered something negative about the ethnic traits of a Jewish non-entity, he would be in Big Trouble. It’s like the FBI and Justice Department can go after someone for being rich and corrupt but better not touch anyone or anything associated with Jewishness. So, Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted of sex charges but shhhhhhh about her Israeli-Jewish connections.
Jewishness is like the Kim Clan in North Korea. As long as Jews control the gods in the West, Jewishness is sacrosanct. And in order to control and subdue whites, Jews also made blackness sacrosanct. Again, it’s not because Jews care about blacks but because they see the advantage of using blackness to milk ‘white guilt’. BLM is really about controlling whites. Because blackness has been sacralized, the death of some lowlife black punk like George Floyd or Arbery gets more attention than the deaths of affluent non-blacks murdered by black criminals.
If Jews care so much about human lives, why hasn’t there ever been a Palestinian Lives Matter campaign?
If Jews talk of Jews and blacks uniting against whites, isn’t it about time whites talked of whites and blacks(or any bunch of goyim) uniting against Jews? But, as Jews control the gods, that would be ‘antisemitic’ because Jewishness is inviolably holy. Jews can put down whites and whiteness, but no one better put down Jewishness. Jews can recycle so many anti-goy tropes of rednecks, ‘racists’, Christ-tards, and etc., but woe to anyone who dares say anything suggestive of ‘antisemitism’.
Who controls the gods is of utmost importance. Consider: In the Jewish community, you could badmouth Jesus all you wanted because He wasn’t holy among the Jews. If anything, He was much reviled and it was even obligatory to demonize him. But among Christians, Jesus was the holiest of the holy. Now, how could Jesus, a Jew who was killed long ago, exert such power over the Christian West? Why did even kings and generals bow down before Him? How come anyone could be burned at the stake or tortured horribly for having blasphemed the name of Jesus? Jesus, while alive, had no worldly power and was humiliated in the worst possible way before being put to death. Yet, He came to reign over the West as the King of kings. Why? Because He was worshiped as God.
Secularism turned out to be a fraud in most cases because so-called secularists merely sought out new gods. So, Stephen King put down the Bible and Old Religion but worshiped at the feet of some Magic Negro/Negress of his befouled imagination. MATRIX also sacralized Negroes as holy, as founts of spirituality and wisdom. All those ‘well-educated’ whites who never go to church will get all weepy at the thought of St. George Floyd and volunteer to wash stinky Negro feet. They will look upon Anne Frank as the new madonna. It’s all so tiresome.
At any rate, the human mind shall always remain ‘spiritual’, and this is why it’s of utmost concern as to who controls the gods. Jews present themselves as secular and ‘liberal’, but they are really neo-theologians and propped up ‘wokeness’ as the new faith. And BLM, along with globo-homo, is meant to be the new faith for goyim. Jewish message to all goyim is “Worship blacks and homos(whom we control and fund) above everything, even your own kind.” And it’s especially directed at whites as Jewish Power relies on white obeisance.
So, next time BLM is promoted, remember that it’s really WOM or White Obedience Matters.
BLM = WOM.
The history of India illustrates how crucial it is to control the gods. The Ancient Aryans who invaded India made sure they controlled the gods. They made themselves the Brahmins, the elite spiritual caste to revered and consulted by the rest. Thus, their authority over the brown natives wasn’t merely military, economic, or political but spiritual. Likewise, the Spanish remained as overlords in Latin America because they converted the brown natives to Catholicism. The browns came to worship the God brought to them by whites, who also dominated the clergy.
In contrast, the British ruled over India with political, economic, and military might. Spiritually, the British allowed for Hindus to remain Hindu and for Muslims to remain Muslim. So, while the natives admired and feared the British for worldly/material reasons, they didn’t look to the British as holy. Unlike the Ancient Aryans, the British didn’t make their authority SACRED in the eyes of the natives. And so, it was only a matter of time before they were expelled.
This is why Jews are so eager to control the gods, to weaken white identity and undermine Christianity. They must colonize the SOULS of goyim, especially of whites.
In Soviet Russia, Jews went about wrecking churches. In the US, Jews destroy Christianity by rotting its soul with BLM and globo-homo, whereby the faith is associated with worship of punkass Floyd and reverence for homo bung-donging. Any religion that goes that way becomes soul-dead. A religion losing its soul is worse than losing its body. After all, Jesus was killed in body but not in soul. Soviet Russia killed Christianity in body but not in soul. But under Jewish control, Christianity is turning into cucktianity where the new clergy put on globo-homo garb and praise trannies who cut their dicks off.
Jews seek to spiritually colonize white souls with globo-homo and BLM. And what’s truly shocking is how many whites fell for this. It goes to show that White Individualism was largely a myth. Whites were mostly conformist and obedient. Individualism only mattered at the top among the talented and creative. Most whites were suckers and schmucks. Just look at the Covid hysteria, especially among Anglos. What a bunch of cuck-tard conformists.
US is a ‘liberal democracy’ in name only. It’s a mere shell. At its core, it’s an Ethno-Oligarchy. Even if we can’t do anything about Jewish supremacist power(for the time being), we need to see it for what it is. US is a Jewish Ethno-Oligarchy, an empire of lies. And despite all the Jewish-fomented crises since 2000, things will only get worse unless the Jewish Power is named and outed for what it is. The key motivating factor behind so many recent disasters was insatiable Jewish Supremacist greed and ethno-mania. Jewish Power will never stop unless it is called out for what it really is.
If Jews bitch about ‘antisemitism’, it needs to be pointed out that their behavior gives most credence to ‘Anti-Semitic’ tropes. With so many lies spread by Jewish Power, it’s only a matter of time before people begin to question the Holocaust. If Jews lie so brazenly about so much, who's to say they didn't lie about the Shoah as well? Should we trust Jews on history when they pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax, Covid Hysteria, and BLM bullshit?
The days of the “6 million” are numbered, and I suspect that Goldman, Goldstein, and friends know it. When that crumbles, so too collapses what little remains of Jewish credibility. When the orthodox Holocaust story goes down, the dominoes may well begin to fall. And when that happens, all bets are off.
I'm not too sure about that. Much of history has less to do with facts than the power of who gets to control the discourse. So, even if it's proven beyond a doubt that 6 million didn't die, the myth can go on as long as the Power decides if it must. The Power controls the knob and can amplify or mute whatever it wants — consider George Floyd, who died of overdose, has been canonized while Derek Chauvin will rot in prison for 22 yrs for merely having done his job of protecting blue city yuppie elites from black thugs. Most people don't do independent research and, as normies, just go with the Official Narrative. Now, there are surely historians and the like who know the 6 million figure is a gross exaggeration, but they fear being ostracized and/or blacklisted. Being labeled a 'denier' is tantamount to heresy in our so-called secular order with new gods, namely the Tri-Idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The Power will denounce you, and the normies will reject you as a 'neo-nazi', 'white supremacist', 'anti-semite', or some nutjob crank because they almost never look or think beyond what they got from public education and Jewish-run 'mainstream media'.
This is why honest people fear telling the truth. They are caught between the Power and the People. The Power is mainly concerned with control and will spin any narrative, push any lie, and suppress any truth to maintain its grip(and the Power operates likewise all over the world, no less so in China, Iran, and Russia with their own sacraments and taboos). The People, most of whom are 'normies', are easily manipulated by the Power. In some ways, they are more easily manipulated in so-called 'liberal democracies' due to the conviction-bordering-on-faith that the People are free. In truth, people in so-called 'democracies' get to vote for whore-pawns vetted and bought/sold by the oligarchs who also own nearly all the media that hire mostly flunkies, careerists, propagandists, and activists(in line with oligarchic agendas). Under communism, people were more skeptical because they knew everything was propaganda.
To be sure, in the so-called 'liberal' West, there was certainly lot more freedom than under Stalinism or Maoism, but the danger lay in the fallacy that better is best. If Bob the gangster is a better person than Tom the gangster, a real psychopath, it still doesn't mean Bob is a good person. Though not as terrible as Tom, he too is a criminal, a thug, and even a killer. The so-called 'liberal West' was undoubtedly freer than communist systems(or other hardline forms of autocracy) and more kinds of speech were allowed, but that doesn't mean it was the bastion of truth. But the cult of 'muh democracy' and 'muh free speech' fooled a lot of people that they are getting the truth from the media(because it's part of the 'free press') in a society committed to free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of conscience. But like the hare that took for granted its lead over the tortoise, people in the West have been complacent in the assumption that they are living in the best of all possible worlds in terms of freedom and truth(and prosperity). This has resulted in 'insouciance', as Paul Craig Roberts calls it, that has led to so much erosion of liberties and rights before our eyes. Even as people in the West keep losing more liberties and rights, they always assure themselves, "I'm living in a liberal democracy, therefore I'm free... unlike those living in autocratic Russia or China."
Of course, the West was always under some kind of oligarchic power, but it's getting worse because it's ruled by Jews who refuse to even acknowledge their dominant position(fueled by a tribal sense of supremacism & contempt), lack any sense of magnanimity, have intoxicated themselves on moral narcissism, and are caught in the web of their own paranoia. In the West, never has so much power been concentrated in the hands of so few who are so hostile toward and derisive of those they rule over. Why else would they push for the Great Replacement or White Nakba? It's because Jews don't regard white folks as their own people but as the Goy Other that must be kept in their place, and what better and more permanent way to destroy white power than by demographically eclipsing whites with non-white goyim. Jews say O Vey, whites better Obey. The current West is something like an 'oligomocracy', i.e. it's totally controlled by the oligarchy but within the framework of what appears to be a democracy.
Honest people find themselves caught between the Power that prioritizes control and the People who gobble up whatever slop they're fed. It's the Glob and the Mob. Consider how the Twitter Mob works. Them 'woke'(or Jewoke) idiots swallow all the crap fed them by the Jewish-controlled media and academia. They think they are more 'sophisticated', 'evolved', and 'hip' because they get their ideas and views from supposed 'progressives' with elevated elite credentials. Not that American 'conservatives' are much better as they wolf down all the crap fed them on Talk Radio which is mostly controlled by Neocon monopolists. (And even alternative voices like Alex Jones would have us believe Arabs own Hollywood and China has something to do with diminishing freedom in the West.) These proggies feel smarter because they hang around tonier parts of the city, attended fancier colleges, watch Young Turks, listen to NPR, and maybe have a subscription to the New Yorker. Now, one can get lots of valuable news and information from such sources — they sure beat the 700 Club and much of Talk Radio — , but all said and done, they dare not venture outside the boundaries of discourse as insisted by Jewish Power. Indeed, the sudden war on Free Speech by so-called 'progressives' has been instigated from above by Jewish supremacist opinion-makers.
They are not about free-ranging intelligence in search of truth but corralled and tamed 'intelligentry' in service to Jewish Power and the gods it controls. Jews fear true secularism where people are free to use reason and facts in pursuit of worldview that comports with reality. Such secularism favors no side as plenty of dirt can be dug up about any group. It could dig up lots of dirt on Anglos, Germanics, and Slavs but also plenty on Jews, blacks, homos, and etc. Mao Zedong soon realized his system couldn't be sustained by the principles of the Hundred Flowers Campaign. For a season or two, something like a real liberal spirit prevailed in China as people were allowed to say anything, even against the party. Few drips turned into a torrent that then threatened to break the dam of party authority. Likewise, the liberal experiments in Czechoslovakia in the mid 60s eventually led to Prague Spring that challenged the very authority of the Communist Party. Soviet tanks had to roll in to turn the tide. Mikhail Gorbachev had his own Hundred Flowers Campaign called Glasnost and, unlike Mao who soon reversed course, he allowed it to take root and grow. Result was a million complaints from the people and the utter demoralization of party members. It wasn't long before the whole edifice of Soviet authority crumbled. (Of course, by then, all of Eastern Europe had given up on communism and looked to the West for aid, guidance, and investment.)
In order for communism or at least communist party authority to remain, the Marxist brand of secularism had to enforce its sacraments and taboos. While lots of things could be questioned, certain things could not be. Marx and Lenin were gods, and communism was 'scientific materialism', and only a mentally ill person would dare question it.
Truth and facts are neutral. So, the Power wants truth and facts to shed light on the bad of the enemies and rivals but not of itself. The Power encourages the educated class to dig up all manner of dirt about the other side(s), even rewarding those who manufacture falsehoods(as with the Russia Collusion Hoax, Assad Gas Attack Hoax, and Jussie Smollett Hoax). The Power seeks flaws in the arguments and ideologies of competing powers but not in its own. Thus, secularism can never be totally rational or factual because the Power favors its own control than the general truth.
In a genuine liberal-secular democracy/republic, free speech and free discourse can boomerang on the Power as the educated class(often filled with resentment against the rich and privileged) may well critique the Power itself. Indeed, this is exactly what happened with the Anglo elites in US and UK. Even though they had plenty of educated men on their side, they also had to contend with the increasing chorus of criticism coming from within and without their own ranks, not least from Jews.
In regards to the Power, there are two natural tendencies among the People: Submission and Rebellion, and the two tendencies often co-exist. As often as not, rebellion is borne of resentment of not having been favored and/or approved by the Power than based on any real principle, though all rebels pretend they are motivated by higher values, and the same goes for submission, i.e. people join the Power and collaborate for personal gain, careerism, and peace of mind(as dissent can lead to harassment, purging, and even death) than out of any deep conviction. Most people are benders than standers.
At any rate, the Power is likely to attract as much criticism and pushback as cooperation and support in a free society. The opposition could be a matter of partisanship or personal conscience, as is true of compliance. When Anglo-Americans ruled the US, they had both lots of supporters and lots of critics. Of course, the influence of criticism altered the character of the ruling elites, in which case the once-supporters could become the new critics and once-critics the new supporters. Or, the change came about because the character of the support was altered by the influence of media and academia. After all, even the supporters of the Anglo-American Christian Order were bombarded by the Jewish-controlled media, and their children(groomed to work for the Power) were shaped by the increasingly Jewish-dominated academia. Consider the fate of the GOP. At times, the leadership came under Jewish influence and mandated a new set of 'values' for American Conservatives to follow, but at other times, the rank-and-file were altered by Jewish Influence and exerted pressure on the leadership to change course; or else, they threatened to leave the Party for the Democrats or the Independents.
No doubt, Jews understood this aspect of the secular-liberal dynamics of Power. Free Society meant free speech, and free speech meant the freedom of conscience and the free play of ideology to critique and challenge power and authority. Indeed, no group than the Jews did more to involve itself in taking apart, deconstructing, exposing, and invalidating the existing concentrations of Power, indeed so much so that, Jewish influence was seen almost as synonymous with social critique, dissent, ideological radicalism, and other modes of rebellion/dissidence, so much so that even anti-Jewish groups and those at odds with Jewish agendas developed grudging respect for Jews as standard-bearers of civil liberties. Now, we know it was either just a ploy or something Jews came to regret.
Secular freedoms can support and protect any side but also subvert and tear it down. One can use free speech to spread and defend Christianity or to mock and expose it as a delusion or hypocrisy. One can use free speech for or against Marxism. Secularism, in and of itself, doesn't have sacred cows, and that means ANYTHING can be critiqued, appraised, questioned, attacked, mocked, impugned, and etc.
Marxists understood this very well, which is why they made Marx and Lenin the new sacred cows. You could question, criticize, and condemn religions, capitalism, feudalism, traditionalism, liberalism, and etc. in a Marxist state but one could not question the 'scientific' and 'materialist' truth of Marx and Engel's ideas. After all, if secularism in a communist state could critique and diagnose Marxism like any other ideology or worldview, it could be delegitimized in the eyes of the public, not least because so many Marxist policies weren't working according to plan.
Jews are no different than Marxists in their grip on power. Though Jews today are super-capitalists and the LAST THING they want is communism, they know that the current Power Arrangement cannot allow total free speech founded on absolute commitment to secularism. They prefer a sacral-secularism, or 'securalism' whereby Jews get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. Jews know that official religions aren't possible in a secular order, and so, they use media and academia to generate sacral-emotions on certain topics. That way, Jews can have the cake and eat it too: Jews can maintain what is ostensibly a secular order without official religions but also have a population that feels, thinks, and behaves as virtual spiritualists on certain matters.
Under this order, there are three kinds of qualities: Holy, Material, and Unholy. 'Holy' are those subjects that command reverence & piety and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; one must idolize, mourn, and/or celebrate them. As the Michael Jackson and Oprah cults have shown, people can be made to feel 'holy-schmoly' about anyone or anything. 'Material' are those subjects that are unrelated to the Holy and, therefore, can be discussed freely: Like the science of dairy products or the migratory behavior of birds. 'Unholy' are those matters that pose a danger to the Holy and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; they must be condemned outright and, in the absence of legal protection of free speech, banned, as is already the case in UK, Canada, and EU.
MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, Globo-Homo, and Jews are holy. All Good People must gush about them. Covid-19 and 'vaccines' have also entered the realm of the Holy; the 'jabs' and the never-ending boosts are the new communion rituals. If you dare to discuss Covid-19 freely and speculate as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin, you are a heretic and must be mocked as a 'horse-dewormer' taking devil-worshiper. Most diseases and treatments are in the 'Material' realm, or open to free scientific discourse, but Covid-19 and the 'vaccines' are not; the only allowable 'science' is the one pushed by the Jewish Globalist World order that controls the Deep State, Big Pharma, and Big Media. Indeed, notice how the nay-sayers of the 'vaccines' are effectively 'excommunicated' from the church of 'trust-the-science'(or schwience). And of course, anyone who dares to freely discuss the problems of racial differences, black crime, Jewish perfidy, homosexual decadence, tranny nuttery, and etc. are immediately deemed 'Unholy'; everything is done to ban such voices from media, academia, and even internet platforms that once used to be bastions of free speech. Like the Marxists in communist nations, Jewish Supremacists realized their grip on supremacy isn't tenable in a world of free flowing opinions and ideas where anyone and everything can come under scrutiny, criticism, and reappraisal. 'Unholy' views are immediately and roundly attacked as 'far right', 'hateful', and etc., funny coming from a people who've committed the most violence and mass killings since the end of the Cold War. Just ask the Arabs and Muslims whose policies led to the destruction of millions of them. They were victims of Jewish-Supremacist policies that animate the cuckish aggressions of the Anglo-managed US and UK.
Something of the Jewish character can be glimpsed from a consideration of Anne Frank and Leo Frank. The comparison may seem perverse as one was an innocent victim of Nazi inhumanity whereas the latter was a pervert-murderer. But, not if the comparison focuses on the Jewish Reaction to the two individuals(or the two events they're associated with), and it has to do with Denial, a term usually associated with the Holocaust but which applies so often to Jewish reactions to events. Even to this day, Jews are in USS Liberty Denial mode. While Nazi horrors were many times more murderous and destructive than Israel's attack on the US ship, the nature of the lie is the same: A pathological inability to face up to the truth for purpose of ethnocentrism. (Ironically, Holocaust Denialists and Holocaust Dogmatists have more in common than they realize. Both are invested in History as Faith, either in the total innocence or absolute guilt of the Germans. This false dichotomy has made it virtually impossible to have a true historical discussion on the subject as anyone suspected of 'revisionism' is thrown into the Denial Camp.) What matters is the attack on USS Liberty was clearly a hostile act by Israel, but to this day, Jews refuse to own up to what happened. And not just the Israeli government, which would at least be understandable, but Jews all around the world. What does this say about Jewish Power and the general character of Jewishness when most Jews aren't willing to face up to the most obvious facts?
And if Jews aren't willing to face up to what happened to USS Liberty, why would they be any more honest or principled on far graver matters? And if most Jews, 'conservative' and 'liberal', so readily circle the wagons on something so obvious and undeniable, the only logical conclusion is that, for most Jews, ethnic unity and power take precedence uber alles. Besides, it's not as if Jewish criminality has been limited to isolated incidents like the USS Liberty attack. Jewish finance played a significant role in the expansion of European Imperialism, not least the Anglo kind. Jews had a key role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(at least in South America) and the forced sale of opium to China. Jewish merchants played a role in the Westward expansion and the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and Jewish radicalism played a key, even decisive, role, in the spread of communism and its horrors that led to the deaths of millions. And since the end of the Cold War, World Jewry have been the main butchers of the world as overlords of the lone superpower, the US, the foreign policy priority of which has been appeasing Zion by serving as its murderous attack dog. Just ask the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, and many others.
Furthermore, Jews have been the main concocters of this 'wokeness'(or Jewokeness) that plants poison seeds in the souls of whites(mainly via Afromania and Globo-Homo degeneracy) and prepares the West for White Nakba.
But, because Jewish Power has been dispersed among various nations in which goy 'buffers' were often employed to do the bidding of Zion, much of Jewish Evil has been attributed to anyone but Jews. So, Iraq War is blamed on George W. Bush and 'Neocons'(with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the most prominent faces), and most of the current lunatic policies are blamed on Joe Biden even though he's just a puppet of his Jewish Handlers. Even when Jews were considerably less powerful in the past, they had sway over key members of the goy elites via the control of money.
What all this means is that, while Jews have much to accuse the goy world of, they also have much to be accused of and much to answer for. Also, apart from the policies of National Socialist Germany that sought to be Jew-Free, thereby making its crimes its own, it's not so easy to differentiate the Jewish Role from the Goy Role in much of the Modern West. Jews, like the Irish, collaborated in much of British Imperialism. If most Irish did it as foot-soldiers, Jews did it as financiers. So, ironically, National Socialism rendered Jews the most innocent of German crimes during the Nazi Era, whereas the Western Powers that allowed Jewish participation made Jews accomplices in their 'racist' domination of the world. Not that any of this matters in the current Jewish-controlled Historiography whereby we are to believe Jews were always pure-as-snow innocents who were totally blameless of Western Imperialism and, if anything, the main poor hapless victims of Western 'antisemitism'.
Though Anne Frank and Leo Frank are two very different individuals, both have been shrouded by Jewish Lies. Thus, what unites them is the culture of Jewish Mendacity. Never mind the stuff about Anne Frank story being partly created by her father. Never mind the rather ludicrous canonization of some Jewish Girl into the new madonna. We can accept that she was a nice girl and met a sad fate(though she died of disease than gassing or a bullet to her head). The LIE is in propping her cult as the main face of Jewishness, thereby creating a false impression as to why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred and why the Germans were driven to such extremes. It'd be like using some Japanese girl who died in Hiroshima as the main face of Japan's place in World War II.
Now, clearly many innocent children of all nationalities perished in the war, and there's no problem in remembering and mourning Jewish children who died in the Shoah. And Japanese children who died in the war should be remembered as well. But the war against Japan wasn't about some crazed desire to kill innocent Japanese girls. Rather, Japanese children were the unfortunate and tragic casualties of a war in which Japanese adults in powerful positions decided to play with fire. To understand Japan's role in WWII, one needs to focus on the politicians, industrialists, military men, ideologues, and the Emperor. Likewise, even though many innocent Jews, even children, were persecuted and killed in WWII, no real understanding of the Jewish Role in the war can be understood without taking into account the dangerous and even reckless roles played by Jewish radicals, bankers, gangsters, fraudsters, corrupters, and perverts. Remembering Anne Frank as a sad child victim of History is a decent thing to do, but using her as the Face of Jewishness in the Modern Era is utterly bogus.
After all, Germans could do the same. Consider all the innocent German children who were killed by bullets or bombs, or who were raped(most likely by Soviet troops), or perished from starvation and disease. All such lives should be remembered, but it'd be foolish to use her story as exemplary of Germany's role in World War II. No, Germany got embroiled in the horrors because of Adolf Hitler and his reckless worldview(though it certainly wasn't helped by Josef Stalin, FDR, Winston Churchill, and others itching for some kind of major conflagration). Anne Frank Cult as the face of the Holocaust Narrative overlooks the role of Jewish Power that led to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists. Germans went to the dark side not because they wanted to hurt innocent Jewish children but had-it-up-to-here with the crimes and corruption of Jewish Power. However, in handing power to a bunch of radical Anti-Semites, there was the danger of innocent Jews getting it in the neck as well. But innocent Japanese also got burned for the crimes of their rulers.
Granted, it's never quite simple to draw a clear line between guilt and innocence. After all, many Japanese supported the policies of their rulers. But then, their minds were largely manipulated by the rulers who controlled the media, so there was a kind of circular logic to the mania. Likewise, many Jews did nothing to restrain the vileness of their tribal elites(and little has changed over the years as Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal are exceptions than the rule) and a good number of them participated, though not as key players, in the vile machinations of their tribal leaders. So, absolute guilt and absolute innocence are virtually non-existent. One could say children are innocent, which is true enough, but it's only a matter of time before children are indoctrinated into soldiers of the regime, much like it's only a matter of time before tiger cubs grow into predators. Children are innocent in the moment but not in their destinies, most of which are controlled by external forces; besides, even the internal drives of human nature leads one to aggression, competition, domination, or service to dominant forces.
If Jews used an innocent girl, Anne Frank, as the face of all Jews threatened or killed in the World War II period, Jews denied the guilt of Leo Frank altogether even though he was most certainly guilty of the rape-murder. A case of rape-murder denial. Though only one girl was raped and killed by Leo Frank, the Jewish pathology behind the denial isn't much different in kind from the denial of those who naysay all documented details of the Shoah. In some ways, it's worse among Jews because, whereas Holocaust Denial is a fringe phenom among goyim, Leo-Frank's Rape-Murder Denial has been the mainstay of Jewish Power and Jewish Majority, much like USS Liberty Attack Denial. Add to this the Jewish Virtual-or-Emotional Denial of the Rosenbergs' guilt in slippling atomic secrets to Stalin. While most Jews came to admit Rosenbergs were guilty of the act, they melodramatized the Narrative to make the Rosenbergs and other communists the 'victims' of 'red-baiting' and 'paranoid' anti-communists. So, even when Jews admit a good number of Jews were involved in treason and treachery, they canonize the guilty as 'victims' while reviling the prosecutors as subhuman persecutors of all things decent and humane.
Leo Frank was eventually lynched by a mob that just about had enough. He was only one person, indeed the only Jew ever lynched on American Soil. Therefore, it may seem ridiculous and perverse to compare his case with the Holocaust where, purportedly, 6 million Jews perished(though the real number is probably half that), Anne Frank included. US was good to Jews, Germany of the Nazi period was horrible for Jews. And yet, history and truth aren't merely about numbers. One Jew or Six Million Jews, the motivations of goy hatred could be the same. Thus, what the Leo Frank Case(the death of one Jew) and the Anne Frank Case(the death of millions of Jews) have in common is the Jewish tendency to commit horrific crimes and use the tribal network to circle the wagons.
Lucky for Jews, such Jewish behavior led to minimum anti-Jewish violence in the US(relatively speaking), but consider the goy rage in both US and Germany. In the US, southern white goyim were more than willing to give Leo Frank the benefit of doubt and his day in court. Frank wasn't treated like some Negro but had all the legal defense one could hope for. And yet, facts proved his guilt beyond a doubt, and the proper thing for Jews would have been to make him face justice. But, what did the Jewish community do? They circled the wagons. They chose tribal ethnocentrism over justice for the dead goy girl. Apparently, the life of a Jewish rapist-murderer was more precious than the life of a goy girl seen as little more than a shikse whore(later to replayed by Roman Polanski's case). Jews not only refused to face up to facts but tried to frame a Negro. And then, the Jewish Press slandered southern whites(who'd been kindly to Jews) as a bunch of raving 'anti-semites' when they'd offered Leo Frank every opportunity to prove his innocence. The real issue isn't that Leo Frank was a creep. All groups have their rapist-murderer creeps; John Gacy was no Jew. The issue was the Jewish Community went out on a limb to protect a fellow Jew despite his obvious guilt(and things are even worse today, with Jonathan Pollard giving the US a middle finger as he swaggers around Israel as a 'hero').
The Southern White Goy community just about had enough and took matters into its own hands. They grabbed Leo Frank from the jail cell and lynched him. The goy rage wasn't much different from what would happen among Germans during the Weimar Period, in which many German Jews, backed by World Jewry, did horrible things to the German economy, culture, and political process, which they would repeat all over again in Russia of the 1990s. But, the difference is German Rage put radical Anti-Semites in power, and the Nazis had a worldview not so different from that of Jews: supremacism. Just like so many Jews felt Jews could never do wrong and should always circle the wagons to protect other Jews, guilty or innocent, the National Socialist direction for Germany was Aryans Uber Alles.
Still, the rage that many German citizens felt that drove them to support the National Socialists wasn't much different from the rage felt by the Southern White mob that finally had had enough of Leo Frank and had him lynched. In both cases, goyim were driven to the limit by Jewish vileness. Historically, Germany had been less anti-Jewish than most European nations, but Germans came to believe that their relative niceness toward Jews only emboldened Jews to act more shitty. Likewise, historically the American South had been kinder to Jews, but how did Jews pay back this favoritism? They circled the wagons to defend the loathsome Leo Frank, the rapist-murderer of a white Christian girl.
Most crucially, both the US and Germany failed to do the right thing. In the case of Germany, the new regime went after ALL Jews. Even if many Jews had acted badly, there was no reason to target all Jews as the majority of Jews hadn't been gangsters, communist radicals, or financial thieves. And some were patriots who had fought in World War I and respected German culture. In going after all Jews, National Socialism disgraced itself and finally blackened German reputation with war and genocide.
One would like to believe the American Example was infinitely better. After all, Americans didn't go after all Jews but targeted one Jew, the guilty Leo Frank. Not that Jews ever appreciated this as they lionized Leo Frank as a saint, and the organization that grew out of the incident, ADL, now serves as the 'moral' muscle of Jewish Power and twists arms everywhere to push for Censchwarzship.
Still, it's surely far more sensible to go after the one guilty Jew than go after an entire community. Better to kill one bad person than kill 'six million', among whom the good are mixed with the bad. And yet, Americans also made a fatal mistake in the Leo Frank case. While only Leo Frank was responsible for the rape and murder of the white girl, much of the Jewish Community had been downright vile and verminous in trying to exonerate him out of tribal solidarity that smacked of racial supremacism: "We Jews are above the law when it comes to harming lowly goyim." (What's truly disgusting is that, even after all these years, Jews have doubled-down on the rape-murder denial and pretend as if Leo Frank is their own 'Emmett Till', all the funnier when even the real Emmett Till wasn't the 'Emmett Till' of myth, though St. George Floyd takes the cake when it comes to perfidious Jewish-manufactured idolatry. Even though the white mob was pushed to extreme measures against Leo Frank because of the dirty Arnold-Rothstein machinations of the Jewish Community, Jews have blame only the whites, never themselves.)
The real shame of the Leo Frank case isn't that some lowlife Jew was lynched. It's that White Americans didn't go far enough and do more. While it's a good thing that White Americans never became radically deranged like the Germans under National Socialism, they failed to realize that the main villain of the Leo Frank case wasn't Leo Frank himself but the Jewish Power Network defined by Jewish Tribal Supremacism. Indeed, Leo Frank would have been summarily tried and sentenced, and that would have been that had it not been for obnoxious Jewish meddling. The case was prolonged and perverted because Jews pulled every string in the book to prevent justice for the rape-murder victim. So, while Leo Frank was guilty of his crime, the Jewish Power Network was guilty of something far more egregious and consequential: Corruption of the justice system, and for what? Jewish supremacism that holds in contempt the humanity of white girls regarded as 'shikse' whores. So, White Americans shouldn't have stopped with Leo Frank. They should have started a movement to root out the networks of Jewish corruption and villainy. This doesn't mean they should have become like raving Nazis and gone after innocent Jews or done what they did to the Japanese-American population during World War II. Rather, at the very least, they should have done everything to root out the widespread elements in the Jewish Community that form networks and work together in favor of Jewish lives and interests regardless of truth and/or justice. The failure to do that has led to the rise of Jewish Networks that now rob the world through Wall Street and Big Pharma, that perverts the law to let Antifa thugs and BLM lunatics to run free and get a slap on the wrist if arrested... while January 6 protesters are denied the most basic of legal rights and parents who protest anti-white CRT agenda are labeled as 'domestic terrorists' by vile Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland(who almost became Supreme Court justice).
So, if Germans went too far in their reaction to Jewish Evil by going after ALL Jews, even good ones, White Americans didn't go far enough by fixating on the individual Jew while overlooking the power of the Jewish Network. After all, it makes no sense to see Jonathan Pollard as merely a bad individual Jew. He did what he did as part of a Jewish Network, and this network, with tentacles in academia-media-government-banking-etc., eventually pulled all stops to spring that lowlife scum from prison. Germans under National Socialism, in going after bad Jews, even went after innocent Jews, destroying the lives of girls like Anne Frank as well. White Americans thought the problem would be solved by taking out Leo Frank the bad Jewish individual while overlooking the fact that Leo Frank managed to elude justice for so long because of the Jewish Power Network operating on the premise of Jewish Supremacism and total contempt for 'filthy goyim'.
The Ideal Way for Americans would have been to Name the Jewish Power, to expose the Jewish Network. Jewish Evil isn't a simple matter of bad individuals doing their own thing but, more often than not, a matter of a bunch of Jews acting in concert within a network. It's like the Mafia, which is why RICO laws were necessary to bring down the underworld empire. Just going after individual mafia hoodlums(as if they're lone wolf street thugs) hardly made an impact on the mafia network; it was like cutting off one tentacle off an octopus that merely grew new ones. To take out the Mafia, the individual crooks had to be linked to the network and its bosses.
Likewise, Leo Frank was protected by the Jewish Network, which later canonized him as a saint, much like Tony Kushner did for the Rosenbergs in ANGELS IN AMERICA. To prevent further such abuse, White America should have at least gone after the Jewish Network and exposed it for what it is. Granted, it would have been more difficult with Jews than with the Italian-Americans whose criminality was far more specific to a social milieu. Indeed, Italian-Americans who broke from the Criminal Community tended to assimilate into Anglo-Americanism or Generic Americanism. In contrast, even Jews who operated above ground retained a powerful sense of tribal identity and loyalty, rendering mafia-like much of the Jewish networks in academia, media, government, and etc. Rudy Giuliani became just a New York mayor and did little for the Italian-American community. The idiot Cuomo Brothers are mainly careerists and have nothing to do with Italian-ness. But look at Jews like Victoria Nuland, Wendy Sherman, Merrick Garland, Stinkin' Blinken, and the rest of them, and they are NOTHING without Jewish Tribalism. Indeed, the demands of Jewish Tribalism are so strong that even goyim in politics cower before its will. Even Donald Trump who, in 2016 boasted that Jews don't own him because he's so rich, did little in office but take it up his ass from the Jewish Lobby and beg, "Can I suck your dic*?"
What the West needs is a RICO-ist approrach against Jewish Power Network. The evil didn't end with Leo Frank. He almost got away with rape/murder because of the Network, the same reason Roman Polanski has been able to sit nice and pretty all these years without facing justice. Indeed, can anyone explain the silence about USS Liberty without taking the Jewish Power Network into account? Or what really happened on 9/11 and how lies were spread in the media(essentially a Jewish Power Network) to rouse public support for Iraq War? Or how Jews managed to rape the Russian economy in the 1990s? Did just a handful of Jews, as mere individuals, manage to pull off the heist of the century all on their own? Or, were they enabled by the Worldwide Jewish Network? And consider the Russian Collusion Hoax. The Covid Hysteria and the rigging of the 2020 election. These were not done by isolated individuals but by the Network with links in government, media, academia, courts, finance, etc.
So, the lesson of the 20th century in regard to Jewish Perfidy is that the Germans went too far and the Americans didn't go far enough. Germans, in going after Jewish Evil, went after the entire population. Americans, in contrast, targeted only the individual while ignoring the power of the Jewish Network. Indeed, it is precisely because the Network was left alone in the US that Jews even managed to push the narrative that Leo Frank was some innocent saint lynched by a crazed 'anti-semitic' mob that, I supposed, one day just got off their ass to kill a totally innocent Jew for the hell of it. IAIN DAVIS DISSECTS THE PSEUDOPANDEMIC
The role of journalists should be excavation, not burial or concealment. But too many journos use the shovel to bury than to dig. These shills should really work for the Ministry of Propaganda, which is what most of MSM really is.
One problem is most of MSM is in the pocket of Jewish gangster oligarchs, and big media companies favor Zionist-centrists and Jewish supremacists for hiring and promotion. And even among many talented Jewish reporters and journalists, there is a wink-wink understanding that the #1 mindset among them must be “Is it good for Jews?” Jewish Power is enshrined in their hearts and is tantamount to the the highest good imaginable. They were raised that way and think that way in what has been the most tribal culture in world history. So, even though they can be good and honest journalists on matters not pertaining to Jewish interests, they become quasi-Talmudic first and foremost on anything that touches directly or indirectly on Jewish-related matters. This is why most Jewish journalists, left or right, are on the same boat on Russia, Syria, and Iran. Their reporting, commentary, and narrative revolve around the core consideration of "Is it good for the Jews?"
Next, there are those who enter journalism for the glam factor. Maybe they grew up watching ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN(the Watergate movie) or have a Hollywood view of journalism as where the action is(in terms of activism, adventure, truth, justice, and celebrity). If Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, journalism is Hollywood for 'caring' and smart people though, to be sure, many in journalism tend not to be very smart; they just think they are. They don’t have the intellect/patience to be academics and don’t have advanced skills to be a leader or game-changer in anything — one thing for sure, science journalists know a hell of a lot less than scientists. So, they serve as scribes on the run. It’s like “Those who can’t, teach”: “Those who can’t, report.” At any rate, as this kind of journalists entered the field for the glam factor, their main concern is status and the buzz. So, if they have to stick with PC to be hired and promoted, they will do just that. They are like Peter Keating in THE FOUNTAINHEAD.
Now, what about goy journalists of integrity and honesty? Why are so many of them almost as useless as the Jewish Firsters and Paparrazi with pens? Because Political Correctness instilled them with quasi-spiritual thinking. To understand how this works, consider the psychology of the devoutly religious. They can speak and think freely on lots of things. They can even speak honestly about the failings of church elders and corruption in the highest echelons of authority. They can pore through financial dealings of the church to find fault. But they cannot talk badly or even think bad thoughts about God or Jesus. There is a dividing line between what is man & matter and what is holy & sacred. Even the pope is part of the world of man & matter, but God and Jesus are supreme above all. Therefore, even in personal conversation or private thought, one dares not speak or think ill of God or Jesus. One can accuse the church of failing to live up to its mission or standards, but one cannot be critical of God, the Lord of all, and Jesus, who is believed to be perfect. But such sacramental thinking operates among secular people as well because human psychology is profoundly 'spiritual'. This was evident in communist nations that were officially atheist but rooted in dogmas of godlike Marx and Lenin, the holy icons of the system. So, even though one might discuss and report on the various failings of the communist system, one better not dare cast doubt on the core foundation of Marxism-Leninism. Such mentality was so strong among true believers that even private thoughts skeptical of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism made one feel 'sinful' and unworthy. The problem with communist systems was that, for too long, no one dared to question if the ideological underpinning itself was the real problem. While communists could, at times, criticize the outward practices of communism, they could not question the core principles. When things went wrong, the blame fell on the misapplication of dogma than on the dogma itself. It’d be like finding faults with certain calculations of geocentrism without challenging its core validity, esp in light of a seemingly better system of the heliocentric model.
We have a similar kind of problem, even among journalists of honesty and integrity? Never mind the Jewish Firsters and Paparazzis with pens. The more important question is, why are so many non-Jewish journalists of intelligence and integrity so full of nonsense or so unwilling to GO THERE? It’s because even most secular people have a spiritual side to their mentality. Just like smart and serious communist journalists were too ‘spiritually’ beholden to Marxism-Leninism to ask the deeper question — could it be that the insurmountable problems of communist societies emanate from communist fundamentals themselves? — , today’s PC-indoctrinated journalists are too emotionally and ‘spiritually’ beholden to idolatrous or iconic cults of the Magic Negro, Shoah-Worship, and Globo-Homo-mania to ask the bigger questions.
Magic Negro worship means ‘racism’ is all bad. Shoah-Worship means ‘antisemitism’ is the worst thing ever. Globo-Homo worship means we must be vigilant against ‘homophobia’. Blacks-Jews-homos are to PC journos what God & Jesus are to the devoutly faithful — unfortunately, virtually all journalists, even those of Conservatism Inc., have succumbed to PC, what with the two sides yammering, "Conservatives are 'racists'" and "Liberals are the 'real racists'." And just like the faithful may find fault with the church, church leaders, and church community but NEVER with God or Jesus, PC journos may find problems in the black community, Jewish community, and homo community(and critique some of the leaders and managers), but they feel they mustn't find any fault with the holy cult of the Magic Negro, Super Jew, and Holy Homo. So, most black problems must be blamed on whites or few bad apples among blacks. But BLACKNESS itself is magical and wonderful. Get on your knees before the portrait of MLK-Mandela(or even Obama) or twerk in veneration of the Great Negro. Same goes with the Jews. Scandals involving Bernie Madoff, Anthony Weiner, and Harvey Weinstein have shown that journalists can report on some Jewish bad apples. But never ever think that such examples reflect on or reveal something about the Jewish Community in general — indeed, one of the main media narratives associated with the Madoff case was that his crimes caused harm to some high-profile Jews and, furthermore, might fuel 'antisemitic' stereotypes, i.e. when Jews do bad, let us worry about Jews-in-general as potential victims than about the actual victims. All generalizations about Jews must be positive, never negative. The bad Jews are outliers than manifestations of something seriously wrong in the Jewish community. So, even as journalists can expose some individual bad Jews, they are never to question the essential nobility and wisdom of the Jewish People. (It'd be like pretending that there is NO LINK between the mafia and Italian culture attitudes. Of course, Jews never tire of telling the world that there is an indisputable connection between bad white deeds and the white community in general.) And as this mentality has been instilled in the minds of journalists from cradle, they truly do revere the Jews and would feel guilt/shame if they thought ill of the Jewish community even in private behind closed doors. It’s like a religious person dares not think ill of God or Jesus even when no one is watching or listening. Their religiosity isn’t merely a response to external factors, a matter of shame, but an internal reality, a matter of guilt. Even if no one knew of their ill begotten words or thoughts about God and Jesus, they themselves would feel terrible for having entertained them. One feels free to think and say anything about the world of man and matter, but one’s mind better tread carefully about reverential, spiritual, or holy matters. Among many secular folks, Jews-blacks-homos are their highest objects of ‘spirituality’, and they can no more venture to question the sanctity of Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness than communists could doubt the holy writ of Marxism-Leninism.
So much of what is wrong with the West is due to Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness, but these problems cannot be honestly addressed because even the best-and-brightest are under the spell of Jew-Negro-Homo rapture, just like even the best-and-brightest under communism were beholden to the ‘scientific’ dialectical-materialist dogma of Marxism. (Ironic how, by naming something as ‘scientific’, it became holy and beyond rational discussion and critique.) While certain features of communist society could be criticized, it had to be done from the perspective of Marxo-centrism. In other words, communists could be criticized for failing communism, but communism could not be criticized for failing the communists.
Likewise, certain Jewish individuals can be criticized for making the Jewish community look bad or giving ammo to evil ‘anti-Semites’, but no one dares to ask if there is something fundamentally wrong, problematic, hypocritical, or rotten in the Jewish community, culture, or mindset. No one dares to wonder if the so-called ‘Anti-Semites’ were right on certain features of Jewishness, Jewish personality, or Jewish worldview. Rather, it is assumed Jews are holy while ‘Anti-Semites’ are evil, and therefore, any sign of Jewish abuse/criminality is lamented not as evidence of Jewish rottenness but as ammo for those evil ‘Anti-Semites’. Imagine an order where Bob is said to be so good while Bill is said to be so bad, mainly because he said bad things about Bob. Now, if Bob often acts bad, it would seem Bob is a bad kid or has some serious issues that needs to be addressed. But because it is assumed Bob is good while anti-Bob Bill is bad, Bob’s bad deeds are blamed not on Bob’s lack of character but for having lent credence to Bill who is bad, bad, bad. Now, why would such an order feel this way about Bob and Bill? Because Bob has been sacralized while Bill has been demonized. Therefore, rational thinking is impossible regarding the two. Bob has been placed in the domain of spirit and sanctity than of man and matter(whereas Bill has been placed in the domain of devil and damnation than man and matter). Thus, even Bob’s bad deeds can’t reflect badly on him. If anything, there is even more hatred for Bill because Bob’s bad deeds have given cred to Bill’s Anti-Bob-ism, and we simply can’t have that in an order where Bob is holy while Bill is unholy.
The same logic applies to Negroes. We are told blacks are holy and magical. In contrast, there is almost nothing worse than White ‘racism’. Such ‘spiritual’ thinking dominates among even smart and serious journalists because humans are naturally spiritual, which means even secular types must BELIEVE in something. So, if too many blacks act badly, rational and critical thinking on the matter is nearly impossible. Reason wilts before the heat of spirituality. So, what is to be done when too many blacks act badly? First, the facts themselves are problematic because they go against the Sacred Narrative. Instead of pondering those facts and asking if the Official Narrative itself is fundamentally flawed, most people stick with the Narrative and either try to suppress the evidence or spin it to maintain the aura of Negro holiness while blaming it all on ‘racists’. So, if too many blacks act badly, the main problem is not with black behavior but with ceding credence to the claims of evil ‘racists’ that undermines the Sacro-Narrative. Therefore, if blacks steal too much, we shouldn’t pressure blacks to change their ways but lament how such deeds are tarnishing the Magic Negro image while giving ammo to evil ‘racists’ who’ve long maintained that blacks are more prone to violent, criminal, and transgressive behavior resulting from evolution.
A rational and critical order would formulate its general views and impressions of reality based on facts and evidence, but most social orders have sacro-narratives than hard facts as foundations of self-perception and worldview. The US Narrative, especially the one arising after WWII, says noble and magical blacks were enslaved and mistreated by evil white ‘racists’, and therefore, the US can be redeemed only by the ascension of the Negro. One can understand the appeal of such a Narrative given US history, but facts say black aggression and criminality are rooted in black genetics that formed over 100,000s of years of evolution. But as the Narrative > Facts, most of bad black behavior is blamed on history of ‘racism’ without the slightest inkling that maybe the ‘racists’, while wrong and extreme about some things, were indeed right about some other things.
And then, there are the holy homos. What was the main cause of the HIV crisis? We know why. Facts say homos bung-donged each other in bathhouses all over the West(and the Rest) and spread HIV like a wildfire. In other words, sodomy is one helluva way to spread disease and, furthermore, homos tend to be impulsive and excessive in their lusts and lewd behavior. Facts say homos are born homo and that we should accept this fact. But facts also say homos are weird and tutti-fruity, often vain and narcissistic to a pathological degree, and whoopity-poopity-doo, and such ‘gay’ sensibility can lead to lots of social problems and cultural decadence. But no, the current dogma says homos are holy, and the HIV thing must be remembered as something akin to the 'Homocaust' where homos were just pure angelic innocent victims of an uncaring society. Young ones have been told, "It was hate and lack of compassion(than overly ripe 'love' among homos) that spread AIDS far and wide and killed all those homos." Yeah, never mind all the dongs up bungs. It’s incredible that homos, who did most to spread HIV and kill other homos, have been least blamed for the disease that has been, if anything, blamed on ‘uncaring’ conservatives. The current media are downright neo-victorian-repressive of certain facts just like Old Victorians were about sex. It’s as if all those homos died of some mysterious ‘homophobic’ disease that targeted holy homos for no reason. The biggest fairy-tale of all time. Once homo-worship became bigger than god and jesus in US culture and media, even so-called ‘conservatives’ dared not stand up to the ‘gay’ lobby. If anything, even churches began to cave and bend over to Anno Sodomini.
Now, does this mean that Jews, blacks, and homos are all bad or necessarily worse than others? No, it means that they, like all other human groups, have problems, serious failings, and dark tendencies. Same case can be made of Russians, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, Anglos, Germans, and etc. After all, there is much about Germans and Japanese that are respected and admired the world over, but those positives don’t prevent us from looking at historical facts of German evil or Japanese lunacy. Every people can go bad, crazy, or evil. That’s why their darker tendencies need to be aired, exposed, and criticized. The German soul led to both Beethoven and Hitler. The Russian soul led to both deep spirituality and lazy barbarism. It’s fair game to contemplate the darker sides of the Russian national character, the German cult of the will, and the Japanese hive-mind. And Jews have spoken countless times about the hypocritical aspects of the Anglo character and the like. Without such push-back, a people are likely to grow more rotten and arrogant.
It’s like the prince-ling phenomenon. Inside every boy is an angel, a child, and a spoiled rotten brat. There is the good side, the all-too-human side, and nasty-vicious side. Some kids are naturally nicer than others, but no child is born perfect or holy. But suppose a child is treated like a prince-ling and doted on as the most wonderful kid in the whole wide world regardless of what he does. Suppose he’s treated like he’s something near-divine, like Puyi kid in THE LAST EMPEROR. What happens to the mind of that child? He turns into a spoiled brat and becomes utterly blind to how totally rotten he is… as with the kid in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS who surely deserved comeuppance. Now, suppose adults around the kid look upon him as such a darling and angel, and therefore, everything he does is seen as either wonderful or somehow the fault of others(or the world) but never of the child. And if anyone just about had enough and calls out on it, he is seen as the villain for pricking the balloon of magic air. The result is like scenario in "It's a Good Life" of THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
Now, it may be that Jews, blacks, and homos are especially problematic for the 'extreme' innate qualities. Jews, with their higher IQ, pushier personality, acute neurosis, and Covenant-based worldview, have a tendency to be subversive, supremacist, and contemptuous. And blacks, due to their naturally thug-like tendencies and stronger muscles, are more prone to become criminals or bad boys or skankass biatches. And fruitkins, due to their tootsy ways, tend to be more vain, narcissistic, egotistical, and amoral than others. Still, one could name a host of positive characteristics of those groups as well, and besides, every human group has its pros and cons.
Then, the proper thing would be to have a honest fact-based discourse on Jewish Power, Black Problems, and Homo Predilections. At the very least, such fact-based discussion would counter or forestall the ‘sacralization’ of man and matter(of which Jews, blacks, and homos are a part), a stupid and dangerous thing to do as people and things should not be elevated to the status of gods or angels. Why did mankind get rid of monarchy? Because the king wasn’t just a leader but some kind of quasi-divine being whose power could not be questioned. Whether it was the old king or the new king(like Hitler or Stalin), such cult of personality led to megalomania among the rulers and ‘minimi-mania’ among the masses, who as sheep-like minions, were happy to love Big Brother.
So, if Jewish Power could be honestly criticized and countered when it goes wrong, it could do a lot of good in the world. Jews would come under pressure to be better and curtail the worse. But, the current cult of the Holy Jew prevents this. The result is ever greater megalomania among Jews and ever more ‘minimi-mania’ among goy sheeple. Just look at both Democrats and Republicans sucking up to Jews like minions before an emperor. As for homos, they've contributed much to human civilization with their creative gifts in arts and culture, and as homos will always be with us, they can go on doing much that is good for humanity. But with the current globo-homo madness, homo megalomania or homogalomania has gotten totally out of control. Instead of ‘gay’ creativity adding to human culture, we have excessive homo vanity and degeneracy defining what is left of Western Civilization, and it is an ugly sight.
But even the best journalists, because they’ve been indoctrinated since cradle with Holy-Schmoly Jew-Negro-Homo worship, are unwilling to ponder the real sources of the problems facing the West: The rot and decay emanating from Jews-blacks-homos gone bad due to the ‘sacralization’ of their identities. A person or a people are at their worst when he or they get everything he or they want. Look what happened to Michael Jackson when he could do whatever he pleased. Same with Elvis before him. Look at the Nazis at their height of power. And look what’s become of the US as the lone superpower, the thug-scum a**hole of the world. But same applies within any order. Consider ridiculous Kim clan of North Korea. All that cult of power and worship went to their heads and have done incalculable harm to the nation.
Even though the West is still politically and socially free in many respects, it isn’t ‘spiritually’ free because the cult of Jew-Negro-Homo worship has imprisoned the Western mind/soul in blind worship of certain groups as if they’re divine and holy. It’s like one can be physically free but mentally owned by another. A man can be under the spell of a woman he adores so much that he acts like her dog and obeys all her commands. In time, such mental imprisonment eventually turns into physical imprisonment as well because the woman can tell him to go to the basement, hand over the key, and lock the door. Being a mental slave, he will likely obey even though not physically forced to. And then, when he's locked up and hands over the keys, his mental enslavement has turned into physical enslavement.
Indeed, consider how the mental imprisonment of the white race is leading to its physical imprisonment. While Jews don’t own whites as chattel-slaves, Jews do own the minds/souls of whites via the cult of Shoah Worship, 'white guilt', and the like. As whites are so mentally beholden to Jews, they just nod along and go along at every turn even as every Jewish request chips away at white freedoms and security. More mass-immigration and more Diversity? If Jews want it, it must be holy, so never mind that it’s leading to White Nakba. Jews want more ‘hate speech’ laws to shut down BDS and ‘white supremacist’ defiance of Jewish Power? Well then, the FBI must be called to track down sentiments such as “It’s Okay to be White”, and the courts must allow more and more prohibition of free speech. With less and less free speech and more and more non-white immigrants who vote Democratic and support gun-control and speech-suppression, white people will go from mental prisoners to physical prisoners.
...the principle of authoritative revelation is not the main factor involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The content of the revelation is critical. I believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as “God” in the Old Testament. Yahweh’s obscenity has ultimately ruined God’s reputation... Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing, correctly:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]
In his speech on “the relations of religious and moral ideas with republican principles,” read at the Convention six weeks before his death, Robespierre said:
“I know of nothing so close to atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have destroyed him as much as it was in them; […] the priests created a god in their image; they made him jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless.”
Is modern atheism a reaction to the 'disgusting' character of God in the Old Testament? But atheists have no interest in the New Testament God either. Also, has religion gained in strength by becoming more tolerant, forgiving, and flaky? The very nature of religion is to be judgmental, and that's why all 'tolerant' and flaky churches don't last long or they adopt New forms of intolerance, such as globo-homo dogma or 'muh Holocaust' or 'muh Israel'. Religion is intrinsically judgmental and damning because it is the rejection of the body and the material world as fallen, cruel, horrific, and vile. If one were content and satisfied with the body and the world, what need for God, spirit, and heaven? It is because the material world is so imperfect that people conceived of souls as separate from flesh. And this soul could enter Heaven if it were good and obedient to God. Or it could enter Nirvana if it rejected desire and attachment to the material world and the way of the flesh. A non-judgmental religion is ridiculous. Religion is essentially the judgmental condemnation of the body by what we imagine to be the 'soul'. It is rejection of the world in favor of Heaven and Nirvana. It is spiritual utopianism as utopia is impossible in the actual-material world.
Also, I find it unlikely that modern atheists were really put off by the ruthlessness of God in the Old Testament. Secular Social Darwinists were pretty heartless about the poor. Eugenics, another secular movement, believed the undesirables should be removed from the genetic pool. It had no use for the concept of the soul. Also, the great 'historical crimes' of the Christian West weren't based on the Bible but on pure greed, vanity, and adventurism. Even though the Church played a missionary role in imperialism, the real drivers were the profiteers and power-lusters. And consider ancient history. Alexander the Great was a ruthless conqueror-adventurer, and he wasn't inspired by the Jewish God. If anything, whatever one may find in the Torah, Jews were among the least militaristic peoples in ancient times. Not because they were nicer but because they sucked at fighting. Jews figured, Other Peoples may whup our ass physically, but we will whup their ass spiritually. Others will grab more land, but we will conceive of a God greater than all their gods combined. It's true that the Torah speaks of God ordering Jews to carry out mass-killings and the like. But in ancient times, pagans were just as ruthless, if not more so. Assyrians were terrifying. Spartans were bung-donging killing machines. (It goes to show acceptance of homosexuality does NOTHING to ensure a more humanitarian point of view. Some historians surmise Frederick the Great was a closet-homo, but he was among the most aggressive German rulers. Also, homos today are all over CIA, NSA, & Deep State, and they are among the most enthusiastic pushers of globo-imperialism. They love to play the world like a sex toy and cackle with glee at the horrors in Syria. Besides, though homos started out pleading for tolerance, once they gained dominant power in alliance with Jews, they've pushed globo-homo Queertianity as the new dogma that must be obeyed. Once a secular force in society, globo-homos are now festooning churches and even mosques with 'gay' colors.) National Socialists, Japanese imperialists, Soviet imperialists, and etc. proved time and time again that people can be just as crazy in service to secular ideology or pagan mythology. I don't think the Chinese in Nanking were fleeing in horror because Japanese were running around with Bibles and sermonizing.
As for Richard Dawkins, a fine biological scientist but moronic social scientist, he acts like the god of the Current Year. Whatever happens to be most PC in the present must be true and just for all times. His litany of complaints about God is truly hilarious. He's such a vain dolt that he is utterly unaware of how his brand of atheism is just as judgmental as old-time religion. He's so arrogant, contemptuous, sneering, sniveling, smug, and full of hot air. His personality is more despicable than that of any deity. Oh, he knows best, he knows everything, he is so very rational, he is all about facts and truth while those who disagree are all morons and monsters. What a prick.
I've always been an atheist but can't stand people like Dawkins who are really into self-worship and auto-cult-of-personality.
Let's consider some of his complaints.
1.God is jealous and proud of it.By 'jealous', it is meant that He is possessive. But then, why shouldn't He be? If He is the supreme Lord and the Creator of all, of course He would be jealously possessive of what He created. It means God is a great environmentalist. He created the cosmic and worldly environment, and He is jealous and possessive of the creation. He doesn't want it to be ruined, polluted, or befouled by sin and degeneracy. God created mankind and imbued humans with souls. Naturally, He sees mankind as His property because He created it. So, He wants mankind to be appreciative and not pollute their souls with sin. If you had magical powers and created an oasis, a beautiful garden, out of the thin air, wouldn't you be 'jealous' and possessive of it? And if you created creatures to inhabit the garden, wouldn't you want them to take good care of it and heed your laws? What is the point of being the Great Creator and Owner of the universe if you're not possessive of what you've made?
2.God is a petty, unjust, and unforgiving control-freak. Now, some of this criticism is valid because, after all, what is God or any bunch of gods but a projection of human nature and human personality? So, naturally what we find objectionable in God is a mythic reflection of our failings and our problems. Every pagan god is far from perfect. Zeus is often petty and nasty. Also, many pagan gods were far more frightening than the Jewish God. After all, Yahweh said no more to human sacrifice and that sort of thing. In contrast, certain pagan gods demanded human sacrifice, especially in the New World among the Aztecs and Mayans. I dunno, but I'll take the Jewish God over such pagan gods. Does Dawkins really believe the God of the Torah is worse than pagan gods who demanded human sacrifices of virgins or kids or thousands of captives?
Now, one problem with the Jewish God is the assertion of perfection. With pagan gods, as nasty-vicious-vile-petty-demented-sadistic-cruel they may be, they never claimed to be perfect. So, with a figure like Zeus, we can see his good sides and his bad sides. As for dark gloomy gods who demand tons of human sacrifice, they may be amoral or even immoral, but at least we know they aren't about justice. They are about POWER. They got it and flaunt it, and they demand we obey. In contrast, the problem with the Jewish God is the cult of perfection that, however, is undermined by Biblical evidence. If indeed God is so perfect and all-knowing, why does He contradict Himself so often in the Torah? Why does He say one thing here, another thing there? Why is He about love and forgiveness at certain times but about death and destruction in another? In a way, the history of Judaism(and even Christianity) has been the dialectics between (1) God's Word and God's Character (2) God's Promise and God's Deliverance. Of course, there is contradiction even within God's words as He says one thing through one prophet and another thing through another. Jews and others have tied themselves in mental knots to rationalize these contradictions: (1) The Scriptures are not infallible but flawed interpretations of God's way and will by prophets who could see further than most men but nevertheless fell short (2) Though God's ways manifest themselves in various and seemingly contradictory ways on the surface, they are all consistent and part of the plan at the deeper core (3) God really isn't perfect but fooling Himself and us (4) God speaks to us in ways that we understand, but His ultimate plan is too mysterious for us to understand rationally or through human faculty... much like mankind cannot really understand the mystery in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. (Some people wonder how God could be perfect but His Creation is so imperfect. If He is perfect, why did He fail to create perfection? But maybe one could argue that it is perfect as whole, and paradoxically the 'imperfections' of the parts are integral to the perfection of the whole. It's like a painting. When we look closely at any part of the painting, it looks blurry and crude, even ugly and messy. Yet, when we move back and see the painting as a whole, we realize how each 'crude' brushstroke played a role in creating the great painting. Same goes for music. The final score is the coming together of all the 'imperfect' elements of music. So, for the cosmos to be perfect, it has to be made up of 'imperfect' parts. Not everything can be perfect because most things are part of something bigger. Perfection connotes wholeness, and no part on its own can be perfect alone. It is imperfect and works with other imperfect parts in the creation of the larger perfection.)
Now clearly, if we were to characterize God or gods as nothing more than projection of human nature/personality onto the universe, the deity/deities would merely be a bundle of magnifications of all that is noble and ignoble about us. Our good sides would be magnified but so would our bad sides. And on that level, there is a pettiness in all conceptions of God. On the one hand, they are so grand and awesome, the kings of mountains, skies, and stars. We want gods to be glorious and impressive. But to the extent that even such magnificent beings are slaves of all-too-human vices and vanities, there will be a massive contradiction between their august construction and all-too-human behavior. Zeus is a great god but is often animated by Beavis-and-Buttheadian 'boing'-mania. He is the god of gods but acts like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.
What is fascinating about the Old Testament is the dialectics among the various prophets, poets, and writers as to the true and ultimate nature of God. In a way, such dialectics were possible only because of the contradiction between the concept of God's perfection and evidence to the otherwise. Did God fail Jews and humanity? Or did Jews and humanity fail God? Did God betray the promise or did Jews/humanity violate the promise? Was the vision of God by every prophet merely a piece in the larger puzzle? Like the US Constitution, the Torah is a record of amendment. Just like there was talk of making the US a 'more perfect union', the Jewish project was about making their God a 'more perfect God'. While the notion of the Jewish God as perfect could be said to be delusional and arrogant, it also made Jews more sensitive to the failures of God(or of themselves, which were maybe the reason why God failed to deliver His promise). If Jews were okay with a flawed god(as the pagans were), they would have been less worked up about the contradiction between their spiritual conception and their political condition in the world. Jews came to believe their God is the only God who, furthermore, chose Jews as His favorite. If God is just and perfect, why is the world, His Creation, so flawed? If Jews are the Chosen, why do they suffer so much? Why can't Jews be masters of the world over goyim and eat like effendi? (Today, Jews are masters over goyim and eat like effendi, but this came about through Jewish adherence to secular satanism.) These questions made Jews a deep and profound people who raised among the most important spiritual questions. It also made them a difficult and neurotic people, rather like Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN trying to crack the mystery of "Who's On First?"
Anyway, the fact that most pagan religions turned into empty rituals, boring customs, or the butt of jokes(like what became of Greek Mythology via Ovid) whereas Jewish religion kept raising questions and even spawned Christianity and Islam goes to show that the Jewish conception of God was more powerful, provocative, inspiring, and meaningful. And despite all the dogmatism, it was adaptable in the sense that God went increasingly from an anthropomorphic super-being to a conceptual spirit, an abstract Deity. In a way, Dawkins' real beef with Judaism-Christianity-Islam is that its God was conceived of as a meme that cannot be dis-proven and has appealed to humanity for eons. With modern science/education, it's impossible for any rational person to believe in Zeus, Thor, or Osiris. As gods with specified dimensions, they now seem like characters in a superhero comic book. But God has been conceived of as a Being that is, at once so accessible and so mysterious. He can listen to our prayers and cares for us; but He is so great and mysterious that we cannot imagine what He looks or sounds like. Dawkins came up with the concept of memes, and as a radical rationalist, he can't stand the fact that an irrational meme still has such power over the world. But then, even as he spouts off about evolution, he seems blind to how spirituality may have been an evolutionary advantage for mankind. Religion gave people hope and meaning, and surely those with hope and meaning are more likely to believe in the future. Even today, why is it that religious people tend to have more kids than secularists who believe there is no meaning to anything? Secular science is superior at identifying issues and solving problems. It sent men to the Moon. But it tells us nothing about the meaning of the universe and why we are here. In all likelihood, there is no meaning to the cosmos, but such fatalism hardly makes for hope and survival.
Dawkins says God is unforgiving, but is He? Adam and Eve disobeyed Him, but He let them live. Cain murdered his brother, but God protected him. When Ham saw his pa Noah naked, God didn't kill him but turned him into a Negro. Given white folks now worship Negroes, that wasn't such a bad deal. When God was about to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He listened to Abraham and was willing to compromise. Even though so many people were acting like proto-globo-homo tooters, God promised to spare the city IF Abraham could find just a few decent folks. God even sent angel-inspectors to look for evidence, but they were greeted by a bunch of degenerates yelling, 'squeal like a pig'. That's when God had just about enough and decided to blow the city up. Throughout the Old Testament, God is forgiving of Moses, David, and many others... as long as they face up to their own failings. He punishes Jews but forgives them over and over. God is often ruthless but also forgiving. At any rate, He could change His mind because He was the only God. There is actually less forgiveness among the gods in pagan myths. Whereas the Jewish God might hate you but then forgive you, pagan gods generally hate someone forever. So, if that someone is to survive, he needs the protection of other gods who favor him. If Hera hates you, it is likely permanent. If you survive, it's because some other gods grant you protection. Thus, pagan mythology is more political than moral. It's about balancing of powers. In contrast, the Jewish God is capable of changing His mind. He can go from judge to reformer. He can be executioner but change His mind and let you live. Some say what He did with Abraham and Isaac was pretty frightening, but a pagan god might have demanded the sacrifice of lots of young boys. God let Isaac live because, when push came to shove, He wanted to be worshiped as a good God than just a powerful God. Also, the fact that Judaism spawned Christianity goes to show there was an element in the former that was about love and forgiveness. If such an element hadn't been inherent in Judaism, there could have been no Christianity.
By the way, is Dawkins aware of his own contradiction? He has often condemned 'antisemitism' but then argues that the Jewish Spiritual Worldview(that also led to Christianity and Islam) has been the biggest curse upon mankind. If the main cultural, moral, and spiritual contribution of Jews has been so rotten, vile, and disgusting, shouldn't Dawkins agree with 'anti-Semites' that Jewish People have been the worst in all of human history? Also, if mythology is the collective representation of the spirit of a people and if Jewish mythology is the vilest in the world, doesn't it follow that Jews must have the worst human character since it led to the creation of the worst credo and belief system? Now, Dawkins may argue that he is opposed to biological antisemitism and okay with Jews as secular people. If so, why not demand that Jews give up on Jewishness, an identity that simply cannot be divorced from the religious history of Jews? Even secular Jews have an identity rooted in the Covenant with God. Also, if Jews suffered through the ages, it was because they insisted on their difference and even superiority based on the Covenant. So, the very notion of Jewishness should be condemned if Dawkins wants to be morally consistent.
Furthermore, what if the vileness of Jewish religion isn't merely the reflection of Jewish Imagination gone wrong but of Jewish personality itself? Maybe the problem wasn't in the spiritual vision but in the roots of personality, in attitude and mindset. Could it be God is especially arrogant, all-knowing, ruthless, judgmental, and vain because Jewish personality tends to be that way? As an evolutionist, Dawkins might ponder the relation between secular Jewish personality and the ideologies/agendas that sprung from it. Couldn't one argue that modern secular Jews, even without belief in God, tended to have personalities of the monomaniacal and megalomaniacal variety(that one encounters in the Torah)? Personality and attitude go a long way. A person with bland personality is likely to be less fiery and fanatical even with religion; in contrast, a person with strong personality is likely to have a god-complex even if he is irreligious — Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong were non-religious but loved playing gods, even at the cost of destroying millions of lives. And look at Neocons. Most of these Jews are irreligious. Their sense of Jewishness is political and historical than spiritual. But they have strong personalities and are willing to smite 100,000s and even millions of goy lives to fulfill their dream of Jewish Supremacism. So, maybe Dawkins should look more into the problem of personality and attitude than faith.
As for God being a control-freak, I find this hilarious coming from an Anglo, member of a tribe known for its hoity-toity compulsiveness. Also, I see some projection here. Dawkins is a mental control-freak who laments that there are still religious people around the world who refuse to grovel before him as the all-knowing secular genius. And look at current Britain. It has the worst of what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. The culture(which is mostly pop culture) encourages young Britons to emulate savage jungle behavior of blacks. And yet, there are also increased social pressures about how you can't buy knives, you can't tweet certain comments, you can't crack certain jokes, you can't use certain words, you must bend over to globo-homo, you must celebrate Diversity, you must agree that not one less than 6 million died in the Shoah, and etc. Current UK encourages increased levels of savagery that leads to social problems but then exerts more control-freakish state power over everyone in the name of dealing with the problems. Brits are now hoity-toity ho's. How about being sensible and NOT importing lots of blacks and discouraging whites from emulating the most savage race? But no, UK encourages whites to be like blacks and then exerts more state power to suppress the problems resulting from globalism.
3.A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. It is true that God watches over Jews as they leave Egypt and clash with pagan tribes to found their own homeland. The most frightening parts of the Old Testament is when God orders the Jews to wipe out entire enemy populations. But here's the thing. Why pretend this is a feature only or mainly of the Jewish God? Those who worshiped pagan gods conquered more and killed more. Romans invaded and killed tons of primitive Britons before they converted to Christianity. Huns, Mongols, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians, and etc. were great conquerors and mass-killers. Alexander the Great has been much romanticized, but he could be as ruthless as any tyrant. All mythologies have gods aiding one people to totally smash another people. The gods defend a people; the gods help a people to invade and take from another people. The Jewish God was no different in this. Still, there are also sides to Him in the Bible that call for mercy, peace, and reflection. The most blood-curdling parts of the Bible is when Hebrews, out of Egypt and in the wilderness, are looking to found their own homeland. It was going to be a bloody process. Now, some historians say that it's all fiction. Others contend Jews did fight and take lands from Canaanites and the like and committed mass blood-baths. But such were common among all peoples at the time, and they all worshiped gods who urged ruthless actions to whup the other side. Still, the blood-curdling God is only one aspect of the Bible, not the main thing. Besides, modern history shows one doesn't need God and religion to conquer, ethnically cleanse, and wipe out entire populations. While white Christians conquered America & Australia and wiped out native populations, they were mainly motivated by political, material, and economic interests, not religious ones. Sure, they invoked God to justify whatever they did, but they could just as easily have invoked 'progress', 'history', or 'justice'. To most people then, it was justice and progress for advanced white folks to take land from useless savages. Ayn Rand, a fierce atheist, said Jews should rule Zion because Palestinians are useless Arab barbarians incapable of building modern societies. Hitler and Stalin didn't need to invoke God to conquer and destroy entire peoples. Zionism wasn't a religious movement as its pioneers were non-believing Jews, and many were secular socialists. Still, they managed to manipulate the great empires to aid Zionists in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Too many terms here are subjective and un-scientific. What is meant by 'misogynistic'? From a religious-spiritual point of view, secular pop culture could be said to be 'misogynistic' because it encourages women to dress and act like whores. If by 'misogynistic', Dawkins means women being subordinate to men, that is nearly all of human history and human culture(and nature as well as most females are weaker than males across the species). Pagan Athens required women to wear veils, and women there were less free than in authoritarian Sparta. Black savage culture has been more expressive in female sexuality, so does that mean stuff like 'twerking' is the path to female 'empowerment' and dignity? By the way, despite open sexual expression among savage black women, male-on-female violence has been a bigger problem among blacks. Greek mythology's view of womenfolk is actually more damning than in the Torah. Though Eve causes great harm, Adam also shares the blame. At any rate, God gave Eve to Adam as a gift and blessing. In contrast, Greek mythology says women were presented to mankind as a curse from the very beginning.
As for 'homophobic', what is more intolerant and judgmental than current globo-homo Queertianity? BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT. Or, if you say you find sodomy to be gross(which it certainly is), forget about working in any elite capacity. Also, even if religious intolerance and judgmentalism toward homos were excessive in the past, it was still intolerance in the name of normality, decency, and health. In contrast, current globo-homo intolerance of so-called 'homophobes' is a denunciation and negation of normality, nature, and decency in the name of consecrating degeneracy and decadence. Some things are worth honoring, and some things are only worth tolerating. Family and natural norms are worth encouraging and defending. Homosexuality is, at best, worth tolerating. NOTHING good can come of homo fecal penetration, guys sucking penises, and tranny-penis-cutting-and-balls-lopping. So, while one could argue that the Old Testament is too excessive in its anti-homo-ness, intolerance of homosexuality still makes more sense than intolerance of normo-sexuality and its natural attitudes toward homosexuality. I mean, why shouldn't a sane, decent, and normal person find homosexuality to be deviant and gross? Also, Ancient Jews lived in tough times when people had to focus on core values and core essentials to survive. They had no time for decadence. Is there any evidence that celebration of homosexuality led to civilizational strength? While Ancient Greeks were smart to harness homo talent, it was never good for any civilization to be overly celebratory of homos as it invariably led to decadence and degeneracy as homos are naturally vain and froopy-doop. They act like those trivialist freaks in Fellini films. Keep them on the side, not at the center.
As the Jewish God was a moral force focused on essentials, it's understandable why He was hostile to homosexuality. His laws were about reminding Jews over and over what really matters, what are essential and what are trivial. Naturally, sticking dongs up bungs was not only non-essential but gross and a good way to spread disease. Imagine you have special powers and you create a garden. And then you mold creatures and tell them, "This orifice you use for eating, this orifice you use for shi**ing', and that orifice you use for sex", but a bunch of freaks decide to stick sexual organs into poop-chutes. Of course, you-as-creator would be upset. Suppose you create a toilet bowl that is meant for pissing and pooping but a bunch of people use it for washing their faces and drinking water. Suppose you build a museum for appreciation for art, but idiots fill up the place with junk and have orgies inside.Of course, you will be upset. Naturally, God wasn't into 'gay' crap because He didn't design the bung for the dong.
Dawkins says God is 'racist'. Well, all gods tended to favor one group over others. But then, what's the point of worshiping a god who doesn't favor your side? Also, non-'racist' gods are not necessarily better. In the Trojan War, it's obvious that the gods whom the Greeks worship are not necessarily with the Greeks. Indeed, half of them favor the Trojans, and this prolongs the war. Would you want to worship a god that sides with your enemy? Greeks did, and it caused them all sorts of problems. Because there was no covenant between Greek gods and Greeks, it wasn't long before Romans took them and made them serve Rome. (Later, Romans took the Jewish God as their own, but Christianity was the doing of Jewish heretics who, Prometheus-like, smuggled the Jewish fire to the pagans, something Jews could never forget or forgive. Jews see it as a bigger failure than Rosenbergs sending nuclear secrets to Stalin who became the enemy of Zion.) But generally, most gods rooted for one people over another. Oftentimes, gods needed to be appeased to stay on your side. Gods also needed to be appeased for good weather. Or appeased so that they won't torment your people too much. Popular Chinese religion imagined heavens filled with corrupt bureaucratic gods who had to be bribed so as not to torture one's ancestors too badly. No wonder Chinese are morally screwy.
So, it seems the 'racism' of the Jewish God wasn't such a bad thing or a bad thing at all. What's wrong with your god favoring your kind? The elites should favor their own people, and gods should favor those who worship them. It's how spiritual contract works: A people worship a certain set of gods, and the gods favor them. British elites used to be grand and excellent as race-ist elites. They favored and cared for their own people. But ever since British elites became 'anti-racist', they've neglected and abused their own folks while sucking up to rich Jews, pandering to angry Muslims, cucking to savage blacks, and welcoming the Great Replacement. Race-ism is infinitely preferable to evil 'anti-racism'.
Granted, there was a contradiction in the Jewish conception of God because Jews increasingly claimed He is the only God and the God of all and everything. If so, why should God favor Jews over others when He is lord of all? So, the problem of the Jewish God has been less about 'racism' than conceptual contradiction, even hypocrisy. If God is the only God and if He is just and moral Being to all living creatures, why should He favor Jews over others when, in fact, Jews can act unjustly while non-Jews could act justly? But this contradiction led to the rise of Christianity and Islam.
At any rate, if Dawkins finds the Jewish God to be most 'racist', he is effectively condemning Jews as historically the most 'racist' people since their cultural character led to the creation of the most 'racist' Deity. As such, one could argue Dawkins' view is rabidly and virulently 'antisemitic', but then, the hypocritical fool makes a lot of noise about how he loathes 'antisemitism'. Following Dawkins' logic, Jews can be good ONLY IF they are culturally and spiritually de-Jewified. Jews must undergo spiritual holocaust to be good folks. They must be castrated of their ethno-spiritual roots. He loves Jews only as un-Jews.
Now, why should an evolutionist be opposed to race-ism? Evolution is about genetic divergences and emergence of differences among groups. Indeed, not only is evolution race-ist but it has been the generator of different species and different races. And these racial divergences can lead to different species. After all, there was a time when the ape-ancestors of humans were of the same species as the ape-ancestors of chimpanzees. But over time, one race of those early apes became chimps while another branch became the apelike proto-humans. So, if Dawkins has a problem with racial differences, he should blame evolution.
Dawkins says God is infanticidal, and it's true that God ordered the killing of kibblers when Jews were battling other tribes to found their land of milk and honey. And in Egypt, prior to the Exodus, He killed the first borns among the Egyptians. But His actions against Egyptians were punishment for Egyptian tyranny over the Jews. And when Jews were battling Canaanites and the like, it was kill or be killed. In other words, infanticide(as extension of genocide) was common practice in the ancient world. Your people, upon defeat and capture, were lucky if spared and kept alive as slaves. Quite often, the conquering folks raped, pillaged, and wiped out entire enemies. So, it's hardly surprising that the Jews, like other tribes, committed bloody acts and justified them as the decrees of their God. But before we judge the past too harshly, let's look at the modern world. During World War I, British blockades against Germany were a form of Total War. It wasn't just military vs military but targeted the entire population, driving many Germans to the brink of starvation. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the secular 'liberal democratic' West enforced sanctions on Iraq that, by some estimates, killed 100,000s of Iraqi children. To create a new social order, Stalin and Mao were willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the name of History. To his dying day, the much celebrated secular intellectual Eric Hobsbawn remained a proud communist and said Stalin's actions were necessary. Also, many people see abortion as infanticide, especially as it is now allowed even up to the moment of birth when the baby is virtually fully formed. Also, the Modern West and Modern East are cursed with 'conceptocide' or 'fertilocide'. Never mind killing babies. These societies are not even conceiving and creating life necessary to sustain their civilizations. They live for elitism, individualism, hedonism, and vanity. They are essentially death cults and won't survive the way they're going. Is this what Dawkins so proud of?
Dawkins accusing God of 'megalomania' is rather silly. Megalomania is about having a self-image that is bigger than the actual self. If a nobody considers himself a big man, he is a megalomaniac. If a king regards himself an emperor, he is a megalomaniac. If an emperor considers himself an immortal god, he is a megalomaniac. But God has been conceived of as the supreme creator and ruler of all of universe. Naturally, He would have a grand view of Himself. Should the Creator of All be timid as a mouse? Indeed, the striking feature of God is that, despite His grandeur and awesomeness, He expresses an incredible amount of sympathy for a weakling tribe(in the Old Testament) and losers around the world(in the New Testament). The reason why so many people have clung to God through the ages via Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is because He is, at once super-powerful & almighty AND concerned with the little guy. In contrast, Dawkins worships his own infallible intellect.
Dawkins says God is pestilential. Now, we see what Dawkins' real shtick is about. He is trying to blame God for all the problems of life created by evolution. Since the beginning of life, organisms big and small have been slaughtering, devouring, murdering, tormenting, torturing, trashing, smashing, slashing, gnawing, goring, gouging, pummeling, cracking, smacking, and etc. each other. The theory of evolution may be elegant as a model in a textbook, but its practice in reality has been most brutal and horrific. We may wonder at the beauty of nature, but what we consider to be 'beauty' is really a range of survival mechanisms that were developed over eons via natural selection that weeded out so many 'innocent' organisms in brutal ways. Just watch any nature program, and these non-believing animals are murdering and slaughtering each other to no end. Animals evolved to survive because the natural environment was so unforgiving. In other words, evolution has been utterly genocidal toward all those that failed to survive. Evolution led to rise of all kinds of germs that wiped out entire species. It has been pestilential. Also, the uncaring godless universe sent asteroids to smash into planets and wipe out entire species that had evolved over eons in a single day. That is the godless world of the laws of nature and evolution. Look at chimp behavior. They bite off each other's penises and balls. Look at how big cats kill wild pigs. Look at how polar bears butcher seals and their cubs. Look at how sharks maim turtles. Look at how volcanoes and forest fires burn millions of animals to death. And mankind, with or without God, has been pretty miserable. Look at US policy toward Iran and Palestinians. Has Jewish behavior gotten better without God? Secular Jews gave us communist mass-killings and Neocon wars. Were Japanese less cruel because they didn't believe in the Jewish God? Look at their behavior in World War II. Is secular globalism and open borders the way of peace and justice? They are filling the West with savage jungle-jivers from Africa who are bound to turn Europe into New Africa.
Also, when most people lose religion, do they become rational and sane, or do they adopt a quasi-religion because it's human nature to seek spirituality? Look at the 'climate change' faith. Global Warming may be real, and something needs to be done, but for many people it's the new faith. When Western folks lost God, many more of them took up neo-idolatry of celebrity-worship, drugs, and debauchery than commitment to reason and science, the domain of those with high IQ. Steven Pinker says the world is getting better and better, but what will happen when tons of black Africans turn Europe into jungle-land? The effect will be worse than WWI and WWII combined. As long as Europe was still inhabited by Europeans, it recovered from both WWI and WWII in no time. But with blacks taking over Europe, it will turn into one big Detroit forever. This should be so obvious to any secular and rational person who cares about facts(that are race-ist), but Dawkins has a quasi-religious blindspot of his own: Political Correctness and 'anti-racism' as new catechism. Not unlike extreme religious bigots with their holier-than-thou sanctimony, the PC people are so theatrical and rapturous with their holy-shmoly 'anti-racism' when, in fact, the reality of race is so obvious and the black threat is so dire to the West.
Dawkins says God is sadomasochistic, but this goes for Dawkins and his ilk too. They're oh-so masochistic with 'white guilt' BS. Oh boo hoo, they must atone for their history of 'antisemitism' and 'racism'. But as GOOD WHITE PEOPLE SAVED BY PC, they sadistically love to bully other whites who refuse to kneel at the altar of White Guilt and debase themselves like a bunch of worthless cucks. In this, Dawkins is very much like the religious people he abuses. Just like certain insufferable Christians yammer about their sinfulness but feel morally superior precisely because they churn out such noises, Dawkins bleats about 'racism' but that very bleating fills him with the moral pride and arrogance to stick it to others.
Dawkins is a real pile of shit. As for Jews, they could be promoting Dawkins to dissuade goyim from worshiping God so that Jews can reclaim and own Him all for themselves. If someone owns gold and you want it, it makes sense for you to make him believe that his gold is worthless pile of crap. When he lets it go, you run off with it. So, Jewish support of Dawkins could really be a gambit.
God and gods never existed. They didn't give us life. Life emerged by process of evolution and survives by destroying other life. Evolution created life, and that is the curse. God or gods are the imaginary creations of life, and why did intelligent beings imagine gods? Because nature is so horrible. Because life is so full of agony. And this life was created by evolution, the beloved process of Dawkins. Evolution is a pack of hyenas eating a wildebeest alive. It's lions slowly tormenting and killing a hippo mother and its calf. Without life, there would be no terror. If Earth had no life, who'd care if volcanoes or earthquakes happened? So what if a giant asteroid crashed on Earth? The Moon was hit by tons of asteroids, but it was never tragic because there was no life to kill.
Dawkins got it backwards. He blames the Jewish God for cruelty and horrors, but all those resulted from life. Evolution created life, and life is about pain. Why pain? Because pain ensures better survival. An organism that feels pain is more likely to avoid danger. But the pain is often horrid and unendurable. Before mankind came up with the first spiritual idea, tons of life forms were destroyed by eating and devouring, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, germs(that are also just more life), and etc. Life was so terrible and cruel that mankind came up with gods to explain why the world is so messed up. And by ascribing disasters to gods or God, they hoped to ease the horror by prayer and appeasement. It's true that the Old Testament God sends all sorts of disasters on life and mankind. But even before Jews conceived of their God, such disasters had been happening forever. There were floods, pestilence, violence, fires, and destruction. As people sought answers to such problems, they believed some higher force was behind them. And if gods controlled the universe, there were three possibilities.
1. God or gods are powerful but bad. God or gods are cruel and love to use their power for power's sake. They love to stomp on the weak, and that is the reason for the horrors. Therefore, the ONLY way to ease their sadism and cruelty was to make sacrifices and offerings.
2. God or gods are good but powerless. God or gods are good & loving but helpless to stop the disasters to protect or save mankind. They watch and weep but can't help us.
3. God or gods are powerful and good. God or gods are good & loving but use disasters to punish mankind when it does wrong.
Many pagans opted for #1. Aztecs believed in cruel gods that had to be appeased endlessly. Chinese popular religion believed in more civilized gods but they were utterly corrupt and had to be bribed regularly by burning money.
#2 is problematic even if it lets God or gods off the hook because it implies God or gods are rather weak and helpless to do anything. If they are good but lack the power to save mankind from the horrors, what good are they? Indeed, are they really gods when they are so lacking in power?
#3 is the one the Jews settled on. God is powerful and good, and so, He uses Power to protect the good and punish the evil. Jews believed that disasters weren't arbitrary muscle flexing of God but divine moral acts to punish the wicked. But this caused problems of its own as Jews couldn't help but notice that so many good folks suffered and perished while so many bad monsters got rich and powerful. And so, there was the Book of Job and the rise of Christianity that promised Heaven for the good and meek. For all its problems, #3 is still more assuring than #1 and #2.
As for science and evolution, it just says Things Happen, and if an asteroid hits Earth and kills all of us, that means we just ran out of luck, and that's that. I agree with this, but is it any more heartening than religion?
Commentator Rurik:
Am I the only one who’s struck by that characterization? Seeing how exactly it parallels the charactor of Israel today?
But here's the thing. While God is a projection of Jewish personality and has a Covenant with the Jews, He is also bigger than the Jews. If God were merely a tool of the Jews, then He would be lesser than the Jews. He'd be just a henchman and bouncer of the Tribe. But as creator and judge, He is bigger than the Jews, and Jews must bow down to Him. And even though He favors Jews, He is very tough on the Jews. Sometimes, He is tougher on the Jews because of the Covenant. When Jews betray Him, He takes it especially badly, 'personally'. It's like a father especially feels betrayed by his own children.
Even though He can be ruthless and brutal in favor of Jews, He can also be ruthless and brutal against Jews. Also, it's not enough that Jews do well and gain power in His eyes. Jews must gain power and wealth as GOOD people of virtue, piety, and conscience. God is not okay with power for power's sake. His message to Jews is NOT 'by any means necessary'. If Jews are to be blessed, they must be a good people who obey God and act moral. Through a prophet, King David was admonished of the wrongness of His ways. And even though God allowed ruthless and even genocidal tactics on the part of Jews during the land wars following Exodus, most of the Torah is a story of God warning and reminding Jews not to lose the way and often punishing the Jews for their perfidy and disobedience.
So, current Zionism and Jewish Supremacism are similar to the way of God only superficially. Yes, there is the ruthlessness and brutality but no morality. King David atoned, but has any Israeli leader said sorry about anything? Ancient Jews were a moral people who feared God, but today's Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive globo-homo debauchery. In our time, Jews feel as gods and answer to no one and nothing. Current Jewish covenant is with Satan. True, Satan doesn't exist, but Jews are totally amoral and nihilistic in their lust for power and more power.
Indeed, one reason why Jews remained limited in might and reach in the Ancient World was because of their moralism. Now, one could argue chicken-or-the-egg as to whether Jews chose moralism because they kept losing or they lost because they chose moralism. But if Jews ONLY CARED for power and might, their agenda would have been served better with them acting like Assyrians and Romans who were less concerned with morality and more with sheer might and endless conquest. Though modern people will wince at the punishments in Deuteronomy, the laws are still morally based. God put down such-and-such laws, and you get punished or killed for violating them. In contrast, Roman and general pagan brutalities were far more arbitrary without moral basis. Romans even staged massive gladiator bloodbaths where countless humans and animals were sacrificed for the fun of it.
In the modern world, Jews came to world power because they dropped God and morality. Jews no longer believe there is a higher force above them judging them. They now believe THEY are the new gods. Ancient Jews had a combo of big fat ego and mega-personality, and it was projected onto the Heavens. So, even though God came to possess many of the unpleasant qualities of Jews — but then, gods of any people embody the unpleasant as well as pleasant qualities of such people, as among Hindus and Mayans — , He was MORE than the Jews. Also, no single Jew or Jewish sect/tribe could claim Him as his/its own. God was bigger than anything, and His message to Jews was they had to be a good people in order to deserve great power. In modern times, Jews figured that morality(or true morality) is an impediment to their global dominance. Jews figured it's better to make a pact with the Satanic side of their nature. So, Jews became masters of vanity and vice industries. Also, Jews don't practice morality but rather exploit moralism in devious ways so that goyim must be ultra-conscientious toward Jews but Jews need not reciprocate. The 'muh Holocaust' thing that gives Jews passover rights over other people.
Zion today is about power without morality. It's about Jewish covenant with Satan. It's about there being no higher good or truth above Jewish egotism and supremacism. Today, Jews act as if they are gods. It's really closer to Golden-Calfism.
