Commentary on "A QUIET WAR RAGES OVER WHO CAN MAKE MONEY ONLINE"(by Paris Martineau)

https://www.wired.com/story/quiet-war-rages-who-can-make-money-online/

OVER THE PAST year, two popular forums for men who identify as involuntary celibates, or incels, have been banned by Reddit and a domain registrar in response to members’ history of toxic misogyny and celebrating violence against women.

Jewish-run music industry promote rappers who call women ho's and worse. They sing about all sorts of degeneracy. And yet, these ugly rappers who spew garbage are showered with million dollar contracts. And Music Industry and Pornography(also controlled by Jews) promote white women as whores, sluts, and sex meat. And yet, these industries are allowed to rake in billions. I agree that some incels are nuts and retarded, but it is amusing that they are demeaned as 'misogynists' in a culture that idolizes rappers, women-as-sluts, and gun-toting morons on TV. The message of much of Pop Music is 'muh dic*' and 'you is a ho'. The mass media promote the likes of Lena Dunham. Does anyone really think such promotes respect for women? Really?

Attacking through the payment processors is a new wrinkle on that approach.

Does Wired have the courage to address the JQ or Jewish Question? Is Wired owned by Jewish oligarchs? The fact is Jews pioneered the means of abusing the monopoly of payment processers to deny Free Spend to groups they hate. Jews hate A LOT of people. Jews hate Palestinians, so BDS groups have been deplatformed and denied payment processing. Jews hate Russia and Iran, and both nations have been sanctioned. While the criminal terrorist imperialist state of Israel gets showered with billions of US tax payer dollars, critics of Jews are effectively denied free speech and free spend where it counts: in the public forum.

After a gunman allegedly killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue, a social media platform he frequented was driven offline for nearly a week when its payment service providers, web host, and domain registrar dropped contracts with the company. A similar fate befell the primary forum for incels in the wake of the related Toronto terror attack carried out by a self-professed incel, and neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer after Charlottesville. However, most cases are not as clear cut.

GAB is a free speech platform and allows any speech as long as it's legal. Why was it held accountable for what the Pittsburgh shooter did? Plenty of people on Twitter and Youtube went off to commit crimes and murder. If anything, Twitter protects much of antifa lunacy and hosts Deep State goons who've been behind wars, surveillance, censorship, propaganda, subversion of foreign nations, and torture.
Also, 11 people died in Pittsburgh. In contrast, a million Muslims have been killed in Wars for Israel. Israel uses IDF death squads to mow down Palestinians who want to return home. 2018 is the 70th anniversary of the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map. Israel occupies West Bank and enforces Apartheid. US and Israel are allied with terrorist state of Saudi Arabia that tortures/murders Journalists and drops bombs on Yemen(which began under Obama and Hillary). Neocon Jews aided Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to take down a democratically elected government. Obama and Hillary destroyed Libya. US Deep State has been behind globalist imperialism. Why are creeps like that allowed to have platforms and use financial power? Madeline Albright said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids. Sheldon Adelson urged the US to drop a nuke on Iran. These are psychos, and yet they get to operate at the upper echelons of US power. They are not de-platformed and de-funded even though they've been behind Zionist imperialism and Wars for Israel that murdered so many.

As for Daily Stormer, yes it is a stupid trashy clown neo-nazi website, but the fiasco at Charlottesville was the result of Jewish mayor, black police chief, and Antifa thugs. The Alt Right people, like them or not, gathered to defend a monument and give speeches. They did everything by the book. They had the Constitution on their side for free speech and free assembly. But the city officials conspired to shut down the event and then shove the Alt Right people into a crowd of Antifa scum who went on rampage. If there is any justice in the world, the Jewish mayor and police chief should be in jail, and those Antifa goons should have been locked up. But there is no justice. We have the might-is-right of Jewish supremacist power.

But I see that Wired is a Jewish-Zionist rag that is perfectly fine with Jewish supremacism and violation of free speech.
Daily Stormer is shit, but it was not behind the Iraq War, Libya destruction, the coup in Ukraine, and the endless murders of Palestinian women and children by IDF death squads. If any people need to be brought down and banned, it is Judeo-Nazis who force Americans to support the monstrous state of Israel and support Jewish Hate Campaigns against Russia, Iran, Syria, Palestinians, and white patriots.

Commentary on "Why Do College Administrators Lie About Race?"(by Robert Weissberg)

http://www.unz.com/article/why-do-college-administrators-lie-about-race/

Keep in mind that private heresies are irrelevant; nobody cares about private options provided the PC gods are honored in public. 

Yep, it's a 'religious' war. It's about 'gods' and heresies.

It all depends on what we mean by 'lie'. 

If a rational person says he believes in evolution based on facts, he is speaking scientific truth. But, if he then says that he, as a good Catholic, believes in God, in the Divinity of Jesus, and miracles, would he be lying? After all, there are no facts that support the existence of God or Jesus as the Son of God or miracles. 
Also, we may ask how a rational person who accepts modern science could also believe in God and religion that have no basis in factual evidence. And yet, we are okay with such a person because we tend to separate Reason and Faith. We tolerate and even honor people who are, at once, rational & scientific AND religious & faith-oriented. It's as if we feel that leading a fact-based life isn't enough; people need some kind of 'spiritual' meaning or purpose in life. 

Now, such consideration may not seem to matter in the academia that is supposed to be about reason, logic, science, and study of truth. And yet, every society is 'spiritual' about something. It holds certain narratives, icons, and dogma as sacrosanct. Marxism and Leninism were holy in the Soviet Union despite its official commitment to Scientific Materialism. Marx was god, Lenin was a moses-figure. So, a university head in the USSR would have gotten in hot water if he questioned the wisdom of Marx and Lenin. 
Then, the same applies in the West. While all these academics claim to be rational, factual, and logical, the fact is they are ideological and 'idological'. They cling to certain Narratives and Dogmas as all-explaining, near-divine or prophetic. And most likely, they grew up worshiping certain icons and idols as sacred and holy-shmoly. In the presence of certain ideas or images, they've been trained to talk in hushed reverent tones. 

So, what are some of the sacro-idols & ideologies of the West? Much of it has to do with certain favored groups. Blacks are deemed a holy race. Much of it has to do with 'white guilt' and 'white fever'. Historical guilt over slavery and racial discrimination. But also white 'fever' for Negroes as superior sportsmen, singers, and studs & biatches. So, blacks are prized as both the American moses and the Golden Calf. White attitude toward blacks is both of reverence and revelry. "I worship MLK as saint-matyr... and I wish he would hump my wife." But there is also the element of fear. Because blacks are vocal, loud, aggressive, and demanding, white folks wet their pants in fear of black rage. So, they figure the best way to calm blacks down is to appease them at every turn. 

But there is another reason for White Guilt & Fever. Jewish Supremacist Power. Jews are rich and powerful but only 2% of the US population. As such, Jewish Supremacist Power relies on white support. But it is not natural for white goyim to favor Jewish interests over white interests. It is not natural for whites to favor Jewish identity over white identity. But without the support of whites, Jewish Power is like a head without a body. After all, even as Neocons cooked up Wars for Israel, it required white tax payers, white generals, white managers, white bureaucrats, white soldiers, and etc to carry them out. 
It's like British Power was both awesome and fragile in India. Brits had modern guns and could mow down lots of people. So, they could strike fear into the Hindus. BUT, without the collaboration of the native brown masses, what could a few 100,000 Brits do in India for the long haul? So, the Brits did everything possible to suppress Indian nationalism and persuade the natives that the true glory of India depended on it being the Jewel in the British Crown. To serve British Glory was the duty of good Indians. At some point, Indians said 'bullshi*' and demanded their own identity and interests. And then, the Brits were finished in India. 

Jews feel the same way in the US. It was never natural for white goyim and/or Christians to serve Jews who are only 2% of the population. It was even more unnatural for whites to favor Jews over themselves. And now, it is totally unnatural for whites to praise and honor Jews who are the main force behind anti-white vitriol in the US. Jews in NYT are now calling for the polyglotization of the US to replace whites with. Jews look upon whites like Zionists looked upon Palestinians. A people to replace. In Palestine, Jews alone could do it. But in the West, Jews need the globo-numbers of Diversity to replace whites. Of course, Jews don't intend to get rid of whites entirely. Indeed, if all whites were to vanish and if the West were made up only of Jews and non-whites, Jews would be in serious trouble as they can't guilt-bait non-whites(who also happen to be less competent and more dependent). Jews want Diversity to the extent that future whites won't be able to form a solid majority bloc and use populist democracy to challenge and overthrow Jewish Power. Hungarians could choose nationalism and drive out Soros-ism because they are the solid majority. But it's increasingly difficult for the White Party to win elections in the US. Jews figure that Diversity will undermine white electoral power. And PC divides whites into two camps, with both camps sucking up to Jews. In the US, the 'right' vs 'left' among whites amount to progs calling conzos 'nazis' AND conzos calling progs 'anti-semites' because, supposedly, the Democrats are only 100% than 200% for Israel(like GOP cucks are). Jews must be laughing at the white tards. Anyway, as whites lose out to Diversity, Jews figure that one bunch of whites will embrace Diversity as their salvation(from past 'racism') and another bunch of whites(the nationalists) will lose heart and just surrender since their power is lost forever. (Look at the state of conservatives in California. They are like the Palestinian minority in Israel. They figure, "if you can't beat em, join em." They got the Stockholm Syndrome.) 

Still, the Jewish strategy is paradoxical. Jews are weakening white power because they rely on white power. If Jewish supremacism relies on white power, it would seem that Jews would want white power to be stronger. After all, it would be stupid for a rider to weaken his horse. Naturally, he wants a fast and strong horse. And yet, he has to destroy the will of the horse. He has to weaken the horse's independent spirit because if the horse is not broken-in-spirit and has horse-pride, it would run off by itself than being a servant-animal to a human rider. Likewise, on the one hand, Jews prize white power like a rider prizes a powerful horse. But Jews fear white pride + white power. Jews want white power without the pride. That way, white power can be manipulated into serving something other than whiteness. White Power + White Guilt means whites will feel a need to redeem themselves. Since whiteness = guilt, whites can only find redemption by serving another people(deemed morally superior to whites). And this is why Jews have pushed the Shoah Cult. Whites have been made to feel like they committed the worst crime of all time against the finest people on Earth, the Jews. But while Jews are accomplished in wit, intellect, and comedy, they don't excite whites in other areas. In contrast, Negroes have loud voices, athleticism, and bouncy booties & bigger dongs, the kind of stuff that can be packaged as entertainment for white folks seeking instant thrills. Also, blacks are the ONLY people who can weaken white male pride. While Jews can bait White Guilt, Jewish guys cannot rob white men of manhood. If the US had no blacks, whites would dominate idols of manhood. But blacks are more muscular and aggressive. And they got bigger dongs. And so, white manhood has been crushed. And that means jungle fever among white women. So, whites are paralyzed not only by white guilt but white cucky-wuckery. Since white males lose their manhood to blacks in sports, song, and sex, they try to regain it by joining the military; and then Jews can use such whites to fight Wars for Israel. John McCain Syndrome. Notice how McCain was a total cucky-wuck when it came to Jews, blacks, and browns. But he was so useful to Jews as a barking dog against Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Russians(people hated by Jews), and white patriots. Serving as a growling dog of Jewish Power was the ONLY way McCain could regain his manhood. 

But, Jewish strategy may lose out in the long run. True, Jews are smart to subvert white pride and manipulate white guilt to make white power serve Jewish supremacism. White Power minus pride and plus guilt will serve something other than whiteness. It will serve what is deemed sacred and redemptive in the West. But when white power is made to lose so much pride & confidence and go into pathetic cucky-wuck mode, might it not be useful any longer to Jewish supremacism? There are signs of this already in the British Labour Party. Whites in the Labour Party are such self-hating whites that they've surrendered to Mass Immigration and Diversity. And that means cucky whites sucking up to Muslims and Africans who feel no sympathy for Jews. British Jews pushed Diversity in the UK to guilt-bait whites, but now, the guilt-infected whites in the Labour Party feel more sympathy for Palestinians than for Jews. They are committed to serving Diversity at any cost, especially to the detriment of whites. But such weakened and self-loathing white power(lessness) becomes not only useless but dangerous to Jews. If indeed Diversity is the highest good, then cucky-wuck 'good' whites must side with 'poor' Muslims against rich Jews(whom are regarded as white by Diversity).

As Jewish supremacists control media and academia, the Holy Three are Jews, blacks, and homos. Diversity is a sacred dogma, but it isn't identity-specific. After all, it is permissible in the West to badmouth Muslims and scare-monger about Yellow Peril. Also, poking fun at Mexicans isn't a cardinal sin either though disapproved. Jews prize blacks above other non-whites because black guys are the only ones who can kick white butt and rob whites of manhood. Also, the bellowing voice of blacks(as with MLK) is more effective in filling whites with 'guilt'. It sounds like god hisself admonishing whites for their 'sinful' ways. In contrast, Jews can't rely on oratory to guilt-bait whites. Woody Allen or Adam Sandler giving a "I have a dream" speech just wouldn't cut it. Also, Jews prize homos because both groups are heavily involved in entertainment and vanity industry that are central to the current decadent West and its culture of narcissism. Also, homo poopchutzpah has the same kind of egotism as Jewish chutzpah. Homos aren't no longer content with tolerance. They demand to be worshiped, and Jews have promoted this side of homo-ness to finally destroy Christianity, a religion they loathe, by having it replaced with Homomania. 

So, returning to why universities lie so much. They are controlled by Jewish supremacists who've turned Jew-worship, Afromania, and Homomania as the most sacred neo-religions of America. Religions cannot be questioned. It's a matter of faith. It doesn't matter if the object of faith is true or false. What matters is it's SACRED, therefore unquestionable. Since Jews are holy, we must love Jews and never criticize Jewish Power. We must even shut down free speech as 'hate speech' for its blasphemy against Jewish holiness. And since blacks are the holy race of MLK-as-new-moses and Muhammad-Ali-as-new-hero, we must admire them and believe they got the midas touch. So, any problem arising from blacks must be the fault of some other group... namely white goy! And homos, oh homos, we must worship the homos and drape church after church with 'gay' symbols. 
Matters of Faith are immune to charges of lies and mendacity. The fact is PC isn't merely ideological or political. It is about hallowing certain ideas into mantras, certain narratives into canon, and certain idols/icons into gods & heroes. 

Now, surely there are goy elites in academia who know the truth but play along. It's often about craven careerism, but then, no one wants to regard himself as a coward. So, they rationalize that they really believe in the official lies. But then, when certain lies have been elevated as items of faith, it doesn't matter if it is true or false. All that matters is that it is HOLY, and what is deemed holy is self-justifying and doesn't need to be backed by facts... just like it'd be absurd to insist that a man of faith present evidence for God. Even though the academia is ostensibly secular and rational, it just so happens that human psychology, being what it is, always favors 'faith' over facts. After all, facts are cold and hard whereas faith is warm and fuzzy. Just as people prefer a warm soft bed over a cold hard floor, even secular and rational people are emotionally drawn to the sacral glow over the stark truth. 

Also, the flipside of the warm fuzzy sacral glow is the vanity of virtue. It's hard to feel virtuous over facts. Facts determine something as true or false, not as righteous or wicked. In contrast, faith is about feeling not only holy but holier-than-thou. And in order to feel morally supreme over others, there needs to be witches, heretics, blasphemers, and goblins. And according to PC, the greatest 'sins' are 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'. (Sometimes 'misogyny' is included, but this is an off-and-on thing because Jewish-controlled music, movie, and sex industries rely so much on treating women as a bunch of whores and sluts.) In a world without God, the ONLY way that secular people can feel holier-than-thou is to throw fits about the neo-sins of 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia', matters which are not to be discussed or critiqued but accepted, worshiped, and obeyed. So, even facts can be denounced as 'racist'(blacks commit lots of crime because they are naturally stronger and more aggressive), 'antisemitic'(Jews have the commanding power in the West due to higher IQ and tribal networking), and 'homophobic'(the reason why AIDS spread like wildfire in the 80s was because of mass orgies of fecal penetration within the fruit community). They are facts but they run counter to the favored holy-shmoly image of blacks as eternal saints, Jews as eternal victims, and homos as perfect angels.

So, to deal with the lies of academia, we must first tackle the fact of how PC turned certain lies into matters of faith, therefore immune to facts and truth.

Commentary on "11/11/18: Nationalism vs. Imperialism"

http://www.unz.com/isteve/111118-nationalism-vs-imperialism/

@Jake

Nationalism is always anti-imperialist.

It’s not so simple. Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along with others. But as it became richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.

Initially, German provinces were unified to create a nation. But Germany became the most powerful nation in Europe, and the logic of power is to expand. So, nationalism can serve as a base for imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British National/Racial Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK) from invasion(by foreign armies or hordes). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.

The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country of Imperial Britain. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, they sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t pan out, but the young nation moved Westward to take land from American Indians and then waged war on Mexico to wrest the SW territories. So, the historical theme of US has been both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spanish Empire to grab more territory and gain foothold for worldwide hegemony. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spanish Empire withdrew into humble nationhood.
But the horrors and the heavy cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough here’ and 'we just about had enough over there'(meddling in European affairs led to huge headaches). But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, not to develop them further. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State became addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.

For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political territoriality was always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of bond with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you've never met in life and will never know. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than with capitalist Italy or France. Germanism trumped economic theory. West Germans and East Germans shared common ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians. And secular Jews feel closer to religious Jews than to secular non-Jews. A secular Jew may work together and be friends with a secular Arab, BUT he will feel a closer brotherly bond with religious Jews in Israel. And the secular Arab will feel closer to Muslim Arabs.

Imperialism today is an insane idea, but it had its place in history as a useful and constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world, which would likely be ruled by local elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades.
In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants beneath them were stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, clearing the way for the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model of the people as fellow countrymen than mere subjects of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites depending on the circumstances. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. In such cases, the Western imperial fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees(the comprador elites). The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that pushed for something new. Still, because the collaborationist native elites came to be seen as toady puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost prestige and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people. No one admires a puppet king.
Anyway, if not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who ruthless suppress any possibility of change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but, in time, developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.

That said, whatever good imperialism may have done in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. We can acknowledge of the benefits of past imperialism without calling for more imperialism. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists may have committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. They now do a lot of trade with each other due to the World Order created by European/American Imperialists. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by Western exploration, discover, and conquest. So, we have to give imperialism its due. Now, globalism would be fine as long as it's about the world trading and communicating with one another. Sadly however, globalism has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means violating of border security by masses of migrants who’ve been given the green-light to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.

Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism AND nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire could be a friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, European Christendom in WWI is a bloody stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.) French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism. Though China and Japan are currently not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation(Japan or Vietnam) seeks alliance with a great imperial power(the US) to gain leverage against the bigger national power(China). So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear. There have also been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.

Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is now possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about in its founding. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals in America. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions, but if he murders a homeless person, he has face the Law. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples. Weak people had few protections or rights.
European Empire was the biggest the world had ever seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial in their logical implications. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind in non-white cultures and civilizations. Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees than in most of the non-West. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this mutual-solidarity led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the acts of conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers trampling on their subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elite who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this proved fatal to Western Imperialism.

Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project following WWII when so many newly minted nations emerged from the collapse of European Empires. But United Nations is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity. Non-whites once valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights and security from bigger powers. As the non-West was far less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to regain hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. In both cases, it was about helping to protect national independence from the other Evil Empire, be it American(from the communist perspective) or Soviet(from the capitalist perspective). Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message in the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.

But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The Third World went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.

It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better in their own homelands. Instead, they are glued to the TV or smart-phone beaming fantasies of the US as paradise of Cool & Wealth or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire and serve its aims.

While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence. It turned non-whites into Caravandals.

Commentary on "Hate Messages Show Up on University of Manitoba Campus"

https://www.amren.com/news/2018/11/hate-messages-show-up-on-university-of-manitoba-campus/

‘Hate Message’ now means any message hated by PC.

Now, why would it be wrong for whites to feel OKAY in being white? Because the only way to gain power over whites is to dehumanize them. Once dehumanized, white can gain(or regain) a bit of human worth only by seeking the approval of the Humanized Races. It’s like a dog’s sense of worth depends on the approval of its master. Dog is, by nature,submissive and seeking of approval.

Under slavery, the servant-caste must be dehumanized. As such, a slave, lacking autonomous human worth, can gain value and meaning only by attaining the approval of his master. After all, the master is humanized while he, the slave, is dehumanized. The dehumanized depends on the approval of the humanized.
If the slave were to feel that he is fully human, why would he need the approval of the master? He would feel equal to the master as a human being. He would have human agency and autonomous worth WITHOUT the approval of the master.
This is why the master needs to denounce any sign of human assertion on the part of the slave as ‘uppity’.

White people are still economically and demographically dominant in Canada, but they’ve been ideologically and intellectually enslaved by PC that is enforced 24/7 by academia and media(and cucked out churches). Therefore, dehumanized whites can gain(or regain) humanness only by cucking out to and seeking approval from the humanized races, especially Jews, blacks, and homos who aren’t only humanized but ‘sacralized’.

According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are the sacred groups. Non-whites are the humanized groups. And whites are the dehumanized group,and among them white males are the most dehumanized and have the most to atone for. As such, the ONLY way whites can gain humanness is by cuckery and dog-like toadiness to the humanized and especially ‘sacralized’ groups. Notice that the ‘sacral’ Jews count for much more than merely ‘humanized’ Palestinians. And in the case of brown George Zimmerman and black Trayvon Martin OR the Muslim store-owner and black Michael Brown, the ‘sacral’ blacks trumped the merely ‘humanized’ Muslim merchant.

That is why even an innocuous sentiment like “It’s Okay to be White” is regarded as ‘hate speech’ by PC. It doesn’t say whites are better or should rule the world. It only humanizes whites, but THAT is threatening to PC because globo-homo supremacism depends on White Submission. If whites regain humanity and autonomy, they will no longer feel that they must cuck out to OTHER groups to possess human worth. They will feel they have innate humanness regardless of what others think. Then, globo-homo will lose control of whites. There is a movement, MGTOW(men going their own way), but that is silly as men cannot survive without women. But WGTOW(whites going their own way) is sound because whites can do just as well(actually much better) without non-whites and other hostile groups constantly berating and leeching off them.

Commentary on "Bolsonaro: a Monster Engineered by Our Media"(by Jonathan Cook)

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-10-30/bolsonaro-is-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media/

Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Nothing will make sense unless we mention Jewish control of much of Western Media and Finance. And of course academia that produces all the 'thinkers' and strategists and enforcers of law firms, courts, and deep state. While ALL global oligarchs and corporations have some things in common, ethnicity and group-identity do matter. Jewish oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, Chinese oligarchs, Iranian oligarchs, and etc. are all in the Game for Wealth and Privilege, but they don't think alike. The reason why Jewish Power hates nationalist candidates is because nationalism means 'our nation, our people, and our land first'. America First or Brazil First. This is bad for Jewish globalist supremacism because nationalist regimes will put their nation before Jewish globalist interests. Generally, a nation is defined by its majority population. Poland has minorities of non-Poles, such as Vietnamese, but Core Poland is the Polish people. So, a nationalist Poland is about prioritizing the identity and pride of Poles. Now, this shouldn't be a threat to ordinary Jews or even successful Jews. After all, Poland is open to world trade and has gotten over its worst anti-Jewish excesses. So, why are Jews so pissed? Because they seek world dominance and hegemony. And that means making white nations(and some others) prioritize Jewish-controlled globalism over nationalism. Also, nationalism, because it boosts national and ethnic pride and identity, is more difficult for Jews to manipulate. In order for Jews to gain control over a people, they need to suppress national pride in favor of 'white guilt' or Homomania or Afromania. Nationalism is like a heavily shielded phalanx. This is why Jews push Diversity, Homomania, Afromania, and White Guilt. Diversity makes it more difficult for white nations to pull together into one. Homomania undermines moral integrity, and young ones become most excited about waving 'gay' flags in honor of homo fecal penetration. Afromania undermines white manhood by presenting blacks as superior studs with more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. It infects white women with Jungle Fever and white boys with cucky-wuckery. It says black race is superior to the wussy white race that needs to be mixed with cooler blackness. And White Guilt makes whites feel that they are uniquely guilty of historical 'sins', and therefore, the ONLY permitted pride among whites is the Pride of Redemptive Self-Loathing. Then, Jews can manipulate whites into supporting Jews, the people with Sacred Victim Identity.

The problem with Jonathan Cook's brand of leftism is it analyzes the world only in terms of Economic Interests, as if the world is made up of Noble Poor and Evil Rich. He also assumes that all the Rich think alike. Not so, especially when a Rich People happen to have a strong ethnic identity. Jews do have a strong identity, and therefore, Jewish Rich aren't only out for money. They are out for Power in service of Jewish supremacism. Consider the sanctions against Iran. From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense. Lots of Jews can make tons of money dealing with Iran. Iran would be happy to do business with Jewish oligarchs in US and EU. So, why the sanctions? Why are Jews sacrificing business opportunities in Iran? It's because they, as an ethnic-minded people, see Iran as a threat to Israeli hegemony. And take Russia. Jewish bigshots can make tons of money by encouraging more trade with Russia. So, why the sanctions? Because Russian brand of nationalism(though mild) and sovereignty inspires other nations to defy the Jewish globo-homo hegemony. So, unless Cook mentions the Jews, he won't get at the heart of what is going on. Indeed, one reason why even non-communist Jews valued Marxism and ideology of Class Conflict was because the theories obfuscated the level of Jewish involvement in capitalism. By turning the conflict into one between the Workers and the Generic Bourgeoisie, it led people to overlook the fact that Jews had a special role in world capitalism, especially in finance. People don't live on bread alone. Money is nice but ultimately meaningless. Like Sheldon Adelson said, he found true meaning in life by becoming an avid supporter of Israel. Money gave him privilege and power, but Zionism gave him meaning. Granted, there are lots of rich people without meaning. They just rake in all the dough. But such people eventually end up serving those with meaning(whatever it may be) because power is like electricity. In and of itself, it has no higher purpose. It has to be directed at something. So, power from an electric generator is used to power TVs. Or radios. Or computers. Jews use the Juice to serve the Jews. This is why they are so powerful. They not only have money but meaning. In contrast, deracinated creeps like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have no meaning except money, money, and money. So, when it comes to meaning, they follow the lead of the Jews who do have meaning. So, Bezos' Washington Post continues to shill for Israel and Jewish supremacism even though Bezos the Bozo isn't Jewish.

Simon Jenkins:
When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.

Of course, Jenkins is full of BS. Not because he's wrong about much of social media but because he'd be fine with the lies, fake stories, vulgarity, and stupidity AS LONG AS the political outcomes favored globo-homo hegemony. After all, homomania was spread through trash culture, celebrity nonsense, PC mobs on social media, and lots of herd-like hysteria. But people like Jenkins never protested the trashiness as long as it served their agenda. Also, the reason why there are so many crazies in social media is because the globalists have pushed the erosion of roots and culture. So, we have too many clowns who get swept up with the latest trends, fashions, and hypes. If there is one good thing about the spread of nationalism via social media, it is the desire to reconnect with roots, identity, and heritage that give life meaning.

Also, even if social media are full of fake news and conspiracy theories, they are beneficial as counterweight against the power of Deep State and Corporate Media. Alex Jones spread lots of nonsense, but his conspiracy theories did encourage his fans to be more critical and less trusting of the Deep State and globalism. Given that the Deep State is a warmonger and that the big corporations brainwash us with endless BS advertising, it's not the worst thing to be more distrustful and cynical about the Powers That Be. Under Limbaugh-ism, many Americans were led to support the Iraq War. But under Jones-ism, Americans are far more likely to question the US aggression. Indeed, Jones condemned Trump for his attacks on Syria. Social media are filled with lots of alternative truths and lies. But even alternative fake stories are still preferable to fake stories by MSM because, whereas MSM tells lies to support globo-homo imperialist hegemony, alternative fake stories are made to question the Power and oppose imperialism. So, even if not every alternative 9/11 story is true, it still encourages people to ask more questions than just TRUST the Power, which by now is utterly corrupt, not least because it is concentrated in the hands of Jews who, unlike Wasp elites of old, will not tolerate any criticism of them. Jews say we must condemn 'white nationalism' but ignore the fact that 'white nationalism', like other forms of nationalism, is a reaction to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews in media say they are going to do to white people what they did to Palestinians -- replace them permanently -- , of course nationalism against Jewish supremacism is going to be a response. Jews claim that they stand for a polyglot multi-cultural society against 'white supremacism', but Jewish vision of Diversity isn't about all peoples sharing power equally and proportionately. No, it's about Jews at the top using the Diverse Mass against white people. It's like British using their multi-colored troops to put down national resistance in the colonies. If Jews were truly for equality and proportionality, they would be pushing for a New Social Order in which Jews own only 2% of wealth, 2% of media, 2% of Wall Street, 2% of Hollywood, 2% of gambling, 2% of Silicon Valley, 2% of Law firms, and etc. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population. But Jews never seem alarmed by the fact the the 2% is gaining more of the wealth, privilege, and power. So, Jewish opposition to white nationalism is to protect Jewish supremacism. Jews seek to use Diversity to create divisions against goyim so that the 98% won't be able to unite against the 2% that rules the West.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.

If Trump is an intensification of the worst impulses of neoliberal order, why are Jews and Deep State so angry at him and even cooked up Russia Collusion nonsense to derail him? If neoliberals are all about greed, why do they oppose Trump's wish for peace with Russia? It will mean more business opportunities for US corporations and businessmen? NeoLiberal is Judeo-Hegemonic, and Jews put their identity and power above all things. The fact is the US is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth. So, when Trump says he is a nationalist, it is a green light for other nations to follow suit. Neoliberals hate this because their increased profits depend on Free Trade Globalism. Also, Jewish supremacism depends on suppression of national identity and pride in goy nations, esp white ones. Money isn't everything, and Jews know this. Germany is the biggest and richest nation in Western Europe, but it is politically among the weakest. Why? It's nationalism and identity have been totally suppressed by Shoah-Worship and German Guilt. So, Jews can run circles around Germany despite its great wealth. In contrast, Hungary, though much smaller and poorer, has pride of identity, and that makes it difficult for the likes of Soros to run roughshod over it. It's not only about money and class. Jews know that national identity is the most unifying force in a nation. Indeed, even a poor backward nation like Vietnam was able to expel a superpower like the US because of the power of nationalism. Rich people, middle people, and poor people can become one under nationalism. Even socialism works best along with nationalism. Nationalism breeds trust and shared sense of destiny. Socialism works better within homogeneity than amidst diversity where some groups feel they are being robbed by others. Because socialism works best within the national framework, the fascist-socialism is the best kind. Sweden's success didn't owe to democracy or liberalism. It owed to homogeneity, intelligence, trust, and unity of rich-middle-and-poor. But look how the social fabric and social welfare in that country is beginning to fray with Diversity Invasion that fills the nations with leeches.

Trump and Bolsonaro are not logical CONCLUSIONS of the world order. They are limbo-figures. What they stand for is inconclusive and contradictory, not least because the nations they rule over are now so diverse, fractured, and messy. Trump has been all over the map, partly due to his impetuous nature but also due to Deep State obstacles that have sabotaged his plans for making up with Russia, ending war in Syria, and erecting a wall along the border. Because of these pressures, Trump has been forced to be even tougher on Russia to prove he's not a Russian agent.
While the super-rich may prefer Trump's tax cuts, they are not just about money. Most of the super-rich hate Trump because they are either Jewish and/or Globalist. Jews hate Trump for reviving nationalism(that may stand in the way of Jewish supremacism), and globalists like Bezos hate Trump because they are post-national and see the entire globe as their oyster for the taking. A nation, even a nation as big as the US, is too small for their scope and ambition.

Do the globo-oligarchs prefer 'fascists' like Trump and Bolsonaro over true socialists? Maybe, but keep in mind that Bernie Sanders stood with the globalist oligarchs against Trump in 2016. Also, Sanders seems to be just as anti-Russia and anti-Syria. So, is Sanders really a Socialist First or Zionist First? As for Jeremy Corbyn, the Establishment's opposition to him has little to do with his economic policies. The Power knows they can always pull the strings and manipulate things to rein in socialism no matter who wins. The reason for all the ire against Corbyn has been his pro-Palestinian stance. Most media are owned or financed by Jews. If Corbyn just played at being socialist and waved the Israeli flag, Jews would be seeing him as their boy. But Corbyn has often sided with Muslims and Palestinians, and this pissed off Jews. British Jewish elites pushed mass-immigration-invasion into the UK to use non-whites against whites. The Jewish narrative was 'we noble Jews and you noble colored against those evil racist whites'. But Corbyn listened to Muslims who said, "Racist Jews are killing Arabs and waging evil wars in the Middle East" and agreed, even if mildly. And that set off the media firestorm against him.
So, what do Corbyn and Trump have in common despite their different economic theories? They are both hated by Jews. Jews hate Trump for igniting 'white nationalism'(against Jewish supremacism), and Jews hate Corbyn for supporting Palestinian nation-hood(against Zionist supremacism). The failure to mention the Jewish Power in this is either a blindspot or craven cowardice on the part of Jonathan Cook.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US... Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule.

Hugo Chavez became virtual dictator. He rose through army ranks, and he used cronies in the military to back him. The reason why his successor is still in power is due to strong-arm tactics. Also, Chavezism failed for two reasons. Total dependence on high oil prices and promising freebies to masses of Diversity. Even as Chavez railed at Uncle Sam, his nation's economy depended totally on American capitalism. Without US consumers buying Venezuelan oil, there was no economy to speak of. Also, Venezuela is a low-trust and low-talent society. All that race-mixing led to too much low IQ and high-impulse African genetics. And, Diverse societies lack trust. White elites in Venezuela don't feel a common bond with the masses. And mixed-race people are confused in identity and feel nothing in common with native Indians. With such low talent, its economy depended on selling oil. And when oil prices were high, Chavez could dole out freebies to the masses to gain popularity. But he did nothing to expand industry or encourage enterprise. When oil prices plummeted, the whole thing collapsed. Socialism only works in tandem with nationalism and productive capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth that can be taxed. No taxation, no socialism. Communism was about all the economy run by the state, and that was one huge failure. Also, socialism requires trust. People must think in terms of paying into the system and getting things back. In low trust societies, people try to pay nothing in while getting everything out. Now, a homogeneous people can be lacking in trust too. Look at Greek national character(though, to be sure, Greeks are much mixed due to endless invasions). But diversity makes it even worse. This is why any socialist who rejects capitalism and nationalism isn't for real. Socialism must rely on healthy capitalism that can be taxed. Socialism must maintain national unity that allows for trust and common bonds. This is why Swedish socialist policies must be for Swedish. If Swedes conquered Poland and Hungary and tried to maintain socialism for all three peoples, it'd be a mess as there would be too many divisions. How did Soviet socialism work throughout its vast diverse empire? Non-Russians got tired of Russian imperialism, and Soviet elites got sick of providing free stuff to an empire of leeches who did minimal work but demanded maximal benefits.

The real problem of Latin America isn't socialism or lack of socialism. It's diversity. Socialists will say all the world will become nice if they adopt Swedish social democracy, and libertarians blame the failure of Detroit on 'socialism' of the Democratic Party. It's all BS. Swedish social democracy worked for Sweden due to its racial, social, and cultural factors. Sweden will fail as it fills up with Diversity. Its social democracy will not work in an African nation with too many contentious tribes, low IQ, and lack of cultural capital. But then, libertarianism will also fail in places like Detroit because blacks are predisposed by genetics to be wild and crazy. Yes, that is race-ist but race-ism is truth. Races evolved differently to have different talents. Blacks are talented at chucking spears at hippos and running from them. They didn't evolve for civilization. They were not domesticated by evolution. Bringing them inside civilization is like bringing in coyotes and badgers into the house. They still got the wild genes.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America.

What about Cuba? Castro gained total power, and while the Cold War was on, the Soviet Union provided it with generous subsidies. But what did Castro create? Nothing. His entire economy depended on freebies provided by the Soviet Union.
There are good things about capitalism and socialism, and societies need combination of both, but Cook's worldview is simply, "It failed because socialism wasn't allowed to take over totally." Has he forgotten about how the Chinese rejected Maoism? How the Soviet Union collapsed? Communism doesn't work. Also, history teaches us that capitalism isn't a universal panacea either. While capitalism allows for great freedom and opportunity in business, it is also fiercely competitive, and some nations are bound to do better than others(or some groups in any nation are bound to do better than others). So, Hindus are far more adept at business than blacks in Africa. Chinese, with their generally higher-IQ population, have done better with capitalism, along with Japanese. In contrast, low-IQ nations failed with capitalism. Chinese have also done much better under capitalism than the native populations of Philippines and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, socialism isn't some panacea. I know socialists feel justified in pontificating about it because socialism is about 'social justice', but the world doesn't work simply on the basis of chest-thumping 'good will' and 'righteousness'. The fact is too many Latin American nations are too diverse, too divided, too low in IQ, and etc. to succeed with either capitalism or socialism. So, both libertarians and socialists are wrong when they apply their theories on the global scale. The best that such nations can hope for is a kind of humanist national neo-fascism where elites instill the people with some positive national character. It won't fix problems overnight but can set the nation forth on a sound long-term path that favors the right kind of genes and habits. Bolsonaro isn't such a character because he's essentially a lout.

Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

It's about the Jews. Jews hate Corbyn because he's pro-Palestinian. It's not about socialism. Jews and British oligarchs don't fear socialism because they can easily pull strings to undermine it, like they've done under both Blair and Cameron. What they can't stomach is how Corbyn gave moral support to Palestinians and Muslims opposed to Neocon wars. That is the good side of Corbyn. And his socialism isn't bad either. But he too is an idiot because he's for mass colonization of UK by Africans and Muslims. Ironically, even as he denounces Zionist colonization of West Bank, he totally supports the Third World colonization of the UK. This is why being a socialist isn't enough. One must be a social-nationalist.

Finally, the problem of putting socialism or class consciousness at the center of meaning is that class is too fluid. Consider all the immigrants in the US who began on the bottom but whose children rose to the top. If someone has a working-class father but becomes a rich person, what should be his 'class consciousness'? There are legit class interests, but class is not a deep identity(and ever-changing along with technology). Also, a society cannot function with a single class; communism tried to utter failure. It's natural to have several classes(and many sub-classes) due to differences in talent and specialization of tasks. So, how can the various classes co-exist and cooperate? With nationalism. Nationalism instills the elites with the sense that the masses are part of the national family to guide than merely economic units to exploit. And nationalism instructs the masses that the rich elites are okay as long as they use their wealth and talent for the good of the national community.
But globalism undermined this. Globo-elites, libertarian or proggy, pretend to care for ALL humanity, but that is of course impossible. So, they end up making noises but doing nothing except fill their own pockets... like Bono. It's like a parent who neglects his own children by pontificating that he loves all the children in the world. All talk, no walk.

The best societies are ones where socialism serves nationalism. The cooperation among the classes based on shared identity, trust, and culture of responsibility. Globalism and Diversity undermine all this.