Response to "Hungarian Foreign Minister DEMOLISHES triggered BBC reporter calling for open borders in Europe"

Actually, this is what the Hungarian Foreign Minister should have said:

Diversity works only within the EUROPEAN Union. In order for the EU to be European, it must be by Europeans and for Europeans. As it currently functions, the EU might as well be called the World Union, or especially the Afro-Islamo-European-Union. It says something about current EU that it is so hostile toward fellow whites in Russia and Hungary and Poland while being so celebratory and welcoming of Africans, Arabs, and Asians. So, basically, the current EU wages war on White Europe and tries to unite Europe with non-Europe. Furthermore, it wages war on the meaning of what it means to be European. According to EU, a 'European' is anyone who just comes to Europe and signs a piece of paper. So, history, culture, and blood no longer matter. A European with 10,000s of years of racial evolution in Europe and 1,000s of years of cultural history in Europe is NO MORE EUROPEAN than a newly arrived African or Arab who just learned the language and signed a citizenship paper. Basically, it means that the roots of a European has NO meaning. It doesn't matter if your roots in Europe racially go back eons and culturally go back millennia. You are NO MORE EUROPEAN than some Arab or African who just came for free gibs and to assimilate to globo-homo Hollywood-Rap culture.
Calling Africans, Arabs, and Asians the 'New Europeans' is a sleight-of-hand trick. It's like replacing orange juice with lime juice and labeling it as 'new orange juice'. Suppose I take over your house and call myself the 'new you'. That way, YOU didn't lose your house to me because I'm the 'new you'. So, the house still belongs to you because I am 'you', or the 'new you'. Isn't that ridiculous? It's all semantic BS.

Hungary joined the EUROPEAN Union to cooperate more fully with fellow Europeans. It didn't join to become one with Afro-Islamo-European Union. Also, Hungarians know what a real European is. He is a person with deep racial, historical, and cultural roots in Europe. But EU has changed rules so that ANYONE can become an Insta-European by signing a piece of paper. The rich stream of European blood has been replaced with the stamp of globo-homo ink. A true European has no more claim or birthright to Europe than billions of non-Europeans around the world. (This is the logic of colonialism and imperialism. Just like European imperialists tried to suppress the birthrights of the peoples they conquered, the globalist project of EU seeks to suppress any notion of ancestral claim and birthright among Europeans in their mother-continent.) EU will say dumb things like 'Europe was always a world of immigrants', but virtually all those peoples were fellow whites, fellow Europeans. Surely, a bunch of blacks going from one African nation to another is less jarring than a bunch of non-Africans settling in Africa. The same is true of Europe. A bunch of Poles going to Germany or UK is less jarring and disruptive than millions of black Africans and Arab Muslims taking over entire areas of Europe. Also, the history of Europe was about resistance against foreign invaders. Mongols invaded Russia and even reached Poland. They were eventually pushed out. Moors invaded Sicily and Spain. They were pushed back to North Africa eventually. Turks invaded Greece and parts of Balkans; they tried to invade more. Europeans rolled back the Turkish tide. Europe wasn't about inviting invasions by non-Europeans but about repelling them.

Anyway, it is not Hungary or Poland that violated the agreements of the European Union. It was the globo-homo elites of EU who've decided to collaborate with the Empire of Judea. They are not real leaders but comprador-collaborators. Their duty was to keep Europe European and to facilitate easier and more efficient cooperation among Europeans, but they undermined their own project by effectively uniting Europe with Africa and the Middle East(and even Asia). Meanwhile, they badmouth Russia because they're puppets of Jewish Supremacists filled with hatred for Putin who said NO to Homomania(as proxy of Jewish Domination).

Also, there is no greater human right than for a nation to survive as a people and culture. Demographic Imperialism that replaces the people and culture is a form of geo-ethnocide. It's obvious from the creation of Israel that massive movements of peoples can lead to a destruction of a people and culture. Massive Jewish demographic imperialism led to the eradication of Palestine. Palestinians live like animals in a zoo in Gaza. They live under Apartheid conditions in the West Bank.
After WWII, the anti-imperialist struggles of Third World peoples were all nationalist. Hindus in India told the British to go home because India is for Indians. Africans told Europeans to pack up and leave because black Africa belongs to black Africans. Anti-imperialism founded on the principle of universal nationalism was the most fundamental form of human rights. Before we can have individual rights and liberties, we must be free as a people from foreign or imperialist domination. For example, Palestinian individuals in Israel have many individual rights and liberties, but they are NOT free as a people. Their nation, Palestine, has been taken over by Jews, and all Palestinians, no matter how rich or free as individuals, don't have a nation because their land now belongs to Zionist overlords. If it happened to Palestinians, it can happen to anyone. Consider how Kosovo had once been the sacred homeland of Serbians. But over time, Albanian Muslims moved in and settled in Kosovo under Ottoman rule, and the Serbs lost their ancient homeland forever. But I suppose EU can advise Serbians to just see Albanian Muslims as 'New Serbians'. Of course, Albanians don't see themselves that way.

Also, Diversity has many meanings. The World is Diverse, after all. So, Diversity as a condition of the world isn't a problem. The world will always be diverse, made up of various races, ethnic groups, nations, cultures, religions, regions, and etc. But Diversity as PC formula is about forcing Demographic Imperialism on each nation(except Israel). Every nation must be made into a mini-world. But why? Hungary is Hungary, and it should be Hungarian. If you want to see China or Africa, visit China or Africa. Why bring China, Africa, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and etc. into your own nation, especially if it's small? If rising Diversity is such a huge headache for massive nations like the US and Brazil with so much space, imagine its impact on smaller nations like Hungary and Poland? At the very least, white Americans can flee from Diversity. In small European nations, you are stuck with it right outside your door.

The kind of Diversity pushed by EU is really a form of imperialism. Diversity as a condition of the world is just a reality. But Diversity as a formula is about coercing all nations(except Israel) to surrender to massive demographic imperialism and replacement. It's usually about higher-IQ prosperous nations with low-birthrates being demographically taken over by low-IQ peoples from poor nations with high birthrates. The result will be loss of entire civilizations. Just do the math. Over time, the current Diversity policy of EU will turn all of Europe into something like Morocco. Is Morocco a happy place? If diverse North Africa is so great, why do people there want to move to white Europe?

Also, EU's pontificating about Human Rights is so much BS. If EU really cares about non-whites, why doesn't it ever stand up to Jewish-run US neo-imperialist policy that destroyed so much of the Middle East and North Africa? For the most part, the EU didn't do anything about George W. Bush's illegal war on Iraq. EU was silent about Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright's sanctions that killed 100,000s of Iraqi women and children. The EU has continued to support Israeli occupation of West Bank. EU has gone along with US sanctions against Iran that hurt so many people. EU supported Obama-and-Hillary's destruction of Libya even though Gaddafi made peace with the West. EU worked with the US to aid terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart. 400,000 people died. EU never stood up to Jewish-run US empire that destroys millions of lives in the Muslim World.
Indeed, the so-called 'refugee' crisis is the result of Jewish-run US neo-imperialism in Middle East and North Africa. But the EU, that is gutless in standing up to Zionist-American power, huffs and puffs about Hungary and Poland whose only desire is to protect their nations. It is the Jewish-run US that is pushing the Invade-Invite Policy. It says the US should freely invade and destroy nations around the world(especially to serve Israel's interests), and as millions and millions of people will be displaced by such invasions, the white world must 'invite' those people as a 'humanitarian' gesture. So, Jews use Western Power to destroy all nations hated by Israel, and then, Jews morally pressure white nations to accept the 'refugees'. Of course, Israel takes none and won't even give back Golan Heights that was stolen from Syria. What a bunch of a**holes.

Finally, Diversity-as-Formula is a form of imperialism. Nazi Empire was about diversity. It was about many peoples being forced to live under the Nazi umbrella. Soviet Empire was diverse. It was about many peoples being forced to live under Soviet Hegemony. The EU is now about forcing demographic imperialism on every European nation to make them more diverse. Just like Nazi Empire forced Slavic lands to accept German settlers, the EU forces European nations to accept African and Muslim invaders displaced by Jewish globo-homo imperialist wars in the Middle East and North Africa. (Jews apparently want to use wars to empty the Middle East so that they can grab more territory.)

The EU project could have worked if it had remained European and respected the national rights of all European peoples. But it turned into an arm of Judeo-Globo-Homo project. As such, it went from a sunny project of uniting and preserving Europe to a stormy project uniting Europe with Africa, Muslim World, and South Asia. It came to be about forcing the Diversity Formula or the Demographic-Imperialist Agenda on each and every nation.

So, why did so many white people fall for this poison pill? Because Political Correctness imbues vain white people with a new kind of supremacism. If imperialist whites of the past were racial supremacists, today's whites are moral supremacists. They think they are soooooooo very goody-good and holier-than-others because they are so obedient to the Globo-Homo Agenda that demeans anything white and patriotic as 'racist' while extolling anything Diverse(usually black) as sacrosanct. So, just by mouthing sacramental platitudes about 'diversity' and 'human rights', these insufferably smug PC whites think they are superior to nationalists and patriots. But then, communists also felt morally superior by mouthing off platitudes about 'equality' and 'revolution'. Just another form of supremacism among people for whom every corner of the world must be made to cave to their dogmatically imbecile notion of right-and-wrong.

10 Essential Films by Martin Scorsese

Goodfellas



Mean Streets



Casino



Raging Bull



Taxi Driver



Silence



The Age of Innocence



Kundun



King of Comedy



The Wolf of Wall Street

Response to "Voters elect against dividing Koreatown to include Bangladesh Town"

http://abc7.com/politics/voters-elect-against-koreatown-split/3628714/

When US cities were white, non-white immigrants sought to assimilate with whiteness.

The idea was US is essentially a white nation but open to others as well.
The idea was that white people had the power, wealth, and good stuff. So, whiteness was the ideal, the standard. Quintessentially American. John Wayne stuff. After all, the immigrants left their own nations. And they didn't want to go to non-white nations but to white majority nations, especially America.

So, as long as whites had the numbers, prestige, and power, all non-white immigrant groups shared something in common: Respect for whiteness and wish to merge with whiteness. Whiteness lessened non-white vs non-white tensions because all non-white groups could ignore one another and move toward whiteness.

But over time in many cities, whites lost the numbers, the power, and the prestige(due to Jewish-controlled PC). So, in a city like LA, there are lots of non-white groups living alongside one another. But none of them represents something that all non-whites would want to move toward or merge with. Non-white groups once valued the movement-toward-whiteness as the process of 'Americanization', but the same cannot be said for movement-toward-non-whiteness(even though the official narrative is that 'American' is purely ideological and has nothing to do with race or even culture). (The exception is movement-toward-blackness in style and attitude but certainly not in jobs, schools, and residence.) It was once considered(and still is, albeit mutedly) prestigious for non-whites to merge with whiteness --- synonymous with becoming 'Americanized' --- , but the same cannot be said for merging with, say, Mexicans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Hindus, and etc. Even though the official ideology says Mexican-Americanism and Vietnamese-Americanism are just as American as white-Americanism, no one really feels this way in real life. Diversity really means the desire by non-whites to be included in the White or White-made world. Diversity without whiteness would be like building a model without glue. The structure wouldn't hold together. It's been said that Diversity means 'no more whites', but that'd be self-defeating like a model set without glue. Indeed, diversity without whiteness isn't appealing to most people. Latin America and North Africa are very diverse, but neither has enough whites. India is very diverse, but Hindus prefer to move to a white nation. Most people in diverse nations with no or few whites prefer to move to white nations. Ideal Diversity requires the White Magnet. Hindus don't want to be with blacks or even with fellow Hindus. Black Africans don't want to be with Hindus or even with fellow black Africans. Both want to be with whites, and the Diversity in UK is the result of non-whites preferring whites over non-whites(even their own kind).

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HICBc0vZL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg

If an Asian-American moves to a white community, he or she feels 'Americanized'. Indeed, he or she is willing to surrender his or her own identity to take up this new prestigious ersatz-white identity. But would Chinese-Americans want to give up their identity to merge with Mexican-Americanism, Hindu-Americanism, or even Korean-Americanism? I think not.

Indeed, it's interesting that Chinese have been in Southeast Asian nations for so very long BUT they've mostly retained their Chinese identity and pride. In contrast, so many East Asians in white nations instantly surrender everything about their race, culture, and language to merge with whiteness or 'westernness'. People will surrender their culture for something higher but not for something lower. Chinese will surrender Chineseness to become 'white' or 'western'(deemed superior to Chineseness) but not to become 'Filipino' or 'Indonesian'(considered lower than Chineseness). Maybe Sephardic Jews mixed more with Muslims and Arabs because they weren't all that smarter, whereas Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, being markedly smarter, were less willing to merge with goyim. I dunno.

If Los Angeles had lots of whites, this 'fancy' Asian vs 'jungle' Asian dichotomy wouldn't matter. Both the 'fancies' and 'junglies' would focus on merging with whiteness as the American Ideal. Indeed, Asian women find it most ideal to marry white and have white-looking kids. And even in Asia, lots of Asian women get plastic surgery and dye their hair brunette or blonde to look like cartoon-white-people.

But because whiteness is becoming a more precious commodity in places like LA, the 'fancies' and 'junglies' are becoming more ghettoized in their own identities. Vanishing of whiteness means less of something for which Asians(or other non-white groups) are willing to surrender their own identities in order to merge with something higher or more quintessentially American.

Response to a Comment on "Bullseye" by Steve Sailer

http://www.unz.com/isteve/bullseye/

“Jews prioritize scholarship and have been widely persecuted, therefore Jews don’t really tend to have genes that correlate with intelligence.”

Jews were rarely persecuted for their scholarship, at least until the late modern era. It was usually for their business practices and promotion of vice in culture. This hatred of money-makers can be found in Jewish culture itself. Much of the Bible is about moralistic prophets condemning the materialist money-grubbing Jews. Greed eventually leads to decadence, and Prophets warn of God's wrath that descends upon Jews to teach them a lesson over and over and over. Much of the Bible is about the scholarly moralism of Jewish prophets vs wanton materialism of Jewish merchants who lose their way in favor of idolatry.

Same can be found in Chinese culture. Confucianism prized the scholar and hated the merchant, considered the lowest of the low. And anti-Chinese sentiments in Southeast Asia had little to do with Chinese-devotion-to-books. It's because they love money. I doubt if any Indonesian attacked Chinese because the latter was reading the Analects or Tao Te Ching. It was about Chinese business acumen and practices.

For much of Jewish history, there was a kind of understanding between the Rabbis and Merchants... just like the Saudi Royal Family(of tycoons) arrived at an understanding with the Wahabi sect.
Jewish merchants would make lots of money but donate generously to Rabbis who, in turn, would be less judgmental about avarice. Same kind of relationship existed between the Church, Aristocracy, and Merchants in Christian Europe.
And even though Confucianism officially condemned merchants, it was the business class that made the economy work, and so, it was tolerated and protected by the Power managed by the scholar class. And today, the rich class in the West maintains a wink-wink pact with the Prog-priesthood of PC. Homo Worship binds them together.

Still, there was a strain of Jewishness that was virulently anti-Jewish-profiteering. Christianity began this way, with Jesus condemning the close ties between Temple and Money. And Confucianism was anti-Chinese-profiteering. It favored scholars and peasants(at least in prestige) over the merchants.

This all came to a head with Marxism. He declared War on Greed. It was a new round of Jewish prophets vs Jewish merchants. But if this sort of thing was limited to the Jewish community in the past, it became international because Marx was a Christianized atheist German living in the center of World Power. If ancient Jewish prophets kept the debate within the community, Marx universalized the conflict within the Jewish Tribe between prophets and merchants(just like Jewish feminism later projected Jewish male/female neurosis on the rest of humanity). Unlike Christianity that has a passive and otherworldly element, Marxism said heaven could exist on earth.
This did make Jewish scholarship dangerous and threatening in ways that past Jewish scholarship hadn't been. For most of Jewish history in Europe, the main reason for the anti-Jewish hatred was Jewish 'merchantry'. Most Jewish intellectual ideas were for fellow Jews and remained in the community. So, Christians had little interest in Jewish learning or ideas. But Marxist scholarship spilled out into the larger sphere and affected all of humanity. Many goyim welcomed it as liberating and empowering. Many goyim opposed it as radical, repressive, and Jewish. Granted, it wasn't technically Jewish since Marx was irreligious, didn't consider himself Jewish, and called for World Revolution. But it was especially appealing to Jews just like Freudianism was. The prophetic style of Marx was very much in keeping with Jewish tradition.

Marxism spread to China, and Maoism was maybe the greatest war on greed in the name of virtue. But, both Jews and Chinese learned that you can't run a society on moralism and prophecy alone. So, both peoples have arrived at their own 'end of history' of coordinating moralism with materialism. This is maybe easier for the Chinese because China is about Chinese ruling Chinese. Chinese leaders figure that common and basic morality would be good for most Chinese. Wealth is good but must be built on the shoulders of virtuous people. Excessive capitalism has made Chinese overly materialistic and soulless, and the regime wants to change that.
In contrast, Jewish scholarship is more ambivalent about moralism. While goy majority moralism may make for a more orderly and sound society, it also cuts into Jewish profits in Vice Industries like gambling. Also, moralism makes the larger community feel proud and confident. Christian moralism certainly strengthened goy righteousness. To weaken the goy majority, Jewish merchants and Jewish scholars work together to theorize and market immorality-as-the-new-morality. The result, from stuff like 'gay marriage', is quite obvious.

10 French Pop Songs

Chantal Goya-Si tu Gagnes au Flipper



Je t'aime... moi non plus - Serge Gainsbourg et Jane Birkin



Dalida & Alain Delon - Paroles, paroles



Francoise Hardy - Comment te dire adieu



Marie Laforet - Ivan, Boris et moi 1967



1970) Mireille Mathieu Pardonne moi ce caprice d'enfant



France Gall - Laisse tomber les filles 1964 HD (Tele Melody)



La Plus Belle Pour Aller Danser - Sylvie Vartan



Christophe - Aline



Elle est d'ailleurs - Pierre Bachelet

12 Novels

The Trial - Franz Kafka

The Castle - Franz Kafka

Demian - Hermann Hesse

Narcissus and Goldmund - Hermann Hesse

The Call - John Hersey

Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky

With Fire and Sword - Henryk Sienkiewicz

Before the Storm - Theodor Fontane

Little Big Man - Thomas Berger

The Marriage Plot - Jeffrey Eugenides

The Tunnel - Ernesto Sabato

Young Phillip Maddison - Henry Williamson

Response to "Against David Irving’s View of Hitler" by Eric Zuesse

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/

Zuesse:

Unfortunately, Goldhagen’s tribalism is considered acceptable, whereas Irving’s isn’t. Today’s Palestinians — and many others — are victims of Goldhagen’s particular form of tribalism. But perhaps as the Holocaust recedes from view… tribalism itself is becoming fashionable again, too. In fact, tribalism seems to be coming into vogue again throughout the world. Look, for example, at what the U.S. Government and its Saudi and UAE partners are doing to the Houthis, a Shiite tribe, in Yemen.

No... The real problem of Goldhagen in relation to Palestinians isn’t tribalism or nationalism. It is IMPERIALISM. If Zionists compromised and allowed a nation-state for Palestinians, Jewish tribalism could co-exist with Palestinian tribalism. Unfortunately, Zionists are in imperialist mode and denying the right of tribalism to the Palestinians. Jewish Globalists are tribal-imperialists. Their attitude is ‘tribalism for me but not for thee’. THAT is the problem. If Jews accepted universal tribalism/nationalism, they would get along better with other nations. But even as they promote their own tribalism, they attack the tribalism of others. Jews use their influence to destroy Arab nations or sanction Iran. These Wars for Israel have led to the swamping of Europe with ‘refugees’.

Tribal-nationalism has always been defensive against imperialism. It was tribal-nationalist passions that led to wars of resistance against European and American imperialism in Vietnam and Algeria. Long live tribalism.

EU is now neo-imperialist and seeks to undermine national sovereignty and security of European nations. Resurgent nationalism says NO to this. Tribalism is anti-imperialist. Italian tribal-populists have no designs on OTHER nations. They are nationalist and, as such, opposed to demographic imperialism of those black Africans who arrive in Italy to beat up Italian men and hump Italian women.

The problem with Nazis wasn’t tribalism or nationalism. They invaded and trampled on the tribal-nationalism of other nations. Resistance against Nazi imperialism was tribal-nationalist. And resistance against Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe was also tribal-nationalist. If Nazi Germany had remained tribal-nationalist and not turned imperialist, there would have been no WWII.

What is happening in Yemen is the result of imperialism, not tribalism. It is US-Saudi-Zionist imperialism that is waging war on Yemenese struggle for deciding their own affairs and future.

Tribalist-nationalism never hurt anyone outside its borders. Tibetans and Palestinians are tribal-nationalist. They want freedom and independence for their people in their own territories. Their hopes were crushed by Han Chinese and Zionist IMPERIALISM.

Jewish Tribalism per se isn’t the problem. If Jews want to preserve their tribal culture and memory, that's all well and good. If Jews want a nation of their own, no problem.

Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Jews. They must occupy even the few remaining Palestinian territory. And they use the hammer of US globo-homo-imperialism to wage Wars for Israel and pressure EU to put out to demographic imperialism that is totally altering the racial and cultural character of Europe.

Patrick Little vs Nick Fuentes — Why Fuentes is wrong and right — Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little

In the heated exchange between Patrick Little and Nicholas Fuentes, the latter says an election has no meaning unless it is to win. Perhaps it was rhetorical flourish on Fuentes’ part to belittle Little as a pathetic Loser, because Fuentes surely knows that elections mean different things in different contexts. Fuentes would be right in the case of Little IF there was any real chance of a Republican winning the Senate seat in California. But there is NONE. So, the next Senator of California will be another Democrat. Republicans have about as much chance of winning a state-wide seat in California as a fish has of surviving in the desert. So, I don’t begrudge Little’s use of candidacy mainly as a platform to inform people of the Jewish Question.
Also, if indeed California is the future of America, Little’s reaching out to non-whites serves as a template for what-is-to-be-done by whites. Ideally, the US will remain a white-majority nation, a part of Western Civilization. But if Jews do succeed in engineering the US to become a new Brazil or Venezuela(to the point where White Power will be permanently broken), then the only option left for whites is to get revenge on Jews by forming any possible alliance with People-of-Color against Jewish supremacist power. If Jews amassed great power and destroyed white America by making the rising tide of color direct all their rage & hatred against Whitey, then whites must return the favor once the US is lost to them forever. Indeed, I’ve argued that the GOP should be folded, and all whites should just join the Democratic Party. Turn the US into a one-party state and then form ANY kind of alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. Make the Jew taste his own medicine. If Jews pushed the Narrative that ‘whites are evil cuz of white privilege and must atone by siding with people of color’, then whites should indeed side with people-of-color and expose Jews as the real rulers, elites, and tyrants of not only the US but the world. After all, just do the math and add up the numbers. Jews are 2% of the US population but control how much of finance, foreign policy, media, academia, gambling & other vice industries, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, sports franchises, Big Pharma(the harma), and etc.? So, if the future of the US is California, whites cannot regain White Power & Dominance again but they can, at the very least, get sweet revenge against Jews by, ironically, playing by the Jewish rule-book. Jews have said everyone, ‘good’ white and people-of-color, must unite against Evil White Privilege. Okay! Since Jewish Privilege is the Ultimate in White Privilege, then all white goyim should side with blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims against Jews. Whites should demand NO special treatment for Zionists and Palestinians. After all, if favoring one group over another(especially one with far less power) is a form of supremacism, then US media and foreign policy are totally supremacist in favoring Israeli-Zionist death squads over Palestinian women and children being gunned down out in the open(with the blessing of US whore politicians who take 30 pieces of silver from Judeo-Nazi globo-pimps).
So, given that Patrick Little or any other Republican has zero chance of winning the Senate seat in California, I have no problem with Little using his campaign as a platform to raise the JQ and wake up peoples of all races and backgrounds as to which people have the Real Power and are doing most harm to the world. On that score, Little deserves more respect than any Cuckservative GOP candidate who did little but sing hosannas to Israel DESPITE THE FACT that Jews have been at the forefront of the War on White. GOP’s cuckservative whores and wussies deserve no respect. Little did nothing wrong in using his campaign to spread a message. He had no chance of winning the election so he decided to say that which cannot be spoken in American politics.

Another reason why Fuentes is wrong to focus so much on ‘winning’ is that certain ideas take time to sprout, grow, and bloom. When Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, he knew he had slim chance of winning. And he knew he could have gotten more support from donors if he’d championed globalism and ‘free trade’. He didn’t. Instead, he spoke up for the American working class. He was attacked by the Media for his ‘fascism’. For much of the decade, people like Rush Limbaugh derided Buchanan as a ‘populist’ than a conservative. Buchanan failed to win once again in 1996 and lost big in 2000. And for his opposition to the Iraq War, he became a total persona-non-grata to the Republican Party. So, it seemed as if Buchanan was the biggest loser in US politics. But precisely because he stuck to his guns, stood on principles, and carried on with core conviction, his ideas eventually bore fruit with the rise of Donald Trump and populism(that, among the base, now has more positive connotations than ‘conservatism’ that came to conserve nothing). Also, Buchanan’s 1992 speech, which had been denigrated as one of the biggest mistakes ever, is now seen by many as one of the great political speeches in US history. It would resonate with many Americans if they heard it today. So, when Fuentes just dismisses anyone who fails in political campaigns as irrelevant ‘losers’, he’s being glib and shallow. He is also betraying himself because he also could have won much more in the media if he’d taken the 30 pieces of silver from the likes of Ben Shapiro or some well-funded Establishment operation. But because he chose the honest and courageous path, he has to work up his reputation from the margins. The easy path has been denied him, so he has to take the longer and harder uphill path with a machete. Along the way, there will be lots of poison ivy, snakes, and other dangers, but it’s never meant to be easy for those with principles.

But in respect, Fuentes is right and Little is totally wrong. It’s one thing for Little to court controversy and take tough stands on sensitive issues, but it’s quite another for him to spread lies, talk nonsense, exaggerate his importance, turn it all into empty theater, and, worst of all, go 14/88. It’s a cliche but true: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Just because Jewish Power is now the worst evil in the world doesn’t mean that all enemies of Jews were good people. Farrakhan has been blasting Jewish influence & corruption, but he is a son-of-a-bitch himself. And even if past ‘anti-Semites’ may have had sound reasons for their antipathy for Jews, it doesn’t mean everything they did was justified. Some of those pogroms in Ukraine spiraled out of control. And the Nazism constituted a kind of Teutonic ideological pathology no less demented than Jewish globalist supremacism. We should know this by now. Sure, the Soviets achieved the awesome feat of defeating Nazi Evil, but the Soviets also committed lots of evils. The US did noble things around the world but also terrible, ugly things. Jews did a lot of good as well as lot of good. It makes no sense to go the David-Duke path where just about the ONLY GOOD JEW is Gilad Atzmon who happens to be especially harsh on his Ttribesmen. Even if we have every right to be very angry with current Jewish Power, we can still keep our sanity and not fall into the trap of praising insane ideologies and movements just because they were ‘woke’ on the JQ. We tend to think in terms of ‘enemy of our enemy is our friend’, but the ‘friend’ can turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Remember how the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators(from Soviet tyranny), only to discover that the Nazis considered Ukrainian Slavs to be a bunch of ‘subhumans’ to be treated even worse than under Stalin. But for whatever reasons, Little has decided to take his anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-supremacism into Neo-Nazi territory. He claims that the Shoah didn’t happen. He says outrageous things like how Germans treated Jews better than Japanese were treated in internment camps during WWII. Sure, some Jews were treated better because they bribed the Germans. Or for propaganda purposes, Nazis created a few ‘potemkin concentration camps’ where Jews were treated rather well and made ‘documentary’ films about them to show to the world. But then, Soviets did the same thing. Judging by communist documentaries coming from the USSR, one would have thought that workers and peasants were living in a socialist paradise of plenty and bliss. Patrick Little, who is now so skeptical and cynical about Jewish claims, is willing to swallow every BS peddled by crazed Neo-Nazis and their ilk. But the essence of reality and truth is not a matter of black or white, night or day, this or that, especially when it comes to something as grand and complicated as history. Just as it’d be stupid to say everything about Nazism and Hitler was bad, it’s wrong to be totally anti-Jewish on everything. And just as we must be careful not to fall for Jewish BS(about Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, white people, the ‘far right’, etc), we must be careful not to fall for the nonsense peddle by Neo-Nazi types. Granted, Neo-Nazi types have no power whereas Jews have immense power around the world. But lies are lies, nonsense is nonsense, and we need to come out on the side of truth.

Because Patrick Little spouted off Neo-Nazi talking points, he disgraced himself. Worse, he associated all the necessary and compelling things he said about Jewish Power and Zionist influence with crazy 14/88 ‘Hitler did noting wrong’ craziness. Before Little let down people like Fuentes, he disappointed and alienated people like Ryan Dawson. Dawson was looking forward to a sane discussion about Jewish power and what’s happening in Israel/Palestine, but it wasn’t long before Little veered into utterly crazy talk about how Nazis treated Jews like guests at Waldorf Hotel. It got repulsive, and in a subsequent video, Dawson reiterated the importance of not losing one’s head and lurching into cuckoo banana’s territory. Just like outlandish theories about 9/11 undermine intelligent skepticism of the official narrative, insane anti-Jewish vitriol undermines necessary expose and criticism of Jewish power. Just because Jewish globalist now act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean we should be praising the Old Nazis. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it is for this reason that Fuentes was correct in not associating himself with Little.

Though I don’t think Patrick Little is a fed-larping-as-‘far-right’-dissident, he might as well be whenever he spouts off about how ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’. On the issue of Shoah, Little makes the same ‘mistake’ of those in the Holocaust-Desecration cult who extrapolate one falsehood about the Narrative to nullify the entire event. For example, even experts admit that many accounts of what happened at Auschwizc can no longer be supported by evidence. And there have been Jewish charlatans who gave fabricated tales for attention or even wealth. And certain confessions made by Germans were under the duress of torture. But that doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen. Surely, there were plenty of men who exaggerated or told tall tales about Gettysburg or Normandy, but that doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen. Skepticism is a good thing, but why is it that so many people who become skeptical of the Jewish Narrative become such suckers for other extreme Narratives? It’s as if, having been soul-cleansed of one sacred story, they crave another story that fills them with a sense of certainty. Because truth is often complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous, people who come to reject the Big Lie easily fall for another Big Lie. They break free of the Lie but still retain the craving for some all-encompassing truth that had once been satisfied by the Big-Lie-as-Sacred-Truth. It’s like people who lose religion often turn to secular cults with a fanaticism that mimics religious fervor. Isn’t it ironic how secular progs are more rapturous and delirious in their celebration of Homomania than many religious people are in their worship of God?
Anyway, regardless of whether Patrick Little is a ‘fed’ or not, his antics are reminiscent of the flaming lunatic named Sinead McCarthy. Though initially greeted as a lively, funny, and irreverent voice of the Alt Right with her parodies and passionate views, she soon turned totally nutter and argued in favor of Flat Earth Theory, as if to Westboro-ize the movement. It was then that people began to suspect she is really a nutjob or an infiltrator whose game is to make the Alt Right look bad by having their views be associated with nonsense like Flat Earth and other silliness. And yes, she also went 14/88 and then began to attack most Alt Right people as either ‘fags’ or worse. Little is nowhere near that level of insanity, but his campaign, at least when it came to Hitler-Nazis-Shoah, clearly went off the deep end. Granted, there are plenty of Judeo-Nazis are no less crazed. People like Max Boot would have us believe Putin is ‘new Hitler’ or that Iran poses some ‘existential’ threat to the world. Ben Shapiro is a Jewish supremacist hypocrite who berates even the slightest hint of identity and interests among white people but demands that all whites rally around Zionism. And who can forget Madeleine Albright who said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids or Sheldon Adelson who called for nuking Iran, a nation that has no nukes. Insane. But we shouldn’t be countering insanity with insanity. Judeo-Nazis are evil but so were the original Nazis.


Sadly, even people who should know better in the movement keep flirting with or pushing 14/88 garbage. Kevin MacDonald has done important work on the JQ. Also, we can forgive his past associations with men like David Duke and Don Black because, having been pushed to the fringes, he had no choice but to form alliances with people of shared interests. After all, the conservative De Gaulle formed an alliance with French Communists in the Resistance against German Occupation. But Kevin Macdonald now has enough recognition to be pushing Neo-Nazi radical nonsense on Occidental Observer. How can MacDonald scoff at accusations of ‘supremacism’ when he allows pro-Hitler garbage on his website? Now, the problem is not nuance or complexity when it comes to the discussion of Hitler and National Socialism because, after all, positive things can be said about them, as of communism and other radical movements. The problem is gushing endorsement, which some writers at Occidental Observer have clearly made of National Socialism. Never let your hatred of a**holes turn you into one. On the JQ, Fuentes has broached the topic without going cuckoo bananas. He named the power and discussed what really happened with USS Liberty and other instances of Zionist spying, theft, and sabotage. And he did it without the ‘Heil Hitler’ nonsense. Because Little veered into total nonsense territory with 14/88 garbage, he got stuck in the ditch. Sure, he will continue to have back-slappers on 4Chan who love to egg on any self-destructive loudmouth, but that’s no way to be a serious and mature person.

If Nehlen imploded because he wasn’t smart and feisty enough to handle the controversy and firestorm — even at his most outrageous, there was something soft, passive, and Mr-Rogersy about him — , Little’s problem seems to be he’s too bright and aggressive for his own good. Intelligence is a great asset but not when it lacks patience, balance, and probity. Instead of carefully weighing and digesting everything he’s learned in the past few years, Little just takes them as literal truths, immutable and invincible, and lets his mind run free to draw any conclusions that cast Jews in an evil light. Little has mental energy that was rarely evident with Nehlen, but he ingest ideas like he vapes on that stupid pipe of his. He’s read this and that, so he knows best, and there is nothing more to know. He’s like a born-again Evangelical except with Damn-the-Jews as his newfound faith. Personality counts for a lot in human affairs, and the strengths of Little’s personality are also his deficits. He can be tireless, which is good, but to the point of zealousness. He can be combative but to the point of being insulting and arrogant. He can be engaging and articulate but to the point of sophistry. Of course, none of this matters if he is indeed a ‘fed’ just larping as ‘right-wing dissident’ whose main objective is to associate legitimate criticism of Jewish Power with neo-Nazi desecration and mockery of all things associated with the great tragedy called Shoah.

Response to "Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job" by Philip Giraldi

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hating-russia-is-a-full-time-job/

The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.

Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.

Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.

But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)

Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.

Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. Paradoxically, this egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).

Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity --- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers --- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.

'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.

Notes on Introduction to HITLER'S WAR by David Irving

http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/

I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

Response to "What Is America's Cause in the World Today?" by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://buchanan.org/blog/what-is-americas-cause-in-the-world-today-129392

"the West is undergoing a process of secularization while the post-socialist East, de-secularization"

Not quite. Homomania is a neo-religion. It went from ‘gay rights’, meaning homos should be free to pursue their own lifestyles, to Gay Rites, a worship of homos and trannies as saints and angels.
It is a neo-religion because the ‘rainbow’ flag is a quasi-sacred symbol to the Progs. Indeed, they wave it even in support of causes or at events that are unrelated to homosexuality. It’s like their talisman-for-all-seasons-and-reasons.
So, it was waved at BLM marches and pro-'immigrant' marches. And even Donald Trump once held up a homo flag in his support of the now sacralized community. And Conservatives argue against Muslim 'refugees' on grounds of protecting precious Holy Homos from ‘terrorists’. Even many conservatives now consider Homos to be especial special, the Other Jews.

Homomania is a neo-religion. ‘Rainbow’ flag is a sacred symbol for the Progs. That is why they wave it everywhere. That is why they hang it inside and outside churches, especially Mainline ones that have lost their souls and minds. If Homomania were secular, why would it try to take over churches? It strives to be the new replacement religion. Just as whites must be replaced by New Americans and New Europeans, Christianity must be replaced by the New Faith.

People want to associate themselves with holy symbols. When the Crucifix became the holy symbol of the West, every side held it up as if to say God is on its side. So, every kingdom marches into battle with Christian symbolism. Catholics fought Protestants, with both side holding up crucifixes and flags with Christian symbols.

But Jews took over the West. Jews hate Christianity and needed a neo-spiritual symbol to lend a sense of unity and purpose to globalists, and they concocted the Holy Three: Holocaust Faith, Magic Negro, and Holy Homo. Holocaust Faith is powerful, but it’s a bummer, mostly about gloom and guilt. Not very fun. Magic Negro myth has spread world wide, especially with MLK as god, Mandela as jesus, and rappers as prophets. But not every nation has Negroes, and as such, it isn’t universally relevant.

But Homomania, that is of universal export because EVERY society has homos. That means Jews can recruit and fund homos in all nations to be their collaborationist-agents of globalism. And why wouldn’t homos take the bait? It’s a way to get easy money(from people like Soros and many NGO’s, not to mention the US government itself) and to be favored as the New Elites and holy icons of their nation. Jews promise homos in places like Ukraine, “Do our bidding, and we will make you masters of your nation, to be worshiped and obeyed.” Homos are vain enough to agree to the Faustian bargain.

Homomania is also appealing because it’s celebratory and fantastical. All those spectacles, fanfare, pageantry, and circus atmosphere. All those ‘gay pride’ parades. In our age of celebrity and hedonism, Homomania is the favorite neo-pagan cult for many people.

It is also appealing to the snobby elites because they can claim to be more ‘woke’ and more ‘evolved’ on the subject than the ‘homophobic’ hoi polloi. The fact that the ‘unwashed masses’ are more likely to be hostile or indifferent to homos is proof enough that Loving and Celebrating Homosexuality is for the Enlightened and the better kind of people. After all, the elites are always looking for subtle ways to distinguish themselves from the Masses. Since old-style aristocracy is out, the elites and would-be-elites seek certain attitudes and ’causes’ that mark them as ‘more evolved’ than the masses.

It’s no wonder that Tranny Train has become the next big thing. After all, Homomania has now spread even to many parts of the hoi polloi. So, it isn’t as special as it used to be. When even many Mormons and Evangelicals are warming up to ‘gay marriage’, it ain’t special like it used to be. But those lowlife deplorable dummies are still against Tranny-business, and that means a person is obviously ‘more evolved’ if he or she’s for trannies using whatever washroom and demanding they be called certain pronouns. New 'Progressivism' is now more about looking for new status symbols to distinguish oneself from the rabble. After all, if the rabble become 'more evolved' too on a certain issue, the elites need a new cause that sets them apart as 'even more evolved'.

All in all, the fact is Homomania was concocted by Jews. So, if you see a ‘rainbow’ flag go up anywhere, it is just another sign of imperial takeover by Jewish Globalist supremacist power. When UK embassy raises the ‘homo’ flag, it means ‘We Brits are now part of the Empire of Judea’.

Homo Symbol is very useful to Jews. If Jews raised Star of David everywhere, the world would realize that the Empire of Judea is the biggest power in the world. People would become aware of Jewish domination, and Jewish power would draw the ‘wrong’ kind of attention.

So, Jews use Homomania as the Front for their power. The Star of David hides behind the ‘rainbow’ flag.

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

Power has always been cynical, but the US and the West in general once stood for sound values rooted in great traditions of Greco-Roman heritage, Christian faith, and the Enlightenment. And they balanced each other out. The wild & creative pagan tendencies toward excess & decadence were held in check by Christianity morality and spirituality. And the dogmatic and theocratic strain of religious influence was restrained by Science, Reason, and Rights.

And whatever may be said about the Cold War, the West stood for sounder principles and systems than Totalitarian Communism that was repressive and even murderous in places in USSR.

But the West that had been is no more. What is the Current West is about? Worship of Homo fecal penetration, Tranny penis-cutting, Slut Pride, Negro dongs, Rap thuggery, Celebrity & Vanity, Zionist megalomania, and nonsense terms like ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’.

Because of its great power and influence around the world, the US in its present incarnation is the most evil nation on Earth.

The Great Reversal. A Response to "Douglas Murray: Europe is committing suicide" in Hungary Journal

https://thehungaryjournal.com/2018/05/20/douglas-murray-europe-is-committing-suicide/comment-page-1/#comment-1135

A kind of reversal has happened between the West and the Rest. The Great Reversal.

There was a time when people in the Rest stayed put and minded their own business in their own world.
In contrast, the people in the West, as adventurers-businessmen-conquerors-missionaries-or-colonizers, intruded into the world of the Rest and began to take over. In some places, their colonization and replacement of natives were permanent, especially in the Americas and Australia.

Because of Western aggressions into the World of the Rest, there was growing resentment and hostility among the non-white natives. They became anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist(once they developed modern nationalist consciousness borrowed from Western political ideology). The message of the Rest to the West was 'Go Home'(back to Europe) and 'This is OUR land'. Nationalist wars of liberation against Western imperialists heated up and some were fierce & bloody and cost lots of lives. British let go of Kenya only after many bloody battles. French didn't leave Vietnam and Algeria willingly.

But eventually, most imperialists and colonizers from the West retreated back to their homelands of origin. Even the well-entrenched French in Algeria went back to France despite their considerable numbers and investment in the region.

Back then, non-whites had no hope of moving to the West. Europe hardly took in foreigners, and US immigration policy was virtually all-white prior to the 1965 immigration law. So, non-whites in the World of the Rest were in nationalist mode and focused on developing and improving their own nations. This was the time when all the world thought of nationalism as the gold standard and best weapon against imperialism. The idea was that the non-whites should have sovereignty and control their own national destinies. Therefore, white imperialists and colonizers in non-white nations should return to their own nations of origin. And indeed, most European colonizers packed up things and returned to their homelands(even though many of them had been born in places like India, China, or Africa).

And in the Cold War, the two great superpowers professed to champion nationalism against imperialism. Soviets supported Vietnam and Cuba as nationalist liberation struggles against American Capitalist Imperialism. And the US supported Afghanistan and Eastern European anti-Soviet dissidents as patriotic resistances against Soviet Communist imperialist aggression. So, there was nothing worse than imperialism in world affairs. Even the US and the USSR, though hegemonic powers, claimed to be for the independence of all nations and accused the OTHER side of being imperialist and hostile to nationalist aspirations of peoples who want to be free.

So, how did all this change? One big factor was the change in immigration policy. Once the West allowed in non-white immigrants, many non-whites all around the world came to favor Global Invasion over National Defense. After all, they could instantly improve their material lot by moving from Asia, Africa, Middle East, or Latin America to the First World of the US, Canada, EU, or Australia. Why bother with the poverty, corruption, repression, or violence at home when one's life can be improved overnight by becoming an 'American', 'Englishman', 'New German', or some such? Why stick around in Pakistan when one can live much better in UK or Australia? Why remain in Nigeria, China, or India when one's material well-being can immeasurably improve by moving to Canada or Australia or Sweden?

So, Diversity-Immigration undermined patriotism among the Rest. The Rest, which had once resisted the Invasion by the West, came to support the Invasion of the Rest into the West.
So, there is now a reversal of World Migratory Policy and Trends. It is white people who are into patriotic/nationalist mode and trying to stem the Mass Invasion by the Rest into white homelands. And it is non-white peoples who are into demographic imperialist mode and trying to flood into the West to take over communities, leech off welfare, usurp institutions, and colonize white wombs(or, if non-white female, marry white men who are deemed preferable to non-white men).

The former imperialists(whites) are now in nationalist mode, and the former nationalists(non-whites) are in imperialist mode. Whites want to save their nations, and non-whites want to invade and take over white bounty of the Richer West.

And of course, Jews like George Soros push the New (dis)Order because Diversity means they get to play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, the only way a patriotic people can overthrow an alien elite is by coming together as a united folk. The reason why the Irish were ultimately able to push out the British was because Ireland was virtually entirely Irish. Irish could unite as one.
But suppose British imperialists had imported millions of non-Irish into Ireland to the point where the native Irish became only1/4 of the population. Imagine an Ireland that became 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 Africa, and 1/4 Muslim(or Hindu) under British Imperialist rule. Would the real Irish be able to make common cause with the 'New Irish' to push out the British? Of course not. The real Irish, the 'black Irish', the 'yellow Irish', and 'brown Irish' will be divided among themselves, a fact that can be exploited by the imperialists in divide-and-rule manner.
Also, why would the 'New non-white Irish' rebel against the British imperialists when it was the Empire that had allowed them to come to Ireland and enjoy better living conditions? They would most likely collaborate with the British against the native Irish. (Is it any wonder that non-whites collaborate with Jewish globalist imperialists against the white native folks in the West?)
Sadly, both UK and Ireland are now in the same straits. Financially, culturally, politically, and ideologically, both are under the domination of the Empire of Judea that has duped both peoples into believing that the greatest truths are Diversity, Magic Negro, Homomania, and Shoah-Worship. In contrast, any show of genuine patriotism is 'far right' or 'neo-Nazi'. (This is all the more hilarious when Jewish supremacists compel white peoples everywhere to support the Zionist ethno-state of Israel.)

It is time that white people woke up. Their lands are being colonized and taken over by the combined force of Jewish globalist elites and non-white mass invaders. And of course, white cuck-collaborators gladly take 30 pieces of silver to destroy the White West while spouting off the usual cliches about 'racism-schmacism'.

White people must become like the Viet Cong or the FLN.