The Technique of ‘Threading’ in Dominating the Discourse(and the Paradox of Normality)

Why do Jewish and homo — or Jomo — elites wield so much power? There are several obvious reasons: wealth, talent, organization, aggressiveness, victimology, and control of media/academia/entertainment. But there is another factor to their effectiveness: they are so persuasive because they are so pervasive.

Than merely putting forth their views and agendas as standalone arguments and issues, they ‘thread’ them into subjects and things that apparently have little or no relation to them. Take the issue of ‘global warming’. There have been many discussions and documentaries on the matter, but the reason why it became such an obsessive topic — at least before the global temperatures leveled off, whereupon the crisis was renamed ‘climate change’ — among ‘progressives’ and young people(who are impressionable and subjected to barrages of ‘educational’ materials via school and media) owes something to Liberalism’s pervasiveness with everything it touches. For example, the issue of global warming was ‘threaded’ into just about every topic the Liberals could get their hands on. A good example is the documentary THE FORTRESS OF THE BEAR. Now, I’m not going to discuss the veracity of the global warming issue. I have no idea how true or false it is, but we know that it’s been highly politicized by both sides, and the debate has become as much about pride and purse-strings as about science and climate. The relevant issue here is that a documentary about brown bears is threaded with the topic of global warming. So, even those who don’t want to hear about global warming and just want to watch a documentary about bears cannot get away from the issue. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with discussing a particular subject in relation to other subjects, because, after all, everything is connected to other things one way or another. No man or animal is an island unto himself or itself. The pollution we create here can affect living forms halfway around the globe. The collapse of one economy can shake the world economy. Nevertheless, there is something specious about how the Liberal community will take some hot topic issue and then try to thread it into just about everything. It can even turn into parody, as when some social critics remarked that bad behavior among American blacks owed to global warming. Despite having evolved to survive and handle the heat of sub-Saharan Africa, it seems blacks flip out at even the slightest rise in temperature.
“Is it higher [in Chicago]? Yes. Last year, we hit a record number of murders from guns, and this year, we were already outpacing last year’s numbers. Now, there are contributing factors that are not under anybody’s control, and it may seem odd, but it is factually true, one of them is actually the weather. There is a dramatic increase in gun violence when it is warmer, and we are having this climate-change effect that is driving that.”

Well, if the daughter of Hugh Hefner says so, it must be true. I wonder what accounts for the demise of PLAYBOY enterprise. Does the rise in temperature sap people’s sexual appetite?
Anyway, all this threading of a hot button issue into just about everything makes it pervasive to the point where you cannot get away it even if you wanted to. It’s like adding corn syrup or MSG to every food product so that you can’t avoid even if you wanted to.
And Liberals chose to thread the issue of global warming into documentaries about bears because it’s an easy to pull at viewers’ heartstrings; after all, we all grew up with teddy bears. Liberals know that an issue, no matter how fraught with urgency and significance, cannot gain emotional traction without holy victims. Since most of the developing world is against Western Liberal initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, it’s a rather hard sell to make the non-white world the poster-boy of victimization due to global warming. Also, since the most dramatic changes happened in the Arctic region, Liberals sought to capitalize on them by showing how global warming was leading to the holocaust of bears and other species in the region. So, if you tuned into nature documentaries in the past 15 years, you probably heard sermons upon sermons about global warming even in programs focusing on other main topics. The issue has been made so pervasive that it became second nature among the knee-jerk ‘progressive’ crowd. I mean how can it not be true when everywhere they look and hear, they hear ‘global warming’, ‘global warming’ and ‘global warming’? Similarly, we cannot get away from the immigration debate since Liberals tell us that just about everything — the well-being and the advancement of the economy, morality and ethics, science and technology, innovation, entertainment, love life, quality of food, and etc. — is dependent on the passing of amnesty. If it doesn’t pass, ours will be an evil neo-Nazi nation, the economy will collapse, America will lose in science/technology to China and Mexico, we will have only white bread and water to eat, our schools will fail, innovation will come to a halt, and so on and so on.

Liberals thread their hot button issues into every fabric of American life and enterprise. The biggest and craziest hysteria today is ‘gay is beautiful’. So, even movies that seem to have nothing to do with homosexuality will have homo characters — shown in the best light, of course. At a beauty pageant, a contestant will be asked nicely if she supports ‘gay marriage’, and if her answer is no, she will be attacked viciously by the entire Jomo elite media. The Jomo elites feature images of the ‘gay flag’ as a kind of visual editorial day in and day out. Thus, even if the written coverage of a story may be reasonably ‘objective’, the accompanying photo of the ‘gay flag’ that associates fecal penetration and sex-change operation(involving mutilation and removal of perfectly healthy organs)with the rainbow essentially promotes the homo agenda. Here’s a good example of the photo that the Chicago Tribune used as its Facebook page’s cover photo.

It looks like just a nice winter image, but look at the ‘gay rainbow’ umbrella. It’s getting so that one cannot even enjoy a winter image without some homo propaganda slipped into it. How would Jews feel if every other image in the media had a Crucifix stuck in it somewhere? Or take the oreo homo cookie.

Homos complained about the backlash against the cookie ad, but those who objected likely suffered a far worse backlash(or backdoorlash), whereupon they were likely forced to bend over to be politically rammed in the ass by the filthy homo lobby as they compelled to apologize — or lose their jobs.. Incidentally, if homos want to associate their ‘pride’ — or ‘poo-ride’ as it really should be called — with pastries and sweets, wouldn’t fudge have been the more obvious choice? They can pack as much fudge down their throats or up their poop holes for all I care. And speaking of bakeries, the lunacy of ‘gay marriage’ is forcing decent bakery owners to make ‘gay wedding’ cakes. You cannot even own a bakery without being forced to have it associated with the demands of the dirty homo community backed by the vicious Jews elites. (Using this logic, Jewish-American publishers should be forced to publish Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER since freedom of speech is part of the American way, and homo fashion designers should be forced to weave clothes for an anti-homosexual organization; and an advertising company owned by Jews and/or homos should be forced to run ads by groups they despise or hate by the force of law. If indeed a Christian baker must bake filthy ‘gay marriage’ cakes for homos, then a black baker should be forced to bake KKK cakes since the KKK is a legal organization protected under American law. But of course, Jews, homos, and Negroes get to do as they please whereas white Christians must bend over to the homos and suck Jewish penis.) As far as hideous Jews are concerned, anyone who notices the venal nature of Jewish power and/or the filthy aspect of homo agenda is mentally ill with some ‘rabid paranoia’ or some kind of a ‘phobia’. What is truly amazing is that so many people — including so many conservatives — have bought into bogusness, which goes to show that people can be made to believe in anything. Indeed why not when so many primitive tribes convinced themselves that horribly scarring their bodies is some holy ritual and when the highly civilized Chinese convinced themselves for over a thousand years that women with mangled feet(as the result of foot-binding) are beautiful and sexy. The blank slate theory may be false, but ‘soft clay’ theory seems to be true. Though there are natural default traits rooted in our DNA, they can be molded and twisted out of shape to make people value the dumbest things... .like tongue piercing, a gross stupidity that has gone mainstream. If human minds can be molded for over a thousand years into believing that mangled feet are sexy — and normal female feet are ugly — , then why should it be surprising if so many people have been mind-molded into thinking homosexuality is about the rainbow and not about fecal penetration. It’s all about WHO HAS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH IDEALS AND ENFORCE TABOOS. Such manipulations can be so powerful that even natural tendencies — that favor healthy normal feet over mangled ones — can be overridden. (In a paradoxical way, normality can pave the way for prevalence of the worst kind of abnormal craziness. There are two meanings to normality: one rooted in nature and one molded by social pressure. Thus, even though nature makes most people prefer healthy feet over mangled feet, social ideals and pressures — linked so closely to status and respect — can make people prefer the mangled feet over the natural feet. Because humans are naturally social animals, it’s normal for them to want to be accepted and approved; everyone fears being ostracized and shunned. But this very normal human trait can make people submit to the most abnormal and asinine things. If the ruling elites are a bunch of decadent pervert-parasites, they can mold the ‘new normal’ and promote it through propaganda and turn it into dogma; they can also enforce taboos against those who don’t comply, and they can use their social might to ostracize and ridicule those who refuse to conform. Even though the individuals who reject the ‘new normal’ are closer to the natural norm, they will be made to suffer socially, and their example will be used to frighten most people who normally wanted to be accepted and approved by the powers-that-be and by the ‘mainstream’ that has been reshaped according to the dictates of the ‘new normal’. Thus, this normal fear of being exiled or destroyed can make a lot of normal people into mindless slaves of the elites who push the ‘new normal’, and Jews understand this aspect of psychology. Consider two ten year old boys Billy and Bobby, and suppose they belong to the 97% of boys who are real-sexual or straight. Suppose neither has been subjected to PC dogma, and you go to Billy and ask, "Billy, what did you do this morning?" Billy answers, "I woke up and went to the bathroom." "What did you do in the bathroom?" "Well, I used the toilet." "And what happened?" "Shit came out of my poo-poo hole." "Now, Billy, how would you feel about Bobby sticking his wee-wee into your poop hole?" Billy will grimace and shout, "Gross! That is so sick!" Such a response is the natural norm. Of course, we can, as responsible adults, inform Billy that some small percentage of boys are born with female tendencies and want to have sex with other boys, and since boys don’t have vaginas, these peculiar males stick their penises into the anuses of other males. We can tell Billy that they are born that way and should be left alone. In contrast, consider the ‘new normal’ agenda in the school. The children are shown images of homos in the most positive light. Children are told to draw pictures associating homos with the rainbow, and the student with the ‘best illustration’ is praised to high heaven by the PC teacher. The message is sent to all the kids that one must worship homos to be a good person. Also, the teacher keeps railing against ‘homophobia’ over and over, thus reminding the kids that one’s mind is twisted and sick if one doesn’t worship homos and approve of what they do. Since it’s normal for kids to wanted to be liked and approved by adults and their peers — who’ve been similarly brainwashed — , most normal kids will end up embracing the most abnormal kind of craziness. In such times, the crazy tend to be saner than the normal because crazy people don’t care about conforming to society. It’s like the Klaus Kinski character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He’s clearly deranged, but that’s what makes him relatively freer than other men. He’s so crazy that he doesn’t care what other people think or what the authorities do to him. Saner people, out of the normal tendency for self-preservation, eagerly embrace the ‘new normal’ even if it’s crazy communism or homo worship. In a world gone nuts, crazy is the new sane.)
Indeed, if you discuss homosexuality in relation to its sexual act, homos and their allies get all Victorian-like and talk as if you committed a foul deed, like breaking wind in public. Never mind that all you’ve done is describe what homos actually do. So, we are supposed to ignore what homos do in the form of ‘sex’ and instead associate their identity with rainbows and the ‘gay’ style. It’s no wonder that homos prefer to be called ‘gay’ than homo or homosexual. They want to distract us from the true nature of their foul ways of ‘sex’ because there isn’t much real pride in poo-ride. Thus, to make homosexuality more palatable to Americans, its ‘sexual’ and physical nature has been suppressed whereas its outward manifestations — colorful flags, angelic smiles of homo actors and celebrities on TV, and etc. — are sprinkled all over. It’s funny how Liberals take pride in yelling VAGINA and in having Vagina Monologues, but they freak out when we talk about the (mis)use of the anus by homosexuals; they don’t want us to have monologues or dialogues about the homo asshole that has seventeen times the likelihood of contracting anal cancer than the normal anus that doesn’t engage in such behavior. It’s ironic that the perversity of the homo movement has been thrust onto the national stage in the mode of clean-cut and white-bread(or white buns) 1950s FATHER KNOWS BEST TV show. Homos are presented as the new white bread. Perversion is the new decency. Anti-normalists and normophobes now have the power to pass judgement on people who still believe in the hierarchy of values. But of course, the ‘new normal’ — as the Jomo elites call it — is very selective for it doesn’t promote just any kind of deviancy. ‘Marriage equality’ doesn’t mean the right of ‘same family marriage’ or polygamy(or multiple partner) pride parades in NY, Chicago, or San Francisco. It just means the privilege of only the homos to rewrite marriage laws and pervert the values intrinsic to the very notion of marriage as a civilizational principle.

Anyway, the homo stuff is threaded into everything. So, DESPICABLE ME 2 has the Minions — who are ostensibly male as far we can tell — cross-dressing like transsexuals. And the movie ends with a wedding celebrated by Minions in Village People outfits singing "YMCA". Though the wedding is between man and woman, the song-and-dance is ‘gay’, as if to suggest that even real marriages must be ‘gay-friendly’. Once such threading has become part of the mainstream discourse, everyone gets into the act to be part of the fashionable scene. So, J.K. Rowling ‘outs’ a character as ‘gay’. As I haven’t read any Potter books or seen any Potter movies(except for 15 minutes of the one directed by Alfonso Cuaron which was enough!), I don’t know what relevance the character’s r place in the story has to do with fecal penetration or sucking another man’s penis. So, why should his ‘sexual orientation’ even be an issue? But for some reason, Rowling and her Jomo elites made it an issue, and all the kids hooked to HARRY POTTER stories — and who have grown up admiring of Dumbledore or Dumblebackdore — were instantly persuaded to think ‘gay is cool’. And Girl Scouts used to be about camping, having fun, and learning to be good girls. Today, it’s a indoctrination center that teaches young girls to embrace political correctness, hate whiteness, and worship lesbians. And with the Boy Scouts going pro-homo too, it will soon teach kids that it’s wonderful to be ‘gay’.

While it’s important to teach the virtue of tolerance in a free and democratic society, it’s quite another to elevate something perverted as being of equal value or worth with something that has essential value. Worse, it’s a moral crime to elevate something like homosexuality even higher than real sexuality and real marriage that produce life and morally obligate the creators of life to commit to the raising of the life they’ve created.
If we follow the logic of ‘gay marriage’, there is no special bond between parents and children. We might as well look upon humans as we do dogs. After all, we see nothing wrong with snatching puppies away from their real canine parents and having humans raise them. The logic of ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay family’ means that we shouldn’t promote any kind of special bond between parent and child. As homos cannot produce life through homo ‘sex’, they must snatch children from real-sexuals in order to have a ‘gay family’. So, a homo guy will have to shut his eyes and have sex with a woman and then demand that the woman remove herself from the life of her own kid who is to be raised with his ‘gay’ partner. Or a lesbian will have to shut her eyes and be humped by a guy and then demand the guy to remove himself from the life of his kid who is to be raised with her lesbian partner. Of course, some men and women willingly remove themselves from the lives of their own children in order to serve the demands of homos(who insist on raising the kids in a ‘gay family’), but that just goes to show how utterly decadent and worthless liberalism has become.
In the case of adoption, the orphan, instead of being placed in a household that best resembles the very reason for his or her existence — the union of woman-mother and man-father — is placed in a house with ‘two daddies’(who act like freaks and stick each other in the anus) or ‘two mommies’. So, children might as well be seen as commodities like puppies in the window. But this is to be expected in a society where so many people think and act like dogs.
Consider the Pavlovian trick pulled off by the Jomo elite in the creation and promotion of the ‘gay flag’. A sound of a bell has nothing to do with food, but Pavlov showed that a dog can be made to associate the bell with food. Similarly, the beautiful rainbow has nothing to do with two guys ejaculating inside fecal holes or two women rubbing their holes together in a funny parody of sex. The rainbow has nothing to do with a man who opts to have his penis cut off and have it replaced by a fake vagina, followed by massive injections of artificial hormones. But the Jomo elite media have so often associated homosexuality with the rainbow ‘gay flag’ that when people see a rainbow — real, illustrated, or woven — , they think, "Ahhhh, what a lovely image of angelic and darling gays." How pathetic that adult Americans who graduated from college can be manipulated as easily as toddlers watching TELETUBBIES, which, let’s face it, IS homo propaganda for little ones.

Of course, since the 1960s, nothing was threaded into more narratives than the issue of ‘racism’. So, even characters who weren’t originally — or plausibly — black in the source material were made to be black in the movies or TV shows. And this became so pervasive as a narrative practice that many writers felt obligated to ‘include’ obligatory ‘diversity’ in their stories even if the results didn’t reflect the social reality. Or consider a film like WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN — sold as a romantic drama — that veers into a series of ‘teachable moments’ that would has us believe that even patience and supportiveness are really forms of white male privilege and patriarchy when exhibited by a white male of course. You see, if white males are responsible and supportive, they make others dependent on them, and that too is a form of patriarchal domination. But it’s really a "damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don’t" situation for white males. They are on the wrong side no matter what they do. If a white male were to tell others to stop leaning on him and feeding off him and do their own thing, he would be accused of being uncaring, cold, selfish, and insensitive. But if he’s caring and supportive, he is guilty of making others dependent on his strength/responsibility, which is a kind of oppressive power. Needless to say, WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN was written by two dirty Jews, Ronald Bass and Al Franken.
Consider CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER where the CIA director was made into a Magic Negro guy played by James Earl Jones with the burly tones. It’s especially ludicrous because we are supposed to admire a CIA director(of all people) as the moral conscience of the film! William Casey, who was probably the inspiration for the character in the novel, was loathed by the Liberal community, but with a Magic Negro taking his role, it was as if the CIA could indeed be a fountain of trust, honor, and wisdom. It’s like imagining MLK as CIA director, but of course, we mean MLK the myth as MLK the man was as devious, shrewd, lowdown, and dirty as J. Edgar Hoover, if not more so. Even the most cynical and anti-establishment Liberal starts feeling lumps in his throat and wee-wees in his pants when the Man with the Power happens to be a Negro, which is why the Jews pulled a good one with Obama. With Magic Negro Obama at the helm, the ‘progressive’ community was muted in their criticism of government’s subservience to Jewish-owned Wall Street and US foreign policy. Gee, I mean it might be ‘racist’ not to support a president who is black or mulatto.

The issue of ‘racism’ has been threaded into just about everything. So, even the discussion of Thanksgiving turkey dinner could make a dirty Jew like Ron Rosenbaum throw a hissy fit about the ‘racism’ of preferring white meat. Environmentalists got some traction in the 90s by threading the issue of ‘racism’ to their concerns, leading to endless charges of ‘environmental racism’, that is until a University of Chicago study showed that black people were not subject to higher levels of pollution. To be sure, some in the Jewish community were probably not happy with the notion of ‘environmental racism’ since they have such a huge stake in real estate, and if the charge were to stick, a lot of rich property-developing-and-trading Jews would have to answer for them.
If some forms of threading is obvious and blatant, others are more subtle and unexpected. It’s like a marketing ploy where you are sold on one line of goods only to discover that you’re being hoodwinked to buy something else. It’s like Congressmen adding extraneous items to a bill that has little or nothing to do with them. It’s like ordering a vegetarian dish only to find out that meat products have been added. If you let your kid join the Boy Scouts to learn about scout honor and camping, he could also be drummed with lessons on the angelic virtues of homos.
And from tolerance of homos, the PC dogma will demand serf-like subservience to homo neo-aristocrats. Just like Jews, deep in their heart, think in terms of ‘effendism’, homos think in terms of ‘boofendism’. For Jews and homos, it’s not enough that they should be tolerated by us. It’s not enough for us to respect their rights as individuals. We must worship and serve their supremacist agendas. While an American atheist doesn’t demand that all religious people love & worship him and while an American Christian doesn’t demand that all atheists kneel before him & worship his God, Jews and homos say it’s not enough for us to tolerate them; we must ‘welcome’ them, which means we must serve and worship them while they eat like effendi or boofendi.

Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews. “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat. "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter.

While most Jews are not religious and don’t literally believe that God created Jews and goyim for this purpose, their world-view, outlook, and attitude are in line with the words of the vile Jew Rabbi. One only needs to look at the political, cultural, moral, economic, and international affairs of America and Europe to notice that Jews — and their mini-me elites the homos — feel this way about us. We should serve them while they sit and eat like effendi or boofendi — ‘boof’ being a slang for ass-humping for those in the dark.

At any rate, we need to make a distinction between paradigm-ing and threading. In the film DR. AKAGI(aka KANZO SENSEI meaning Dr. Liver) by Shohei Imamura, a certain Japanese doctor is so obsessed with the liver as the source of all health and sickness that he tends to pattern-ize everything into something liver-ish. The film even begins with American pilots approaching Japan that looks like a diseased liver from above, and the film ends with an atomic cloud that takes on the semblance of a liver. With the eccentric doctor, his paradigmatically liver-ish view of everything — health, disease, humanity, society, history, etc. — is sincere. He isn’t trying to dupe anyone, and he honestly believes that the cure for everything, medical or social, is somehow related to the liver as a organ or a metaphor.

In contrast, those in the threading business know full well what they are doing. They are manipulators who slyly thread their hot topic/hot button issue even into ideas, images, sounds, themes, and things that have little or nothing to do with them. Thus, they like to thread the theme of ‘diversity’ into everything positive, duping people into believing that everything positive and wonderful is due mainly to ‘diversity’. This can get silly sometimes, as when some sports commentators say Americans are so good at basketball because of the ‘diversity’. Yeah, I guess there is Jeremy Lin, though, to be sure, given the surreal nature of PC, an all black team could be said to be ‘diverse’ while a team that is majority white is said to be ‘too white’.

Why Biological Slavery under Blacks Is Like Social Slavery under Whites

Contrary to the impression viewers have been getting lately from films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE(not without a certain degree of masochistic ‘white guilt’ self-righteousness), the lives of black slaves in the South were not uniformly bleak, cruel, and inhuman. While there were cruel and sadistic slave-owners, there were also many kindly and decent ones who took care of their slaves reasonably well. In this regard, the TV series ROOTS was closer to the truth. Some slaves lived under nice ‘enlightened’ masters while others lived under nasty masters. It was rather like the condition of dogs and cats. If a dog or cat’s master is real nice, the dog or cat might as well be in heaven. If the master is nasty, it’s hell for the poor creature. Of course, all slaves in the South had to work hard, but in this regard, their lives were no different from most white folks around the world, America included, who had to toil from sunup to sundown. Most American whites were not large plantation owners or rich folks. They spent their entire lives working on farms and in factories. The conditions of many whites could be harsher than that of black slaves. Black slaves worked no harder than most white farmers in Europe and were, in most respects, much better off than Russian serfs. And of course, black slaves in the South had it much better than most people in non-white nations, especially under the barbaric rule of non-white elites.

But man doesn’t live on bread alone. Even if a free white farmer and a black slave had to work equally hard and ate the same kind of food and lived under similar conditions, the white man had the advantage of full legal rights and all the psychological benefits that came with it. While the law in Southern states made provisions for the well-being and decent treatment of black slaves, it was nothing like being free and being legally protected under the system of democratic government. Also, no man wants to feel himself to be the property of another man, at least in a world defined by concepts of liberty and freedom. To be sure, in certain societies, some people didn’t mind being the properties of the king, noblemen, or the state since they were raised to think and feel that way from cradle to grave. In Japan, elements of the lower castes were willing to give their lives for their masters and preferred death in the name of honor and loyalty(to their masters) than be free of their obligations. (Obligations and servitude, even if often unjust and harsh, at the very least provided the servants or slaves with a sense of purpose and meaning. It’s like dogs would rather serve a master than roam around freely. There is an element of dog-psychology in all humans. Indeed, when slaves are suddenly freed by their master, they might feel anxiety than liberation for they knew their lot under slavery but don’t know their future under freedom. This explains why a large segment of Russians longed for the old Stalinist days after the fall of communism and the economic devastation of the 1990s. At least things were steady in the good ole bad ole days. And Germans were all too willing to give up their freedoms to Hitler in exchange for security and stability. And even black slaves in America, when offered the chance of freedom and return trip to Africa, declined. They’d rather live under white folks than be free as an African savage. At least under white folks, you knew where the next meal was coming from, whereas in Africa, you might have to hunt a hippo that turn around and might bite your black ass in two, or worse, some black tribe might capture you and have you for dinner, especially if you were an albino.) And the Janissaries(enslaved boys from Christian families trained to fight for the Sultan) in the Ottoman Empire were raised to believe in the honor of serving their Muslim lord. They took pride in their roles as warrior-slaves against Christendom, the very realm into which they’d been born.
Even so, not all forms of slavery are the same. Some forms of slavery may take away your freedom and property but ‘spiritually’ make you feel empowered as a part of the collective. This was the appeal of communism. It took away individual property and freedom, but the people were made to feel as ‘comrades’ united in struggling for the common goal of creating a ‘better world’. In contrast, some forms of slavery are more nakedly honest, and perhaps the most extreme was Nazi slavery(of non-Germans) that made the slaves know that they were no better than cattle and would be treated as such. As Nazi ideology was rooted in biology than spirituality, Nazis didn’t care if non-Germans had souls or not. Germans were seen as the higher breed of pure wolves while certain other races were seen as inferiors breeds of dogs or mongrels.

The American South justified its slavery on loftier grounds, not least because the dominant cultural heritage even in the South was Christianity(even more so than democracy, which had been gained through independence from the British as the result of the efforts of mostly northern and mid-southern forces than deep southern ones; more key battles were fought in the north than in the south). Defenders of slavery argued that black Africans, being so wild and savage, needed to undergo a historical and cultural transformation so as to become worthy of living as free men alongside white folks. This line of argument believed that even though slavery would be wrong when applied to civilized white folks, it would do some good for Negroes who’d learn the virtues of hard work, discipline, order, organization, and obligations. (After all, before white folks gained freedom, they too had been civilized from brutality and barbarism through long yrs of iron discipline and servitude under kings and noblemen. In other words, there could be no short cut from barbarism or savagery to civilization. Spiritually, culturally, and perhaps even biologically, a people had to progress gradually from brutality — the world of black African savages — toward civilization where free men had rights. It took whites thousands of years to become civilized enough to be finally worthy of democracy and freedom, and so, it made no sense for blacks, the least civilized people in the world, to make a sudden jump from savagery to freedom. Ideally, they had to undergo the process of discipline, organization, thrift, and industriousness under the presumably benign guidance and management of white folks who’d made the arduous historical transformation earlier. So, if slavery was an evil when applied to civilized men, it could be a blessing, a helping hand, if applied to savages who had no concept of God and higher values. It’s like it’s wrong to treat an adult as a child, but it’s also wrong to treat a child as an adult. Of course, modern Americans scoff at views such as this when applied to Negroes, but the Liberal and even Conservative reluctance to pass proper judgment on bad black behavior suggests that there is a tendency to view Negroes as a bunch of children who simply cannot be judged like the rest of humanity. It’s like we shouldn’t expect Negroes to act like full-fledged adults since they are naturally ‘childlike’.) Thus, white Southerners rationalized black slavery as a kind of civilizing mission. The Negroes had to be fully tamed through the generations before they could rightfully claim equal freedom and full legal rights.

In any case, the Negro’s lot as a slave essentially depended on the moral character of his master. Was the master kindly and decent and did he take care of his slaves? Or was he mean and nasty and treat his slave like a dog and unduly call him ‘nigger’ too often? Of course, even the kindly master used cruel means to maintain order and discipline when Negroes rebelled or ran off. Even a kindly master may order a whipping to teach a lesson to the runaway slave, and other slaves would be made to watch the whipping as a lesson lest they too ‘get rabbit in their blood’. It’s like what the Strother Martin character says in COOL HAND LUKE. He can be a real good guy or a real mean son of a bitch. And of course, there were a whole bunch of masters who were neither too kindly or too mean but something in between.

Therefore, it’s difficult to defend slavery on the basis that some masters were indeed humane, relatively speaking. The fact remains that the slave’s condition depended on forces beyond his control and will. If a master was mean and nasty, he still had to work for that master. He couldn’t, like a free worker, just quit and go off to find another job. The slave was stuck in his place. Also, even if a master was nice and kindly, the slave had to always be mindful to be on his best behavior and act servile to ensure that the master will continue to treat him nice. So, when push came to shove, a slave under a good master was no freer than one under a bad one. So, at least from the moral perspective of our times, slavery cannot be defended on the basis that some masters were decent and good. At best, it can be argued that slavery in the Deep South was not uniformly the horror show that film-makers and others would like us to believe.
At the very least, we can all agree that the central fact of the SOCIALLY SANCTIONED SLAVERY in the American South was that the slave was at the mercy of the master. The master had to be good for the slave to lead a decent life since the slave lacked the freedom to make his own mind and decisions. And to that extent, American slavery was an unjust system — though much preferable to the kinds of slavery practiced by barbaric Asians, cruel Arabs, and savage black Africans, none of whom saw anything wrong with slavery(even of their own kind).

But the same kind of problem exists in the case of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. American Slavery in the South was a form of Social Slavery. White masters ruled over black slaves because whites were better armed, had the power of law on their side, and were better organized to maintain their form of power structure. Whites ruled over blacks not because they were tougher or naturally more dominant than blacks but because they’d created a mighty civilization that had given them a decisive advantage over the non-white parts of the world that lacked big ships, guns, factories, and the like.
Abolitionists demanded the ending of slavery on the religious/spiritual ground that all men of all races and colors were equally the children of God and imbued with souls equally dear to Him. Abolitionist, who were religious fanatics, didn’t care about biological factors or issues — and were even hostile to science. They thought in terms of God, God, and God, and they were certain that as long as all humans had souls equally loved by God, it was sinful for one group to enslave another group for whatever purpose or reason. Of course, not all Abolitionists were religious fanatics. Some came to support the Abolitionist Movement and sought to free the blacks, but they still believed in the inequality of races and wanted to keep blacks separate from whites. Abraham Lincoln was such a man. He wanted to free the slaves but also saw them as dangerous innate savages and wanted them shipped back to Africa or to relocated to some place in South America.

In the 20th century, many white liberals swallowed the notion that all races are the same except for skin color. The leftist Jewish takeover of anthropology had a deep impact on social thought. Also, WWII and the great crimes of Nazi radical racism cast a pall over the very notion of the science of races; the baby came to be thrown out with the bathwater. With the so-called ‘free world’ having defeated the oppressive systems of Fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism, Americans felt good about themselves as not only the proud defenders of but ardent crusaders for the land of freedom and equality. Also, the Cold War with Communism pressured the US to make social reforms, especially in the area of racial equality, so as to neutralize Soviet Union’s accusation of ‘racism’ as the defining characteristic of American capitalism/imperialism. For US to win over the hearts and minds of the Third World(the main battleground during the Cold War), it just wouldn’t do to have TV images of Bull Connors unleashing his dogs on Negroes beamed all over the world.

But as things turned out, the races were not equal, and the differences weren’t limited to skin color. In general, blacks are less intelligent than whites, though blacks have superior talents in certain mental areas, just as rhythmic patterns and making jazzy and funky music. Blacks also have more colorful ape-like charisma. Like a chimpanzee, blacks can talk and act in an amusingly brash manner that delights white folks to no end. It’s no wonder THE JEFFERSONS was one of the most popular shows of all time even though George Jefferson did little else but insult white folks by hollering at them like an intelligent ape. He was colorful. So was Eddie Murphy during his heyday. (In a way, whites have valued blacks as their darker id, the repressed animal nature that has no inhibitions about sex, aggression, dominance, and pleasure. So, white people sometimes let loose and try to dance like blacks, talk like blacks, gesticulate like blacks. The have sexual fantasies of having sex with blacks or even indulge in such acts. Jewish-controlled porn peddles such fantasies, and not surprisingly, much of porn since the late 90s involve black males and white females. It’s as if white girls want the singing voices of black females, as if white guys want the muscles and penises of black males, and as if white girls wanna be ravaged by the Negro stud. White boys wee in their pants in awe of feats by black athletes, and white girls cheer for black sports kings and put out to them after the games. Thus, part of the appeal of blackness is in the allure of animal amorality or even immorality. The natural black beast, like King Kong, breaks free of the shackles of civilization & its obligations and rampages around seeking total dominance for the sake of power and pleasure. It’s like the experiment in ALTERED STATES where William Hurt’s character reverts to a stronger and more aggressive form of early ape-man. It’s a gangster fantasy, which accounts for the popularity of the ‘gangsta’ image of so many black rappers, which white rappers try to ape with varying degrees of success. Thus, it’s rather ironic that so many white ‘progressives’ are upset with black attitudes against homosexuality. On the one hand, white ‘progressives’ take delight in the wild and unruly aggressiveness of black masterfulness that ruffles the feathers of white society — white ‘progressives’ credit wild black energies for having liberated repressed and dull white people from their old priggish and prissy ‘Victorian’ and ‘Puritanical’ hangups — , but on the other hand, white ‘progressives’ — who are ideologically neo-puritanical in their bent — are so very distressed and perturbed by the fact that so much of wild black energies are of a hostile, nasty, and vicious nature, especially against certain groups favored by ‘progressives’, such as homosexuals. But, this is rather like celebrating the glorious wild energies of a tiger or grizzly bear but then getting upset over the fact that they don’t make for good table manners. ‘Progressives’ want black to run wild and free but not punch out nice Liberals like Matthew Yglesias. They admire and cheer on blacks for singing and shouting whatever’s on their minds — or lack of them — without inhibition, but if the words coming out of the mouths happen to be ‘faggot’ or ‘Jew motherfuc*er’, ‘progressives’ get awful upset, which is rather like setting a wild dog loose to run around in a kitchen but then getting all miffed because it ate all the caviar. This is further complicated by the fact that ‘progressives’ subscribe to the notion that there’s no such thing as a race, which means there can be no racial differences; if that is really the case, why do ‘progressives’ worship blacks for being better athletes, having more powerful voices, being better dances, being more colorful personalities, and having bouncier butts on the women and bigger penises on the men? To confuse the matter even further, the appeal of black animality is intermixed with the notion of the Negro as the spiritual savior of white folks. This side of the myth would have us believe that blacks are so noble that they have no time or energy for sexual interests or violence. Even a mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE has no thoughts of vengeance, no thoughts of sex with white women — or any kind of women — , no desire to beat up white boys and fuc* them in the ass as so many powerful black males to do white men in America and South Africa. The ONLY thing the Noble Spiritual Magic Negro ever wants to do is to love and redeem mankind, and of course, MLK played this role to the hilt, though his closeted real nature was closer to King Kong, as his main passion away from the camera and microphone was to have endless orgies, drink like a fish, and cuss like Eddie Murphy. Western morality since the 1960s is utterly confused and unstable since its core myth tries to have the cake and eat it too, i.e. it would have us believe that the ‘Nigga’ as the amoral animalist fantasy of raw power and domination is compatible with the Magic Negro as the spiritual fantasy of higher truth and transcendence.) But when it comes to most areas of intelligence involving logical problem-solving, math, and reading, blacks have been proven to lag behind other races. To be sure, there are cultural factors to this, but if blacks were naturally smart like Jews, they would show more interest in brainy matters as smart people generally gravitate to things that challenge their minds, just like fast and strong people naturally gravitate toward athletic or physical pursuits. No amount of cultural upbringing is going to turn a dumb black woman into an intellectually curious person. Even Michelle Obama, who had the advantage of being admitted to Princeton and Harvard Law School via ‘affirmative action’ never had a single original thought in her entire life. She’s just a bundle of politically correct and Afro-centric cliches picked up from patronizing professors who passed and recommended her on the basis of race.

But all said and done, the most crucial factor that underlies the racial relationship between whites and blacks is not intelligence but physical-and-emotional differences. While it’s true that dumb people achieve considerably less and end up as economic burdens on society, they are not necessarily destroyers of civilization nor much of a threat to the smarter members of society purely on the basis of their lower IQ. Suppose most blacks had low IQs and were physically like Emanuel Lewis, the little Negro child star of WEBSTER. While a bunch of them might fail in school and live on welfare(and be something of an economic burden), would they pose a threat to the white race? Of course not. There are plenty of dumb ‘white trash’ folks, but the problems they cause to the general population is nothing like the damage done by blacks.

So, what is the crucial difference between whites and blacks? It’s about time that the White Right stopped beating around the bush. White Right always complains that the media — controlled by Jews and Liberals and cowardly Conservatives — don’t properly report black-on-white crime, but the White Right itself is too wussy to deal with the true nature of such violence, namely that blacks are physically stronger and tougher than whites(by a considerable margin) and emotionally more aggressive. Blacks are also naturally more psychopathic, i.e. lacking in qualities such as empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, conscience, and shame. And I suspect in due time, with advances in genetic research, all these observable facts will be proven with hard data, which may be why the forces of political correctness are currently working extra-hard to expose whites to such a heavy dosages of ‘white guilt’ radiation so as to render them defenseless against political correctness even with the emergence of scientific data proves that many blacks are unfit to live alongside whites — or, more accurately, whites are physically unfit to live safely alongside stronger and nastier blacks. White people will still go on weeping over sanctimonious MLK speeches even when the hard facts of biology demonstrate that whites would be much better off living separate from blacks.

Anyway, the problem with social slavery was that even though some white slave owners were decent and kindly men, the indisputable fact was that blacks lived at the mercy of white power. Blacks had to hope and pray that whites who had power over them were good because if they weren’t, blacks could be treated harshly, and worse, there wasn’t much they could do about it.

A similar problem hangs over white people living under the system of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. In an integrated neighborhood, whites might be left alone or treated kindly by decent blacks who are kindly and conscientious, and of course, such blacks exist just as there were decent white slave owners. But there are also nasty and brutal blacks who are lacking in conscience and any sense of remorse. (Worse, the ‘white guilt’ narrative that predominates in America imbues even horrible blacks who commit the worst kinds of crimes with a sense of righteousness, i.e. their violence against whites was just payback for what the ‘cracker honkeys’ had done to blacks in the past; and of course, films like TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE will only harden such perspectives, not least among violent black thugs.) Since blacks are generally stronger than whites, nearly all whites in an integrated community are biological slaves of blacks. Though whites have legal rights that protect them from bullying, intimidation, hostilities, and crime, the fact is there is no way a white person can effectively rely on the law all the time for protection from Negro bad behavior. For one thing, the cops have better things to do than to be protecting whites from every case of intimidation and bullying from blacks as the integrated community could be reeling from rapes, shootings, robberies, murders, and other kinds of mayhem. Also, even when the police arrive, it’s often too late as the thug took off already after brutalizing the white victim. Also, many whites are afraid to call the cops for fear of reprisals. If the cops arrest a certain Negro for having attacked you, his family members and friends might come after you and your family in ways big and small. So, even though the law and the police do exist to ensure equal protection for all citizens, the fact remains that in an integrated community, blacks will biologically rule over whites because the power of the law only goes so far in our lives. In schools, white guys who are attacked by blacks will also be unlikely to report the abuse since (1) little will be done about it as the bullies aren’t legally adults and will only be slapped on the wrist (2) white guy will be seen as a ‘pussyboy faggot’ for not fighting his fight and instead relying on school authorities and (3) the black attacker doesn’t care if he’s suspended since such types don’t give a crap about studying anyhow and (4) the black attacker will hurt the white kid even worse for having told on him. (There is also the problem of ‘micro-aggressions’ against whites. A black guy might ‘play’ with the white boy like a toy. He will do everything within the law to belittle, taunt, and humiliate the ‘white boy’ without throwing the first punch. Thus, he hasn’t violated any law. If the ‘white boy’ walks away, he’s been pussy-whipped. If he talks back and escalates the situation or, in a fit of uncontrollable white rage, throws the first punch, the black guy will be justified in whupping the white boy’s ass. There are psychological means by which tougher guys can mess with weaker guys, as in the scene in SHANE where Jack Palance’s character legally manipulates the ‘sodbuster’ to dig his own grave. He is ‘owned’ by Palance’s character. The oft-heard term among young people today is ‘own’, and Oprah’s channel has the same name. In an integrated neighborhood, blacks OWN whites physically and psychologically. Physically, blacks can beat up whites. Psychologically, blacks can mess with whites without whites doing anything about it out of fear. Also, blacks sexually own whites. If blacks have a thing for a certain white girl in school, they can make sure that white boys don’t go near her for if they do, they’ll get their asses kicked. And white girls often submit to such sexual ownership by blacks since women naturally want to be dominated and conquered by alpha males. The only chance for whites in such a situation is to study harder, make something of their lives, and move out of the neighborhood, but ‘affirmative action’ hampers the social progress of poor whites as it favors blacks and rich whites over poor whites; and even if they make it out of the troubled community, there are Section 8 programs to relocate lots of bad blacks to the very areas that whites fled to.) Of course, such white victims don’t have any defender in the Jew-run media that cackle with glee over black-on-white-gentile violence(Jews only care when blacks attack Jews) nor among white conservative elites who seem more eager to recruit more blacks to the GOP(as trophy Negroes that prove that Republicans aren’t ‘racist’) than to call attention to the problems of biological slavery suffered by so many whites who are stuck in integrated communities and OWNED by blacks.

Thus, under biological slavery, whites have a choice between decent black biological masters or nasty black biological masters. Either way, whites are under a form of slavery, a biological one at that, which is far worse than the social one, because, while social slavery can be ended by new legislation and social values, nothing will change the nature of biological slavery. It’s like no matter how many laws we pass and enforce, most sexual violence will be male on female since men are stronger than women. Thus, the sexual threat of violence is always male-on-female, and that makes women the biological slaves of men, and to this extent, feminists have a point. But what feminists overlook is that women have a natural attraction to the power of men. By their very nature, women want to be with strong men who can ‘own’ them emotionally and sexually, if not legally. This passion and desire make the unequal relationship between men and women not only tolerable but meaningful and blissful for both partners. Even if women want to be equal with men legally, they want to meet men who are stronger and more masterful. Even lesbians have an hierarchy of the alpha female and beta female. And this sexual attraction between unequal sexes is what ensures the survival of humanity. Without the unity of men and women, no race can survive.

In contrast, there is no need for one race to co-exist with another race to survive. Japan will be Japan even if not a single Negro sets foot on the island. Norway will continue to be Norway forever even if not a single Japanese or African sets foot on Norway. So, races don’t need one another. While all races have much to gain by learning from one another, trading with one another, and even mating with other races, no race needs to mix with other races in order to survive and thrive. And some races are bound to lose out if they mix with other races. Suppose we were to mix Russians with Vietnamese. Clearly, Russian men, being stronger and bigger, will win out over Vietnamese men. While Russian men will be taking lots of Vietnamese women, Vietnamese men will not only lose their own women to beefier and bigger Russian men but they won’t be getting much Russian poon either since Russian women will still prefer bigger and beefier Russian men to scrawny Vietnamese men. Of course, one could argue that Russians will lose out too. If a whole bunch of Russian men mix with Vietnamese women, their Russian-ness will become diluted in a genetic sea of yellowness.

Same goes for blacks and whites. Despite all the rosy and idealistic yammering of ‘thinkers’ on both the mainstream ‘left’ and mainstream ‘right’, the fact is racial integration between blacks and whites can only lead to the biological slavery of whites being OWNED by blacks. In schools all across the nation, the racial violence is overwhelmingly black on white. In prisons, black thugs rape white inmates in the ass. In sports, blacks dominate over white guys who are relegated to bench-warming status and to the humiliation of watching white blonde cheerleaders shaking their asses for black athletes who mostly clobber white guys. In streets, in buses, and other public places, blacks swagger around like they OWN the whole world while white boys are reduced into dickless wimps who are afraid of being knocked out by ‘teens’.

Sure, there are good, kindly, and decent blacks, but that means whites are at the mercy of blacks being nice to them. Since blacks are stronger than whites, blacks don’t have to worry about whether whites are nice to them or not. Even nasty white guys can easily be whupped by tougher blacks. So, blacks can rule over both nasty whites and nice whites, but whites, being weaker, cannot rule over blacks. Thus, whites have to hope and pray that blacks are nice than nasty. If a black guy is like Arthur Ashe, wonderful. But if he’s like Mike Tyson, it’s big doodoo.

Now, suppose whites were stronger than blacks, i.e. stronger than both nice Negroes like Ashe and nasty Negroes like Tyson. Whites need not worry since the nice Negro won’t mess with them and since, if the nasty Negro messes with them, they can whup his jigger-jiving ass.
But reality being what it is, whites are only okay with blacks when blacks are nice, whereas blacks are okay regardless of whether whites are nice or nasty. Nice whites won’t mess with Negroes and even nasty whites are too afraid of blacks to mess with them. Thus, blacks are the lions, the masters of the community, whereas whites are like the weaker hyenas who always have to be on the lookout for nasty lions. (Also, even nice Negroes will come to sexually own the white race since even nice Negro men will lust after white chicks no less than nasty Negroes; and since nice Negroes are tougher than white men, white women will go with nice Negroes. Whether white women go with nice Negroes or nasty Negroes, it’s a humiliating loss for white men. Similarly, regardless of whether Negresses slept white nice white masters or nasty white masters, it was a case of white social slavery owning and humiliating the pride of black males. Would it have been much of a consolation for black males in the Deep South during slavery if the nice white massuh than a nasty white massuh slept with their mother, wife, or daughter? Pathetically enough, a whole bunch of white guys welcome the union of nice Negroes and white girls. It’s as if they’re so afraid of the accusation of ‘racism’ that they wanna show "how far they’ve come in the goal of racial harmony", though, of course, this "racial harmony" is premised on stronger Negroes making their moves on white territory and owning white females sexually and owning white males psychologically. Of course, some white guys hope that by offering or surrendering their white women to nice Negroes, the latter will protect the whites from nasty Negroes. And indeed, the psycho-politics as to why so many whites voted for Obama owes to such an psychology. White folks OWE and black folks OWN.)

During the age of social slavery, all whites has legal and institutional advantage over all blacks. Even a poor white knew he was a free man and legally on equal footing with rich whites. He also knew he could never be a slave. But even relatively well-off blacks who were given decent tasks by their rich and kindly white slave masters knew that their welfare depended on the kindness and mercy of decent whites. If they were to fall into the hands of nasty whites, their rights could be stripped overnight and they could be reduced to being ‘cotton picking Negroes’ again.

So, if one thinks about it, the dynamics between social slavery and biological slavery is pretty much the same. The slave side depends on the good will of the master side. As long as whites live next to lots of blacks, their well-being depends on the decency of blacks since nasty blacks can push them around and beat them up real good. Also, even nice Negroes will come to OWN white women and wussify white males as beta-male second-raters in the sexual marketplace.

Thus, the ONLY WAY for white people to be free at last, free at last, and free at last is to invoke the necessity of RACIAL RIGHTS, i.e. all races have a right to live in peace and safety for the sake of their own self-preservation and posterity. Since integration with blacks leads whites being biologically OWNED by blacks, whites are being reduced to the status of the slave race under stronger blacks(and more intelligent Jews). For whites to be free and to determine their own future and fate, they need to break free from this biological bondage.

--------------------------

So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.

That is the template of how the US sees race relations.

Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.

It’s a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.

So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.

Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?

But races do exist and racial differences are real and go beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It’d be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.

So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, and lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger Negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is ‘racism’ insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.

And even though white northerners mocked white southern 'bigots', the Liberals in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all discovered the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.

So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Palestinians were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legitimate fears and rages. We don’t use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)

Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.

BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.

THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration and social equality.

And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we’ve seen how White Liberals sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of ‘racial justice’ but act in ways that increase haute-segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewish(and maybe more Asian).

Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Democrats in 68 and 72, Liberal elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.

And by filling the Democratic Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run because a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.

In contrast, a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.

Foreign Strategy vs Southern Strategy.

The Paradox of Feminist Power: How Feminism Both Demeans and Demands Male Power.

It’s been a matter of habit for conservatives and the White Right to bemoan the demasculinizing effect of feminism. Conservative white men have long condemned the castrating effect of feminist ideology. Many suspect feminism’s goal is to stunt the natural growth of young boys into hardy men, to feminize men in general, to degrade masculine virtues and principles, and to purge the academic curriculum of values and activities amenable to the virtues of manhood.

Of course, there is much truth to these charges, especially when it comes to the world of Northern Europeans, particularly the Scandinavian types in both Europe and northern parts of the America. When life was cold and brutal in Scandinavia long ago, the men had to be extra tough and hardy to survive and take care of their clans and families. But once economic and technological advancement came to the northern parts, people could be comfortable without acting like Vikings or Gustavus Adolphus. And since Scandinavia was cold and dark for most of the year, there wasn’t much for the men to do except stay indoors and attend to domestic chores close to their wives and daughters. Also, the cold climate made Scandinavians emotionally and mentally focused on single tasks; when they were into acting like barbarians and warriors, they could be single-mindedly ruthless in their aggressions and plunder, as the Vikings were. Such single-mindedness made Scandinavians conducive to the spartan hardiness of Lutheranism and puritanical moralism. Once Scandinavians lost their religion, their single-mindedness turned to the new religion of the era, the secular faith of social-progressivism, and this accounts for Sweden’s leading the way with its dourly humorless policy of elevating women at the expense of men and in opening the doors to vast numbers of Africans and Muslims and indulging in interracism. And such mind-sets can also be found in places like Minnesota that was largely settled by Scandinavian-Americans. Whether conservative or liberal, Scandinavians tend to be single-minded in their commitment and devotion; they have a tunnel vision of what-is-to-be-done. In the modern era, Liberal Scandinavians have won the culture war as conservative types never seem to engage much in intellectual or cultural affairs. You can’t win if you don’t get into the ring. The Right speaks of the culture war but provides no troops for the good fight since it has no use for arts, ideas, and culture, at least not for the creation of new expressions and propositions. Thus, what goes by the name of Right-wing culture has only been defensive. It relies on established truisms and traditions. To go on the offensive — at least in the modern world — , one’s side must create NEW ideas and culture — even if essentially repackaging of old ideas — to hurl at the enemy. This was the brilliance of Fascism and National Socialism for they repackaged the Right as a force of modernity that looked forward than backward. Unfortunately, Hitler decided to look eastward than forward, bringing about WWII and the destruction of not only Germany but the modern right.

Anyway, most feminism in America isn’t like the one practiced in Sweden. On the one hand, it is true that feminism has a demasculinizing effect on boys in general. Feminists have often denigrated ‘manly’ things as aggressive, violent, cruel, barbaric, oppressive, ruthless, and hostile. Some feminist educators, allied with castrated male counterparts, want to degrade the spirit of competition in schools. Some schools don’t even keep count of the score, and sports games end with both sides as ‘equal winners’ or some such. We can recount a whole litany of examples of the feminist war on manhood to fill up hundreds of pages.

But there are two sides to the feminist coin. Paradoxically, feminism also has had the effect of exaggerating and magnifying masculinity, machismo, and male dominance, if only selectively. When the pioneering radical feminists in the 60s and 70s were making the social climb, most of their ranks did rail against the aggressive tendencies of maleness. Many attacked capitalism as not only male-dominated but as the instigator and perpetrator of male dominance since capitalism was supposedly all about dog-eat-dog ruthless competition than about cooperation and sharing. Ironically, to an extent, this view had a certain parallel with the conservative male view that women, being the fairer and gentler sex, weren’t fit for the game of capitalist competition. Pat Buchanan, for one, said as much. It would be like dogs competing with wolves. Where feminists and Buchanan disagreed was that the former thought women were equally capable of being just as determined, competitive, and aggressive, but some of the Sisters thought that women shouldn’t follow down such a path as they would only be participating in the patriarchal and imperialistic system that exploits people all over the world.
Also, many of these early feminists were ugly Jewesses and hags of other groups, and they were filled with envy of prettier women who made it with their sex appeal and looks. So, feminists attacked Hollywood and the porn industry as ‘sexist’ and raised their daughters with something like neo-puritanical ethos that shunned the ‘beauty myth’. As Carole King sang, she was proud to be a ‘natural woman’ who looked like she hadn’t showered in a week nor brushed her hair. (She wrote some great songs though.)
But in time, the communist world imploded(and socialism in general came to be discredited — unless one worked in the academia), and neo-liberalism came to be embraced by the entire spectrum of ‘progressives’, including feminists. And with the rise of MTV culture, the boomer generation of feminists found their daughters rebelling and demanding the right to be appealing to boys. Their girls wanted to be sexy, dress like madonna, and be liked by boys.
Also, if the early feminists found the female sex symbol in the media to be enslaving — not least because the movie and TV industries were dominated by men — , attitudes changed as lots of women began to work in the upper echelons of the entertainment industry. And as they made a lot of money, they began to live THE SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle. If early feminists saw the idealized images of female sex symbols to be manipulative and controlled by men — as in STEPFORD WIVES — , later feminists grew up with equal access to power in every industry and sector and came to prize sexiness as a powerful asset. Early feminists believed that many women had been forced to rely primarily on their sex appeal since so few avenues of power were open to them. Thus, they came to fallaciously associate sex appeal with male domination.
But as women gained great power in the 80s and 90s, they came to see sex appeal as an additional weapon in their arsenal of power. As women comfortable with their feminine sex appeal, they naturally sought out men with masculine sex appeal. A woman could be a power player AND a sex symbol, whereas early feminists believed that a woman had to choose one or the other: to play the game, you couldn’t be a dame. But later feminists came to realize that they could play the game and still be the dame. Sexiness, which had once seemed to be owned by men, now came to be a weapon of women themselves.

But more importantly, the new feminists came to demand more from life. They got good jobs and money and lots of freedom. The won high positions and accolades. And so many opportunities were availed to them. Also, powerful women in the entertainment industry had to admit that sex appeal was very profitable, and they weren’t going to sacrifice billions in profits out of some ideological fixation to early outdated feminism(of struggle than enjoyment).

Feminism went from struggle for freedom and power to taking freedom and power for granted(and seeking the hedonistic joys that accompanies freedom and power). Once women had the power, they demanded more pleasure, and of course, one of the biggest and most powerful kinds of pleasure is sex. And women find their biggest pleasure in the arms of big, tall, muscular, and big-penised men. For women to find true liberation and happiness, why should they be denied the ultimate pleasures in sex? And to find such pleasure, women demanded muscular studs with big puds than dorks like Pee Wee Herman.
Thus, there is the paradox at the core of feminism. On the one hand, it attacks male power to make room for more female power. It rails against male domination and aggression and makes a case for ever more opportunities and equality for women. And yet, women with lots of power and freedom discover those assets can afford them lots of riches and pleasures of life. Women want the fruits of power, which are happiness and pleasure. And for many women, the biggest pleasure comes from sexual relations with macho men. If a rich and powerful woman craves great sexual pleasure and if she could choose to have sex with any man, would it be with a dork or a stud? The stud, of course. Thus, feminism came to prize the value of the macho stud. It’s like if you are rich and can afford to eat anything, would you eat something delicious and fancy or something cheap and coarse? (Personally, I’ll take a cheeseburger over some fancy dining any day.)

And this neo-feminist desire for macho studs even became ideologically feasible since black men are the most muscular, most powerful, and biggest-penised studs on the planet. While a macho white man might carry the stigma of the ‘white male chauvinist oppressor’, a Negro stud, no matter how rough and tough, has about him the aura of holy eternal victim-hood stemming from the Cult of Jim Crow. Consider the film HAPPINESS by Todd Solondz where a very attractive and sexy ‘liberated’ and free-and-independent modern woman keeps a black stud as her sex mate. She is a gorgeous babe with lots of money and freedom, and she wants the maximum in sexual pleasure. Indeed, she demands it. The final product of feminist liberation lusts after powerful masculinity. (And consider the scene in SPARTACUS where a rich Roman woman swoons over the big mighty Negro played by Woody Strode. If she had the power and freedom to choose any man to do her, it’ll likely be such a Negro than some white guy.)
Rich and powerful men all over the world desire tall and buxom blonde women, and they use their money to acquire and enjoy such women. Today, in a world with so many rich and powerful women, they too have the freedom and choice to hire and enjoy the ultimate pleasure with super macho males, and often, these males are black. Feminism made it possible for women to grow rich and powerful. And rich and powerful women want maximum sexual pleasure, no less than rich and powerful men do. Think of all the rich and powerful Arab men who hire blonde women to suck their whankers. Similarly, rich and powerful women get it on with Negro studs. Consider madonna with her Negro studs porking her every orifice. Of course, not all rich and powerful women indulge in such things. For one thing, there aren’t enough trustworthy Negro males to serve as safe mates for most successful women. And it’s risky for rich and successful women to form dalliances with dangerous street Negroes who might act violent.  Also, some successful white women only want to enjoy Negro studs as something like their stable of horses. The Negroes are seen as animals to ride than long-term mates to settle down with. Notice even madonna didn’t marry a Negro though a whole bunch of them porked her in every hole. So, a rich white woman might sow her wild oats by having affairs with a bunch of Negro men but eventually settle down with a more reliable white guy.
Since blacks are seen as a ‘victim group’, black men, far more than white men, can get away with their machismo. If some white guy acts to macho, he could be attacked for his male domination, but if a black guy does the same — or even more — , his ‘uppitiness’ and ‘in your face-ness’ can be lauded as an example of a black man re-establishing his manhood(within the hoary historical context of having been forced shuck and jive as a ‘boy’ under the tyranny of the white man).

White conservative males may hate feminism for being anti-male and anti-masculine, but there is a side to feminism that lusts after machismo, as long as it’s within the power and choice of the woman to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Besides, the rise of masculinism doesn’t favor all races equally. It favors the more masculine race over the less masculine race. If women desire the macho men, they will favor the Negro man over the white man and favor the white man over the short Mexican or geeky Asian man. If white men were the toughest, most muscular, and biggest-penised men in the world and if feminists lusted after studs, white men would win the game of sexual competition. But as Negro men are considerably more muscular than the white men — and in many cases bigger penised — and can ‘sing and dance better’, the female/neo-feminist desire for sexual pleasure with the super stud favors the Negro.
In our ‘vagina monologue’ culture, feminists are encouraged to speak openly about their raw sexual desires. In the past, when such things were considered vulgar and unbecoming, a lot of girls talked about how ‘cute’ guys were and how they were after romance. But new feminism encourages women to talk about sex, sex, and sex — and those who don’t are accused of espousing repressed neo-Victorian ‘abstinence’ — , and all such talk about sex naturally revolves around ‘my boyfriend has a bigger dick than yours’, and ‘I had the biggest orgasm in my life with a guy whose dick is so big’. As one white female at work once told me, she had the biggest orgasm with a Negro whose penis was so big that she felt she was being ‘fuc*’ed in the spine. When I was a teenager in the 80s, most girls didn’t talk like this, and someone going with a Negro was seen as somewhat strange. With such talk now so common among young women who espouse new feminism, girls without boyfriends with huge muscles and big whankers feel left out. They feel cheated in life of the sexual pleasures that should be the ‘right’ of every liberated woman seeking pleasure. Every woman wants his Negro Heathcliff. Indeed, a new British version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS has a Negro in the role. And a whole bunch of British women are going with Negroes. And one of the favorite reading material among feminists is THE AWAKENING by Kate Chopin about a middle class white woman who has a fling with a mulatto or something and is finally ‘awakened’, presumably by his mega-penis. Thus, feminism, especially neo-feminism, rebels not so much against big strong alpha males as against beta-males who have used their institutional power to keep women under their control. After all, patriarchy wasn’t so much the rule of men over women as the rule of older and/or institutional men over younger and rougher men. A patriarchal system favors the older men and diligent brainy men over rough-and-tumble men with huge muscles and big penises(though, to be sure, Jewish men are both brainy/diligent and possessed of big fat whankers). Thus, under patriarchy, many women had to remain loyal to their older or beta-husbands as such a social system had a way of keeping wilder and younger studs in their place; the Rule of Law and social customs favored the diligent worker-bee-husband over the wild thug-stud. Many women felt imprisoned in such a social system and hungered to be carried away by the wild stud who would ravage her and liberate her with a mega-orgasm. (But then, judging by the Japanese film such as UGETSU, men too have had fantasies of abandoning domestic obligations and going off with the woman of their dreams. And in SAMSON AND DELILAH, the Jewish strongman even unwittingly betrays the people of his own tribe, especially the homely but loyal Jewish girl, all because he can’t resist the charms of a Philistine shikse who looks like Hedy Lammarr, who ironically enough, was really Jewish.) The theme is there in Jane Campion’s stupid PIANO too, where a white woman rebels against her diligent white husband and goes off with a man who has gone ‘native’. Of course, middle class white women could indulge in such fantasies because they could take for granted the comforts of bourgeois life provided by their diligent husbands who may not have been super-studs but worked hard to keep society running and orderly. It’s like children often find their parents oppressive and dream of going off with outlaws and freaks to find freedom, but such fantasies are possible because of the comforts of home.
Still, if a woman was married to some dullard and stuck in a boring middle class home, we can imagine why she might have longed for ‘liberation’ in the arms of a ‘pirate type’ like Fabio. We can understand why Diane Keaton’s character in MRS. SOFFEL goes off with the outlaw character played by Mel Gibson. Sexual desire is funny that way. And of course, white men had something of a similar problem. Consider how, in THE BOUNTY, Mel Gibson’s character rebels against the uptight character played by Anthony Hopkins. Gibson’s character has status and respect and enjoys the privileges of the British social system, but having fallen for a tropical hottie, he feels truly liberated for the first time and is willing to give up everything for love and lust. So, the likes of John Milius wants to lord over the tropical ladies who would suck his warrior penis, and the likes of Jane Campion wants to surrender to the natural dominance of Maori warrior studs. So, you see, there is a paradoxical link between ultra-masculinism and ultra-feminism.

Given the nature of racial differences, old feminism was actually better for white male than the current feminism is. Old feminism tended to be puritanical. It attacked female sex symbols and was hostile toward machismo in general. But new feminism came to embrace the sex symbol as ‘empowering’ and fun, and once power and wealth flowed easily to women, they wanted and demanded the pleasure that comes with the power. And since sexuality is one of the great pleasures of life — especially as the needs of housing, food, clothing, and food have been met for most modern people — , feminist women today demand top studs to pump and hump their orifices. Look at all the feminists who shake and pump their booties to rap music by Negroes and who drip with vaginal juice at the sight of Negro football and basketball players who dominate the sporting fields.  So, white males lose to feminism’s attack on male power(generally white male power), neo-feminism’s demand for sexual pleasure with super studs(who happen to be Negroes), and to masculinism’s favoring the stronger Negro over the soft white boy. Unless white males face these facts of racial differences and work together to save their own race, they will be finished in a few generations. But Jews control the minds of white women and also have so many white men — conservative as well as liberal — by the balls.

The future of the white male:

Is It True that Social Change Has Come to a Standstill?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/06/did-hippies-have-german-roots.html

http://takimag.com/article/the_original_nature_boys_steve_sailer/print#axzz1z0TydD7X

"One of the biggest changes of my lifetime has been the decline in the speed of social change... Instead, mass society fragmented and thereby stabilized." - Steve Sailer.

Maybe this is true when it comes to hair styles of white people. But hair-styles among blacks have changed quite a lot, especially among men. We don't see Afros anymore. What is most popular among black men is the Slave-Rebellion look of the shaved head. It makes them look meaner and leaner than they already are.

As for Alvin Toffler's FUTURE SHOCK, the only reason we don't feel the 'shock' is because we are Future-Shell-Shocked. It's like people in wars eventually become accustomed to the explosions, deaths, gore, and horrors. We've been bombarded with so much change so fast that much of it don't register as change or 'change' has become the new stability.

Also, what is exactly meant by 'social change'? One might argue that the internet amounts to technological change and not social change, but technology impacts society and culture. The rise of the internet has had profound impact on how people communicate, buy things, get information, make and share entertainment, become famous, become controversial, etc. It certainly gave a new voice to the American Right once silenced by liberal media and Neocon takeover of the GOP.

Also, aren't demographic changes afoot in the US and EU part of social change?
We've never seen so much change happen so fast, and mostly for the worse. Even just by comparing the 80s with the 90s and then 90s with the 2000s, the change is overwhelming. The rise of Rap as mainstream music is one. The mainstreamization of porn, and then the utter interrace-ization of porn is another. (I know because I worked in video rental during the late 80s and 90s when the change first took off in a big way.) The complete Neocon takeover of GOP had a huge impact. One could argue that's political change, not social change. But politics translates into social power and social change. The rise of Jews and gays in politics and media has meant all of America is turning more pro-gay just like it turned more pro-Zionist. Even after WWII, Jews used to fear and respect Southern white and German-American power, which is why Hollywood, for the most part, didn't make movies that dehumanized German soldiers and Southern whites. But today, almost all Americans(even conservative German-Americans and Southern Christian whites) do little else but sing hosannas to Jews and Israel. This had a profound impact not only on political policy but cultural outlook among White Conservatives who even wanna nuke Iran and wipe out Palestinians to please Jews.

And consider the Boomer takeover of power in the 90s and then the rise of Obama. No candidate in the 80s supporting half the things Obama stands for could have been elected. Even in the 90s, it would have been impossible, which is why Clinton settled for DADT. Now, Obama openly comes out for 'gay marriage' and still leads in the polls. Timid conservatives meekly voice support Traditional Marriage(as if that's something dirty) but don't dare oppose 'gay marriage' with any spine or guts. A beauty contestant got dragged through the mud by the entire Jewish-and-Gay-controlled media apparatus by answering Perez Hilton that she doesn't support 'gay marriage'. The media even dragged out details of her private life to smear her. In the new social environment, Perez is normal and decent while a beauty contestant who isn't for 'gay marriage' is treated like a dirty tramp to be hated.

There is utter social, cultural, and political fear of gay power, especially as it's protected by Jewish power. Soon, attacking the gay agenda will be like attacking Israeli policy.

Also significant is the utter beta-male-ization of the white man and the rise of the Tough Sexy Negro. TV commercials openly promote the wussification of the white male and promote interracism of white girl and Afro-Aryan black guy.
Jack-Johnson-ism the law of the land. And dweebized white guys don't resist and don't even know how to resist. They've become irrelevant unless they're 'creative gays'. Obama isn't just some political phenomenon but a social and cultural one as well. America's acceptance of him as leader means profound social changes has taken place. How long before the next president is a dark-skinned black guy married to a blonde woman? Americans in 2008 found nothing wrong with a friend of Bill Ayers becoming Commander-in-Chief. If anything, the best-educated Americans were swooning all over Obama and even fainting.

As for the Jews, they've turned into an utterly corrupt New Elite. When Wasps ruled the roost, Jews used to be for free speech, dissent, speaking truth to power, and etc. Today, while Jews continue to use those tropes, they are really working to push Political Correctness to end free speech(that's critical of Jews and their allies), to bail out Jews on Wall Street, to silence any criticism of Jewish power and Israeli policy, to promote interracism mainly to weaken the white race and white power, and totally change the terminology of the nation with nonsense notions such as 'same-sex marriage' and 'undocumented immigrants'. Obama tramples on the Constitution and illegally offers amnesty to illegal aliens who are now called 'undocumented immigrants'. And he still leads in the polls and will win in 2012 while the timid, awkward, and pathetic white boy Mitt Romney seems endlessly flustered as he tries to win conservative votes while, at the same time, pandering to the Jewish-and-Gay Lobby.