Jewish Power Strategy contra Chinese Power Strategy — The Jewish Advantage of Using both the STRONG HORSE and the SACRED COW — US Dollar Supremacy in Money and Jewgromo Shekel Supremacy in Morality

Jews know that money power isn't enough. And military power isn't enough either. Jews have plenty of money, and the Jewish-controlled US military is by far the most powerful — Jews control the whore-politicians who order the generals to threaten or attack nations hated by Zionists. Jews have the Strong Horse of money and military power. But to seal the deal, Jews know they also need the Sacred Cow of holiness and righteousness. Indeed, this is where China has failed. China has built up a modern military. Though still dwarfed by US military might, it is a great regional power and growing stronger. Also, China has spread a lot of money around, like Japan in the 1980s. So, China has been growing in Strong Horse capacity. But recently, the Chinese are discovering it's not enough as they're coming under even more condemnation that befell the Japanese in the 80s.

It's true enough that people tend to go with the Strong Horse. But Strong Horse alone offers no moral protections unless matched with the Sacred Cow. If forced to choose between Money Power and Moral Prestige, one will generally choose the latter. (Of course, Moral Prestige is usually associated with Money Power. Would Jews enjoy so much moral sanctity if not for their vast wealth and influence? Besides, Moral Prestige isn't the same as true morality. Rather, it is the advantage of officially sanctioned ethos. In communist nations, Marxism-Leninism had moral prestige. So, even as China can wield money power, its lack of moral prestige can lose friends who dread damage to their reputations by association. Chinese money is nice but not so much if tainted with what is hyped as Chinese vice. It's like the Corleones in THE GODFATHER were tempted with narcotics trade but said NO because of the risk to their reputation. As Vito Corleone said, the politicians would not be his friends if he traded in drugs than merely controlled gambling and the unions. If China is made the bogeyman in a New Cold War, US politicians who'd been chummy with the Chinese will wash their hands and join in the chorus of anti-Chinese rhetoric. If it could be done to Japan, a US ally in the 1980s, it can be done with far greater magnitude against 'communist' China.)

This is where Jewish Power and Chinese Power are different. Jewish Power grew dominant in money and politics, but if Jews learned one thing from history, it's that they need the protection of Sacred Cow power. When Europe was proudly Christian, the Sacred Cow was with Jesus and His flock. If anything, Jews were seen as the Killers of Christ. They were dirty rats than sacred cows. So, even as Jews gained Money Power as merchants, they had little moral protection. The Jewish Strong Horse of big money could win over goy aristocrats, but there was no guarantee of deep loyalty. Suddenly, Jews could be exiled by treacherous goy elites(who couldn't pay back loans to Jews) or attacked by mobs who felt exploited by Jews. And so, especially after World War II, Jews made sure that their Strong Horse of money and privilege would have the moral protection of the Sacred Cow: Shoah-Worship or Holocaustianity as the new faith of the West. In the US, we can berate the rich and condemn the 1% in the name of the 99%, but Jewish power cannot be named. Why? Jews are well-represented in the 1%, but we must pretend they're just rich WHITE people. So, even as rich people and 'white privilege' can be targeted, Jews mustn't be mentioned no matter how rich they are. Thus, the Jewish Strong Horse has Sacred Cow protection. If you dare mention Jewish Power and its dark implications, you are purged as an 'Anti-Semite' and potential 'Nazi', a total no-no.

In contrast, look how Japan and China fared in the American debate. Japan was on the up-and-up in the 1980s. It was flush with cash, and Shintaro Ishihara boasted of a "Japan That Can Say No". Japan seemed a Strong Horse then and attracted much attention, admiration and anxiety. But it also came under heavy criticism and scrutiny, even condemnation. Japan had no Sacred Cow protection, so it was fair game to bash the Japanese. Indeed, Strong Horse power paradoxically undermines itself. While influence and favors can be bought with lotsa money, they also draw negative attention, criticism, and hostility. The more money is used to buy influence, the more suspicion it arouses.

Furthermore, influence bought with money is purely a matter of 'business'. Any partnership based on 'business' can vanish overnight. It used to be a national pastime in goy nations to call attention to Jewish Power buying favors from turncoat gentiles. The more money Jews spent, the more they were called out as financial manipulators. So, buying influence and favors was like a double-edged sword. Jews bought off goy elites but could also be called out as 'dirty Jews'. Also, even goy elites who were bought off felt dirty & compromised and might turn on the Jew at any opportune moment. It was only with the Holocaust Theology following World War II that the Jewish Strong Horse of money had the protection of the Sacred Cow of holy victimhood. Today, Jews are more corrupt than ever, but NO ONE dares to call out on the Jews. Jews ram Donald Trump in the arse, but his response is, "Can I suck your d*** stained with my own shi*?"

Compared to the Jews, Chinese are rank amateurs. Global Hillbillies really. Chinese made some serious cash in the past two decades, and they are now going about it like the Japanese in the 1980s. They brazenly seek influence by throwing money around. Of course, it often goes a long way as people all over the world are eager to take money. It's like the guy in IDIOCRACY says, "I like money."

So, money should never be underestimated. But partnerships based on money are shaky and unstable. It's not like the bond within the family. Chinese nationalists feel a sense of unity and loyalty that goes beyond money. While plenty of Chinese are selfish enough to sell their own nation for thirty pieces of silver — Hong Kong Chinese collaborated with 'foreign devils' in the subjugation and exploitation of China — , there are Chinese patriots whose relation to the motherland isn't simply about money or self-interest. It's like there's a difference between 'personal'/'family' bonds and 'business' interests in THE GODFATHER. It's why Michael Corleone feels especially betrayed by Fredo, a family member.

Chinese got to thinking that they could spread lots of cash around and buy influence in the West. They didn't learn the lesson of Japan in the 1980s. The more influence the Japanese bought, the more they were exposed as alien influence-peddlers. Westerners who took Japanese money were derided as 'Japanhandlers'. When public opinion turned against Japan, one's reputation suffered as a 'Japanhandler'. Being bought off by the Japanese led to short-term gain but could mean long-term loss. The money was good but at the risk of being castigated as a whore of yellow peril. Jewish Hollywood even made RISING SUN based on Michael Crichton's novel. (It was like JAP SUSS modeled on Veit Harlan's JEW SUSS.)

JEW SUSS by Veit Harlan

And now, we are seeing a similar implosion of Chinese influence in the West, especially in the Anglosphere of US, UK, Canada, and Australia. Chinese used big money to gain influence, but it only exposed them to China-bashers calling out on the 'Chi-Coms'. (East Asians, not a very verbal people, often settle issues with money, and this comes across as underhanded in Western eyes. In contrast, Jews not only pay but have much to say, thereby coming across as more justified and righteous in what they do. Chinese only bribe, whereas Jews follow up the bribe with the diatribe to morally intimidate potential critics of Jews.)
There is a limit to what the Strong Horse of money can do. It can gain entry but is resented as a usurper. Besides, even as China has the Strong Horse of money, its military capability is still far behind that of US that virtually owns Taiwan and other 'Asian Tiger' nations as neo-protectorates. US got both the bigger carrot and the bigger stick. So far, Chinese can only buy influence with money, and it goes a long way but not all the way. Indeed, the Chinese Strong Horse is now being exposed as a Trojan Horse.

In the case of Australia, all the influence-peddling with money seems to have done more harm than good. Initially, China gained key access down under, but it also drew negative attention from the US(that can tolerate China as an economic power but not as a world player) and ordinary Aussies who feel their nation is being sold out to the Chinese. Furthermore, anti-Chinese bashing serves as an outlet for growing white frustration resulting from Politically Correct taboos against criticism of Jews and blacks(and homos). Therefore, because whites must always suck up to Jewish Power(that is hostile to white identity & interests), grovel before blacks(who commit lots of crime and violence against whites), and homos(who degrade culture and morality), they are desperate to release their frustrations on something. As there is no taboo against bashing China, many whites blame the 'Chi-Coms' for everything. It's like Alex Jones in the US got deplatformed by Jews but howls about the Chinese 24/7. And even as Rush Limbaugh praised Walmart as a model of American Enterprise, he dumped on the 'Chi-Coms'. Never mind Walmart's success owes to its contract with China. Go easy on US corporations and just blame the Chinese.

The Covid Hysteria seems largely the result of Chinese and Jews. The virus might have originated in China, maybe due to government neglect. But, it was blown all out of proportion by the Western Media and governments because Jewish Power found it useful to undermine Trump's economy(thereby ruining his prospect for re-election) and to grab statist power to suppress populist movements and political activism(unless it happened to be Jewish-favored ones like BLM marches and Antifa mayhem). Nazis associated with germs & pathogens with Jewish influence, and Jewish Power's use of Covid Hysteria has created the illusion that Trumpism & Era of Nationalist Populism = Disease and Plague. 

So, both China and Jewish Power are responsible for Covid being hyped as a 'pandemic'. But, notice China is getting all the blame. Even Biden-voters blame China for Covid. China gets all the blame while Jews get no blame(even though Jewish Power blocked early attempts by Donald Trump to restrict travel between China and US and also hyped it all out of proportion to shut down entire sectors). Jews remain blameless whereas China is blamed for the 'China Virus'. So, even though Chinese played the junior partner alongside Jews against Trump and his supporters, they are getting almost all the blame. 

At any rate, the terms of the Jewish-Chinese alliances is such that the Chinese do the bidding of Jews but also serve as the Fall Guy while the Jew goes unblamed. If a Jew and a Chinese plotted to steal honey from bees, the Jew would tell the Chinese to go at the bee hive. Both would get the honey, but the Chinese guy would also get the stings while the Jew would only get the honey. Chinese seem to think that their partnership with Jews will lead to Jews defending China, but that's naivete on their part. Japan during WWII treated Jews well in the hope that Jewish-Americans would feel grateful and intercede on its behalf, but it was misplaced hope. Jews invented the atomic bomb that blew up Japan. Likewise, Chinese are foolish if they think Jews will offer them protection in exchange for Chinese helping out the Jews. No, even as Jews take full advantage of the Jewish-Chinese partnership against whites, they expose China as the culprit because the bulk of Western anger at globalism will be directed toward the Chinese than to the Jews(who are its real architects and captains).

Basic strategy seems as follows. So-called 'Liberal' Jews work with Chinese to undermine American Nationalism. Of course, Jews support their own nationalism, Zionism, and their own tribal identity/interests, but they detest and subvert goy national identities and interests. So, nationalism is all very well for Israel(and the West is compelled to support the Jewish State, or else be accused of 'antisemitism', as Jeremy Corbyn of UK found out), but any desire on the part of goyim to preserve national identity and borders is denounced as 'far right' or 'xenophobic'. So, Jews say the West must support ultra-nationalist Israel but condemn Hungary for wanting to preserve its people and culture. Just like Jews believe their God is the only true God while all other gods are false, they believe their own identity is the only true identity whereas soulless and faceless goyim exist only to serve Jews. (Notice that children of Jews and Chinese are Jews first and Chinese second. Chinese-ness is subservient and secondary to Jewishness. Just ask Amy Chua who used her Chinese womb to create Jewish kids.) As the US has been majority white Christian, Jews have made alliances with ANY group to weaken white identity & unity and Christian Culture. Chinese have played along with the Jews to make gains in the West because Chinese believe Jews are the true boss of the West.

The Chinese Believe That the Jews Control America. Is That a Good Thing?

But even as 'liberal' Jews push this agenda in cahoots with the Chinese, 'conservative' Jews rant about how China is taking over the world and has spies all over America. So, China gets ALL THE BLAME for globalism's impact on America. And one senses that 'liberal' Jews and 'conservative' Jews are working together behind the scenes. After all, 'liberal' Jews control the media and academia in the West, but they never condemn 'conservative' Jews for ramping up 'yellow peril' hysteria. People like Ezra Levant in Canada and Michael Savage in the US are given free rein to sound the alarm about 'Chinese are coming, Chinese are coming'. So, 'liberal' Jews work with Chinese to subvert American Nationalism but also enable 'conservative' Jews who blame China but never Jews for the globalist agenda. Consider the two articles below: One shows how 'liberal' Wall Street Jews have long worked with China against the US. In contrast, Jews like Ezra Levant and Zionist-controlled Breitbart News spread alarm about how Chinese are taking over everything. 

Chinese Official: We Subvert America Through Wall Street Jews

Documents Reveal Canada Planned Winter Training with Chinese Troops; Canceled After U.S. Request

There are many more Chinese than Jews, but quantity isn't everything. In a way, Jews always had a Sacred Cow mentality along with the Strong Horse Strategy; the Sacred Cow among Jews was the Covenant, the sense of the Chosen. So, when it came to the Strong Horse Strategy, Jews only pretended to go with the goy Strong Horse. Even as the Jewish body was serving the goy Strong Horse(be it Anglo, German, Russian, French, or whatever), the Jewish soul remained loyal to the Sacred Cow of Jewish Identity. In other words, even as Jewish eyes and ears could be impressed by Gentile power, the Jewish Soul didn't surrender to the Other. If anything, Jews served the goy Strong Horse to gain more power for themselves and grow their own Strong Horse to be trained to eventually outrace the Goy Strong Horse(like in BEN-HUR) and serve the Jewish Soul. In time, Jews would make goyim serve the Jewish Strong Horse as well. Today, goyim in the US are total servants to Jewish Supremacist Power.

TRIBUTE TO THE 'GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT' SHELDON ADELSON

In contrast, Chinese only have a Strong Horse strategy. There is no sacred cow mentality. (Chinese were feng-shui superstitious about the world around them but didn't develop a sacred sense of the Chinese soul.) Ideally, they'd like to be the Strong Horse and have others revolve around the Chinese(as the Middle Kingdom). But if they can't be the Strong Horse, they'd rather follow whatever happens to be the Strong Horse, even if it isn't Chinese. Now, Chinese Culture, steeped in Confucian tradition, has a sense of goodness apart from power and wealth, but it's mostly about manners than about ethno-spiritual identity, which is what Jews have. Manners are not strong enough to hold an identity together. If anything, it tends to divide a people along class lines: Snobs and slobs. Chinese also have Taoism, but it's about man's ego yielding to the Way. It is an emasculating kind of spirituality. If the Jewish Covenant concentrates the power of the universe in Jewish Identity as the Chosen of God, the creator and ruler of all, Taoism tends to dissolve Chinese ego in vague musings about the 'harmony'. At any rate, in Confucian vs the Covenant, the Covenant wins.

Because Jews have both Strong Horse Strategy and Sacred Cow Mentality, even their service to the goy Strong Horse eventually serves Jewish Identity, which is sacred to Jews. Also, Jews are BORN with the Covenant. It is innate. In contrast, Confucian-based sense of the higher good isn't something one is born with but must attain through education and refinement. Thus, it doesn't apply to all Chinese but only to those with the good fortune of higher education and social elevation. Also, this East Asian emphasis on education-as-the-path-to-respectability means that the Chinese are easily molded by whomever is doing the educating. So, under the Old Order, they strove to be proper Confucians. Under Mao, they were fervent communists. And Chinese in the Current West become servile students of globo-homo, BLM nonsense, and Jew-worship, the new holy trinity of the West. Because their own identity isn't prized as a sacred cow(like Jewish identity is for Jews who are steeped in Covenant Mentality), Chinese are likely to go along with whatever happens to be the Strong Horse. Plenty of Chinese who see the West as the Strong Horse and Sacred Cow(or the 'shining city on the hill') will gladly work for the West against their ancestral nation. Indeed, consider all those Chinese women who use their Chinese wombs to produce Jewish babies for Jewish men. Chinese bodies not only work for Jews but function to produce new life for Jews than for Chinese.

So, whereas Jews in disadvantageous situations may submit their bodies to the goy Strong Horse but never surrender their souls, Chinese will submit their bodies and surrender their souls to the Strong Horse even if it is non-Chinese or anti-Chinese. Look at all the Chinese cucks sucking up to the West in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are like the worthless Dumb Polacks who'd gladly sell out Poland because they adulate the Jewish-run West as the Strong Horse.
Though the first Chinese arrivals in the West might feel some loyalty to the Mother Country, their children are destined to become agents of Globo-Homo, Jewish Power, and Negro-worship because their parents raise them to follow, obey, and serve the Strong Horse, which currently happens to be owned by Jews. (The Chinese sense of loyalty to family works only in close-knit local communities. In the mobile modern world, people need a powerful sense of ethnic solidarity or national identity to maintain a lasting sense of loyalty. But as East Asians favor class over race, they are more likely to betray their own kind for personal gain. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant is about race/blood than about class. A Jew, rich or poor, is equally holy within the Covenant. A successful Jew doesn't despise a less fortunate Jew like a successful East Asian looks down on the less fortunate among his own kind. It's why Israel's suicide rate is far lower than that of East Asia where the less successful are made to feel worthless.)
As long as Jews control the West, Chinese and Asians in general will serve as anti-white agents to gain approval from their Jewish Masters. Jews love to use 'diversity' against whites. When White Christians controlled the West long ago, many Chinese in the West converted to Christianity and emulated white power. But as whites now cuck to Jews, Chinese in the West also cuck to Jews. And if Jews tell Chinese to be anti-white, Chinese will be anti-white. This is useful to Jews as they then go to whites and say, "Look at all those anti-white Chinese", which makes whites bark back at the Chinese but never at the Jews who encourage anti-white attitude among the Chinese(and other non-white groups).

If Chinese were cleverer, they would have pushed both the Strong Horse and the Sacred Cow strategies on the West, much like what the Jews did, especially after World War II. Jews used lots of dollars but also placed Holocaust at the center of Western Conscience. As China came under Western Aggression, the Chinese could have balanced Money Power with Moral Narrative of China's degradation at the hands of the West. Thus, Chinese Suffering might have gained a degree of Sacred Cow status.
But, Chinese chose to morally target the Japanese, especially concerning the Nanking Massacre. Even Chinese in the West made more fuss about evil Japanese than about Western Aggression. Iris Chang in the US wrote a book about Japanese killing bushels of Chinese. And Jung Chang, married to some Briton and authoress of MAO, seems most hateful toward Mainland China than anything else. As such, the Chinese failed to exploit the cult of Chinese-victimhood. Notice China hasn't made any big movie about its humiliation by Western Imperialists. China made a movie called CITY OF LIFE AND DEATH about Japanese atrocities in Nanking but did nothing to promote 'Western Guilt' in China's tragedy in the 20th century. And even the guilt-baiting of Japan didn't work as Japan could reliably look to the West to back it up against China. In contrast, Germans can't rely on the West to back it up against Jews because Jews control the West. When Chinese say to Japanese, "You Japs no good", the US will side with Japan against China. But when Jews say, "You Krauts suck", the Jewish-ruled US will also tell Germans, "Yeah, you Krauts suck, so pony up and pay more shekels to Jews, or else!"

Jews can use their Strong Horse to trample on the West, but they are protected by the Sacred Cow of Shoah Narrative and 'white guilt' about Jews. In contrast, when Chinese use their Strong Horse of newly minted Money Power, they have no similar recourse to suppress anti-Chinese criticism as there is zero Western guilt about the Chinese. Most people in the West know nothing of the Chinese Tragedy in the past 200 yrs, and they're more likely to think of Chinese as dog-eating & cat-boiling sadists who got whupped by 'Japs' who were then crushed by the Americans in the Good War. Because the US beat Japan that battered China, most Americans think Chinese owe everything to Americans. Americans overlook the part about how Europeans and Americans emboldened and built up Modern Japan and invited it into the Imperialist Club. And of course, Jews say nothing about how the Jewish Sassoon Dynasty sold the bulk of opium to the Chinese, but then the Chinese don't press this point either as they are so eager to work with Jews as the Strongest Horse. If anything, Jews now fund 'libertarian' thinkers who say China's opium problem was vastly exaggerated. They are like the paid shills who downplay the harm done to white working class by opioids peddled by the Jewish Sackler Family.

It goes to show that Financial Currency isn't enough. The Sacred Cow of Moral Currency is also crucial. There's been some talk of the Euro, the Yuan, or the combination of Yuan and other currencies challenging the supremacy of the Dollar, but the Dollar is still supreme and will be for the foreseeable future. So, even nations with troubled relations with the US must accumulate dollars to do business around the world. They need dollars to buy oil and other essential goods and materials. This is a case of Strong Horse power. Money Supremacy by the US. But, financial power is not a Sacred Cow. So, even as peoples around the world must take part in Dollar Domination, they can express resentment and denounce it as unfair and unjust.

In contrast, the currency of Moral Supremacism has Sacred Cow power. It comes with taboos attached. Jews, as the masters of the US, not only enjoy Dollar Supremacism over the world but, as masters of media and academia, also enjoy the supremacy of their own chosen Moral Currency, which revolves around Sacred Jews, Holy Homos, and Magic Negroes. One reason why Jews seek to fill the world with Holocaust Narratives, Globo-Homo 'pride' parades, and BLM agit-prop is to unify the world under a single Moral Currency of Tri-Supremacism of the Holy Three who matter most: Jews, blacks, and homos. 

This way, most people's moral currencies(based on their own tragic narratives) don't go very far, just like most national currencies have limited use value. Local currencies must be exchanged into dollars to have global worth. Likewise, local folks must obtain Tri-Supremacist moral-shekels to curry favor with the US Empire that rules the world. For instance, Armenians won't get far by griping about victimhood under Turks and Azerbaijanis. They are better off putting on a 'gay pride' parade or putting up BLM signs. Or, building a Holocaust Memorial even though Armenians had nothing to do with the Shoah. The fact is Armenians don't matter much in the moral constellation configured by Jews. Indeed, it was no problem when Obama reneged on the pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in favor of maintaining good relations between the US and Turkey. If any people want to gain globo-'moral worth', they are better off spouting off about the Holocaust, wonders of homosexuality, and how BLM is so important(even though they had nothing to do with the African Slave Trade) because those three obsessions have the most value as moral currency in the West controlled by Jews.
Global Morality is really about the Imperialism of Western Consciousness and White Guilt. So, if the West feels special sympathy or reverence for Jews, blacks, and homos, then the rest of the world must also strive to gain moral credence by earning 'woke' shekels minted on notions of Sacred Jews, Holy Homos, and Magic Negroes. Such shekels are to World Morality what the US Dollar is to World Currency. Not all is fair and equal in the Moral Exchange Rate. Why is Mandela treated like a saint-prophet while Arafat has been memory-holed even though their struggles were so similar? Why was apartheid so evil in South Africa, but it's okay when Jews do it to Palestinians in the West Bank? It's because Jews and blacks morally count for more than Arabs and Palestinians. Indeed, many Arabs in the Emirates are now cutting a deal with Israel because the world doesn't care about the plight of Arabs or Muslims.

Pakistani-American kid got admitted to an elite college by writing nothing but 'Black Lives Matter' a hundred times on the admissions essay. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teen-accepted-stanford-after-writing-blacklivesmatter-100-times-application-n742586 He didn't write "Muslim Lives Matter" or "Pakistani Lives Matter" even though he is of Muslim background and from a region in which US power has done so much damage — after all, while the US police kills a handful of black criminals every year, the US military kills many thousands of Arabs/Muslims for the sake of Zionist Supremacy. So, shouldn't the kid have pressed on the matter of "Muslim Lives Matter"? Alas, such wouldn't have gotten him very far because Muslim or Pakistani identity doesn't have much exchange value in the Moral Marketplace. But even if you're not black, saying "black lives matter" can earn you some 'moral' credit because blacks are part of the Tri-Supremacist Holy Three.

Likewise, white politicians get nowhere by extolling the tragic histories of the Irish, Polish, Italians, Latvians, or whatever. And one's sure to go morally bankrupt if he dares to spout morally-charged narratives about gentiles exploited by Jews or mass-killed by Jewish Bolsheviks. If white politicians want some 'woke' currency, the best bet is to gush about Jewish wonderfulness, 'Muh Israel', and, of course, the Holocaust as the worst thing that ever happened since the Big Bang. 

White Supremacism is out, but White SAPremacism is in. Whites must be saps before Jews and their chosen allies, homos and blacks. And this SAPremacism serves as the template for the rest of the world. So, if you want to succeed as a Hindu or Chinese in the West, don't bother griping about Hindu tragedy or Chinese suffering. No one cares about Hindu or Chinese lives, which have little moral exchange value. You must trade the tragic narratives of your own folks with the Tri-Supremacist shekels of Jew-Negro-Homo or Jewgromo Worship. Whites must act as saps before Jews, blacks, and homos to climb the ladder, and the rest of the world has to emulate White Sappery. Look at those Asians in Canada waving the homo flag and speaking/gesticulating in black lingo & 'attitude' to gain moral currency. As they matter little as Asians, they invoke blackness and homo vanity. And if they want to rise up in elite institutions, they are obligated to pay respect to Jewish Tragedy and Homo wonderfulness because their own identities and narratives have little value in the Tri-Supremacist Moral Currency System. A Chinese goes nowhere saying, "I love China and am proud to be Chinese", but he or she might get somewhere by exclaiming, "I revere Jews", "I love blacks", and "I worship homos".

CHINA AND AUSTRALIA FACE OFF IN ESCALATING TRADE WAR - The Duran: News - Video - Analysis2020: THE ESTABLISHMENT STRIKES BACK by Black Pigeon Speaks

What's in a Word: The Politicization of the Term APPEASEMENT — In the Current Order, If You Appease Jewish Supremacism, You're Not an 'Appeaser', but If You Call for Reasoned Negotiations with Those Hated by Jews, You Are an 'Appeaser'... funny how that works

THE HUGE DEMOCRAT PARTY COUP by Brother Nathanael

A clear case of the Power of the Word is 'appeasement'. When it is and when it is not an appeasement? It's like 'hate'. When Jews hate you, it's not hate. But if you're even mildly critical of Jews, you might be a 'hater'. And what is 'extreme'? These days, a man with a big chunky pair of balls who claims to be a woman is a 'woman'. That is the New Normal. But a conservative(or a lesbian/feminist) who might disagree could be branded as 'extreme'. Once, you had to be Nazi-like to be 'extreme'. But now, the mere desire of Hungarians to preserve their national integrity is condemned as 'extreme' and 'far right'. But then, when Jews are truly zealous of their identity, heritage, and territory in Israel, we must all get behind the Tribe. If you criticize Zionism or call for a measure of justice for Palestinians, you get smeared like Jeremy Corbyn. You are either an 'Anti-Semite' or harboring it among your flock.

Back to 'appeasement'. It's a famous(and even infamous) term usually associated with the supposed wimps and weaklings who caved to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Say the word 'appeasement', and Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler will come to mind. In the West, it's also been used to smear those who call for constructive dialogue with Iran(because, of course, whatever Jews hate is the 'new hitler'). Neocon Jews and their cuck-puppets never tire of denouncing others as akin to the craven cowards who cut a deal with Hitler. So, acknowledgement of Iran's legitimate interests is tantamount to repeating the mistakes of 1939 and paving the way for more horrors, maybe even Another Holocaust!

'Appeasement', like 'phobia', is not a neutral or objective term. It is judgmental and condemnatory. If someone is said to be 'phobic', it means his fears are utterly irrational, unfounded, and pathological. So, if someone is opposed to non-stop immigration that might forever transform the character of his homeland, he isn't a patriot with sound anxieties but a bigot with sickness in his head(and soul): A 'xenophobe'. Likewise, 'appeasement' isn't merely negotiation or compromise but a craven bargain with the devil. Of course, the accusation can come from any side. After all, German critics of Hitler could have argued Der Fuhrer appeased the British and the French in promising not to press for more German territories lost in World War I in exchange for Chamberlain's acceptance of German fait accompli in Czech Territory.

Because the term 'appeasement' is so judgmental, historians should be careful in its use. It is more a form of editorializing than understanding. The term is problematic even within its own definition. After all, if 'to appease' means: To placate or attempt to placate (a threatening nation, for example) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle", then it is an all-too-common occurrence. Power differentials are a fact of life as most parties in any situation are not equal. Some are richer, better connected, more prestigious, more influential, and more powerful. So, it's often the case that the weaker party has to make concessions to the powerful side. But, most such interactions or transactions are not called 'appeasement'. So, even appeasement isn't 'appeasement' if it's approved by the Power/System or the established way of doing business.

What is the most powerful group in the US? It's the Jews, and so much of US politics, economics, and social policy is about non-Jews sucking up to Jews. Politicians suck up to the demands of Wall Street and the Donor Class, both heavily Jewish. Anyone who wants to work in Hollywood has to suck up to Zionists. Mutter something about BDS or criticism of Jewish Power, and you shall be blacklisted. US politicians of European backgrounds never make pilgrimages to their own ancestral homelands. Rather, they go to Israel, put on a yarmulke, and stand before the Wailing Wall. They all suck up to Jews by invoking the memory of the Shoah while ignoring most other horrors of the 20th century or any other era. US politicians shill for Israel and spew hatred against Iran. They stand in line outside AIPAC as willing lackeys for More Wars for Israel. All such behaviors certainly qualify as acts of appeasement but are never called out as such by the Big Media and Big Academia that are controlled by Jews.
Appeasing Jewish Power is so approved and 'normal' in US politics that it's never slapped with the seal of 'appeasement'. Indeed, it's become so second-nature to Americans that they're blind to their own craven cuckery. After 2020 election, you'd think American Conservatives would finally wake up to Jewish Power. Trump surely appeased the Jews a thousand times but got rammed in the arse just the same. In other words, 'With Jews, you lose'. But all we get from The Donald is more appeasement to Neocons who threaten Iran and all we get from Trumpeteers is 'China, China, China'. Never mind China too was in the business of appeasing the Jews as the go-to ruling elites of the US. The bargain was China would get a piece of the pie if it aided Jews in the demise of white identity and power.

Apparently, 'appeasement', like 'Hate', is always something done by people, regime, or nation that happens to be disapproved by the Power — when Jews hate(Russia, White Christians, Syrians, Arabs, Palestinians, Hungarians, etc.), it's never called hate. While it's been said a million times that Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler, it's hardly been mentioned that Winston Churchill(and FDR) appeased Joseph Stalin by conceding all of Eastern Europe to the Iron Curtain. After all, Churchill and FDR are still remembered as great men. Richard Nixon was much lauded for meeting with Mao Zedong. It wasn't called an appeasement of a Red Monster. But the merest sign of Trump wanting to work with Vladimir Putin was condemned as 'appeasement' of 'Putler'. But then, the GOP cucks called Obama's deal with Iran as 'appeasement', once again invoking World War II, even though Obama did it under the control of J-Street Jews who were seeking to ease Iran out of the Russia-China orbit. GOP cucks misled the public with the charge that the US under Obama funneled billions upon billions of US taxpayer money to Iran when the money was Iran's own that had been frozen in the US.

In the West, there are two kinds of appeasement. There are those who appease Jews in the most pathetic and shameless manner. John McCain was champion at this, but most GOP and Democratic politicians are top contenders. They know all the doggy tricks. This might be called 'positive appeasement'. But there is another kind that might be called 'negative appeasement'. Take Rand Paul. While he often displeases Jewish Power by refusing to back every War for Israel, he won't call out on Jewish Power. He turns every discussion or policy issue into an abstract discussion of principles and the Constitution. But current events and prevailing trends cannot be understood apart from the hypocrisy of Jewish Power that yammers about 'equity' and 'social justice', all the while pushing for policies that only make Jews even richer and make Israel even more dominant in the Middle East.

In a fair world, nothing should be called 'appeasement' or anything fitting the description should be thus labeled. So, if what Chamberlain did was appeasement, so was Churchill's deal with Stalin. And all the minor nations and powers within the US empire should also be called appeasers. What does Europe do nowadays but constantly appease the US that is controlled by Jews? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and etc. are appeasers of the US empire. Colombia is a suck-ass appeaser of US power. And US politicians are mostly craven appeasers of Jewish Power.
But, the term is used selectively to demean ONLY THOSE who concede in a manner that is disapproved by Jewish-controlled US empire that shapes the narrative and discourse around the world via its lock on academia and media and deep state.

Appeasing Jewish Power means one must also appease whatever is favored by Jews. So, if Jews say BLM, one must appease black thuggery as the 'new sainthood'. Even though blacks are the most violent criminal class in the US, one must sing hosannas to magic blackness. And of course, the homos. Jewish Power promoted holy homos, and that means one mustn't upset homos lest he also displease Jews who must be appeased at all times. Jews are the 'Made Men' of US power, and that means the only functional 'law' of the land is Whatever Jews Want. Appease globo-homo. Sodomy is the new god, or godomy. Jews demand it, so you better obey. If a tranny says he's a woman, you better use 'proper pronouns' where he is a 'she' or even a 'they'. Surely, powerful Jews are cracking up behind closed doors at the sheer stupidity and/or cowardice of goyim.

So, we have a situation where everyone must appease the Jews in order not to be labeled an 'appeaser'. It's like one must hate whatever Jews hate in order not to be called a 'hater'. And it's not enough that most people in the West appease Jews. There are still some who say the US should be on better terms with Russia or some nation hated by Jews, and that is lambasted as 'appeasement'. Jewish Power is like a jealous god that says "Ours Only". Everyone must appease the Jews, but that is not appeasement apparently. But if you dare suggest that US negotiate or compromise with any side hated by Jews, you are a damn 'appeaser'! What a rotten state of affairs.

In the current order, your appeasement is not appeasement if it's approved by the Power. But even if you don't appease but call for negotiations or dialogue with a side hated by Jews, you are an 'appeaser'. If you smooch the Jewish Supremacist Ass, you're not an appeaser. But if you merely call for the end of the illegal US occupation of Syria, you are 'appeasing' Assad the 'butcher of Syria'.

Just like the US dollar is the world currency, Jewish Outrage of Tri-Supremacism(centered on Jews, Negroes, and Homos) has become the world moral currency. The only way to earn 'woke' currency is by appeasing the supremacism of Jews, megalomania of Negroes, and vanity of homos. Thus, every European nation has a Holocaust Museum, and homo prides are spreading around the world to showcase that "Our nation has accepted Gayspel as the new gospel'. Or even nations without blacks or black problems make a fuss with BLM to show they are with the program.

Western elites are worse than ever because the terms of elite selection favors the supremacists among the Jews but saps and flunkies among whites. A Jew who is conscientious and critical of Jewish Power hardly gets anywhere. Just ask Norman Finkelstein who couldn't even secure a gig at second-tier college DePaul. A Jew has to be supremacist to make his way to the top. But when it comes to whites, anyone exhibiting any independence of thought or anything resembling courage/integrity is struck down. He's not even admitted to elite college if, for example, he posted something on Twitter or Facebook that might displease Jews, homos, or blacks. That means the kind of whites who rise to the top are saphead cucks who go along to get along. They may still be smart and capable, but they are born appeasers and toadies than mavericks and men of independence. In other words, the likes of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ben Sasse, Brian Kemp, Paul Ryan, and etc. are allowed to rise to the top. (It's an Asianization of the West. In the East, exams are treated as an end than a means to an end. Exams aren't so much a gauge of success as success itself. So, Asians don't think independently but merely study whatever is approved to pass the exams as proof of their success. In the quasi-Confucian Neo-West, whites must pass the PC exam of approved thought than think independently. Millennials grew up to favor approval of thought than independence of thought.) So, the result is a system run by sniveling Jewish supremacist masters and groveling white goy cuck dogs. But, we are told that white cuckery isn't appeasement because Jews control the narrative and decide what is what.

The Huge Democrat Party Coup by Brother Nathanael

Notes on THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST 'RACE' by Edward Dutton — Species Cannot Exist without Race — Globalism pushed Ideology of Equality but Idolatry of Black Supremacy — Jewish Perfidy in the Discourse on Race

https://www.unz.com/article/the-arguments-against-race/

--Is “race” an outmoded, morally dubious idea that was deservedly cast into the dustbin of history, along with Stalinism, astrology, and blood-letting? Many say so.--

A hysterical(and tiresome) argument used by the Thought Police so many times. Of course, the problem with such line of argument is everything has a dark side. After all, capitalism did much harm as well as good. Nuclear science led to wonders but also destruction of cities. Socialism can mean anything from radical communism of the Khmer Rouge to the welfare state(a fact of life in all modern societies). So, if critics of race argue that racial ideas may lead to great harm, most of us would concur. But this is true of anything. Without fire, there is no civilization. But fire has also burned down entire cities. Same with water. Without rain we are dead, but floods are dangerous.

So, we need to be cautious with ideas. The problem isn't so much the concept of race per se as the radicalization of racial science into hardline ideology, as with National Socialism. (Indeed, if Adolf Hitler and his followers were more like Benito Mussolini, who was less into racial ideology than the 'democratic' Anglos were, the horrors of Nazism could have been avoided.) Socialism need not be khmer-rouge-ism, and racial knowledge need not lead us to something like National Socialism(or the more extreme forms of Zionism). The real danger is not socialism or racialism(or race-ism) but radicalization of any idea. This even goes for democracy. Radical Democratism has led to 21st century wars that destroyed millions of lives, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The US, by invoking 'muh democracy' at every turn, has justified its despicable and murderous acts of neo-imperialism. Radicalism is extremism, moral narcissism, and moral puritanism. "I am so very right, you are so very wrong" or "If you're not with us, you're against us."
So, the problem isn't race-ism per se but radical racism. (By race-ism, I mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. To emphasize the -ism element of the term, the dash[-] is used: Race-ism. It is not to be confused with 'racism' that is usually meant to mean racial hatred and supremacism, esp of the white kind.) When we consider most ideas, we don't automatically obsess over the most extreme manifestation. So, 'socialism' doesn't mean Stalinism or Maoism. Those are forms of radical socialism, but most forms of socialism haven't been extreme. Likewise, when we say 'capitalism', we don't mean the most extreme kind of libertarian plutocracy with no protections for workers and the poor.
And yet, when it comes to the matter of race, people automatically jump to conclusions and assume it's about extreme hatred, mass repression, and mass murder. Of course, it has a lot to do with Jewish control of media and narrative. Indeed, the discussion of race is not unlike the discussion of Jewish Power. For example, even the slightest noticing and criticism of Jewish Power is denounced as 'antisemitism'. So, if you notice Jewish Power and its abuses, you are automatically a 'Nazi'. You are to be denounced, that is unless you get on your knees and roll over like a dog. On some issues, taboos dominate the discourse in the West. This is where Reason and Enlightenment Values break down. While we can be rational and honest on most things, we must suspend our reason, skepticism, and critical faculties on certain matters, especially if they're 'triggering' to Jews, blacks, and homos. Their FEELINGS count for more than demonstrable facts. Blacks are the most violent and murderous, but the Taboo says we must get on our knees and bawl about BLM.

--(Anti-racists insist) there is no clear way to divide different races. They merge into each other, with great variation in-between. A version of this argument is that there is no specific gene that is found only in one specific race. It can be countered that races are, of course, not entirely discrete categories because, if they were, they would be more like species, or perhaps genera, families, or orders on up the taxonomic scale.--

It is so obvious but PC follows its own twisted logic. We all know race is not species. Races are differences within a single species. Also, different species exist only because different races evolved into different species. If races don't exist, species cannot exist. For example, take the common ancestors of (1) the apes that became the chimps and (2) the apes that became humans. At one time, there were no separate species of humans and chimps. Their deep ancestors belonged to the same species of ape. But within that species, groups went separate ways and they began to diverge gradually. For a long time, there were merely different races of the same ape species. But little by little, the differences accumulated, and something resembling separate species arose. One branch became the chimpanzee and the other branch became the ape that eventually evolved into humanhood. In other words, a species cannot suddenly split into new separate species. Rather, groups within it can gradually diverge and change. This process is race-ization. For a long time, the emerging races still belong within the same species. But over prolonged periods, especially in extreme geological separation from one another, they can evolve into separate species.
This is true of mankind as well. If human races were to remain separate for another million years, they could evolve into different species. Evolution has proven this to be the case. For now, all human races belong to one species. But they have developed different characteristics, and there is a chance that they could evolve into separate species in the next 100,000 or million years. At any rate, if race isn't real, then species isn't real. Any organism, in order to evolve into a new species, must first evolve into different races(within the species). Consider tigers and lions. At one time, they had a common ancestor. It's not like this common ancestor suddenly split into species tiger and species lion. Instead, it began to diverge into different races of itself. One race eventually became the tiger, and the other race eventually became the lion. They began as different races but eventually became different species.

Also, mixed-race people can exist ONLY BECAUSE there are different races. After all, there can't be mulattos in a world that is all-white or all-black. There can't be mestizos in a world that is all white or all brown. Those mixed-breeds came into existence ONLY BECAUSE different races interbred. If we mix apple juice with grape juice, the mixture exists only because apple juice and grape juice existed in the first place. It would be stupid to deny the reality of apple juice and grape juice because a mixture exists. If anything, the mixture proves the existence of the other two.

--Even if it were true that no unambiguous line can be drawn between races, this does not undermine the utility of race. The line between Grizzly bears and Brown bears is blurry, too—but you still know one when you see one and making distinctions between these subspecies is meaningful.--

Brown Bears and Grizzlies are not a good example. They are nearly indistinguishable. Generally, grizzlies are a bit smaller than brown bears, but they are almost the same. A better example is brown bears and polar bears. Though considered as separate species, they are actually different races of bears if we use the Rule of Fertility. Horses and donkeys are separate species because their offspring, the mule, is infertile. Likewise, a lion and leopard can mate and produce offspring but it is infertile. In contrast, the offspring of a polar bear and brown bear, like the offspring of members of different human races, is fertile. Therefore, polar bear and brown bear are really separate races within the same species. But who can deny the differences between the brown bear and polar bear? Just because hybrid bears exist doesn't mean that the differences between brown bears and polar bears are meaningless, insignificant, or negligible. Also, contact between those races of bears usually means more danger to the polar bears. Though polar bears are equal in size and weight, brown bears are built more sturdily and are more aggressive. So, in most encounters, polar bears lose out and take 'white flight' from the brown bears. (For a long time, scientists believed Neanderthals to be a different species of humans, but recent DNA studies show that 5% of European DNA is Neanderthal. That means the offspring of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were fertile, and that means Neanderthals were another race of humans. But, the differences between Neanderthals and other humans were significant.) Another useful example comprise wolves, coyotes, and dogs. Like human races and polar/brown bears, wolves, coyotes, and dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring. That means, from a scientific viewpoint, they all belong to the same species. But should we ignore the very real differences among wolves, coyotes, and many breeds of dogs simply because various mutts and mongrels exist among them? Only a fool would say so. The fact is coyotes are no match for wolves in combat, and wolves can demolish any dog, just like a pitbull can demolish a beagle(just like a Nigerian can demolish any Briton or Japanese). A coyote that ignores the threat posed by wolves because a weasel tells it, "Hey, don't be racist as if wolves are different and pose a danger" is a dead coyote.

--Some say that race is illegitimate or immoral because it is steeped in Western history (and thus things like slavery and oppression), as well as the supposedly myopic and suffocating outlook of “Western science.” But this same argument could be made about almost any concept—including the ones that supposedly undermine or overcome Western hegemony... If race is “problematic” because it’s Western, then, presumably, we cannot use Western concepts at all to analyze anything non-Western.--

Very true. Chemistry and physics are also Western Concepts. So, does that mean the world should reject medicine resulting from Western chemistry? Should people deny the laws of physics discovered by Western Scientists? Is atomic power just an illusion steeped in 'western bias'? The West developed the scientific method, and that meant it was applied to just about everything. As humans are part of biological reality, a scientific view led to categorizations of race.
Now, were all ideas associated with race valid? No, but that could be said of any scientific field. So many medical ideas once accepted as true turned out to be false. Physicists once speculated outer space was filled with ether. Science improves with more observation, testing, trials, and experiments. But in order for it to improve, there must be more truth, integrity, and honesty. There is no question that National Socialists misconceived and misapplied racial theories. Indeed, they were less interested in the science of race than in the ideology of race. Hitler and his cohorts(and the favored partisan hack scientists) insisted on the Correct Theory of Race that put 'Aryans' at the center. If they were truly interested in racial science, they would have allowed debate, but they didn't. Aryanism became the national mythos of Germany. It was not unlike the concept of Chosen-ness among Jews except that it was explained in scientistic terms. Likewise, Marxism was less a rational economic theory than a prophecy. While claiming to be 'materialist' and 'scientific', it had more in common with Judeo-Christian vision of apocalypse and redemption. Communism was secular-christianity, and fascism was neo-paganism. Marxism was a form of scientism than real science. But as science gained prestige, all sides claimed to have 'science' on their side. Indeed, even Creationists play that game. They are allied with Intelligent-Design people who argue that one can 'scientifically' prove the existence of the supreme being behind the cosmos. Even more crude forms of Creationism pretend to 'scientifically' explain how mankind once lived alongside dinosaurs by pointing to 'archaeological' evidence. And Sigmund Freud insisted that his theory of sexuality was purely scientific when it had more to do with speculation, personal hang-ups, and resentment toward goy society.

Sir Isaac Newton

At any rate, the fake/flawed radical racial 'science' of the National Socialists wasn't supplanted by true, rational, and improved science but by the fake/flawed radical anti-racial 'science' of Jewish Deracinators. It was out of the frying pan into the fire. The world went from false racial science to false anti-racial science. It went from one radical certainty to another. It was like going from a crazy pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat ONLY meat to another pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat NO meat. How about a truly scientific dietary plan that argues for meat, grains, and vegetables?

Now, given World War II and the Shoah, there is no doubt that the radical racism of the National Socialists did great harm. And we can understand why people became freaked out about race. But the radical anti-racism since World War II(which especially accelerated in the 1960s)has also done great harm. Mass migration of non-whites into the West will surely lead to the fall of Western Civilization. And lack of white defenses against blacks will lead to racial doom for white folks. Europeans Europeanize, Africans Africanize. If Europe fills up with Africans, it will be Africanized like the Dark Continent(or Detroit).

Consider the Jesse Owens and Joe Louis Narratives. They are often invoked to discredit the notion of 'Aryan Supremacy'. You see, blacks beat the 'Aryans', and that means Nazi 'racism' was all nonsense. But that is only one side of the coin. Did Owens and Louis' achievements prove that races are equal? They would have IF Louis fought Schmeling to a draw and if Owens finished in a tie with the 'Aryan' sprinters. But in fact, Louis destroyed Schmeling, and Owens beat the white runners by a considerable margin. So, even if their achievements blew 'Aryan supremacism'(in athleticism) out of the water, they demonstrated the fact of black athletic superiority.
What is the social implication of this? Tougher blacks can beat up whites. And in Europe, the racial violence is usually black on white, just like in the US and Brazil. That means blacks end up feeling contempt for white wussy weaklings. That means white males are robbed of manhood. It means white women become infected with jungle fever. BAMMAMA(blacks are more more muscular and more aggressive) leads to ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). It means total sexual triumph of blacks over whites. White males turn into pathetic cucks who watch their women go over to blacks who not only have tougher muscles but bigger dongs. (But then, the very people who say race is false and that 'we all bleed red' are also saying whites should import more blacks because blacks are so awesome in song, strong, and dong. So many Jewish-funded movies, TV shows, and advertising are predicated on Jungle Fever that says white women should reject white men and go with black men because the latter are superior in manhood. Go figure. They say one thing but show another. They say 'race is not real' but show 'look at the big muscular Negro with the big dong compared to that flabby wussy maggoty white boy'. The ideology is 'anti-racist' but the idolatry is totally 'racist' in favor of blacks uber whites.)

It's also been said that German science suffered due to the exile of Jewish scientists during the National Socialist era. But if all races and human groups are the same, why was it a loss for Germany and a gain for the US when Jewish scientists went from one nation to the other? It was a loss for Germany and gain for the US only if Jews are smarter and superior at scientific research. That would imply group differences are true, or at least true enough.

Now, there is a kernel of truth in the denunciation of Western bias in the science of 'race'. While it's true that virtually everything related to modern science, math, medicine, and technology emerged from the West, the non-human endeavors surely got a more objective treatment than human-related ones. Even today, hard sciences are more scientific than social sciences(that are never fully devoid of tribal or ideological bias). Now, there were examples of ideological bias in hard science as well, e.g. National Socialist science that denied the physics theories of Jewish physicists and Lysenko-ism in the USSR.
Still, generally speaking, when it comes to hard science, the West transcends the West, i.e. the objective is to arrive at the truth, not to trump the specialness of any people, nation, or civilization. When a German chemist or physicist works on a project, he is seeking the truth, not waving the banner of German pride. Thus, even though modern science developed in the West, it goes beyond culture and race. The scientific method can be used by any nation or people.
But the topic of race, even under scientific scrutiny, was never entirely empirical or objective. Rather, many racial scientists had ideological agenda or something to prove. And this has been the case in other nations as well. Chinese, for example, long insisted that they evolved from Peking Man than some group that emerged from Africa. Japanese racial 'scientists' insisted there is something 'unique' about the Japanese. Much of this is closer to mysticism than science. Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond has argued against race but says DNA studies can identify who is really Jewish and who isn't. Humans can be objective about lots of things but not themselves. They are too vain, too proud, too anxious, and/or too much at competition with, dominant over, or servile to other races to be totally objective. Take the controversy of "Were Ancient Egyptians black?" By the American one-drop rule, many Ancient Egyptians could be said to have been black. But as they were more Caucasian than Negroid, one could argue they were more 'white'. Or, are Jews more 'Semitic' or 'European'? Even Jews are confused about this.

Still, if there was a Western Bias in racial science in the past, the proper way forward is to be rid of those biases and approach race more scientifically than to throw the baby out with the bathwater and pretend the very concept of race is untrue. But then, was anti-racism really sincere? I don't think so. Deep down inside, many Jews surely believed in race and only pretended it didn't exist because racial thinking might probe into differences among whites, blacks, Jews, and others that might prove to be inconvenient for Jewish Power. After all, even as Jews took pride in having higher IQ over goyim, their fear was that goyim might realize this and begin to resent Jews for their superior intelligence that leads to more wealth and power, which could be used by Jews to boost Jewish Power at the expense of white interests. The fact that Jews insist on the abolishment of white identity all the while insisting that whites revere, support, and lionize Jewish Identity & Power gives the game away. But white cuckery has become so ingrained in the white psyche that whites are in habitual denial of what is really going on. Take the recent election debacle. Jews are most responsible for the Crazy 2020, but most conservatives are blaming China, China, China, a secondary player if that in the fall of White America. Denial of racial differences in IQ is also useful to Jews in perpetuating 'white guilt' & white submission and in directing black rage at whites. If it were known that black failure in education and economic achievement owes to genetic factors, whites would feel less guilty about their history. Fading of white guilt would mean it'd be harder for Jews to guilt-bait whites into seeking redemption by sucking up to Jews(and blacks and homos). Also, if blacks realized they're on the bottom due to lower IQ while Jews are on top due to higher IQ, blacks would be most envious and resentful of Jews. So, it is advantageous to Jews to blame black failure on white 'racism' and to keep blacks hating whites above all.

--While the history of words is interesting, the fact that the meaning of words change over time is simply irrelevant to our purposes here. We are clear that by “race” we mean breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments.--

True enough as 'gay' can mean happy or homosexual, but still, maybe it's useful to come up with a new term. As races developed through genetic changes over geographical distances, maybe racial science should be called geo-netics or geonetics. And maybe 'geon' should be used for 'race'.

--Another supposed problem with race is that developing the concept leads to bad consequences.--

How about we denounce Zionism because it led to bad consequences for Palestinians? Also, if race is a relatively recent idea(and a toxic one at that), could it be said human history was more pleasant in the pre-race eras? Bantus didn't have a concept of race, but they sure butchered a lot of people all across Africa. Maybe the Mongols didn't think in terms of race, but they sure could conquer, pillage, and kill. Maybe the Conquistadors lacked the scientific notion of race, but they should committed many horrors in the Americas. And before them, the Aztecs could be cruel as hell.
In contrast, the Anglos were profoundly mindful of race and racial differences, but one could make a strong case that they did most to advance mankind as a whole. Didn't Anglos do more for their colonies than the less race-minded Spanish and the French for their colonies? And didn't Anglo enslavement of blacks lead to more advancement for blacks than enslavements under Arabs and other Africans who presumably didn't think in terms of race? So, one fallacy could be countered with another. If Political Correctness says, "The concept of race is evil because of all the bad things done in its name", it could be countered, "The concept of race is good because Anglos, the most racial-minded of all imperialists, did most to advance and lift up mankind." Was it better for blacks to come under Arab rule or Anglo rule? Who did better in the Americas? Blacks who lived under Anglo-American power or blacks who under less-racially minded Spanish/Portuguese power? Anglos were more 'racist' toward the Chinese than the Mongols were. It's doubtful the Mongols called the Chinese 'chinks' since they were also a slanty-eyed people, but China achieved more under Anglo intrusion than under Mongol rule. Of course, such line of argument is fallacious but no more than the anti-racist school of thought that seeks to discredit all notions of race because some radical racists did bad things.

Another thing. Anti-racism can be used to justify imperialism. After all, if races are all the same, it wouldn't make a difference if People A invade and rape People B. After all, they are all the same. Chinese are taking over Tibet and push 'anti-racism'. They say Chinese and Tibetans are all brothers under the skin, and Tibetans should just mate with Chinese and become fellow Chinese. On the surface, this sounds humanitarian and 'inclusive', but it also means doom for Tibetans as the Han Chinese outnumber them by a huge margin. Latin American elites justify the history of conquest, rape, and domination on the premise that there is only ONE people in Mexico and South America. Supposedly, people don't see 'race' because they are all equal and all mixed. But it totally ignores the fact that the indigenous brown peoples were invaded, raped, and dominated by another people. 'Inclusion' is often a justification for invasion.

Another thing. Some anti-racists argue that race-mixing is beneficial. But if all races are the same, why would race-mixing be beneficial when all groups are the same under the skin? Either the PC-pushers are stupid and ignorant of their contradictions or they are mendacious and push for race-mixing with full knowledge that it will favor certain races over others. Interracism between whites and blacks, for example, favor blacks. Not only do mixed-race people identify as black, but it's usually black male and white female. Black men sexually conquer white women while white men are relegated to cucky-wuck dork-hood.

--Beyond that, it can be convincingly argued that suppressing the concept of race leads to very bad consequences. If a South Asian person has a kidney transplant and is given the kidney of a White person, then his body will likely reject it, elevating the possibility that the patient will die of kidney failure.--

All very true, but that is a petty example. It's about individuals and illness. No civilization ever went under because people died of disease. After all, Europe survived the Bubonic Plague and Spanish Flu. So, the medical argument for race is weak. The real danger of overlooking the issue of race is that the white race might not wake up to the black threat and Jewish threat. Blacks are superior in brawn, and Jews are superior in brain. So, when whites allow Jews and blacks to run wild and free, Jews will take over elite institutions/industries and use their power to weaken white identity and unity. And blacks will dominate sports and take over as the new idols of national prowess. Black athletes who destroy white British ones are hailed as National Champions, and that means white girls will grow up with jungle fever and white boys will be instilled with cuckitis. As whites come to celebrate blackness as 'badass' and 'cool', it will be deemed especially evil to have any doubts about blacks. And that means whites won't be able to say NO to further black immigration-invasion. And this will mean more black crime and black violence against whites in the streets and schools. And that will mean the end of Europe. THAT is the real evil of anti-racism.
However, the real danger of the Current West isn't ideological anti-racism but idolatrous pro-racism in favor of blacks. Today, many whites welcome more black immigration not on the basis of equality of the races but superiority of blacks. Whites in UK and France revere blacks as sports champions, rappers, twerking mamas, and big-donged studs. And this idolatrous supremacy of blacks is disseminated all around the world. There are tons of black-centric advertising in Germany and Poland, even in Russia. Even Japan, so distant from Europe and Africa, is falling into the Jungaru Trap. Japanese women are whores who mate with blacks, and their kids are taking over Japanese sports, and Japanese elites, ever so servile to the West, are pushing for 'Japan That Can Say Ho'.

--“There are more differences within races than there are between them.” This is wheeled out with great profundity by biased scientists when interviewed in biased newspapers, without any references. It has come to be known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy,”--

It's a fallacy alright. Besides, how can there be differences within the race when race doesn't exist in the first place? If race doesn't exist, then the differences within and outside the 'race' would be the same.

My take on Lewontin's BS is simply this. Most people within any group are average and part of the norm. So, even if it may well be that the genetic difference between a retarded Japanese giant and a genius Japanese midget is greater than between an average Japanese and an average Nigerian, the fact is most Japanese are not genius midgets or retarded giants. If we were to randomly pick two Japanese, they would most likely be average. Same if we randomly pick two Nigerians. Most Japanese belong to the average norm, and same goes for Nigerians. Now, would two average Japanese be more different from one another than either of them is to an average Nigerian? No way. That'd be like saying there's more difference between Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz than between either of them and Mike Tyson or George Foreman. That's total BS.

--Another argument—and there are many versions of it—amounts to an appeal to emotion, in which a person essentially argues that “race” makes him feel unhappy.--

This is, of course, BS and very selective. 'Race' is supposed to make people uncomfortable IF it is about the validity of white race-hood. It's NOT OKAY to be white. But blacks feel most comfortable when they are going on and on about their blackness and black identity and blackity blackness. So, when black people claim to find 'race' problematic, they really mean not enough (positive)attention is being showered on them. How dare any time be spent discussing other races when it should be about blacks 24/7, sheeeeiiiiiit.
And Jews are the same way. It's Jewish this, Jewish that. And it's not just about culture and history. After all, Jewishness isn't just about religion or historical consciousness. Even atheist Jews are considered as fellow Jews. A Jew can be a Buddhist or even Christian, but he's still a Jew and can live in Israel. Jews seem to have no problem with Zionism's blood-based identity of what constitutes Jewishness. Indeed, Zionism will accept an atheist person of Jewish lineage while rejecting an African, Chinese, or Arab who is eager to convert to Jewishness.

Also, the Holocaust has gone from an Anti-Racist Narrative — "We Jews were victims of German racial supremacism" — to a Neo-Racist Narrative: "Jewish Lives Matter More". After all, the 20th century has seen tons of deaths, and Jews did their share of killing. But it seems 80% of all moral outrage has been devoted to the Shoah. Why? Do Jewish lives matter more? Are Jewish lives more precious? Are Jewish Lives so precious that it doesn't matter when Jews kill millions of goyim, as in the communist horrors of the USSR? Anne Frank matters more than the millions of Ukrainian kids who died in the Great Famine? A Jewish life matters more than the 100,000s killed by AIPAC-driven US Wars for Israel and crippling sanctions? Jewish life is so precious that it's okay for Jews to kill others, but one mustn't harm a hair on a Jew. Madeleine Albright can say it's worth killing 500,000 Arab kids, but damnation to anyone who hurts Jewish feelings.
Thus, Holocaust Narrative has come to mean that Jewish Lives are more precious and matter more. Anything is justified to save Jewish lives, protect Jewish lives, and to favor Jewish lives. It's like the insane logic of BLM. Nothing is spoken about black violence on non-blacks. Blacks commit tons of crimes. Black soldiers in US bases around the world are the top rapists. Black athletes in colleges commit most crime and rape. Blacks are top thugs. But the moral outrage is only about the rare black who dies at the hands of whites. Same dynamics operates in US and UK. Also, this moral burden is placed on white shoulders. So, even though blacks kill blacks by the bushel in Africa, it's no big deal because blacks, being special, can do as they please among themselves. Blacks can be amoral and nihilistic, but that's okay because they are blackity-black wonderful. So, the burden of caring about black well-being falls on whites, even when blacks make other black lives miserable. (If non-whites mess up their own nations, they can't be expected to bear the burden of fixing their own problems. Rather, whites must bear the burden of providing sanctuary for them in white nations.) But then, when white cops do their job and try to minimize crime and violence in black areas, blacks howl about 'racism' and riot(often with encouragement from Jews). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So, when Jews and blacks say 'race' makes them feel uncomfortable, they really mean all the talk should be about the Jewish race or black race, all favorable. After all, if race is real and if all races matter, then Jews and blacks must share the moral space with other groups. But Jews and blacks want to hog all the space for the Jewish race and black race.

Now, there are whites who feel uncomfortable about 'race', but why? Because their minds have been molded by Jews who control media, academia, and whore politicians/officials who spout PC nonsense 24/7. This discomfort isn't natural but ideological. It's been inculcated in their minds by nonstop anti-white propaganda and education. If Jews and blacks feel angry when the discussion veers into anything other than their own noble/soulful identities, whites have been made to feel disgust about any positive expression of white identity. But then, the very PC whites who can't abide white racial identity have no problem babbling endlessly about how great the black race or Jewish people are. So, the question must be asked, "Why is racial supremacism great for Jews and blacks but mere racial identity is evil for whites?"

--On a deeper level, we should understand that science is fundamentally amoral. It is about the relentless search for the objective truth.--

But let's be honest here. Racial science is never meant to be merely scientific, objective, or amoral. When we study the differences among wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, birds, and etc., we can be detached and neutral(though some people may favor certain animals over others while others may be alarmed about invasive species that may upset existing eco-systems in the interest of preserving bio-diversity). No one in the HBD movement has been merely scientifically interested. They are usually white identitarians who root for their own kind. Even as they acknowledge certain genetic advantages among non-whites, they use those facts to argue for white well-being. Richard Spencer, for example, says it's not good for US to take in high-IQ Indians and Chinese as they might become the over-class over whites. Others admit that blacks are athletically superior, and THAT is the reason against 'inclusion' of blacks in white spaces. Tougher blacks will terrorize and wussify the whites, just like Mongol Wrestlers made a mockery of Japan's sacred fatty sport of Sumo.
So, while science itself is amoral, its uses and purpose is always moral or tribal or political. The physics behind the nuclear bomb is amoral, but the Bomb was used for reasons that biased one group against another. The dynamics of evolution is amoral, but every organism works to maximize its own survival and dominance. Indeed, why do we look into the science of race? After all, science can be used to look into just about anything. But we ignore most things and focus mostly on those that matter most to our survival, well-being, happiness, and power. The science of race is all-important because there are obvious problems in the West, and the most serious ones cannot be understood apart from race. Jewish brain power and black brawn power can only be understood in terms of racial differences. Power decides history, and racial differences profoundly affect power dynamics among various groups.

--This is why the kind of scientists who tend to make really important discoveries—so-called “geniuses”— seem to combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness (altruism and empathy) and moderately low Conscientiousness (impulse control, rule following). This means that they can “think outside the box,” not bound by conventional rules—maybe they even take pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows.--

But then, why is the scientific community so PC and craven? While certain scientists may be like William Shockley or James Watson, most are smart enough to know that they must play the game. Also, even though they think outside the box, they work within the box of specialization. Thus narrowly focused, they outsource their social diplomacy to others. Take Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Maybe deep down inside, they know more than they let on, but as super-geeks, they are savvy enough to hire public relations and parrot the party line. Or take Craig Venter, the guy involved with DNA studies. He surely knows about race but pushed the PC line to keep his position.

Now, there may be people who are so aspergish that they can't help spouting off inconvenient views. Even with public relations department all around them, they can't help muttering things that are bound to offend people(especially in a time when people are conditioned to feel 'offended' or 'triggered' by just about anything, now known as 'micro-aggressions'). But such people are hardly inspirational, and their views are narrowly focused on one thing or another. They don't offer the big vision. This was the case with James Watson. He narrowly focused on black IQ and despaired of the future of Africa. But he failed to construct and deliver a larger message about what black failure means to the West, especially with massive black migration to Europe. He also failed to address the Jewish Question at the heart of PC and anti-whiteness. After all, Jewish Intelligence may be even more fatal to the West because, despite being smart and genuinely capable, Jews use their amassed power and privilege to subvert and destroy the pillars of white power. Blacks degrade society because they are underachievers, but Jews degrade society by over-achieving and using their vast fortunes/power to subvert goy civilizations out of revenge, resentment, paranoia, or just plain nastiness that they revel in. Now, had James Watson gone further in his critique, he would have gotten into more trouble, but it would have been inspirational and earth-shaking. He would have spoken like a prophet. But he talked about race only as a geek, and just like a geek, he cowered under pressure. Aspergy types may say inconvenient stuff but lack the balls to see it through when pushed back. (Bobby Fischer was an exception though, to be sure, he went off the deep end.)

Also, high IQ types don't make good leaders for the people. They live in a world of their own. They don't feel much camaraderie with the dummies and morons who make us most of humanity. When they go on and on about IQ, they favor the meritocracy of the best and brightest regardless of race. They are for the natural aristocracy. Take the lunatic Michio Kaku. He feels nothing for the Japanese. He feels nothing for most Americans. He just thinks the dummy masses should work and consume and pay taxes so that geniuses like him can advance science to the point where humanity can merge with artificial intelligence and become 'gods'. So, even though aspergy types may sometimes go off-script, they offer nothing to inspire the masses or the volk. They are too narrowly focused than broadly aligned with 'my people'.

--In the wake of World War II, “racist” gradually came to mean what “racialist” had once meant.[21] However, the term “racist” has been extended far beyond this, to refer to anybody who is seen to deviate from ideological orthodoxy with regard to the issue of race. Terming such a person the “racist” associates him with that which is accepted as somehow evil and immoral.--

No, following WWII, 'racist' came to mean 'bigot', 'white supremacist', 'hater', or some loon. It was never meant to be synonymous with 'racialist'. The problem with the term 'racist' is it makes a mockery of the meaning of -ism. As -ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. So, how did race + ism come to automatically mean racial hatred, racial supremacism, racial bigotry, and etc? Imagine if 'socialism' automatically means Stalinism or Maoism. It would be toxic. Socialism at its radical extremes can mean Stalinism or Maoism, but the generic meaning of socialism means some degree of statist role for collective interests. Thus, even social-democracy can be deemed socialist. And fascism too.

But precisely because generic race + ism has been defined as racial extremism(especially of white variety), it's difficult for people to honestly discuss matters of race. Genericism on race has been made synonymous with extremism. But same goes for the concept of whiteness. Once a neutral term — quality of European descent — , now it's treated like some evil phantom of history. So, 'whiteness studies' doesn't mean an objective study of white people and culture but an alarmist diagnosis of white people, history, culture, and whatever as the source of all the evils of the world. Whiteness isn't a subject but a disease. It isn't something to really study but to search and destroy or burn at the stake. It's like Jewishness was never a neutral matter in National Socialist Germany. When Nazis studied Jewishness, they weren't detached scholars but doctors studying a pathogen that must be wiped out.

This is why the ONLY WAY to dig out of the hole is to embrace the term 'race-ism'. The dash(-) emphasizes the true meaning of 'ism'. Race-ism can become radical racism but need not be.

But what's most outrageous about all this is the Jews(as pathological semites) are playing a truly dirty game. If Jews, in their naive idealism, were waging war on 'racism' in an earnest effort to stamp out all manifestations of bigotry and hatred, it would at least be understandable. But the real reason why Jews bull-whip and terrorize white identity and interests is because they want to keep white people servile to Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews don't say, "You whites give up your identity and interests, and we Jews will do the same." No, Jews say, "You surrender your banner and carry ours." It's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." Jews denounce whites as 'nazis' because they want to be Judeo-Nazis over the world. Jewish message to Hungarians is as follows: "Give up your 'racist' Hungarian identity and borders but then be sure to support Israel uber alles." Jewish message to white Americans is as follows: "Feel white guilt over the Holocaust and Slavery and always remind yourselves that you whites totally suck as the mass murderers of history, but then be sure to suit up with military gear to smash and kill any number of Arabs and Muslims for the benefit of Israel." Pathological-Semites or Patho-Semites are truly sick in the head. But they rule the West because Anglos have weaker and more yielding personalities. Jews even joke about the lack of will among Anglos:

Notes on "THE GREATEST JEWISH JOKE EVER TOLD" by Spencer Quinn
https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/the-greatest-jewish-joke-ever-told/

Now, some might say that I'm trying to 'blackpill' people with all the doom-and-gloom talk. But we must speak honestly, just like a doctor must tell a cancer patient about his ailment. Unless the truth is outed, there can't be any real treatment. The current West is like treating cancer with ALL MEANS except those meant to deal with cancer cells. Imagine a cancer patient who is given the most elaborate and expensive treatment for EVERYTHING but the cancer. His eyes, ears, throat, stomach, liver, pancreas, arms, legs, groins, buttocks, and etc are given special treatment with all the tools and medicine. Millions and millions are spent on the treatment... except his cancer is ignored. He will surely die. The black problem is handled that way in the West. Why do blacks fail in school? Lower IQ and rowdy behavior, but no one addresses the problem of natural lower IQ and natural higher aggression among blacks. Instead, money is poured into everything without addressing the crucial fact.
And same goes for Jewish Power. So much of financial, cultural, and foreign policy failures can be traced back to Jewish supremacist abuse of power, but people blame Everyone and Everything but the Jews. Take the recent election. Jews were most responsible for the fiasco that was 2020. With control of medicine, media, deep state, Wall Street, and whore politicians, Jews were hellbent on doing EVERYTHING to topple Trump, but these Trumpists are blaming everything but the Jews. So, nothing will change, nothing will be fixed.

Also, what the West needs is to study the Portnoid Style in Jewish Politics, just like a famous Jewish historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote of the Paranoid Style in American Politics. 'Portnoia' is necessary if we are to spill the beans on what is really happening. There must be no more inhibitions. In a way, Jews gained over Wasps because Jews were vulgar and portnoid in spilling the beans on the Real Wasp, i.e. while Wasps put on a respectable Country Club image, they were really a bunch of a--holes like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Well, it's about time whites did the same to Jews and went totally portnoid on Jewish Power. To be sure, this is harder to do as Jews immunized themselves with shamelessness. It's easier to expose the phoniness of Wasps with their air of respectability and dignity than to expose the Jew who inoculated himself with the pride of vulgarity. One can shame William F. Buckley but not Howard Stern. Still, there is such a huge gap between the tragic and noble image of Jews as a long-suffering people full of wisdom and the obnoxious image of Jews as two-faced a--holes who've turned the Holocaust into License to Steal and Kill for the sake of stuffing their own pockets and securing their own supremacism.

Being portnoid isn't to blackpill but to see truth for what it is. Then and only then can people embark on the right and righteous path. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. I got the following email complaining that my views have a blackpilling effect:

"If your goal is to encourage cucky-wuckery and Jungle Fever then you're doing a great job. Constantly hearing about BAMMAMA, ACOWW, the pussification of the white boy and big black dongs along with your convincing but pessimistic predictions regarding the future of white manhood is extremely de-moralizing. Reading your vivid, primal descriptions of black thugs smashing wussy white boys and humping white girls to mind-blowing orgasms is going to give your white male readers an uncomfortable number of masochistic boners and your white female readers plenty of tingles. The only way then to comfort yourself in your racial-sexual loserdom as a white boy is by whanking to videos of muscular Negro studs pumping beautiful Aryan women into cascades of convulsive ecstasy. You can only repeat this humiliating ritual so many times before you accept the inevitability of white racial defeat and even the desirability of bigger, stronger, more dominant black men conquering the women of your tribe and blotting-out the genes of the degenerate males too credulous, perverted and weak to prevent it. Do you really write for White National Liberation/National Humanism as you claim? Because I can assure you that the effect you are having is very different. Enough nationalists have a white genocide fetish already without any need to encourage it. I had already arrived at these basic conclusions a couple of years ago but your writings certainly added fuel to the fire. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on these subjects."

So, the writer assumes that facing the truth and speaking of the dangers is demoralizing, therefore fatal. But the ONLY way to change course is to speak the truth as things really are. I maintain American History could have been very different IF, in the time of Jack Johnson, white people spoke of the black threat in portnoid ways. But they didn't, so here we are. Truth may not save a people, but it's the only chance they have in a world of lies.

WHY WAS THE 1960S THE PEAK OF HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (AND PRO-SOCIALITY)? by DR EDWARD DUTTON: THE JOLLY HERETIC